Atheists, smarter than religious people

Must be my brilliance dazzling him into submsiion, somewhat like a dear in the headlights (joke).

0 Replies

I'll recap my poor tired thought process.

Here, we see Lash addressing osso.

Lash wrote:

Me, me!!

Frank is a huge, grimy sledgehammer--forever in pounding motion. An ancient mythological repetition never to stop in his relentless pursuit of...hitting that same nail.

Here, poor Lash looks down at the Topic Review and sees that once again, she is too slow to get in on the action. Osso has already complimented snood and Bill for their translations of her post, and now if I go forward with my lame translation, it will be too little too late. I sheepishly decide to submit my interpretation, but now (since I'm speaking in overview, I unwittingly begin to address the reader instead of osso. <smacks forehead>

Lash wrote:

Oh darn. I see it's all over.

She did get "charming" in there... I don't know where the hell she got that.

I think she is also thinking of coming over to the dark side where we hit thoughtful people like this: THWONK!!

I hope my adoration for osso comes through.

0 Replies

Me?

Gotcha, Lash. But I'm well stupid, or then again, maybe not.

not least since I'm confused enough myself.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Hi, osso. I didn't notice I "she'd" you. Sorry.

At the risk of sounding like a damn fool myself... I believe Lash was talking about Osso, not Frank when she used "she" (slipping in the Frank's charming part) and subsequently when Osso erroneously questioned why Lash would call Frank a she; Lash went into fur mea culpa mode, erroneously and apologized to Osso for having "she'd" her. I say erroneously, because Osso most certainly is a she. Is this an accurate corrective measure, or is it my turn to require a translation of what's going on? Shocked

0 Replies

Prolly the most amusing thread on the whole site - and has been for a while.

0 Replies

Yeah, because of what, and in spite of what, I'm pretty sure we'd not agree.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

The exact same amount of evidence exists for the nonexistence of each of the above entities (NONE), correct?

Noabsolutely phuking not!

Please provide all the evidence you have that gods do not existand I will go through this exercise with you. If notblow it out you're a$$. Because you are the person claiming "the evidence for the nonexistence of each" is exactly the sameso all I have to do is to present one more piece of evidence that you present to show that gods do not existand you will be shown to be wrong.

Frankyboy; you need to read more carefully. The above, essentially rhetorical question, is asking you to confirm there is ZERO evidence that can prove the nonexistence of each of the above entities.

The problem is not with me reading more carefullyit is with your need to write more carefully. If you meant for what you wrote to say something elseyou should have written that something else.

The words you wrote were: "The exact same amount of evidence exists for the nonexistence of each of the above entities (NONE), correct?"

And my answer was: "Noabsolutely phuking not!

And then I added: "Please provide all the evidence you have that gods do not existand I will go through this exercise with you. If notblow it out you're a$$. Because you are the person claiming "the evidence for the nonexistence of each" is exactly the sameso all I have to do is to present one more piece of evidence that you present to show that gods do not existand you will be shown to be wrong."

Soare you still maintaining that there is ZERO evidence to back up a claim that there are no gods?

If you are, I will submit at least one piece of evidence that Darth Vader, vampires, Casper the Friendly Ghost, and genies do not existand all your "trap" bullshyt will be flushed down the toilet like the laughable garbage it is.

By the wayif you really want to "set a trap" for someoneyou ought finally to understand that getting the person you want to trap help you "set it" is something only a phukin' moron would do!

Frankly, Billy, you are not intellectually equipped for this kind of thing!

Quote:

Now we know you reject the thought of evidence against the existence of God.

Learn to read, moron. I have said there is no "unambiguous" or "probative" evidenceI have never said absolutely there is no evidence. A lack of unambiguous/probative evidence for the existence of a god certainly is "evidence" for the non-existence of gods. Not very persuasive evidencein fact, piss poor evidencebut "evidence" nonetheless.

Quote:

That much is clear. Now I'd like you to show me evidence against the existence of any of the other above entities that is any more concrete then that which you reject in respect to God. Meanwhile, for as long as you're silly enough to try, I'll just kick back and take potshots at your apparent stupidity in not recognizing the futility of the task.

I will be delighted to do it as soon as you respond to my request up above for you to list all the evidence you have for the (what you call) non-existence of gods (you say you have nonebut I want to give you one more chance)and I will furnish at least one additional piece of evidence for Darth Varder, vampires, Casper the Friendly Ghost, and genies

And all the while I will be laughing my ass off at the thought that you "sitting back" thinking you are up to this task.

C'mon, A$$holenow that you have set a trap for yourselflet's see you jump in like the fool you are.

0 Replies

Iwant to take this opportunity to thank all my friends for taking the time to post comments about what a slunch I am. I appreciate all the interest you are showing in me...and what I have to say.

:wink:

0 Replies

Hey Frank,
Would you be kind enough to respond to my post, I guess it got lost in the kaffuffle.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Quote:
Hey Frank,
What precisely would it take for you to believe there is a god?

I do not do believing.

Quote:
I am not convinced that if god did make its presence known to you in some fashion, I would be any more likely to say with any reasonable certainty that god exists.

