Magical thinking. [Archive] - Just Plain Politics!

Frank Apisa

11-26-2018, 01:20 PM

Anyone is free to blindly guess that a god exists (or that several gods) exist...just as anyone is free to blindly guess that no gods exist.

One of those guesses is probably right. I say "probably right" because the true nature of existence may be so complicated that either YES or NO on the question may not be the only options.

In any case, it seems to me that just acknowledging that none of us KNOWS for sure is the more ethical way to deal with the issue.

TWO THINGS:

ONE: I realize that some people who blindly guess there is at least one god...are going to insist that they KNOW there is at least one god...and that some people who blindly guess there are no gods...are going to insist that they KNOW there are no gods.

The people in both those groups are full of shit.

TWO: Many of the people making those blind guesses (in both directions) are going to refer to their blind guesses as "beliefs."

Okay...if you have to call your blind guesses "beliefs"...nothing in law to stop you.

Irish Exit

11-26-2018, 04:31 PM

You have probably heard some atheist claim that believing in a Creator is magical thing.
So, what do atheists believe?
Atheists believe that NO ONE created EVERYTHING from NOTHING.
I don't know about you, but that seems pretty magical to me.

We are all stuck here however that happened.

Grugore

11-27-2018, 07:12 AM

We are all stuck here however that happened.

True enough. But one belief, if true, leads to eternal life. The other to eternal suffering. Just how sure are you that there is no God? It's not the kind of question you want to leave unanswered. There is a lot riding on it. Like, everything.

Anarchon

11-27-2018, 07:20 AM

kudzu

11-27-2018, 07:20 AM

iolo

11-27-2018, 07:24 AM

We are all stuck here however that happened.

Unlil trumpf finishes us all off, I suppose. Do the holy ones believe a god created that thing?

Irish Exit

11-27-2018, 07:24 AM

True enough. But one belief, if true, leads to eternal life. The other to eternal suffering. Just how sure are you that there is no God? It's not the kind of question you want to leave unanswered. There is a lot riding on it. Like, everything.

Well the Bible says we get a do over lightening round if we get it wrong on Round 1.

jimmymccready

11-27-2018, 07:26 AM

Listening to Grugore approaches eternal suffering.

Frank Apisa

11-27-2018, 07:29 AM

Irish Exit

11-27-2018, 07:31 AM

Unlil trumpf finishes us all off, I suppose. Do the holy ones believe a god created that thing?

The Bible indicates all governments exist due to God's will that establishes them. Now render into Caesar.

Irish Exit

11-27-2018, 07:33 AM

How can any sane person pretend to WORSHIP a god that will punish someone for disobeying by torturing them for all the rest of eternity???

That is like a parent punishing a child for disobeying by using a chainsaw on his face!

The Jehovah Witnesses see it differently....and seem to have a lot more Biblical support than say the fire and brimstone Baptists, but whatever. People should do what works for them.

evince

11-27-2018, 07:33 AM

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:35 AM

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:37 AM

Listening to Grugore approaches eternal suffering.

so you intend to spend eternity making fun of it?.....

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:40 AM

Every society had a creation story to answer the question "where did we come from".. Don't take it literally.. Genesis wasn't intended as science or history..

Genesis 1:1 is written in the Hebrew imperative....."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is a command........

kudzu

11-27-2018, 07:42 AM

Genesis 1:1 is written in the Hebrew imperative....."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is a command........

They borrowed the story from the Babylonians.

To me its an allegory about the hunter gatherers versus agriculturalists.

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:42 AM

You're lying. I'm an atheist, and do not believe that.
interesting.....then, as an atheist, who do you believe created everything out of nothing....

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:42 AM

They borrowed the story from the Babylonians.

To me its an allegory about the hunter gatherers versus agriculturalists.

bullshit.....besides the word "create" show me a single parallel....
https://www.ancient.eu/article/225/enuma-elish---the-babylonian-epic-of-creation---fu/

jimmymccready

11-27-2018, 07:44 AM

grugore and sad pimp are, sadly, not what they profess to be. They will be excluded from God's presence forever.

kudzu

11-27-2018, 07:44 AM

bullshit.....

Yeah they did.. Genesis was written after Leviticus and Deuteronomy and after the Babylonian exile.

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:47 AM

grugore and sad pimp are, sadly, not what they profess to be. They will be excluded from God's presence forever.

St Peter at the gate, did Rana give you back your keys?.....

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:48 AM

Yeah they did.. Genesis was written after Leviticus and Deuteronomy and after the Babylonian exile.

liar.....besides the word "create" show me a single parallel....
https://www.ancient.eu/article/225/e...creation---fu/

evince

11-27-2018, 07:53 AM

grugore and sad pimp are, sadly, not what they profess to be. They will be excluded from God's presence forever.

they don't believe

they want to use what they pretend to believe as a weapon to cause havoc in this nation

I think they are both russo bot holes

kudzu

11-27-2018, 08:03 AM

liar.....besides the word "create" show me a single parallel....
https://www.ancient.eu/article/225/e...creation---fu/

From your link:

COMMENTARY
The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original.

In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

Grugore

11-27-2018, 09:44 AM

You're lying. I'm an atheist, and do not believe that.

Then you belive in a Creator?

Grugore

11-27-2018, 09:53 AM

Blackwater Lunchbreak

11-27-2018, 10:48 AM

The Bible indicates all governments exist due to God's will that establishes them. Now render into Caesar.

yeah. all that was added to make christianity a proper imperial cult.

Irish Exit

11-27-2018, 10:50 AM

yeah. all that was added to make christianity a proper imperial cult.

Regardless, it says what it says.

jimmymccready

11-27-2018, 10:57 AM

No Christian acts or talks like PostmodernProphet or Grugore. Others know them by their fruit, and it is rotten just as much as the vicious antiGodists.

evince

11-27-2018, 11:02 AM

evince

11-27-2018, 11:03 AM

No Christian acts or talks like PostmodernProphet or Grugore. Others know them by their fruit, and it is rotten just as much as the vicious antiGodists.

not believing on God is anti God

Just like NOT believing in santa is anti santa

Blackwater Lunchbreak

11-27-2018, 11:06 AM

Regardless, it says what it says.

yeah. and it says some bullshit.

Frank Apisa

11-27-2018, 11:22 AM

Bottom line. You believe in a Creator, or believe that the universe created itself. One is demonstrably false, since it contradicts the law of causality. Nothing physical can be self existent or eternal. That leaves you with just one possibility. A non physical being Who is eternal and exists outside of time and space.

What a bunch of self-serving nonsense!

It is bullshit...especially that crap abpit "that leaves you with just one possibility."

The possibilities are endless...except that the idiots who insist "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist" refuse to accept that.

Keep trying, though, Grugore. Apparently that god of yours likes brown-nosing almost as much as Donald Trump,

Irish Exit

11-27-2018, 11:26 AM

yeah. and it says some bullshit.

Well originally but translators cleaned up Paul's language from Philippians and Romans so it isn't quite so profane as it was originally.

