Okay...let's see...where was I...

In what way does belief indicate a closed mind? You seem to be saying that faith or belief requires the acceptance of untruth. There is a word for that.

Credulity.

It could apply to one whose belief or disbelief stems from a desire for moral license.

That the desire for moral license is one of the underlying themes of the Edenic rebellion is no coincidence.

Edited for clarity.

0 Replies

Frank, some of us don't have belief there are no gods, despite your telling us we do, over and over and over and over. We are without a type of theistic belief, even such a smidge of possibility of it as found in some agnosticism. Remember a-theism, without theism. We are not interested enough to have such a thing as belief that there are none, as that is a positive mental action.

I can listen to and understand your point of view, indeed have over a few years now. But, you don't seem to open up to understand others' views.

I have no interest in convincing you to think as I do. I post to clarify my and some others' position as a-theist after your repeated misrepresentation.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

In what way does belief indicate a closed mind? You seem to be saying that faith or belief requires the acceptance of untruth. There is a word for that.

Credulity.

It could apply to one whose belief or disbelief stems from a desire for moral license.

That the desire for moral license is one of the underlying themes of the Edenic rebellion is no coincidence.

Edited for clarity.

To whom is this addressed?

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Frank, some of us don't have belief there are no gods, despite your telling us we do, over and over and over and over.

I have not said that even once...let alone over and over and over again.

Quote what I say....and deal with that.

Quote:

We are without a type of theistic belief, even such a smidge of possibility of it as found in some agnosticism.

If you are correct in what you are saying here...you must be saying it is impossible for there to be a god.

That is a belief.

If you are not saying that....please tell me what in hell you are saying.

Quote:

Remember a-theism, without theism.

Yes...I know how the word was derived. I know how many words were derived.

But the word "atheist" now has a meaning...despite how it was derived. Here is the meaning given it in the on-line Merriam Webster dictionary:

"One who believes that there is no deity."

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist&x=12&y=14

Let's work with that!

Quote:

We are not interested enough to have such a thing as belief that there are none, as that is a positive mental action.

Good. Then you really should call yourselves something other than atheists.

Quote:

I can listen to and understand your point of view, indeed have over a few years now. But, you don't seem to open up to understand others' views.

I understand your view...and your rationalizations...just as I understand the views and rationalizations of the theists. I simply see them as wrong-headed...and when in a thread such as this, I comment on it.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Quote:

I have no interest in convincing you to think as I do.

I have an interest in trying to convince you to think otherwise.

Quote:

I post to clarify my and some others' position as a-theist after your repeated misrepresentation.

I do not misrepresent your position. That is a misrepresentation of my position.

0 Replies

I have a problem with your continually explaining that atheists believe there are no gods (do I really have to search and find all the times you've said that?) even though some of us describe ourselves as being without (void of) belief in them. You don't seem to understand the word void - it means empty of - and tell us we believe something.

Some atheists may go with Webster's view, but others don't (even some with guts and intelligence).

I am glad to read about your own views re gods, but have less enthusiasm for your declamations on others' views.

I've said several pages back that I am getting off this cycle.
Will do.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
In what way does belief indicate a closed mind? You seem to be saying that faith or belief requires the acceptance of untruth. There is a word for that.

Credulity.

It could apply to one whose belief or disbelief stems from a desire for moral license.

That the desire for moral license is one of the underlying themes of the Edenic rebellion is no coincidence.

Edited for clarity.

To whom is this addressed?

Oh, sorry; I was responding specifically to Clary

Clary wrote:

If atheists steal the agnostic position, doesn't it make them agnostics? Surely fundamentalism atheism and fundamentalist religion have more in common than either one and agnosticism? Both show believe rather than an open mind.

It was wrong of me to assume others held the same opinion.

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

If atheists steal the agnostic position, doesn't it make them agnostics? Surely fundamentalism atheism and fundamentalist religion have more in common than either one and agnosticism? Both show believe rather than an open mind.

Hi Clary,

Actually both the atheist and the agnostic have several key items in common.

First, that both presume omniscience.

The atheist states that no God exists. To know this as a fact, he must certainly be omniscient. But, alas for him, he is not.

The agnostic states that "there is not enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess (or belief)," to quote Frank. Again to know this as a fact, he must certainly be omniscient. He must have knowledge of all evidence of all kinds in all the universe that exists or can exist. But, alas for him also, he is not omniscient either.

Second, the atheist and agnostic have this in common also, that if they would simply limit their statement to a personal declaration "I do not know God." without presuming to speak for everyone and what they do or do not know, and can and cannot know -- then they would both be correct.

0 Replies

What evidence might there be, in the case that God doesn't exist ?

How can it ever be shown ?

Inexistence can't be proven! Only existence.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Clary wrote:
If atheists steal the agnostic position, doesn't it make them agnostics? Surely fundamentalism atheism and fundamentalist religion have more in common than either one and agnosticism? Both show believe rather than an open mind.

