Atheists... Your life is pointless

@FBM,

Damn. Wish I had read it before deletion.

@Frank Apisa,

Drop the "fly off in a rage" bullshit, that's just one of the ways you attempt to avoid uncomfortable discussions. I have been rude to you the past because you have been consistently rude to me, so drop that bullshit, too. You tend to be gratuitously insulting in your responses to me every bit as often as you can allege that i have treated you that way.

***************************************************

So, apparently, you opt for a monotheistic, anthropomorphic, creator god. It appears to me that you opt for the god of the Hebrews, which doesn't really surprise me--after all, that's your cultural heritage. Can i take it that, as far as you're concerned, more than one god is not possible? You know, there are hundreds of millions of Hindus in this world, today, right now, who believe in more than one god. There may be as many as a billion of them. Ganesh is not a creator god. Kali is not a creator god. Shiva is not a creator god. So do you reject them because none of them is, and i'm quoting you, "an eternal god 'creating' a universe?"

I have not said that any god is an impossibility, so if you want me to "quote what you actually said," (which i did, i copied and pasted that "explanation of reality or existence" dodge directly from your post) then have the courtesy to do the same with my posts. At no time have i stated or even implied that any category or description of a god is an impossibility. You'll have to find someone else to have that discussion with. You, however, seem to be holding out for "an eternal god 'creating' a universe." So you apparently have considerably narrowed what an acceptable subject for the discussion of a deity would be.

Drop that reasonably and courteously bullshit, too. You keep repeating that, but i have not been unreasonable, nor discourteous. As i say, i suspect you're just attempting to set up conditions for dropping out of the discussion.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257628)
Drop the "fly off in a rage" bullshit, that's just one of the ways you attempt to avoid uncomfortable discussions. I have been rude to you the past because you have been consistently rude to me, so drop that bullshit, too. You tend to be gratuitously insulting in your responses to me every bit as often as you can allege that i have treated you that way.

Yes...I see you seem to have that trouble with almost everyone on A2K.

You are rude to me...and to others, Setanta, because you are a rude person. It is a part of you. You simply are mean-spirited...which I am willing to overlook in order to have a conversation with you.

Quote:

So, apparently, you opt for a monotheistic, anthropomorphic, creator god.

Where have I said that? Where have I even intimated that?

Is this conversation going to be about you making things up...and then asking me why I feel the way you pretend I feel?

I've stopped reading. Let's start all over again. Quote what I have said...and tell me why you disagree.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yes...I see you seem to have that trouble with almost everyone on A2K.

You are rude to me...and to others, Setanta, because you are a rude person. It is a part of you. You simply are mean-spirited . . .

Tell me again about being rude to people, about insulting them Frank. Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

Quote:

Quote:
So, apparently, you opt for a monotheistic, anthropomorphic, creator god.

Where have I said that? Where have I even intimated that?

You wrote:

Quote:

. . . an eternal god "creating" a universe . . .

Now, that does not include anthropomorphic, but i don't insist on that.

Quote:

Is this conversation going to be about you making things up...and then asking me why I feel the way you pretend I feel?

Well Frank, you made up that bullshit about me claiming that an eternal god "creating" a universe is an impossibility. Does this mean there's one set of rules for you, and a different set for me?

Quote:

I've stopped reading. Let's start all over again. Quote what I have said...and tell me why you disagree.

Yeah, no surprise there. You know, before we got started, i almost posted that you would soon start talking about me being angry, telling me to calm down, telling me that i'm insulting--but in the interest of the discussion, i refrained. It hasn't taken you long to get there, though, has it?

You've stopped reading because you can't deal with the criticism. You're no agnostic, you're just an Apisa-ist. You've already got a notion of what a god has to be for the purposes of this discussion, and you'll soon drop all discussion to opt for slurs about my character and demeanor. That's because your position is indefensible.

To repeat: There are hundreds of millions of Hindus in this world, today, right now, who believe in more than one god. There may be as many as a billion of them. Ganesh is not a creator god. Kali is not a creator god. Shiva is not a creator god. So do you reject them because none of them is, and i'm quoting you, "an eternal god 'creating' a universe?"

Do you reject the possibility of polytheism?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Damn. Wish I had read it before deletion.

