Atheists... Your life is pointless

@Frank Apisa,

You wrote,

Quote:

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.

It's been proven many times that man created gods are also fictional "creatures." What's the difference? You claim "you don't know if any god or gods exist," but understand that "fairies, pixies or elves" don't?

Where's your logic?

CLUE: Man created all gods - even the one you "don't know about."

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257735)
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?

Correct. Gods may indeed be fictional creatures. But keep in mind that I did not say fairies, pixies, and elves ARE fictional creatures. I merely posited a hypothetical for "if they are defined as fictional."

Quote:

They are equally implausible, having attributed to them the ability to operate outside the laws of nature.

If they exist...and if they operate (I do not know if they do, but IF)...

...then they are operating within the laws of nature.

We may not know all the laws of nature, Setanta. We are merely humans...perhaps just a living organism on a speck of dust in the universe.

Quote:

That of course, is why one calls them supernatural.

I try not to call them "supernatural." If they exist...something I do not know...they are natural.

Quote:

So how does a god differ materially from fairies, pixies or elves, in terms of plausibility?

What I said above.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257735)
You wrote,

Quote:
Quote:
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.

It's been proven many times that man created gods are also fictional "creatures." What's the difference? You claim "you don't know if any god or gods exist," but understand that "fairies, pixies or elves" don't?

Where's your logic?

CLUE: Man created all gods - even the one you "don't know about."

If you are sure about that, you have an advantage over me, ci. It certainly has not been proved to me that gods are mythological creatures...although I will acknowledge that the idiot gods that appear to have been invented by humans suck. The fact is though, that humans often invent things that turn out to be real...and simply because humans thus far have not been able to accurately describe a god...does not mean that gods do not exist.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Where's your logic?

In most of the words I write.

Quote:

CLUE: Man created all gods - even the one you "don't know about."

Hummm...and you KNOW that how?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You wrote,

Quote:

Correct. Gods may indeed be fictional creatures. But keep in mind that I did not say fairies, pixies, and elves ARE fictional creatures. I merely posited a hypothetical for "if they are defined as fictional."

So now, even your god is a "hypothetical." Wow! Great answer.

So, to sum up; fairies, pixies, elves and gods are hypothetical.

1 Reply

Merely humans is redolent of a religious humility--you come across to me as a very religious kind of guy, Frank. I don't buy arguments such as that. If a god, as you earlier stipulated, is eternal and creates universes, said god is clearly supernatural--after all if you create a universe, you have created nature. You also earlier spoke of fairies, pixies and elves being beyond the ability of humans to sense--which would also clearly be supernatural. Now you want to claim that gods, fairies, pixies and elves are natural, that they are not supernatural. It appears to me that you are beggaring the discussion in an effort to avoid the implications of your position.If there were a god, and said god were, as you put it, eternal and able to create universes, then said god would be supernatural. If you exclude any other category of supernatural beings, you are no longer an agnostic, you are just struggling against the implications of theism or atheism.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If they exist...something I do not know...they are natural.

Here, let's play your favorite game. How do you know they are natural?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257759)
You wrote,

Quote:
Quote:
Correct. Gods may indeed be fictional creatures. But keep in mind that I did not say fairies, pixies, and elves ARE fictional creatures. I merely posited a hypothetical for "if they are defined as fictional."

So now, even your god is a "hypothetical." Wow! Great answer.

So, to sum up; fairies, pixies, elves and gods are hypothetical.

Try to understand the meaning of the word "may", ci.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Now you want to claim that gods, fairies, pixies and elves are natural, that they are not supernatural.

IF they exist...they are part of nature...of REALITY. That would make them real and natural.

Quote:

It appears to me that you are beggaring the discussion in an effort to avoid the implications of your position.

I'm not.

Quote:

If there were a god, and said god were, as you put it, eternal and able to create universes, then said god would be supernatural.

If the god exists...it is a part of nature. Not sure why you are arguing otherwise, but I maintain that IF a god exists...or IF pixies or fairies exist...that would make them a part of REALITY...and would make them natural.

Quote:

If you exclude any other category of supernatural beings...

But I am not.

Quote:

...you are no longer an agnostic, you are just struggling against the implications of theism or atheism.

Fine with me. I have tried to avoid using the term agnostic...and have explained my reasons for that.

So, I am not an agnostic.

But...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

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257759)
Frank Apisa wrote:
If they exist...something I do not know...they are natural.

Here, let's play your favorite game. How do you know they are natural?

I do not know they are natural, Setanta...and I did not say they are natural.

I said...IF THEY EXIST...then they are part of REALITY...and are natural.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Most of us understand the English language pretty well, Frank. You're the one playing games with words and ideas. In addition to hypothetical, how about imagination, fiction, conjecture, fancy, guess, infer, suppose, surmise, and "believe." I'm sure you have used most of these words to inform us of your position on gods, tooth fairy, and most "man-created" creatures.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257796)
Most of us understand the English language pretty well, Frank. You're the one playing games with words and ideas. In addition to hypothetical, how about imagination, fiction, conjecture, fancy, guess, infer, suppose, surmise, and "believe." I'm sure you have used most of these words to inform us of your position on gods, tooth fairy, and most "man-created" creatures.

ci, I have stated my position. If you disagree with any part of it...tell me what you disagree with and we can discuss it.

Here it is again:

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.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I and many others have already told you about your position; it's not logical.

Your "guess" doesn't compute logically or emperically, because you can't explain why your "guess" is based on evidence. It's empty like your arguments.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257816)
I and many others have already told you about your position; it's not logical.

Yes, you have said it is not logical. You have also said there are no gods.

The fact that you have said there are no gods...does not mean there are no gods; and the fact that you have said my position is not logical does not mean it is not logical.

Quote:

Your "guess" doesn't compute logically or emperically, because you can't explain why your "guess" is based on evidence.

What guess?

Quote:

It's empty like your arguments.

Thank you for sharing that opinion of my arguments.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

In my reality, I do not think anything exists just because some human said they exist. Superman, Batman, easter bunny, tooth fairies are all imagained and created by some human. I rely on "evidence" that wins my confidence and perception of what is real and what is imagined. Science is not always correct, but at least they pursue truth with evidence, not imagination.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Is the evidence of the feats of Christianity not enough for you?

What sort of statements do you think you would have been making if Christianity had never existed?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257852)
In my reality, I do not think anything exists just because some human said they exist. Superman, Batman, easter bunny, tooth fairies are all imagained and created by some human. I rely on "evidence" that wins my confidence and perception of what is real and what is imagined. Science is not always correct, but at least they pursue truth with evidence, not imagination.

Same here, ci. But there is a difference between not accepting that something exists...and asserting that it doesn't. If I demand evidence from those who assert the former...it makes sense to demand evidence from those who assert the latter.

In any case, my question is still out there:

What guess where you referencing in your last post?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yeah, you are Frank. There's no need to continue, you've made it clear that you cannot maintain a coherent position, and that nasty personal remarks and insults are the only thing you do consistently. You've changed your definitions, you've reduced your statements to a set of absurdities . . . and, of course, you've shown your hateful, mean spirited nature. Have fun . . .

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You're the one who "doesn't know." From your standpoint, nothing makes sense, because other's can't discuss "I don't know" intelligently, and you're trying to make us answer your questions.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5257803)
Yeah, you are Frank. There's no need to continue, you've made it clear that you cannot maintain a coherent position, and that nasty personal remarks and insults are the only thing you do consistently. You've changed your definitions, you've reduced your statements to a set of absurdities . . . and, of course, you've shown your hateful, mean spirited nature. Have fun . . .

See ya around, Setanta.

1 Reply

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know