Blackwater Lunchbreak

11-27-2018, 11:30 AM

Well originally but translators cleaned up Paul's language from Philippians and Romans so it isn't quite so profane as it was originally.

boo

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 12:36 PM

From your link:

COMMENTARY
The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original.

In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

give me a single parallel.......

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 12:37 PM

No Christian acts or talks like PostmodernProphet or Grugore. Others know them by their fruit, and it is rotten just as much as the vicious antiGodists.

you will have to borrow the keys to the kingdom from Rana.......

kudzu

11-27-2018, 12:40 PM

give me a single parallel.......

Read your link......

jimmymccready

11-27-2018, 01:16 PM

you will have to borrow the keys to the kingdom from Rana.......Rana, your buddy, told you to write that. You had no choice. See what I mean. You are no Christian. A Christian would not write that.

Anarchon

11-27-2018, 03:08 PM

Then you belive in a Creator?

interesting.....then, as an atheist, who do you believe created everything out of nothing....

Nope. You're assuming that you understand the nature of causality, and the universe. Neither of us know either. Atheists are ok saying, "I don't know." You aren't, so you invent some stupid shit to try to explain it.

The only thing required to be an atheist is that one lacks a positive belief in a god or gods. It doesn't speak to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or anything else.

Anarchon

11-27-2018, 03:14 PM

midcan5

11-27-2018, 03:14 PM

It is easier to imagine matter has always existed than to give credence to an out of nothing creator who came out of nothing.

"The belief of God is not a matter of common sense, or logic, or argument, but of feeling. It is as impossible to prove the existence of God as to disprove it. I do not believe in God. I see no need of such an idea. It is incredible to me that there should be an after-life. I find the notion of future punishment outrageous and of future reward extravagant. I am convinced that when I die, I shall cease entirely to live; I shall return to the earth I came from. Yet I can imagine that at some future date I may believe in God; but it will be as now, when I don't believe in Him, not a matter of reasoning or of observation, but only of feeling." W. Somerset Maugham, A Writer's Notebook

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 03:18 PM

Read your link......

there no parallels, you simple minded atheist......its a waste of time reading your posts......

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 03:19 PM

Rana, your buddy, told you to write that. You had no choice. See what I mean. You are no Christian. A Christian would not write that.

not up to you, cunt.....

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 03:23 PM

Nope. You're assuming that you understand the nature of causality, and the universe. Neither of us know either. Atheists are ok saying, "I don't know." You aren't, so you invent some stupid shit to try to explain it.

The only thing required to be an atheist is that one lacks a positive belief in a god or gods. It doesn't speak to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or anything else.
so the universe had no creator, but it did not have no no creator.......at least you are more lucid than you usually are......

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 03:25 PM

Fallacy of bifurcation. There are more than 2 options. Just because you're ignorant of other options, doesn't mean they don't exist.

sorry, no......its a dichotomy......either there was a creator or there wasn't.....there is no third option which isn't merely a subset of the other two.....

Anarchon

11-27-2018, 03:33 PM

sorry, no......its a dichotomy......either there was a creator or there wasn't.....there is no third option which isn't merely a subset of the other two.....

To "know" that, you'd have to be omniscient. If you were omniscient, you'd be a god yourself.

You're neither.

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 03:38 PM

To "know" that, you'd have to be omniscient. If you were omniscient, you'd be a god yourself.

You're neither.
you are confusing knowing the answer with knowing the question.....either - or......yes -no.....is - is not.......not complicated

Anarchon

11-27-2018, 04:00 PM

you are confusing knowing the answer with knowing the question.....either - or......yes -no.....is - is not.......not complicated

Forming the correct question is a very difficult thing to do in science. If you don't understand the nature of the universe to proper extent, you'll ask a nonsensical question. It's likely that's what you're doing here.

People used to ask what would happen when they sailed to the end of the earth. They didn't understand it was a nonsensical question.

jimmymccready

11-27-2018, 07:00 PM

not up to you, cunt.....Rana told you to write that. You are no Christian.

jimmymccready

11-27-2018, 07:01 PM

Anarchon does not know the right questions to this problem because antiGodists have neither the logic, the symbols, or the language to prove that God does not exist.

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:06 PM

Forming the correct question is a very difficult thing to do in science. If you don't understand the nature of the universe to proper extent, you'll ask a nonsensical question. It's likely that's what you're doing here.

People used to ask what would happen when they sailed to the end of the earth. They didn't understand it was a nonsensical question.

either the earth had ends, or it did not......

PostmodernProphet

11-27-2018, 07:07 PM

Rana told you to write that. You are no Christian.

you are no judge......

jimmymccready

11-27-2018, 07:47 PM

Sad Pimp Rana does not understand holy scripture. This will help the two of them, both Sad Pimp and his guide Rana.

"Judge not, lest you be judged": Misinterpreted Bible ...
www.jasonstaples.com/bible/misinterpreted/...
It is, “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgement.” It is simply this: We humans CANNOT, I repeat, it is impossible, to look upon any goings on around us without judging.

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged! - John and Ellen Duncan
johnandellenduncan.com/jd_judgenot.htm
Mat 7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged [do not judge others if you do not want to be judged by others; everyone will be judged by God]. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again [if you judge others, they will judge you by the same measures].

JOHN 7:24 KJV "Judge not according to the appearance, but ...
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-7-24
24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him.

Anarchon

11-27-2018, 08:35 PM

either the earth had ends, or it did not......

That wasn't the question. They assumed that it did have an end when they formed their question of what happened when you reached the end. Some thought you'd fall off. Some thought there was a big monster that ate you. They were wrong to make that assumption, and their question became meaningless. As they learned more, they understood why. There was a paradigm shift.

You assume that the somethingness of the universe, as we perceive it, must have a cause, a beginning, and an end in ways that we completely understand. The paradigms in which we view time and causality, have changed relatively recently in modern physics. Given how little we understand of the universe, and the rate at which our understanding changes, you're very likely wrong in making your assumption.

Anarchon

11-27-2018, 09:50 PM

Anarchon does not know the right questions to this problem because antiGodists have neither the logic, the symbols, or the language to prove that God does not exist.

The Universe of Discourse is the actual universe we exist in, U.
The relation, P, is defined where entity, e, has a physical effect on U.
∀(e,U), (e,U)∈P
The set of natural entities, N, and the set of supernatural entities, S, are defined thusly:
N={n: ∀n, nPU}
S={s: ∀s, s¬∈N}
In other words:
S=N^C
A god, g, is a supernatural entity:
∀g, g∈S
The relation, E, is defined where entity, e, has objective reality or being in U.
If an entity has objective reality or being, it has a physical effect on the universe.
eEU →∀e,e∈N
∴∀n,nEU
∀n,nEU → ∄s,sEU∎
Corollary: If god exists, it cannot be supernatural, and therefore cannot be a god.

jimmymccready

11-28-2018, 05:50 AM

Thank you, Anarchon. Your premise itself is a prima facie unproven statement.