Hi Clary,

Actually both the atheist and the agnostic have several key items in common.

First, that both presume omniscience.

Obviously you have run out of arguments...having been blown out of the water on all the one's you've made so far....

...so you are left with the hilarious accusation that anyone who says anything other than what you are saying must be presuming omniscience.

Unfortunately, this is even more laughable than your earlier, vacuous arguments.

Quote:

The atheist states that no God exists. To know this as a fact, he must certainly be omniscient. But, alas for him, he is not.

I'll let the atheists speak for themselves.

Quote:

The agnostic states that "there is not enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess (or belief)," to quote Frank. Again to know this as a fact, he must certainly be omniscient.

No, that is not so...because I have not said "there is not enough evidence..."...

...I have said there is not enough evidence FOR ME TO MAKE...."

If you think there is enough unambigous evidence for you to make a meaningful guess about whether or not there is a God...put it out here for us to discuss.

But stop building strawmen....because that is a pathetic way to avoid real discussion.

Quote:

He must have knowledge of all evidence of all kinds in all the universe that exists or can exist. But, alas for him also, he is not omniscient either.

Laughable....and desparation at its most obvious.

Quote:

Second, the atheist and agnostic have this in common also, that if they would simply limit their statement to a personal declaration "I do not know God." without presuming to speak for everyone and what they do or do not know, and can and cannot know -- then they would both be correct.

If you would learn to read...or if you would get someone to help you with the big words...you would see that almost all the agnostics and atheists in this forum do exactly that.

You are a strawman builder, Life, because you have nothing of substance to offer in this discussion.

Too bad for you.

But those of us watching your desparation can get a chuckle out of it.

0 Replies

Haven't we been round and round this particular mulberry bush far too often? I have seen FA's arguments stated and restated, and have stated some of them myself too, so obviously in my omniscience all I can say is that Certain People Will Never Be Convinced By Logical Argument.

0 Replies

Frank.

I agree with your position that agnosticism is more logical than atheism... but maybe atheists, in the absence of any evidence of a God don't see the need to entertain the idea of God as a possibility.

Maybe they don't need compelling evidence that God doesn't exist. There is no evidence for God. How can there be evidence against something that for all intensive purposes does not exist anywhere except in the imagination?

The point is maybe they don't need evidence against the existence of a God because until there is evidence proving the existence of God, God does not logically exist.

Maybe they are atheist not because they believe in something they cannot prove or demonstrate evidence of some kind, but because in absence of proof there is no reason for them to believe otherwise.

I have to disagree with you about Thomas not having a sense of humor. Some of his comebacks were fvcking hilarious.

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

Haven't we been round and round this particular mulberry bush far too often? I have seen FA's arguments stated and restated, and have stated some of them myself too, so obviously in my omniscience all I can say is that Certain People Will Never Be Convinced By Logical Argument.

You don't actually believe you and Frank have presented logical arguments, do you? Slipshod sophistry would be a better description.

Your quest for moral license has brought you to the pinnacle of presumptuousness.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Clary wrote:
Haven't we been round and round this particular mulberry bush far too often? I have seen FA's arguments stated and restated, and have stated some of them myself too, so obviously in my omniscience all I can say is that Certain People Will Never Be Convinced By Logical Argument.
You don't actually believe you and Frank have presented logical arguments, do you?

Why of course we have!

And if it were not so...you would be refuting some of our arguments rather than making a stupid blanket statement like this.

Quote:

Slipshod sophistry would be a better description.

Only to someone who does not have the intellectual ammunition to combat the logical arguments that have been presented.

"Slipshod sophistry" indeed!

Quote:

Your quest for moral license has brought you to the pinnacle of presumptuousness.

It takes more than a grouping of words to actually convey an idea, Neo. All you are doing is grouping words.

0 Replies

CerealKiller wrote:

Frank.

I agree with your position that agnosticism is more logical than atheism... but maybe atheists, in the absence of any evidence of a God don't see the need to entertain the idea of God as a possibility.

Maybe that is so.

And I have no problem with that.

My problem is with the atheists who assert there are no gods...rather than doing as you are suggesting.

And I have a further problem with the supposed atheists who actually assert an "agnostic postion lite"...but who insist on being identified as atheists.

Quote:

Maybe they don't need compelling evidence that God doesn't exist. There is no evidence for God. How can there be evidence against something that for all intensive purposes does not exist anywhere except in the imagination?

Once again....asserting that there is no evidence (or reason to "believe" there are gods)....is quite different from asserting there are no gods.

And if the final line is "I do not know if there are gods or not and the evidence available is simply not sufficient to make a meaningful guess either way"...why not use the description agnostic rather than atheist....if a designation of that sort is important.

Finally....if the final line is not "I do not know if there are gods or not and the evidence is not sufficient to make a meaningful guess either way"...

...why isn't it?

Quote:

The point is maybe they don't need evidence against the existence of a God because until there is evidence proving the existence of God, God does not logically exist.