You probably would've enjoyed it, but it would probably have stirred up a lot of unnecessary **** for a moment's wit. Not worth it, really. I hope you and Setanta can find common ground for discussion without so much emotive rhetoric.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Talk to Frank, he's the one who has introduced personalities into the discussion. It's his main dodge. When the going gets rough, he accuses me of being angry and insulting, and he drops all pretense of pursuing the discussion of the topic.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Talk to Frank, he's the one who has introduced personalities into the discussion. It's his main dodge. When the going gets rough, he accuses me of being angry and insulting, and he drops all pretense of pursuing the discussion of the topic.

Strange. If you switch the "Frank" for "Setanta" in that, I think it could easily pass for one of Frank's comments.

Anyway, I don't have a dog in this race anymore, really. I'm a non-believer whose life is just as pointless or pointful as any theist's. As they say over here in Asia: same same.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Let’s get the personality nonsense out of the way…and maybe we can then move onto the actual issue being discussed.

You asked me a question…which I answered.

You asked: “ So you're alleging that i was unreasonable or discourteous to have asked that question?”

Actually, I did not allege that at all (I have in fact invited you to participate in discussions with me)…but I did think you deserved a response, so I answered the general thrust of the question:

“I must acknowledge that I do find you extremely discourteous and unreasonable and it seems to me that you fly off on a rage at the slightest provocation. You also tend to be gratuitously insulting in most of your posts, Setanta.

But I am delighted you are finally engaged here...even though my initial attempts to get you involved met with failure.

So let's get started.”

You then countered with: “Drop the "fly off in a rage" bullshit, that's just one of the ways you attempt to avoid uncomfortable discussions. I have been rude to you the past because you have been consistently rude to me, so drop that bullshit, too. You tend to be gratuitously insulting in your responses to me every bit as often as you can allege that i have treated you that way.”

To which I replied:

“Yes...I see you seem to have that trouble with almost everyone on A2K.

You are rude to me...and to others, Setanta, because you are a rude person. It is a part of you. You simply are mean-spirited...which I am willing to overlook in order to have a conversation with you.”

You are the one instigating and pursuing this line of personality nonsense…I am simply responding.

Let’s get away from it…and on to the subject at hand.

What say? Truce?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257601)
Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
How do you know that elves and unicorns are not a part of reality?

They are not part of possible EXPLANATIONS of REALITY or existence.

How do you know that?

I don't, Setanta. So I will withdraw the sentence and substitute:

They have not, to the best of my knowledge, been offered as possible EXPLANATIONS of REALITY or existence.

If someone who can discuss this with me in a reasonable, courteous way wants to propose them as explanations of REALITY or existence...I certainly will respond.

NOTE TO RL: The door is open.

This was your post, Frank. Don't try to make out that you are not responsible for introducing personalities into the discussion. As i've said, i suspect you do that so you can make yourself an escape hatch.

There will be a "truce" when you stop making gratuitously insulting remarks about me. I've tried to keep a discussion going, but you keep intruding with sneers and insults. You are not responding to the discussion. I've asked you a series of questions, but you haven't answered them; rather, you've attempted to keep the focus on personalities.

Can you handle the discussion, Frank? Can you respond to my comments about and questions about Hindus, for example?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Here, let's save you the trouble of pretending you don't know what i am referring to:

Setanta wrote:

To repeat: There are hundreds of millions of Hindus in this world, today, right now, who believe in more than one god. There may be as many as a billion of them. Ganesh is not a creator god. Kali is not a creator god. Shiva is not a creator god. So do you reject them because none of them is, and i'm quoting you, "an eternal god 'creating' a universe?"

Do you reject the possibility of polytheism?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

This was your post, Frank. Don't try to make out that you are not responsible for introducing personalities into the discussion. As i've said, i suspect you do that so you can make yourself an escape hatch.

There will be a "truce" when you stop making gratuitously insulting remarks about me. I've tried to keep a discussion going, but you keep intruding with sneers and insults. You are not responding to the discussion. I've asked you a series of questions, but you haven't answered them; rather, you've attempted to keep the focus on personalities.

Can you handle the discussion, Frank? Can you respond to my comments about and questions about Hindus, for example?