As I told you, you don't have the symbols, logic, or language to disprove the existence of God.

kudzu

11-28-2018, 06:36 AM

Frank Apisa

11-28-2018, 06:39 AM

Anarchon does not know the right questions to this problem because antiGodists have neither the logic, the symbols, or the language to prove that God does not exist.

There is no way to prove that gods exist...or that no gods exist.

All one can do is to make a guess one way or the other...or to decline to make a guess (which is what I do.)

Anarchon does NOT know how to ask specific questions in a reasonable way. That seems to be something that is beyond him/her.

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 07:04 AM

That wasn't the question.

I know.......but it is what WE are discussing.....

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 07:07 AM

Sad Pimp Rana does not understand holy scripture.

I have told her that same thing many times.....meanwhile, don't those passages confirm what I have said about your inability to judge?....

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 07:12 AM

In other words:
S=N^C

C is undefined in your equation......

jimmymccready

11-28-2018, 07:50 AM

Thank you, Anarchon. Your premise itself is a prima facie unproven statement. As I told you, you don't have the symbols, logic, or language to disprove the existence of God.

Don't you think its personal and spiritual? I mean there is no proof for the existence of God either. I don't think taking the Bible stories literally as if the were science and/or history is helpful.

That is a different question, yes? Anarchon is talking about disproving deity's existence. He can't.

We can certainly talk about the literalness of Bible stories. The RC and Anglican and Episcopalian certainly do not think of the text in terms of literalism as do evangies or fundies.

kudzu

11-28-2018, 07:52 AM

Thank you, Anarchon. Your premise itself is a prima facie unproven statement. As I told you, you don't have the symbols, logic, or language to disprove the existence of God.

That is a different question, yes? Anarchon is talking about disproving deity's existence. He can't.

We can certainly talk about the literalness of Bible stories. The RC and Anglican and Episcopalian certainly to think of the text in terms of literalism as evangies or fundies.

I don't think Episcopalians and Catholics read the Bible literally.. more like allegories.

jimmymccready

11-28-2018, 08:00 AM

You are right, kudzu, and I should proof read my material. "to think" above should be "do not think of the text".

My apologies.

kudzu

11-28-2018, 08:08 AM

You are right, kudzu, and I should proof read my material. "to think" above should be "do not think of the text".

My apologies.

Well, some Catholics and Episcopalians have become influenced by evangelicals and literalists, but I duck out of church when the preacher goes there.

Frank Apisa

11-28-2018, 08:13 AM

Well, some Catholics and Episcopalians have become influenced by evangelicals and literalists, but I duck out of church when the preacher goes there.

I understand what you are saying.

But even when religions take the stories of the Bible as allegories rather than literally...

...trouble ensues!

I am not disposed to give them an automatic pass because they do not treat the stories or injunctions literally.

I notice that my request for any words attributed to Jesus condemn homosexuality...which included my warning to be careful with this one.

kudzu

11-28-2018, 08:19 AM

I understand what you are saying.

But even when religions take the stories of the Bible as allegories rather than literally...

...trouble ensues!

I am not disposed to give them an automatic pass because they do not treat the stories or injunctions literally.

I notice that my request for any words attributed to Jesus condemn homosexuality...which included my warning to be careful with this one.

I agree.. Jesus didn't condemn slavery either.

And, he didn't dispute any of the ten commandments or Jewish law that condemned people to death for hundreds of sins.. But, he was an observant Jew after all.

iolo

11-28-2018, 08:28 AM

I agree.. Jesus didn't condemn slavery either.

And, he didn't dispute any of the ten commandments or Jewish law that condemned people to death for hundreds of sins.. But, he was an observant Jew after all.

He healed on the Sabbath, and kept quiet about a mass of silly old nonsense. Why do you suppose slavery practically disappeared as Christianity triumphed, luck?

jimmymccready

11-28-2018, 09:10 AM

Slavery took hundreds of years to disappear in the west, iolo, in fact. Serfs went with the land when sold in the Middle Ages, and serfdom in Russia was not ended legally until the 1860s.

Grugore

11-28-2018, 11:42 AM

Fallacy of bifurcation. There are more than 2 options. Just because you're ignorant of other options, doesn't mean they don't exist.

The universe was created or it created itself. Those are the only two possibilities. And no. It hasn't always existed. The 2nd law of entropy rules that out. So. What other possibilities are there?

Fentoine Lum

11-28-2018, 11:45 AM

True enough. But one belief, if true, leads to eternal life. The other to eternal suffering. Just how sure are you that there is no God? It's not the kind of question you want to leave unanswered. There is a lot riding on it. Like, everything.

It's not the kind of question you get jack shit to say about, personally. You're out of your jurisdiction son.

Fentoine Lum

11-28-2018, 11:46 AM

The universe was created or it created itself. Those are the only two possibilities. And no. It hasn't always existed. The 2nd law of entropy rules that out. So. What other possibilities are there?

3rd possibility, you simply do not matter. It's a rather large universe.

Fentoine Lum

11-28-2018, 11:47 AM

Slavery took hundreds of years to disappear in the west, iolo, in fact. Serfs went with the land when sold in the Middle Ages, and serfdom in Russia was not ended legally until the 1860s.

Those who horde power and wealth always want to own others, we have an updated version of that in the US these days.

Fentoine Lum

11-28-2018, 11:48 AM

I have told her that same thing many times.....meanwhile, don't those passages confirm what I have said about your inability to judge?....

Sure, christianity has always been so nonjudgemental.

Frank Apisa

11-28-2018, 11:49 AM

The universe was created or it created itself.

Look, Asshole...IF IT CREATED ITSELF (your second piece of nonsense) THAT MEANS IT WAS CREATED.

The totally unwarranted presumption you are making IS THAT IT WAS CREATED...BY ITSELF OR BY A GOD.

Maybe EVERYTHING has always existed.

Maybe there is NO CREATION.

Stop with the amateurish bullshit...unless you are just doing it to entertain us.

Those are the only two possibilities.

They are not the only two possibilities. It is possible that EVERYTHING HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

And no. It hasn't always existed.

YOU do not get to declare that as an unassailable truth.

The 2nd law of entropy rules that out. So. What other possibilities are there?

That the "2nd law of entropy" is dead wrong.

Grugore

11-28-2018, 11:50 AM

That wasn't the question. They assumed that it did have an end when they formed their question of what happened when you reached the end. Some thought you'd fall off. Some thought there was a big monster that ate you. They were wrong to make that assumption, and their question became meaningless. As they learned more, they understood why. There was a paradigm shift.

You assume that the somethingness of the universe, as we perceive it, must have a cause, a beginning, and an end in ways that we completely understand. The paradigms in which we view time and causality, have changed relatively recently in modern physics. Given how little we understand of the universe, and the rate at which our understanding changes, you're very likely wrong in making your assumption.

Do you know what the foundation of modern science is? It is the law of causality. It is the fundamental law of physics. Everything has a cause. There has never been an exception to this law. The universe was caused to exist. All of modern science backs up this fact.

Frank Apisa

11-28-2018, 12:05 PM

Do you know what the foundation of modern science is? It is the law of causality. It is the fundamental law of physics. Everything has a cause.

