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.
What is bullshoot is your argument that the inability of the god -believers to show valid evidence for it in science or anywhere else can be handily dismissed by some 'philosophical' flummery is a debunk of the atheist position . Even if that was a valid argument, that would leave the god -claim nowhere, logically, and still no more than a faith -claim, leaving the non -belief position as much the logical default as it is with no decent evidence for the god -claim.
Your obtuseness is beyond the pale. They are BOTH rendered "Faith-claims" because NEITHER one can be asserted as default. Your blindness or complete ignorance regarding this impasse is astoundingly annoying!!!
"avoiding some lines of logic because its gets us nowhere" Isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if one is discussing evidence that it is intended to be be valid?
Very interesting, though hardly new. But not really on topic unless it relates to the god -claim (or discussion of it) in some way.
Trans, it relate directly to his god claim. That's why you pushed to have it silenced. It is the line of evidence for his claim.
You have the easy part. You just refer to your holy bible "lack belief" and say I don't believe you. No matter what is said. Just like some theist grab onto their bible and say "I lack belief in what you say." Yours and theirs is a blind faith.
The way you completely ignore and slide over whatever is presented and just repeat your bullshot logical horseshot is unbelievably annoying but typical. Science does NOT have the ability to establish whether or not Reality IS or IS NOT God. It is a metaphysical question and can NOT be done, therefore, it has NOT BEEN DONE and your default is total bullshot!!!
Not at all. Where you err is that you wish for there to be some sort of neutral ground on belief/non belief that affords equal validity to either side. This is a logical impossibility. When faced with a claim, I either believe it, or I don't. Even if I don't disbelieve it and regard it as wrong,but leave the jury out as to it's correctness because of a lack of info either way, a lack of belief in the claim still equates non belief , not some fuzzy middle ground of equal parts belief/non belief. So , given your claim, one can ask you for your evidence, and if you can't provide it, as you admit, then the default is to not believe in what you claim but can't provide evidence for. So, lack of belief is the default. And a lack of belief regarding religious claims is called atheism.
Last edited by NatesDude; 02-13-2021 at 06:36 PM..
Not at all. Where you err is that you wish for there to be some sort of neutral ground on belief/non belief that equates equal validity to either side. This is a logical impossibility. When faced with a claim, I either believe it, or I don't. Even if I don't disbelieve it and regard it as wrong, a lack of belief in it equates non belief , not some fuzzy middle ground of equal belief/non belief. So , given your claim, one can ask you for your evidence, and if you can't provide it, as you admit, then the default is to not believe in what you can't provide evidence for. So, lack of belief is the default. And a lack of belief regarding religious claims is called atheism.
Wow ... nice theology there. But lets get back to the actual evidence ...
It relates to mystics god claim ... Listen at 5:36. And look what he is saying. The video relates to mystics claim in that we are really just energy exchanging information. We really are in a sea of information exchange. It relates to the claim in that it partly describes what he saying.
Your obtuseness is beyond the pale. They are BOTH rendered "Faith-claims" because NEITHER one can be asserted as default. Your blindness or complete ignorance regarding this impasse is astoundingly annoying!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Not at all. Where you err is that you wish for there to be some sort of neutral ground on belief/nonbelief that affords equal validity to either side. This is a logical impossibility. When faced with a claim, I either believe it, or I don't. Even if I don't disbelieve it and regard it as wrong, but leave the jury out as to its correctness because of a lack of info, either way, a lack of belief in the claim still equates nonbelief, not some fuzzy middle ground of equal parts belief/nonbelief. So , given your claim, one can ask you for your evidence, and if you can't provide it, as you admit, then the default is to not believe in what you claim but can't provide evidence for. So, lack of belief is the default. And a lack of belief regarding religious claims is called atheism.
Stop revealing more and more of your ignorance and lack of critical thinking. There can be NO resolution to the status of our EXISTING Reality. There is no question about its EXISTENCE, just what it is. We have all the evidence about it. There is nothing missing that would suggest it is NOT God. Your stupid puerile and ignorant analysis does NOT apply to identifying what DOES EXIST. The tenacious and ubiquitous atheist ignorance about this is beyond the pale. It has nothing to do with your frickin neutral ground bullshot!!! Get a frickin education!
hes not a theist. heck, if he is a theist so are you to me. You god is not a deity. Its just a living system. "nature", at least around us, matches alive more than not alive. Thats why it had to be silenced.