You would be a fool to do otherwise.

Quote:
How would I ever separate your truth from your illusion in this example?

Beats me! If your hypothetical were reversedI would not even make an attempt to do it.

Quote:
And The above argument tends to show it's impossible to reasonably prove god exists, thus this makes your position of saying there might be a god rather questionable in terms of demonstrable convincing proof.

Proof????

I'm am just looking for evidencein either direction.

No need for proof...just enough probative evidence to make a meaningful guess in one direction or another would suffice.

Quote:
So again I ask, what precisely would it take for you to believe there is a god?

I do not do believing.

If you are asking me what would it take for me to GUESS there is a GodI honestly cannot imagine my making that guess.

Perhaps if words written on the sky predicting that the entire Solar System would be moved to another spot in our galaxy without disruption to our well-beingand it happening...with the only evidence of the move being the obvious different stars and patternsand all of this done on a particular daywith restoration to our present spot in the galaxy happening with prior notice some one year after the original move

might give me pause.

Why do you ask?

If at present you maintain there is the possibility of a god (and as a card carrying, conservative, dictionary-referring-to agnostic, I'll take this as a given) my position would be that you can only argue for the possibility of a god if you are willing, in a real world pragmatic sense, to claim that there could be a set of circumstances whereby at least you would be convinced of this god.

But.even if such a (believable to you) set of circumstances were to arise, it would not automatically follow that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

Thus how can you hold a position whereby:

a) You do not know of the circumstances by which you would be convinced.

b) Even if such a set of (at preset) unknown set of circumstances were to preset itself to you, it in no way automatically follows that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

As per a) & b) no scientifically/logically based claim would be worth the paper it was printed on if that was the criteria on which it had to exclusively rely.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

If at present you maintain there is the possibility of a god (and as a card carrying, conservative, dictionary-referring-to agnostic, I'll take this as a given) my position would be that you can only argue for the possibility of a god if you are willing, in a real world pragmatic sense, to claim that there could be a set of circumstances whereby at least you would be convinced of this god.

Aside from the self-serving interests to youwhy should I accept this as so????

Why are you gratuitously declaring that I cannot maintain the possibility of a godand at the same time suppose I could NEVER be convinced that this god exists???

Why do you even suppose this is reasonable?

Quote:

But.even if such a (believable to you) set of circumstances were to arise, it would not automatically follow that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

Thus how can you hold a position whereby:

a) You do not know of the circumstances by which you would be convinced.

b) Even if such a set of (at preset) unknown set of circumstances were to preset itself to you, it in no way automatically follows that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

Not trying to be difficult, Chumly, but I haven't the wildest clue of what you are talking about here. Stop trying to be clever about what your proposingand actually ask whatever it is you want to ask. I will be delighted to respond.

(I honestly thought I responded to something like this a while backbut I also gotta mention that posting in A2K has become a phuking chorewith all sorts of bullshyt going on as I'm sure you all know.)

0 Replies

Hi Frank,

You can maintain the possibility of a god and at the same time have no example of a set of circumstances whereby you would be convinced that this god exists, but by doing so your position can be lacking as discussed in my second main argument.

As to my second main argument specifically:

1) My points a) & b) - we have already discussed those points above clearly, you have confirmed them as true to your position, and I brought them forward for continuity and clarity.

2) You left out this final bit in your quote of mine, I hope this clarifies things, if not please let me know.

Chumly wrote:

As per a) & b) no scientifically/logically based claim would be worth the paper it was printed on if that was the criteria on which it had to exclusively rely.

3)A pleasure to chat with you, I won't be able be post back till this evening, so you're welcome to take your time.

In the interests of continuity and clarity I'll forward my post to you.

Chumly wrote:

If at present you maintain there is the possibility of a god (and as a card carrying, conservative, dictionary-referring-to agnostic, I'll take this as a given) my position would be that you can only argue for the possibility of a god if you are willing, in a real world pragmatic sense, to claim that there could be a set of circumstances whereby at least you would be convinced of this god.

But.even if such a (believable to you) set of circumstances were to arise, it would not automatically follow that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

Thus how can you hold a position whereby:

a) You do not know of the circumstances by which you would be convinced.

b) Even if such a set of (at preset) unknown set of circumstances were to preset itself to you, it in no way automatically follows that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

As per a) & b) no scientifically/logically based claim would be worth the paper it was printed on if that was the criteria on which it had to exclusively rely.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hi Frank,

You can maintain the possibility of a god and at the same time have no example of a set of circumstances whereby you would be convinced that this god exists, but by doing so your position can be lacking as discussed in my second main argument.

Okaylet me see if I understand your "second argument"and I will give my take on how I see it effecting my position.

Quote:

As to my second main argument specifically:

1) My points a) & b) - we have already discussed those points above clearly, you have confirmed them as true to your position, and I brought them forward for continuity and clarity.

2) You left out this final bit in your quote of mine, I hope this clarifies things, if not please let me know.
Chumly wrote:
As per a) & b) no scientifically/logically based claim would be worth the paper it was printed on if that was the criteria on which it had to exclusively rely.