Except for your god, of course,

There has never been an exception to this law.

Really.

You know this?

YOU have been everywhere at all times...and paying attention...and never has there been an exception to this law.

Are you saying you are god?

The universe was caused to exist. All of modern science backs up this fact.

Horse shit.

This thing we puny humans call "the universe" may have had a cause. But we certainly do not know what that "cause" was...and we do not know if this thing we puny humans call "the universe"...IS THE UNIVERSE.

You really are not up to the job of doing what the most brilliant people who have ever lived on planet Earth have been unable to do, Grugore...to prove that a god exists.

And even if you could...imagine how much more work it would mean to then prove that the "god" is the god of the Bible who, although it was able to create our planet, the solar system, our galaxy with its 200+ billion other stars and the hundreds of billions of other galaxies which we know of...

...and still is offended if I beat my meat occasionally.

Why don't you find something else to do...like sorting socks that look a lot alike.

kudzu

11-28-2018, 12:16 PM

Do you know what the foundation of modern science is? It is the law of causality. It is the fundamental law of physics. Everything has a cause. There has never been an exception to this law. The universe was caused to exist. All of modern science backs up this fact.

Did you take college level physics?

jimmymccready

11-28-2018, 12:21 PM

Look, Asshole...IF IT CREATED ITSELF (your second piece of nonsense) THAT MEANS IT WAS CREATED.

The totally unwarranted presumption you are making IS THAT IT WAS CREATED...BY ITSELF OR BY A GOD.

Maybe EVERYTHING has always existed.

Maybe there is NO CREATION.

Stop with the amateurish bullshit...unless you are just doing it to entertain us.

They are not the only two possibilities. It is possible that EVERYTHING HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

YOU do not get to declare that as an unassailable truth.

That the "2nd law of entropy" is dead wrong.Actually, Frank, you are proving that you do not have the language, symbols, or logic to prove that God does not exist. Your post #80 proves my point.

Grugore

11-28-2018, 12:23 PM

Except for your god, of course,

Really.

You know this?

YOU have been everywhere at all times...and paying attention...and never has there been an exception to this law.

Are you saying you are god?

Horse shit.

This thing we puny humans call "the universe" may have had a cause. But we certainly do not know what that "cause" was...and we do not know if this thing we puny humans call "the universe"...IS THE UNIVERSE.

You really are not up to the job of doing what the most brilliant people who have ever lived on planet Earth have been unable to do, Grugore...to prove that a god exists.

And even if you could...imagine how much more work it would mean to then prove that the "god" is the god of the Bible who, although it was able to create our planet, the solar system, our galaxy with its 200+ billion other stars and the hundreds of billions of other galaxies which we know of...

...and still is offended if I beat my meat occasionally.

Why don't you find something else to do...like sorting socks that look a lot alike.

Wow! Is there anyone here who doesn't think he belongs on my ignore list? Anyone?

Frank Apisa

11-28-2018, 12:26 PM

Actually, Frank, you are proving that you do not have the language, symbols, or logic to prove that God does not exist. Your post #80 proves my point.

Why on Earth would I want to "prove that 'God' doesn't exist."

I have no idea if any gods exist...

...and I have no idea if no gods exist.

I won't even make a guess on the issue...let alone try to prove one way or the other.

What are you saying here, Jimmy?

Fentoine Lum

11-28-2018, 12:27 PM

Frank Apisa

11-28-2018, 12:28 PM

Wow! Is there anyone here who doesn't think he belongs on my ignore list? Anyone?

I think you are an asshole...

...but I would never put you on my IGNORE list.

In any case...IF YOU THINK I belong on your IGNORE list...then by all means put me on your IGNORE list.

It must really hurt to hear the truth coming your way from me...and the best way to deal with that would be to put me on IGNORE.

Frank Apisa

11-28-2018, 12:31 PM

Actually, Frank, you are proving that you do not have the language, symbols, or logic to prove that God does not exist. Your post #80 proves my point.

One thing that I have posted dozens of times is:

There is no way one can come to "at least one god exists" using logic, reason, math, or science.

There is no way one can come to "no gods exist" using logic, reason, math, or science.

There is no way one can come to "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does" using logic, reason, math, or science.

And finally, there is no way one can come to "it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none do" using logic, reason, math, or science.

jimmymccready

11-28-2018, 12:45 PM

Thank you, Frank, for being straight and clear.

I wish Grugore and Rana PostmodernProphet and the hard antiGodists could do the same.

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 12:48 PM

Thank you, Frank, for being straight and clear.

I wish Grugore and Rana PostmodernProphet and the hard antiGodists could do the same.

I wonder how Rana feels about you calling me Rana.......

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 12:50 PM

It is possible that EVERYTHING HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

only if you reject the findings of science.......

Fentoine Lum

11-28-2018, 12:50 PM

I wonder how Rana feels about you calling me Rana.......

Its an anonymous chat board. Shouldn't be much of a deal for most.

Fentoine Lum

11-28-2018, 12:51 PM

only if you reject the findings of science.......

Only those we don't agree with like most americans, but he may be referring to energy within a closed system.

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 12:58 PM

Its an anonymous chat board. Shouldn't be much of a deal for most.

you do realize she's a mod, right?......

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 12:59 PM

Only those we don't agree with like most americans, but he may be referring to energy within a closed system.

Big Bang sound familiar?......that is the earliest event science can legitimately study......

Anarchon

11-28-2018, 05:15 PM

Anarchon

11-28-2018, 05:17 PM

C is undefined in your equation......

A superscripted C is means the set's complement.

domer76

11-28-2018, 05:17 PM

Did you take college level physics?

Are you kidding? The highest education level of most of these Thumpers is about 8th grade.

And this one was homeschooled, so you can forget about any classes in physics.

domer76

11-28-2018, 05:20 PM

kudzu

11-28-2018, 05:24 PM

Jesus, PIMP getting another theological ass-kicking.

There's no honest curiosity or wonder here.. We just have an old guy who wants to beat down other posters.

Anarchon

11-28-2018, 05:26 PM

The universe was created or it created itself. Those are the only two possibilities. And no. It hasn't always existed. The 2nd law of entropy rules that out. So. What other possibilities are there?

The other possibilities are ones you can't conceive yet. Or, do you pretend to be omniscient?

Anarchon

11-28-2018, 05:32 PM

Thank you, Anarchon. Your premise itself is a prima facie unproven statement.

As I told you, you don't have the symbols, logic, or language to disprove the existence of God.

All proofs begin with axioms. If you found a faulty premise, identify it and explain why it is faulty. Not only have I proven that gods can't exist, in one post, I've proven you wrong in all 3 of your claims about my abilities.

Anarchon

11-28-2018, 05:50 PM

There is no way to prove that gods exist...or that no gods exist.

All one can do is to make a guess one way or the other...or to decline to make a guess (which is what I do.)

Anarchon does NOT know how to ask specific questions in a reasonable way. That seems to be something that is beyond him/her.

Actually, you can...if you define what a god is. But, getting a theist to define exactly what it is they believe in is like herding cats.

