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

Frank is a good guy, I agree and I believe he has good reason to drink decaf.........caffeine is not good for some people. As Bernie said, Frank is the only evangelical agnostic he's ever known. (Frank are you reading this?) So I seek not to evangelize for atheism. I don't care what people believe as long as they don't try to impose their version of religion on me or my family. I just hate coercion. Don't you? But I do believe you have the winning argument here.

Oh and Bernie says to add that he actually does believe in God, but he believes that God is an under achiever..........and I believe he's waaaaaaay under.

0 Replies

Good to be back, Thomas.

Good engaging you in conversation.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

So I seek not to evangelize for atheism. I don't care what people believe as long as they don't try to impose their version of religion on me or my family.

Tell it! Tell it loud, sister! [Throws up arms]

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm still waiting for Lola or Blatham to actually make any arguments that atheism....the guess that there are no gods....is superior to agnosticism...the acknowledgement that the answer to that question appears to be unknown....and that the evidence available for guessing about it is too ambiguous to be useful.

Will that happen sometime this century?

Frank, darling........I did just make that argument, aided by Thomas. But today is my deadline for this god *amned article I'm writing. I'll have more time tomorrow. And Bernie has sworn off of a2k for a time. Sometimes he just gets enough. But he'll return eventually. He always has. He will soon enough start missing his friends.

0 Replies

Quote:

Tell it! Tell it loud, sister! [Throws up arms]

Sing it brother! dance in the isles, praise and worship............<rolling on floor>

btw, I do have something to say about the mega church phenomenon. I'll write it tomorrow on my thread........it's actually not a bad trend for those of us who prefer to make up our own minds about how we should behave and worship.........but the writing of it will take place tomorrow.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I'm still waiting for Lola or Blatham to actually make any arguments that atheism....the guess that there are no gods....is superior to agnosticism...the acknowledgement that the answer to that question appears to be unknown....and that the evidence available for guessing about it is too ambiguous to be useful.

Will that happen sometime this century?

Frank, darling........I did just make that argument, aided by Thomas. But today is my deadline for this god *amned article I'm writing. I'll have more time tomorrow. And Bernie has sworn off of a2k for a time. Sometimes he just gets enough. But he'll return eventually. He always has. He will soon enough start missing his friends.

Making an assertion is not making an argument.

What we have here is this:

The question is: What is the nature of REALTIY?

The theists are saying there is a God involved.

The atheists are saying there are no gods involved.

The agnostics are saying: I do not know....and the evidence available is simply not sufficient or unambiguous enough to make a reasonable guess.

The theists are not even pretending they are making a guess....let alone a guess based on bullshyt.

The atheists are not even pretending they are making a guess...let alone a guess based on bullshyt.

And both have the temerity to pretend that their postion is superior to that of the agnostic.

That is too funny for words.

0 Replies

Technically, Frank, you're right. But I don't go in for technicalities. It's so easy to lie by telling the technical truth. anyway, I'm just talking about my belief.......you are free as a little bird to believe as you do.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Technically, Frank, you're right. But I don't go in for technicalities. It's so easy to lie by telling the technical truth. anyway, I'm just talking about my belief.......you are free as a little bird to believe as you do.

I don't do any "believing"....which is simply a way of disguising a guess.

I KNOW I do not know the true nature of REALITY.

I suspect (guess, estimate) that you don't either.

Saying "I do not know" when one does not know....is NOT a technicality. It is simply a recitation of the truth.

Pretending one does know what what does NOT know... is not a technicality either. It is a lie.

If you have any arguments which make the agnostic position in the question of "What is the nature of REALITY?"....inferior to either atheism or theism....present them and we will discuss them.

I actually have a few.

You should be able to come up with at least one.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The atheists are not even pretending they are making a guess...let alone a guess based on bullshyt.

No, we only observe that "god" is a concept devoid of meaning, just like "golliwoog", "scroyter", and "pffft12345". To the extent that the meaning of "god" has been specified, it has proven as elusive as unicorns, fairies, and Mickey Mouse. Having observed all this, we then apply Occam's razor in order to concentrate only on those concepts that do have meaning, that do seem observable in the real world, only to discover that we do indeed live in a life without god. To change my mind and convert me to agnosticism, you would have to give me a meaningful definition of "god", and to convince me that if there was an entity conforming to your definition, it would make any difference to the world we observe. So far, you've been bashing a strawman version of atheism.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The atheists are not even pretending they are making a guess...let alone a guess based on bullshyt.

No, we only observe that "god" is a concept devoid of meaning, just like "golliwoog", "scroyter", and "pffft12345". To the extent that the meaning of "god" has been specified, it has proven as elusive as unicorns, fairies, and Mickey Mouse. Having observed all this, we then apply Occam's razor in order to concentrate only on those concepts that do have meaning, that do seem observable in the real world, only to discover that we do indeed live in a life without god. To change my mind and convert me to agnosticism, you would have to give me a meaningful definition of "god", and to convince me that if there was an entity conforming to your definition, it would make any difference to the world we observe. So far, you've been bashing a strawman version of atheism.