But Mystic is a theist. and his god is very much a deity. as a theist he refers to his god as "God" and "Jesus."
deity "the creator and supreme being in a religion"
Stop revealing more and more of your ignorance and lack of critical thinking. There can be NO resolution to the status of our EXISTING Reality. There is no question about its EXISTENCE, just what it is. We have all the evidence about it. There is nothing missing that would suggest it is NOT God. Your stupid puerile and ignorant analysis does NOT apply to identifying what DOES EXIST. The tenacious and ubiquitous atheist ignorance about this is beyond the pale. It has nothing to do with your frickin neutral ground bullshot!!! Get a frickin education!
I'll ignore your childish insults and continue on . It's sad that you can't conduct a discussion involving disagreement without this type of behavior, but it is what it is. You simply show the entire board the level of your emotional immaturity.
Let's take this further. You and Trans have a debate with a new 3rd party watching who doesn't know about your views. You will offer your thesis and Trans will rebut it, and then the new guy will say what he believes after reading . You present your case, Trans questions you on evidence to support your claims, and at the end of a long debate you both admit that your ideas cannot be proven or disproven. You already admit this much. So now our new guy gives what he thinks after reading both of you. His stance is that he isn't convinced by either argument; he doesn't believe you, but he isn't convinced you are completely wrong either . So where is he on the scale of belief regarding your claim of the universe=God? You want to claim he is in some middle ground where he neither believes or doesn't believe , but he is not. He is in the position of not believing your claim, even if he doesn't believe it is totally wrong. He is, officially, atheistic on the issue of universe as God, because he doesn't believe it. Disbelief , or belief you are wrong , isn't required . All that is required for him to be officially atheistic about your claim is to not believe YOU , because it is YOUR claim being debated. All Trans is doing is pointing out the lack of evidence, which is self evident and even admitted by you. The ONLY issue is his belief about YOUR claim , and to not accept your claim makes him an atheist with regards to your theology.
Perhaps you misunderstand the terms agnostic and atheist , and like others regard agnosticism as a mild form of atheism. It is not . Gnostic/agnostic are stances on knowledge, I know/I don't know. Atheist/theist are stances on belief, I don't believe/I believe. These are two different things. Our new guy above is agnostic as to your claim, as he doesn't pretend to know whether there is evidence to support it or not. But since he chooses not to believe, he is atheistic about your claim. This may not sit well with you, but it is what the words mean, and how atheism is defined. A(without) theos(god). A lack of belief is atheism , as the non believer is a (without) a belief in theos (god); there is no fuzzy middle ground. One accepts a claim about god and believes and is a theist, or one doesn't believe and is an atheist.
And all the 3 syllable insults in the world will not change this
Last edited by NatesDude; 02-13-2021 at 08:07 PM..
I'll ignore your childish insults and continue on . It's sad that you can't conduct a discussion involving disagreement without this type of behavior, but it is what it is. You simply show the entire board the level of your emotional immaturity.
Let's take this further. You and Trans have a debate with a new 3rd party watching who doesn't know about your views. You will offer your thesis and Trans will rebut it, and then the new guy will say what he believes after reading . You present your case, Trans questions you on evidence to support your claims, and at the end of a long debate you both admit that your ideas cannot be proven or disproven. You already admit this much. So now our new guy gives what he thinks after reading both of you. His stance is that he isn't convinced by either argument; he doesn't believe you, but he isn't convinced you are completely wrong either . So where is he on the scale of belief regarding your claim of the universe=God? You want to claim he is in some middle ground where he neither believes or doesn't believe , but he is not. He is in the position of not believing your claim, even if he doesn't believe it is totally wrong. He is, officially, atheistic on the issue of universe as God, because he doesn't believe it. Disbelief , or belief you are wrong , isn't required . All that is required for him to be officially atheistic about your claim is to not believe YOU , because it is YOUR claim being debated. All Trans is doing is pointing out the lack of evidence, which is self evident and even admitted by you. The ONLY issue is his belief about YOUR claim , and to not accept your claim makes him an atheist with regards to your theology.
Perhaps you misunderstand the terms agnostic and atheist , and like others regard agnosticism as a mild form of atheism. It is not . Gnostic/agnostic are stances on knowledge, I know/I don't know. Atheist/theist are stances on belief, I don't believe/I believe. These are two different things. Our new guy above is agnostic as to your claim, as he doesn't pretend to know whether there is evidence to support it or not. But since he chooses not to believe, he is atheistic about your claim. This may not sit well with you, but it is what the words mean, and how atheism is defined. A(without) theos(god). A lack of belief is atheism , as the non believer is a (without) a belief in theos (god); there is no fuzzy middle ground. One accepts a claim about god and believes and is a theist, or one doesn't believe and is an atheist.
