Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You atheists have never grasped the difference between existential questions (essentially scientific) and beliefs about what exists...Learning to parse these issues would be a useful intellectual skill.
I understand what you are saying just fine; I don't agree with you. You think if we don't agree it is because we don't understand. But, we can understand what you are saying and understand that you are wrong.
The existence of a thing is not dependent on us knowing it exists or on us having thoughts about its existence or beliefs about its characteristics. And a thing's existence is independent of our conceptions of it. A belief about something might be wrong, yet the thing could still exist. I have always understood that quite well.
But, if you are going to make a claim that something's existence is undeniable, you must first tell us what that something is, else you could be talking about anything or nothing, and thus not be saying anything at all.
If I told you the existence of Cronons is undeniable, yet refused to tell you what I was talking about, you'd rightfully dismiss my declaration as meaningless. Now there may be things that exist out there, if so they exist independent of my declarations, but until I identify what object in existence I am referring to when I say Cronons, my statement is meaningless.
I need to tell you that Cronons are saber-tooth animals similar to ducks. Now you have some idea what I am talking about. Now we can talk about whether such a thing exists. But, now I have also boxed myself in. If it turns out no saber-toothed duck like creatures exist, I am wrong. I am also wrong if we find that ducks exists but just not the saber-toothed variety. I can't say, "Oh, well that is what I was talking about by Cronons, so I was right about Cronons existing, I was just wrong about the saber-tooth detail". Why? Because if it is not saber-toothed, it is not a Cronon.
Similarly, if one defines "god" as a supreme being, and we find that a being exists, but it is not supreme, we have not shown that "god" exists as defined by whoever defined it as a supreme being.
I understand what you are saying just fine; I don't agree with you. You think if we don't agree it is because we don't understand. But, we can understand what you are saying and understand that you are wrong.
The existence of a thing is not dependent on us knowing it exists or on us having thoughts about its existence or beliefs about its characteristics. And a thing's existence is independent of our conceptions of it. A belief about something might be wrong, yet the thing could still exist. I have always understood that quite well.
But, if you are going to make a claim that something's existence is undeniable, you must first tell us what that something is, else you could be talking about anything or nothing, and thus not be saying anything at all.
If I told you the existence of Cronons is undeniable, yet refused to tell you what I was talking about, you'd rightfully dismiss my declaration as meaningless. Now there may be things that exist out there, if so they exist independent of my declarations, but until I identify what object in existence I am referring to when I say Cronons, my statement is meaningless.
I need to tell you that Cronons are saber-tooth animals similar to ducks. Now you have some idea what I am talking about. Now we can talk about whether such a thing exists. But, now I have also boxed myself in. If it turns out no saber-toothed duck like creatures exist, I am wrong. I am also wrong if we find that ducks exists but just not the saber-toothed variety. I can't say, "Oh, well that is what I was talking about by Cronons, so I was right about Cronons existing, I was just wrong about the saber-tooth detail". Why? Because if it is not saber-toothed, it is not a Cronon.
Similarly, if one defines "god" as a supreme being, and we find that a being exists, but it is not supreme, we have not shown that "god" exists as defined by whoever defined it as a supreme being.
::Sigh:: That YOU do not want to attribute responsibility for existence does NOT mean there is no such attribution necessary. That which accounts for existence and the laws that control everything IS God . . . that is the basic definition. ALL other attributions are BELIEFS and subject to all the caprice the human species is heir to. You do NOT get to deny the existence of God because YOU do not WANT to make any attributions.
::Sigh:: That YOU do not want to attribute responsibility for existence does NOT mean there is no such attribution necessary. That which accounts for existence and the laws that control everything IS God . . . that is the basic definition. ALL other attributions are BELIEFS and subject to all the caprice the human species is heir to. You do NOT get to deny the existence of God because YOU do not WANT to make any attributions.
I assume that the universe exists along with what we call the laws of physics. I do not know what else might exist besides the universe. I see no reason to call the universe, the laws of physics, or anything which may "account" for the universe as god. You can call it god if you wish.
There may literally be no attributions of responsibility to be made concerning the existence of the universe. Just because you say there are doesn't mean there are. I am open to the possibility that there might be attributions of responsibility to be made and the possibility that there are no attributions of responsibility to be made. So, there may not be a god even by your definition; so, the existence of god is not undeniable even if one assumes what we call the universe exists.