They certainly need evidence against the existence of gods...if they are going to assert there are no gods.

If they are not asserting there are no gods...why in hell are they calling themselves atheists?

Quote:

Maybe they are atheist not because they believe in something they cannot prove or demonstrate evidence of some kind, but because in absence of proof there is no reason for them to believe otherwise.

Listen to my arguments. I covered this several times.

Quote:

I have to disagree with you about Thomas not having a sense of humor. Some of his comebacks were **** hilarious.

IF I suggested Thomas does not have a sense of humor...I was probably just breaking his balls. He has a very, very keen sense of humor.

And with his ideas...he needs every bit of it. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
You don't actually believe you and Frank have presented logical arguments, do you?

Why of course we have!

And if it were not so...you would be refuting some of our arguments rather than making a stupid blanket statement like this.

Quote:
Slipshod sophistry would be a better description.

Only to someone who does not have the intellectual ammunition to combat the logical arguments that have been presented.

"Slipshod sophistry" indeed!

Quote:
Your quest for moral license has brought you to the pinnacle of presumptuousness.

It takes more than a grouping of words to actually convey an idea, Neo. All you are doing is grouping words.

Ya got me again, Frank! Embarrassed

I had forgotten your many erudite posts such as this one:

Your profundity is a credit to this board. Laughing

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
neologist wrote:
You don't actually believe you and Frank have presented logical arguments, do you?

Why of course we have!

And if it were not so...you would be refuting some of our arguments rather than making a stupid blanket statement like this.

Quote:
Slipshod sophistry would be a better description.

Only to someone who does not have the intellectual ammunition to combat the logical arguments that have been presented.

"Slipshod sophistry" indeed!

Quote:
Your quest for moral license has brought you to the pinnacle of presumptuousness.

It takes more than a grouping of words to actually convey an idea, Neo. All you are doing is grouping words.
Ya got me again, Frank!

I had forgotten your many erudite posts such as this one:

Your profundity is a credit to this board.

Hard to find the profundity when Frank keeps forgetting who he's talking to. Very Happy

Let's see was the profundity in the swearing? Hmmm nope learned that in fourth grade. It doesn't impress folks much older than that.

Was the profundity when a post will quote something he says and he shoots back "I never said that." ? Well.......no. But it did sound rather Clintonian and could get him a reputation as a smooth orator.

Well, golly, where did that ole profundity go anyways?

I know. He is pro-fun ditties. He is in favor of happy songs! Good ol' Frank.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hard to find the profundity when Frank keeps forgetting who he's talking to.

Let's see was the profundity in the swearing? Hmmm nope learned that in fourth grade. It doesn't impress folks much older than that.

Was the profundity when a post will quote something he says and he shoots back "I never said that." ?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

You do not actually quote....unless you take a quote out from the middle of something in order to distort what has been said. But mostly, you paraphrase....and do so in a way that distorts what has been said.

Hey I don't blame you. Better to pretend that we said something we didn't...and then argue against your pretence...than deal with what was actually said. After all...everytime you do that, someone blows you out of the water.

Quote:

Well.......no. But it did sound rather Clintonian and could get him a reputation as a smooth orator.

Well, golly, where did that ole profundity go anyways?

I know. He is pro-fun ditties. He is in favor of happy songs! Good ol' Frank.

Oh...funny!

You do, indeed, have a sense of humor....and that at least indicates some sense. The arguments in your posts seldom suggest anything of the kind.

0 Replies

Really, real;
You should stop picking on Frank. Laughing

0 Replies

Life is not picking on me.

He is picking on himself!

He just doesn't realize it yet.

0 Replies

Frank,

Your logic is infallible. You are completely right -asserting something doesn't exist is quite different than there is no evidence to support somethings existence.

However, I have a very hard time even taking into consideration the possibility of entities whose existence has no evidence to support; a fairy, for example, is a most likely conceptual and imaginary entity. I have never observed one, nor have I ever seen evidence supporting the existence of such a being - so why even take into consideration its existence? Why cloud my judgement with a proposition that has absolutely no factual bearing on reality whatsoever (under the current sum of human knowledge)?

I generally view like this: I have better things to ponder than the existence of beings whose existence has no evidence to support.

I wish I could remember Rand's and Peikoff's argument exactly, but in general they would assert that since there is no evidence for or against a particular argument than it must be dismissed as arbitrary.

For instance:

P1: Pink Gremlins control the universe.

This is an utterly foolish assertion to believe, however, would you say it is possible that this could be true? If so, why? You have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. So would you conclude this statement to be false, or inconclusive?

I am curious (since certainity has always been a personal interest of mine) what your positions on scientific certainity are, and the nature of an arbitrary argument. Should arbitrary arguments be dismissed outright, or should one take them into consideration as "possibilities", even though there is no evidence to even suggest that they are possible?

0 Replies

Okay...let's see...where was I...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know