Anarchon

11-28-2018, 05:54 PM

Did you take college level physics?

My first degree was in Physics. Grugore is flailing.

jimmymccready

11-28-2018, 06:18 PM

All proofs begin with axioms. If you found a faulty premise, identify it and explain why it is faulty. Not only have I proven that gods can't exist, in one post, I've proven you wrong in all 3 of your claims about my abilities.You are no philosopher. :) No, you began with an unproved axiom, Anarchon, so you must prove that first. You can't because you don't have the language, logic, or symbols for it. I wonder if you are a physicist.

Anarchon

11-28-2018, 07:42 PM

You are no philosopher. :) No, you began with an unproved axiom, Anarchon, so you must prove that first. You can't because you don't have the language, logic, or symbols for it. I wonder if you are a physicist.

-You are avoiding pointing out which axiom you find faulty. If you'll do so, I'll address it. You might want to realize they came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities. If you take umbrage with that, I'll be glad to consider your definition of god if you'll provide one.
-You are also likely playing a game. If I prove an axiom, you can say that the axioms used in that proof are unproven, and that I should prove them...ad infinitum. That's why axioms, by definition, must be assumed to be true. Unfortunately your tactic leads to the result that nothing can be proven due to infinite regression, not just the existence of god(s). Is that your position? If so, there's no use in this conversation.
-That's not philosophy, it's mathematics. Mathematical proofs are much stronger than what philosophers or scientists play around with. Once proven, they are inviolable.
-I never claimed to be a physicist. I'm a retired soldier/network engineer (Functional Area 24), one of whom's degrees happens to be in physics.

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 08:01 PM

A superscripted C is means the set's complement.

whatever the fuck that means......want to discuss incorporeal hereditaments?......

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 08:02 PM

Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
Jesus, PIMP getting another theological ass-kicking.

ROFL.....dude, you haven't got a clue when you're losing......

PostmodernProphet

11-28-2018, 08:03 PM

There's no honest curiosity or wonder here.. We just have an old guy who wants to beat down other posters.

at least you realize when you've been beaten down........domer is clueless.......

Anarchon

11-28-2018, 08:31 PM

whatever the fuck that means......want to discuss incorporeal hereditaments?......

A set's compliment is all the stuff that's not contained in it. In that instance, it's saying an entity can't be both natural and supernatural.

PostmodernProphet

11-29-2018, 05:45 AM

A set's compliment is all the stuff that's not contained in it. In that instance, it's saying an entity can't be both natural and supernatural.

lol.....I almost posted "wouldn't it be easier just to say they are mutually exclusive"........you know, like there is a god and there is no god........

Frank Apisa

11-29-2018, 06:23 AM

Actually, you can...if you define what a god is. But, getting a theist to define exactly what it is they believe in is like herding cats.

Actually...I maintain that you cannot.

In any case, I am not a theist, so I cannot "define" what a god is for a theist...not that I consider "defining" one to be significant to "proving" none exist.

I notice, however, you said, "You might want to realize they (your axioms) came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities."

That raises the question of what "natural" means particularly as compared with "supernatural."

I'd like you to fill that in, if you are willing.

This we can discuss.

iolo

11-29-2018, 06:33 AM

Slavery took hundreds of years to disappear in the west, iolo, in fact. Serfs went with the land when sold in the Middle Ages, and serfdom in Russia was not ended legally until the 1860s.

It disappeared quite fast, and serfs were not slaves. Roman society depended on slavery as no later society did until American capitalism' early and southern versions. Feudalism is a different game.

Anarchon

11-29-2018, 07:09 AM

Actually...I maintain that you cannot.

In any case, I am not a theist, so I cannot "define" what a god is for a theist...not that I consider "defining" one to be significant to "proving" none exist.

I notice, however, you said, "You might want to realize they (your axioms) came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities."

That raises the question of what "natural" means particularly as compared with "supernatural."

I'd like you to fill that in, if you are willing.

This we can discuss.

I did fill that in.

jimmymccready

11-29-2018, 07:31 AM

-You are avoiding pointing out which axiom you find faulty. If you'll do so, I'll address it. You might want to realize they came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities. If you take umbrage with that, I'll be glad to consider your definition of god if you'll provide one.
-You are also likely playing a game. If I prove an axiom, you can say that the axioms used in that proof are unproven, and that I should prove them...ad infinitum. That's why axioms, by definition, must be assumed to be true. Unfortunately your tactic leads to the result that nothing can be proven due to infinite regression, not just the existence of god(s). Is that your position? If so, there's no use in this conversation.
-That's not philosophy, it's mathematics. Mathematical proofs are much stronger than what philosophers or scientists play around with. Once proven, they are inviolable.
-I never claimed to be a physicist. I'm a retired soldier/network engineer (Functional Area 24), one of whom's degrees happens to be in physics.
I told you your premise was faulty.

You are demonstrating above that your symbols and logic and language fail.

Go study Thomas Aquinas's arguments for proving that God exists.

kudzu

11-29-2018, 07:34 AM

A set's compliment is all the stuff that's not contained in it. In that instance, it's saying an entity can't be both natural and supernatural.

Isn't it interesting that the Bible condemns witches and fortune tellers?

jimmymccready

11-29-2018, 07:34 AM

It disappeared quite fast, and serfs were not slaves. Roman society depended on slavery as no later society did until American capitalism' early and southern versions. Feudalism is a different game.Those are unproven assertions. Serfdom is a form of economic servitude, aking to slavery. The difference is that the land "owns" them.

kudzu

11-29-2018, 07:36 AM

Those are unproven assertions. Serfdom is a form of economic servitude, aking to slavery. The difference is that the land "owns" them.

I agree. Serfdom is no different than slavery.. It really doesn't even rate up there with sharecropping.

Frank Apisa

11-29-2018, 07:39 AM

I did fill that in.

I don't see it.

iolo

11-29-2018, 07:45 AM

Those are unproven assertions. Serfdom is a form of economic servitude, aking to slavery. The difference is that the land "owns" them.

In the early days there were both, you know, clearly distinguished. Serfs have very clear rights: they either work so many days a week for their feudal master or give him some part of the crop, and that, basically is IT. Yes, there were still theoretically slaves for a long time after we kicked out the Roman administration here (for instance) but the numbers were very small, because it was easy to escape and join the Germans or other barbarian gangs. The Normans, I gather, made it illegal in 1066.

Anarchon

11-29-2018, 07:50 AM

I told you your premise was faulty.

You are demonstrating above that your symbols and logic and language fail.

Go study Thomas Aquinas's arguments for proving that God exists.

Which premise, and why? You've avoided answering that several times now. The only conclusion we're left to draw is that you can't answer it.

Anarchon

11-29-2018, 07:52 AM

I don't see it.

The way you troll, I couldn't care less.

Frank Apisa

11-29-2018, 08:05 AM

The way you troll, I couldn't care less.

Okay.

Here we are with you claiming YOU can do what the brightest minds that have ever existed on the planet have been unable to do...and you are going to do it in an obscure, relatively minor-league Internet forum devoted to Politics.