Let's get this out of the way…if it is possible.

YOU were the one who asked me a question about what YOU conceived of as me alleging that you were unreasonable or discourteous.

I did not allege that, but since you asked, I answered.

I told you I do consider you to be rude, unreasonable, and discourteous. And I do. All I was doing was being honest…as you so often mention when you are posting uncomplimentary comments to others.

Now…if you truly do not want this to focus on the personality issues…let’s just drop it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Setanta (Post 5257675)
Here, let's save you the trouble of pretending you don't know what i am referring to:

Quote:
Setanta wrote:
To repeat: There are hundreds of millions of Hindus in this world, today, right now, who believe in more than one god. There may be as many as a billion of them. Ganesh is not a creator god. Kali is not a creator god. Shiva is not a creator god. So do you reject them because none of them is, and i'm quoting you, "an eternal god 'creating' a universe?"

Do you reject the possibility of polytheism?

I don't know where this is...but I would love to see my response.

There is no way I would "reject" the notion of a creator god...or a non-creator god...nor of no gods at all.

I simply do not know.

What did I say...and do you disagree with what I said?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Just read the part that I TOLD YOU I HAD NOT READ BEFORE...

...and see that is where this is.

I never responded to it.

So what are you asking me?

0 Replies

@ SETANTA

Let’s get back to basics, Setanta.

Here is my position:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

What do you see as inappropriate, illogical, or wrong about that position?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your position becomes illogical when you exclude any other category of supernatural beings, such as fairies, pixies or elves. Do you allege that you know that there cannot be fairies, pixies or elves?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You didn't respond, and that was the point. You just attempted to introduce personalities, once again.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257705)
Your position becomes illogical when you exclude any other category of supernatural beings, such as fairies, pixies or elves.

I do not see anything illogical about my position, but I am willing to consider your arguments.

What do you mean by "exclude any other category of supernatural beings."

Am I "excluding them" by anything I have said.

Quote:

Do you allege that you know that there cannot be fairies, pixies or elves?

I do not allege that, Setanta. Fairies, pixies, elves, unicorns (I notice you left then out!)...all may exist elsewhere or in some other dimension.

I do not allege that at all.

What I do allege is that if an adult is discussing fairies, pixies, elves, unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters...that adult is almost certainly an atheist trying to asperse an agnostic opinion…or an agnostic responding to an atheist trying to asperse an agnostic opinion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No Frank, not elsewhere or in some other dimension. You're dodging again. Do you allege that you know that there cannot be fairies, pixies or elves--here and now, in this "dimension?" I didn't mention unicorns, other than to repeat what someone else said. I have a pretty good idea why people once believed there were unicorns, but i don't know of anyone alleging that they were supernatural beings. Let's just stick with the fairies, pixies and elves, and let's stick with the here and now. To avoid more games: Do you allege that you know that there cannot be fairies, pixies or elves, here and now, in this "dimension?"

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257717)
No Frank, not elsewhere or in some other dimension. You're dodging again. Do you allege that you know that there cannot be fairies, pixies or elves--here and now, in this "dimension?" I didn't mention unicorns, other than to repeat what someone else said. I have a pretty good idea why people once believed there were unicorns, but i don't know of anyone alleging that they were supernatural beings. Let's just stick with the fairies, pixies and elves, and let's stick with the here and now. To avoid more games: Do you allege that you know that there cannot be fairies, pixies or elves, here and now, in this "dimension?"

I do NOT make such an assertion or allegation.

It seems to me that I once wrote something like: If we are defining (fairies and pixies and elves) to be fictional creatures...obviously I would suggest that fictional creatures are, by definition, not real...and do not exist.

If I did write that here in A2K (I think it was not here)...I would now add:

If we are defining them as creatures that MAY exist but are beyond the ability of humans to sense...well, I would say, " I do not know if they exist; I do not know if they do not exist."

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Good. Then we come to the concept of a god. A god is a supernatural creature, which may well be as fictional as fairies, pixies or elves--after all, who has seen a god? They are equally implausible, having attributed to them the ability to operate outside the laws of nature. That of course, is why one calls them supernatural. So how does a god differ materially from fairies, pixies or elves, in terms of plausibility?

1 Reply

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know