And all the 3 syllable insults in the world will not change this
Is THAT all you are proposing??? Then you misunderstand the rift between us. Arq demands that the default for all of us be atheism until science can provide proof of the existence of God. There is no question of EXISTENCE because what we are differing about definitely EXISTS and all the existing evidence reveals that. Arq,'s atheism and your lack of belief have no impact on the existence question so they cannot be the default FACT until shown otherwise! Did you actually just annoy and aggravate me over this pedantic nonsense!!! There can BE no default! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?????
Is THAT all you are proposing??? Then you misunderstand the rift between us. Arq demands that the default for all of us be atheism until science can provide proof of the existence of God. There is no question of EXISTENCE because what we are differing about definitely EXISTS and all the existing evidence reveals that. Arq,'s atheism and your lack of belief have no impact on the existence question so they cannot be the default FACT until shown otherwise! Did you actually just annoy and aggravate me over this pedantic nonsense!!! There can BE no default! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?????
I understood before. You are just wrong, that's all. It is you who doesn't grasp the basic logic here. There are only 2 options in belief. Believe , or don't believe , which is what atheism is about , a stance on belief. There is no middle ground of neither believing or unbelieving you wish to exist. None. It doesn't exist. The inability of science to provide evidence for or against doesn't change this. A person faced with a claim either believes or not , there isn't a 3rd option. If one doesn't say "yes, I believe" , then they are an unbeliever, an atheist . That's what the word means. Even if a person still thinks your thesis is possible and chooses to look into it further, until they become a believer they are an unbeliever. This isn't that hard to process even for you in your anger. No belief is the default until belief happens, there isn't a third option. This isn't about FACT , as you put it. Atheism/theism isn't about fact. They are stances on belief. And not believing in a theological concept , whether from never having heard it or from having heard it and rejecting it , is atheism. So yes, the default is atheism until one chooses to believe. Whether you agree or not.
You wish to maintain that since science cannot provide an answer to the question, a stance isn't possible on the issue. But this is nonsensical. For science to be unable to provide proof for god is to say science can't provide evidence to believe in, and the logical result of not having evidence to believe in is unbelief. It certainly can't be said to be logical to go ahead and believe something that no evidence can be provided for. The lack of evidence to deny the universe is god doesn't alter the equation any. That still leaves us with unbelief in either proposition , so then the stance on the existence of god is still unbelief, or atheism. The stance on the absolute non existence of god is also unbelief in the non god proposition .
Again, you seem to be confusing theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. You seem to argue that since our knowledge is lacking on both sides of the universe is god debate , the stances of belief must be given equal credence. This is a false assumption. But let's start with the fact that we can't prove either claim on the universe is god debate. Agnosticism would be the default position for both sides of the debate. We can't know, so we hold the position we can't know. But then you try to extend this to the stance on belief , which doesn't work. Believing without evidence and not believing without evidence are not equally valid positions of belief. The logical default for any claim is to not accept the claim until evidence to support it is offered. Therefore the default is non belief, which in the case of claims for god is atheism. Where you get equal treatment on positions of belief is with claims gods can't and don't exist. If someone claims gods can't exist, then the onus is upon them to provide evidence of such, and the default position would be unbelief in their claim, until such time as they give supporting evidence of this . I'm not sure what you would call unbelief in the absolute denial of the existence of gods , but whatever term defined this would be the default position on the debate.
I am eagerly awaiting to see what new forms of insults you come up with in response. Creating new , descriptive and inventive insults seems to be your main contribution to the forum these days. Sometimes this does prove useful. One of my wifes patients once used the term "double butt ugly mental ret#%d" in reference to another patient that made her mad. I still use that one occasionally.
Last edited by NatesDude; 02-13-2021 at 10:03 PM..
It relates to mystics god claim ... Listen at 5:36. And look what he is saying. The video relates to mystics claim in that we are really just energy exchanging information. We really are in a sea of information exchange. It relates to the claim in that it partly describes what he saying.
Don't fall into the 'DNA - code' ID trap. Information exchange is not the same as intelligence. I don't deny and never have that intelligence is 'chemical reaction' to use the rather deprecating Creationist epithet, but not all chemical reaction - or information exchange - is 'intelligence', not on the level that we or even higher animals have it, let alone anything we can can call 'God'. And if it isn't 'God' it is off forum topic.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-13-2021 at 10:27 PM..
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.
Isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if one is discussing evidence that it is intended to be be valid?