I can understand why you want to limit the people arguing in opposition to that laughable thought.

Your comment "You might want to realize they came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities"...is essentially a gratuitous assertion...not an axiom. For certain, "Gods are 'supernatural' entities"...is completely gratuitous...self-serving...and not an axiom.

But apparently you are unwilling to define what "natural" and "supernatural" mean...in an attempt to get away with it.

Okay...I enjoy humor as much as the next guy.

When you grow some balls and are willing to discuss this reasonable as I originally proposed...just let me know. Otherwise I'll just stick around and laugh at the amateurish attempts you are making here.

jimmymccready

11-29-2018, 09:23 AM

In the early days there were both, you know, clearly distinguished. Serfs have very clear rights: they either work so many days a week for their feudal master or give him some part of the crop, and that, basically is IT. Yes, there were still theoretically slaves for a long time after we kicked out the Roman administration here (for instance) but the numbers were very small, because it was easy to escape and join the Germans or other barbarian gangs. The Normans, I gather, made it illegal in 1066.Serfs could be severely punished for not turning the crops, for running away, for insubordination. The Normans may done that in England, but in great parts of Europe it continued.

jimmymccready

11-29-2018, 09:24 AM

Anarchon knows which premise that cannot proves his point, yet insists he can, so he trolls along.

iolo

11-29-2018, 09:26 AM

Serfs could be severely punished for not turning the crops, for running away, for insubordination. The Normans may done that in England, but in great parts of Europe it continued.

they weren't having any sort of fun, but they were better off than slaves is all I say.

kudzu

11-29-2018, 09:28 AM

they weren't having any sort of fun, but they were better off than slaves is all I say.

I don't think so.. They could be turned out of their houses by the Lord of the Manor.

iolo

11-29-2018, 09:32 AM

I don't think so.. They could be turned out of their houses by the Lord of the Manor.

So could 'free labourers' on farms until Labour stopped it, in the 1950's, I think. But I've never heard of it happening to serfs, actually. Any evidence?

kudzu

11-29-2018, 09:44 AM

So could 'free labourers' on farms until Labour stopped it, in the 1950's, I think. But I've never heard of it happening to serfs, actually. Any evidence?

Same with coal miners.. If Dad and his sons were killed in an explosion all the survivors were turned out of company housing.

PostmodernProphet

11-29-2018, 10:03 AM

I don't think so.. They could be turned out of their houses by the Lord of the Manor.
its called eviction......still happens every day........

Evmetro

11-29-2018, 10:10 AM

Grugore

11-29-2018, 10:17 AM

Either option requires faith.

There is evidence for a Creator. There is absolutely no evidence that the universe popped into existence on its own . The first requires faith. The second requires blind faith. Do you appreciate the difference?

kudzu

11-29-2018, 10:24 AM

There is evidence for a Creator. There is absolutely no evidence that the universe popped into existence on its own . The first requires faith. The second requires blind faith. Do you appreciate the difference?

What is your evidence for a Creator? The Creation myth came out of Babylon.

Frank Apisa

11-29-2018, 10:30 AM

There is evidence for a Creator.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR. There actually is no evidence that "what exists" is a creation. You call it a creation because you are determined to posit a "creator"...because of your blind guess that a god exists.

There is absolutely no evidence that the universe popped into existence on its own .

There is no evidence that "it did pop into existence." (The Big Bang covers just what we humans call the universe...which may not be all that exists) There is no evidence that it did not just pop into existence.

You are working with blind guesses on this.

Everything that exists...may always have existed.

The first requires faith.

"The first" requires a blind guess. So does the second. By the way, it is okay that you refer to your blind guesses as "faith." They are still blind guesses no matter what you call them.

The second requires blind faith.

The second requires a blind guess...just as the first does.

Do you appreciate the difference?

There is no difference except in your imagination.

jimmymccready

11-29-2018, 12:44 PM

they weren't having any sort of fun, but they were better off than slaves is all I say.Depends where. If you are saying American Negro chattel slavery was awful by comparison, yes; I believe it was than serfdom of the same era.

Anarchon

11-29-2018, 07:06 PM

Anarchon

11-29-2018, 07:08 PM

Anarchon knows which premise that cannot proves his point, yet insists he can, so he trolls along.

I see why you're unable to identify the faulty premise, you can't even speak English.

jimmymccready

11-29-2018, 07:12 PM

I did identify it.

You know atheism is a faith belief, just like theism.

Anarchon

11-29-2018, 07:20 PM

I did identify it.

No, you haven't. There were 4 premises in that proof. Pick one. Tell me what is wrong with it.

You know atheism is a faith belief, just like theism.

Not that you are correct, but this is a strawman. This has nothing to do with identifying which premise was faulty, nor even the issue at hand.

Also, I see that you're responding without quoting, in an effort to avoid notifying me of your responses. You're not being a coward now that someone has called you on your bullshit, are you?

jimmymccready

11-29-2018, 07:21 PM

I did identify that your premise was false: you can't prove it. And, yes, atheism is a faith belief like theism.

kudzu

11-29-2018, 07:27 PM

I did identify that your premise was false: you can't prove it. And, yes, atheism is a faith belief like theism.

Atheism isn't a faith.. Its the absence of belief in the supernatural.

Anarchon

11-29-2018, 07:31 PM

I did identify that your premise was false: you can't prove it. And, yes, atheism is a faith belief like theism.

You are free to quote where you identified the premise or where you showed it was false. You can't do it, because it didn't happen.

Frank Apisa

11-30-2018, 04:32 AM

I defined them specifically. When you find them, if you find them, will you apologize?

Any time I am wrong...I always apologize.

I've read your comments on natural and supernatural...and they most assuredly are not definitions of those words. But if I am wrong...I most assuredly WILL apologize...and it will be a sincere apology.

What about you, by the way. Do you apologize when you are wrong? Or are you someone who is never wrong?

Frank Apisa

11-30-2018, 04:34 AM

Atheism isn't a faith.. Its the absence of belief in the supernatural.

"Atheism" is a descriptor that some people use. It means so many different things to so many different people...it is virtually useless as a descriptor. People should not use it...but should instead state their position on the issue of "Are there any gods?"

jimmymccready

11-30-2018, 05:43 AM

Atheism is a faith. It is a belief. "I believe there are no gods."

PostmodernProphet

11-30-2018, 06:18 AM

What is your evidence for a Creator? The Creation myth came out of Babylon.

idiot.....

PostmodernProphet

11-30-2018, 06:24 AM

No, you haven't. There were 4 premises in that proof. Pick one. Tell me what is wrong with it.

is that all you are looking for?.......that's easy.......your premise that a supernatural deity is incapable of interaction with a natural universe.......

iolo

11-30-2018, 07:34 AM

Same with coal miners.. If Dad and his sons were killed in an explosion all the survivors were turned out of company housing.

Dreadfu! I think the SWMF and the NUM were too tough for that, but mostly the coal-owners left it to private enterprise with us

kudzu

11-30-2018, 07:47 AM

I did identify it.

You know atheism is a faith belief, just like theism.