Wellin the area of "is there a god or are there no gods"it is my opinion that here are absolutely no scientifically/logically based claims that are worth the paper they are printed on in any case.

I do not think any theist everhas ever made a reasonable justification for an assertion that there is a God.

I do not think any atheist everhas ever made a reasonable justification for an assertion that there are no gods.

Those positions are held entirely as the result of blind, unsubstantiated guessworkno matter that SOME atheists argue that not to be the case.

I also recognize that many modern atheists seem to be espousing an agnostic approach to this issuealthough they insist on being designated "atheist" for a variety of reasons.

But the atheists who assert there are no godsare absolutely on no firmer grounds than are the theists who assert there is a God.

The positions of theists and atheists who make positive assertions about God or godsare NOT working from a scientifically/logically based approach.

I want to call attention to one facet of you're a & b presentation that just flies in the face of everything I have said:

Quote:

b) Even if such a set of (at preset) unknown set of circumstances were to preset itself to you, it in no way automatically follows that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

The very last thing I would ever be interested in is getting anyone involved in any "beliefs" at allespecially any that you see coming from me. I have no beliefs, Chumly. I know how hard it is to accept thatand I get more heat on that item than any othersbut it is so. I make guesses; I make estimates; I suppose things; I "think" thingsbut I always identify those things as guesses, estimates, suppositions, etcand I never offer them as "beliefs."

I do not do believing! And since I consider a "belief" to be nothing more than a guess in disguiseI would consider myself to be a hypocrite if I were to present any of my guesses as beliefs.

Always good to chat with you, too, Chumly.

Let's see where this goes.

0 Replies

Frank, my position is clear and I don't require a "last chance", but thanks for offering. Laughing

Message for you from beyond, :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Frank, my position is clear and I don't require a "last chance", but thanks for offering. Message for you from beyond, :wink:

I'm so goddam jealous of Craven...I can't even think of a sharp rejoiner here.

Tell me you wouldn't trade places with him in a micro-second...

...if you (I) could play better, that is.

0 Replies

That we can agree on. The thought of doing likewise has been pervading my thoughts since I learned of it. Brave man, that Craven.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Lash wrote:
Hi, osso. I didn't notice I "she'd" you. Sorry.
At the risk of sounding like a damn fool myself... I believe Lash was talking about Osso, not Frank when she used "she" (slipping in the Frank's charming part) and subsequently when Osso erroneously questioned why Lash would call Frank a she; Lash went into fur mea culpa mode, erroneously and apologized to Osso for having "she'd" her. I say erroneously, because Osso most certainly is a she. Is this an accurate corrective measure, or is it my turn to require a translation of what's going on?

OK, what Bill was trying to say here is that...
Laughing

[size=7]nevermind...insanely happy that Craven is living his life boldly. This is not a dress rehearsal! Cool

[/size]

0 Replies

Hi yah Frank,

I am not directly addressing your claims of faithlessness, nor that you do not do belief, nor that you wish to define atheists in a manner not unlike theists, nor that you assert there is no evidence for or against god thus you remain equally open mined to either possibly. Your positions are not in any way a difficult concept for me to grasp.

However, that is not the essence of my recent posts to you. The essence is that any position involving this subject is not wholly supportable, and your position is no exception.

So let's get back on track then!

First I don't think we need to keep reviewing a) & b) (unless you feel the need) as your newest comments still support that you hold these equivalent views:

Chumly wrote:

a) You do not know of the circumstances by which you would be convinced.

b) Even if such a set of (at preset) unknown set of circumstances were to preset itself to you, it in no way automatically follows that anyone else would confirm your new found belief.

Most importantly however you have not, (I've posed it a few times now) responded to the pivotal claim of my second argument.

Chumly wrote:

As per a) & b) no scientifically/logically based claim would be worth the paper it was printed on if that was the criteria on which it had to exclusively rely.

0 Replies

Rather than saying that I do not believe in the existence of a God, I prefer to say that I can't understand why anyone believes in the existence of a God.

0 Replies

As seems to be my wont these days, if it's not too much trouble, may I take the contrary position, at least in part?

1) As a rationalization/explanation for the (supposed) mysteries of existence, I can understand why some would prefer to believe in the existence of a god, as opposed to the (presumably) cold empty indifferent alternative of a godless universe.

2) However from a scientific/logical position I cannot understand why anyone believes in the existence of a god either.

0 Replies

Chumly, We all make a choice on what to believe and what not to believe. We base our choice on what we deem to be logical conclusions about our environment.

Some of us prefer to say "there is no god," because there is nothing to show by human knowledge or evidence any of the man-made religions and gods to show otherwise. The Jewish and christian bible has been shown to have too many errors and omissions for it to have any credibility (a personal observation).

Some wish to say "I don't know," and that's fine for those who are still unsure about the existence of any god. That's their choice; the same way we choose to say "there is no god."

To argue the difference is childish when there is no way to prove it one way or another. Only the argument remains.

Some of us live in our "reality." Some still prefer to not declare something impossible to prove.

0 Replies

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know