No I haven't, Thomas.

What you are attempting to do is to make it seem as though I am.

Here is my position on the question of "What is the true nature of REALTIY?":

I do not know...and the evidence available is too ambiguous to allow for a meaningful guess.

How does your position differ from that?

0 Replies

By the way....

...the fact that we do not need a God to explain existence is NOT an argument that there are no gods.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way....

...the fact that we do not need a God to explain existence is NOT an argument that there are no gods.

So how about unicorns and the tooth fairy? Are you agnostic about them too?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
By the way....

...the fact that we do not need a God to explain existence is NOT an argument that there are no gods.

So how about unicorns and the tooth fairy? Are you agnostic about them too?

Are you saying that you know for a fact there are no unicorns in this universe?

Are you saying that because I have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess about the tooth fairy.. I perforce MUST have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess about all other things.

Yes, Thomas....I am agnostic about whether or not there are unicorns, tooth fairies, and such.

And that is not incompatible with making a guess about some of those things.

So I ask again....do you know for a fact there are no unicorns anywhere in this universe?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are you saying that you know for a fact there are no unicorns in this universe?

Technically, I don't. But this admission is irrelevant in practice, where every judgment I make must depend on information short of absolute certainty. The probability that unicorns exist, as best I can make out, is small enough to call it zero for all practical purposes. So is the probability that god exist. And I leave it to the nitpickers of the world whether the actual probability is, say, 0.0001% or 0.0000%. I simply don't care about that difference.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Are you saying that you know for a fact there are no unicorns in this universe?

Technically, I don't. But this admission is irrelevant in practice, where every judgment I make must depend on information short of absolute certainty. The probability that unicorns exist, as best I can make out, is small enough to call it zero for all practical purposes.

Oh, horseshyt, Thomas.

You have absolutely no idea of the probability that unicorns exist. To pretend that you know to the point where it is small enough to compare with zero...is beneath you.

Try to get a grip on it.

Quote:

So is the probability that god exist. And I leave it to the nitpickers of the world whether the actual probability is, say, 0.0001% or 0.0000%. I simply don't care about that difference.

You have even less idea about the probability that gods exist than you do about unicorns.

You are doing exactly what the theists do...except that you are doing it in reverse.

They pretend that they can look at the universe and tell that the chance of there NOT BEING A GOD is so infinitesimally small...it makes no difference.

If the arguments you are presenting are the best you can come up with....I would suggest you stop asserting atheism as superior to agnosticism....because based on these arguments, that assertion is a joke.

0 Replies

For the record, Thomas...suppose you describe to me the major animals that inhabit the planets circling just the 30 closest stars to our Sol.

I want to be sure you do not describe any animal that might be a unicorn.

0 Replies

Frank, great to see you back, but don't tell me that you are now taking an agnostic position regarding the existence of "golliwoog scroyter", ...

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

You have absolutely no idea of the probability that unicorns exist. To pretend that you know to the point where it is small enough to compare with zero...is beneath you.

Unlike you, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. If you can show me a real unicorn until the end of the decade, I will give you $10000. If not, you pay me $1, which is consistent with the probability I gave in my last post. I predict you won't agree to the bet, because you expect to be losing on those odds.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You have even less idea about the probability that gods exist than you do about unicorns.

Maybe so, but I am willing to make a similar bet about gods, which is a much more informative statement than the empty semantics you appear to be engaging in.

0 Replies

Frank, you never did, as I recall, respond to the distinction I've made numerous times between passive atheism and activist atheism. The latter is a belief system in that it believes in a No-god and worships Him. My passive atheism is no more than the inability to make credible sense of theism. I turn away from, or ignore, it because it makes no sense. Is that a belief system?
I've argued that your agnosticism implies that you feel it is just as likely that the theists are right, or wrong, as are the atheists. A 50-50 matter of arbitrary guesswork, because of the lack of "unambiguous evidence" for either position.
My main objection to your epistemological fence-sitting rests not on logical grounds. You are safe there. But you show a lack of existential vigor (AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED) in your unwillingness to FEEL the meaningfulness or lack of meaningfulness of either position. I think Dys has your number. You show signs of an intellectually boring party animal, and perhaps a one-pony show. I enjoy you anyway. At worst, you are a colorfully boring party animal. What a paradox. But I can live with ambiguous evidence; I can even subscribe to ambiguous conclusions, as you know. In the end, all of us are wrong (assuming there is an absolute Right). So take a position one way or another. It really doesn't matter so long as we do not impose our views on others or use our views to rationalize the damage we do to others. I KNOW you agree with that.

0 Replies

JLN,

Dys has partied with Frank in the common meaning of that term (outside of cyberspace).

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know