Have you ASKED atheists or are you deciding for them?

kudzu

11-30-2018, 07:50 AM

Dreadfu! I think the SWMF and the NUM were too tough for that, but mostly the coal-owners left it to private enterprise with us

You have heard of the company store and the private armies, haven't you?

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 07:53 AM

is that all you are looking for?.......that's easy.......your premise that a supernatural deity is incapable of interaction with a natural universe.......

That was not one of my premises.

iolo

11-30-2018, 07:55 AM

You have heard of the company store and the private armies, haven't you? Oh, sure. We had the strongest branch of the strongest union in the world at one time, and mining didn't develop in this valley till the days of the company stores were long gone.

PostmodernProphet

11-30-2018, 08:07 AM

That was not one of my premises.

it would be easier to tell if you used English.....I'm not even certain you have any premises......when you said ....
If an entity has objective reality or being, it has a physical effect on the universe.
weren't you implying that the entity was required to have a natural being to have a physical effect?......

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 08:20 AM

But apparently you are unwilling to define what "natural" and "supernatural" mean...in an attempt to get away with it.

I defined them specifically. When you find them, if you find them, will you apologize?

Any time I am wrong...I always apologize.

The set of natural entities, N, and the set of supernatural entities, S, are defined thusly:
N={n: ∀n, nPU}
S={s: ∀s, s¬∈N}
In other words:
S=N^C

I won't hold my breath.

Frank Apisa

11-30-2018, 08:27 AM

I won't hold my breath.

If that is actually a definition...I offer my apologies.

I do not understand what is written there in any way...and for you to suppose that to be understandable to those of us discussing this issue the way we are...is questionable.

But my apology is sincere...and the only qualification is that you might has well have been offering that "definition" in Farsi.

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 08:39 AM

it would be easier to tell if you used English.....I'm not even certain you have any premises......when you said ....
weren't you implying that the entity was required to have a natural being to have a physical effect?......

Whatshisnuts up there said I didn't have the symbols, logic, nor language to do it. The reason it's not in English is because of the criteria of his challenge.

But, no...what you quoted was not a premise. That was a conditional statement making use of two of the premises. And no, what you asked is not what that statement said. It means exactly what it says.

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 08:54 AM

If that is actually a definition...I offer my apologies.

I do not understand what is written there in any way...and for you to suppose that to be understandable to those of us discussing this issue the way we are...is questionable.

But my apology is sincere...and the only qualification is that you might has well have been offering that "definition" in Farsi.

That proof was meant for the guy that asked for it, it was written in that language because of his criteria. That was big of you to apologize, and I accept it.

The premises used in it, translated to English, are as follows:
1. Natural entities have a physical effect on the universe.
2. Supernatural is disjoint from natural.
3. Gods are supernatural entities.
4. Existence requires objective reality or being.

Frank Apisa

11-30-2018, 09:07 AM

That proof was meant for the guy that asked for it, it was written in that language because of his criteria. That was big of you to apologize, and I accept it.

The premises used in it, translated to English, are as follows:
1. Natural entities have a physical effect on the universe.
2. Supernatural is disjoint from natural.
3. Gods are supernatural entities.
4. Existence requires objective reality or being.

Okay...I'm sorry I'm not up to the notation.

Let's try this another way:

Are you saying there are things that exist...that are not part of nature?

This is important because I maintain that if any gods exist...they are not supernatural.

They are a part of nature.

In fact, the term "supernatural being" seems like an incongruity to me.

How can a thing exist and not be a part of nature...of "what is?"

They may be a part of nature that we do not understand (we puny humans)...but IF they (or anything) exist(s)...they ARE a part of nature.

jimmymccready

11-30-2018, 10:06 AM

Have you ASKED atheists or are you deciding for them?The objective atheist agrees with me.

Whether you agree does not matter to me.

kudzu

11-30-2018, 10:38 AM

The objective atheist agrees with me.

Whether you agree does not matter.

One objective atheist agrees with you?

jimmymccready

11-30-2018, 10:47 AM

If there is one, Kudzu, he will agree that human language, symbols, and logic cannot disprove objectively the existence of God.

kudzu

11-30-2018, 10:51 AM

If there is one, Kudzu, he will agree that human language, symbols, and logic cannot disprove objectively the existence of God.

Atheism isn't a religion, Jimmy..

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

So just what do you think they are worshiping?

jimmymccready

11-30-2018, 11:25 AM

Kudzu, never put words in my mouth I did not say. Leave that for the toids, please, which you are not.

Faith belief is theism is similar to faith belief in atheism. One believes even if one cannot prove. It has nothing to do with worshiping. Where do you get that concept?

PostmodernProphet

11-30-2018, 02:58 PM

It means exactly what it says.

.....\shrugs.....nothing...

PostmodernProphet

11-30-2018, 02:58 PM

PostmodernProphet

11-30-2018, 03:10 PM

Atheism isn't a religion, Jimmy..

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

So just what do you think they are worshiping?
their own warped logic.....by the way, only the latter meets the unmutilated definition of atheist......atheists like to think they can "broaden" the definition because they hate being the only idiots in the room.....

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 05:25 PM

meaningless.....#1 does not preclude the supernatural from being capable of having an effect on the universe....and #4 either natural a natural or supernatural being could exist.....

Those are just the premises, not the proof.

Frank Apisa

11-30-2018, 05:28 PM

Those are just the premises, not the proof.

Any chance you will answer my question?

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 05:39 PM

Okay...I'm sorry I'm not up to the notation.

Let's try this another way:

Are you saying there are things that exist...that are not part of nature?

No.

This is important because I maintain that if any gods exist...they are not supernatural.

They are a part of nature.

This is rational. The problem is that gods are defined as being supernatural entities. As I mentioned before, the proof of the non-existence of a god hinges on the definition of god. Without a theist offering a definition for what it is they believe in (something they conveniently refuse to do), I chose the most common, all-inclusive attribute of all gods, which is that they are supernatural. If any theist doesn't like that attribute, they are free to define god for us, and I will address that definition as well.

In fact, the term "supernatural being" seems like an incongruity to me.

This is very astute.

How can a thing exist and not be a part of nature...of "what is?"

It cannot.

They may be a part of nature that we do not understand (we puny humans)...but IF they (or anything) exist(s)...they ARE a part of nature.

If these entities exist, they must be.

PostmodernProphet

11-30-2018, 05:40 PM

Those are just the premises, not the proof.

a premise is the foundation of the argument......if the premise fails guess what happens to the argument......

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 05:45 PM

a premise is the foundation of the argument......if the premise fails guess what happens to the argument......

You're free to point out any problems with the premises. You haven't done that.

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 05:46 PM

Any chance you will answer my question?

I think I was answering it when you typed this. Let me know if I didn't answer the one you were referring to.

PostmodernProphet

11-30-2018, 05:47 PM

You're free to point out any problems with the premises. You haven't done that.

????.....post #164.....#1 does not preclude the supernatural from being capable of having an effect on the universe....and #4 either a natural or supernatural being could exist.....