::Sigh:: That YOU do not want to attribute responsibility for existence does NOT mean there is no such attribution necessary. That which accounts for existence and the laws that control everything IS God . . . that is the basic definition. ALL other attributions are BELIEFS and subject to all the caprice the human species is heir to. You do NOT get to deny the existence of God because YOU do not WANT to make any attributions.
Burden of proof shifted. or so Mystic hopes, with use of the trademark patronising sigh. Goalpost shifted (eased along with a little semantic lubrication) . Whatever Is, call it 'god'. If 'God' exists then 'nature' can't be the answer - it's a mere 'belief' on the part of the deniers.
Burden of proof shifted. or so Mystic hopes, with use of the trademark patronising sigh. Goalpost shifted (eased along with a little semantic lubrication) . Whatever Is, call it 'god'. If 'God' exists then 'nature' can't be the answer - it's a mere 'belief' on the part of the deniers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Yeah, yeah, no one understands you and it's everyone else's fault. We get it.
Proof of this claim?
Personal attacks to dodge actually responding to the content of posts you reply to. Who would have known?
The persistent attempts to paint my efforts to explain my views as patronizing or arrogant is largely reflective of a projection of those very attributes on the part of atheists in general. Atheists seem to truly believe that theists cannot possibly be intelligent, rational, or knowledgeable. A sigh indicates my frustration. I simply try to show the error in such thinking about theism as symptomatic of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" or of an "ignorance of what they are ignorant about." I understand that this is very irksome . . . but it seems to reflect the actual reality here.
Catchphrases like "You are ignorant of what you are ignorant of" are just ways to put down those that disagree with you without having to explain your own position. We can all demean and throw insults around - especially when our position has no evidence. Most of us learned that skill from age 5. The question is can we make a point - explain it and defend it. That takes skills learned later in life.
The persistent attempts to paint my efforts to explain my views as patronizing or arrogant is largely reflective of a projection of those very attributes on the part of atheists in general. Atheists seem to truly believe that theists cannot possibly be intelligent, rational, or knowledgeable. A sigh indicates my frustration. I simply try to show the error in such thinking about theism as symptomatic of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" or of an "ignorance of what they are ignorant about." I understand that this is very irksome . . . but it seems to reflect the actual reality here.
That's nice. So when are you going to get around to supporting your ideas with anything other than insults, misdirection and bluster?
The persistent attempts to paint my efforts to explain my views as patronizing or arrogant is largely reflective of a projection of those very attributes on the part of atheists in general. Atheists seem to truly believe that theists cannot possibly be intelligent, rational, or knowledgeable. A sigh indicates my frustration. I simply try to show the error in such thinking about theism as symptomatic of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" or of an "ignorance of what they are ignorant about." I understand that this is very irksome . . . but it seems to reflect the actual reality here.
Another example of the corrosive effects of faith - based unreason on n a quality brain.
You are painted as often coming across as patronizing and arrogant because that is often how you come across. It has been noted repeatedly. As has your projection of arrogance onto others. It is also clear that the sighs and headslaps are intended to make a very dodgy argument look blindingly obvious even to the meanest intellect.
One thing I have never called you is unintelligent or uneducated. Any atheist who is under the impression that a theist cannot be intelligent, educated or even scientifically literate is wrong, though such a view is understandable in view of some of the posts we get presented here. You have been corrosively contemptuous about them yourself.
It is simply the effect that faith - based belief has on the intellect and reasoning - powers. They are all put at the service of the faith. I cannot help it, I have to repeat a dictum I coined back on Atheist Network, before moderator interference drove me away; it's still true.
'Theism makes an intelligent person look unintelligent and an honest person look dishonest'.
And since I'm skipping along the edge, I have to post something I was saving for a question about what a forum Troll actually is..
(Saruman) "Do you know how the Trolls first came into being? They were educated beings once, taken by the powers of unreasoning Faith, twisted and deluded. An unnatural blending of cotton-picking creationist miscegnated with Pyramidiot cultist...a mutilated and distorted form of reasoning. Now... perfected..., in my trolling snarkers. Whom do you serve?"
Lurkz: ..... "Sunoovman!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cue the mobile goalposts and shifting burden of proof.
or so Mystic hopes, with use of the trademark patronising sigh. Goalpost shifted (eased along with a little semantic lubrication) . Whatever Is, call it 'god'. If 'God' exists then 'nature' can't be the answer - it's a mere 'belief' on the part of the deniers.