Anarchon

11-30-2018, 09:56 PM

????.....post #164.....#1 does not preclude the supernatural from being capable of having an effect on the universe....and #4 either a natural or supernatural being could exist.....

You don't understand the difference between a premise and an argument. We can't make progress until you rectify that.

To repeat myself, you are correct that #1 doesn't preclude that. The arguments made later in the proof preclude that. Premise #1 doesn't mention the supernatural. And, premise #4 doesn't mention natural nor supernatural entities. Again, the arguments do.

To repeat myself, you still have not pointed out any problems with the premises.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 12:46 AM

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 05:04 AM

Atheism is a faith. It is a belief. "I believe there are no gods."

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's not the same as what you said.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 05:08 AM

If there is one, Kudzu, he will agree that human language, symbols, and logic cannot disprove objectively the existence of God.

Agreeing with you on that matter is another thing that is not a requirement for being an atheist. You keep making all kinds of claims about atheists that aren't true. Why is that? Are you a habitual liar? That would fit, seeing how you support religion the way you do.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 05:11 AM

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 05:15 AM

Atheism doesn't require "faith"...

I know. It's a common strawman and attempted tu quoque religious folk use because their position is so assailable.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 05:16 AM

I know. It's a common strawman and attempted tu quoque religious folk use because their position is so assailable.

Its beyond stupid to claim atheism is a faith or any form of religion.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 05:17 AM

Its beyond stupid to claim atheism is a faith or any form of religion.

What do you expect? Religious people are stupid.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 05:22 AM

What do you expect? Religious people are stupid.

Not all are stupid, but fundamentalists certainly are.

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 05:35 AM

You don't understand the difference between a premise and an argument.

in order for your argument to be valid, your premise must be inarguable.....

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 05:37 AM

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's not the same as what you said.

no......agnostics lack a belief.......atheists deny......

kudzu

12-01-2018, 05:37 AM

in order for your argument to be valid, your premise must be inarguable.....

a premise is an assumption that something is true

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 05:38 AM

Agreeing with you on that matter is another thing that is not a requirement for being an atheist. You keep making all kinds of claims about atheists that aren't true. Why is that? Are you a habitual liar? That would fit, seeing how you support religion the way you do.

You keep making all kinds of claims about atheists that aren't true. Why is that? Are you a habitual liar? That would fit, seeing how you support atheism the way you do......

kudzu

12-01-2018, 05:39 AM

no......agnostics lack a belief.......atheists deny......

You would do well to look at the definition of atheist.

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 05:40 AM

Atheism doesn't require "faith"...

what else do call asserting something to be true in the absence of evidence.....

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 05:42 AM

Its beyond stupid to claim atheism is a faith or any form of religion.

atheists keep telling themselves that to quell their panic.....

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 05:44 AM

a premise is an assumption that something is true

so don't base an argument on something which obviously false.....because no one will pay attention......

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 05:46 AM

You would do well to look at the definition of atheist.

everyone except atheists have the same one.......you're the only ones who talk about strong, weak and feeble minded atheists.....

kudzu

12-01-2018, 05:54 AM

everyone except atheists have the same one.......you're the only ones who talk about strong, weak and feeble minded atheists.....

Agnostics do not deny the existence of God—instead, they hold that one cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. The term agnostic was coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 05:57 AM

what else do call asserting something to be true in the absence of evidence.....

I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or fortune tellers or talking snakes either.. and that is NOT a religion.

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 06:00 AM

Agnostics do not deny the existence of God—instead, they hold that one cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. The term agnostic was coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge.

???.....I never said they did......I also never said they were atheists........atheists are the ones who tried to include them in their ranks as "weak atheists"......Have you ever heard an agnostic self identify as a weak atheist?......

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 06:03 AM

I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or fortune tellers or talking snakes either.. and that is NOT a religion.

saying there is no god is an assertion in the absence of evidence......you can pretend otherwise as strongly as you want......the more you do so, the more religious you appear.....

kudzu

12-01-2018, 06:10 AM

saying there is no god is an assertion in the absence of evidence......you can pretend otherwise as strongly as you want......the more you do so, the more religious you appear.....

That's not true. There is NO evidence that God exists.. Do you believe in the Zodiac ?

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

How Agnostic Differs From Atheist.

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist.The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.

Frank Apisa

12-01-2018, 06:19 AM

This is rational. The problem is that gods are defined as being supernatural entities. As I mentioned before, the proof of the non-existence of a god hinges on the definition of god. Without a theist offering a definition for what it is they believe in (something they conveniently refuse to do), I chose the most common, all-inclusive attribute of all gods, which is that they are supernatural. If any theist doesn't like that attribute, they are free to define god for us, and I will address that definition as well.

Okay...but I want to discuss this issue with you, Anarchon, and I am not a theist. So my perspective will be that of an "agnostic." **

First of all, if we "define" any X as something that cannot exist...we will always (and correctly) conclude that X does not exist. Conversely if we "define" any X as something that MUST exist...we will always (and correctly) conclude that X exists.

We agree that if a god (however it eventually is “described”) exists…it EXISTS and is not supernatural. In fact, we seem to agree that the word “supernatural” is incongruous…so using it as a descriptor in a discussion about whether gods exist...is incongruous. (Theists using that descriptor are making a huge mistake…lexicographers using that descriptor are making the same mistake.)

Ancients did NOT make that mistake. They made their gods part of nature…and they made their gods “godS” rather than “God”…plural and sorta uncapitalized. The step to monotheism…may have been a step forward (I sometimes think NOT), but the move to “supernatural” was definitely a step backward. The god of Abraham was NOT originally supernatural. That is a relatively recent investiture.

Okay…enough for initial remarks right now. Some comments, if you will, about what is here so far.

**I prefer not to use descriptors like "atheist" or "agnostic" except as a shortcut, because they mean so many different things to different people. So to be sure we are on the same page when I use "agnostic" to describe me, I essentially mean:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Frank Apisa

12-01-2018, 06:21 AM

I think I was answering it when you typed this. Let me know if I didn't answer the one you were referring to.

I jumped the gun here. My bad. You've answered my question.

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 06:23 AM

That's not true. There is NO evidence that God exists.

\shrugs.....there is also no evidence he does not exist......but the atheist unabashedly states there is no God......

kudzu

12-01-2018, 06:24 AM

\shrugs.....there is also no evidence he does not exist......but the atheist unabashedly states there is no God......

Then why don't you PROVE there is a god?

Frank Apisa

12-01-2018, 06:25 AM

I strongly disagree with lots of what is being said about "atheist" and "agnostic" in the other posts here...but I'll speak to that in time. Suffice right now to say that use of those words almost always seems to require lots of explanations...so the use of them is functionally useless.

Each of us should clearly state a position rather than us them.

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 06:28 AM

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

just stop.....you do not have right to change the meaning of words......atheists are atheists and agnostics are agnostics......I can see why you are embarrassed by the stupid things atheists say but man up.....either admit what you believe or stop saying you're an atheist......

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 06:29 AM

Then why don't you PROVE there is a god?

??....why on earth would I do that......

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 06:39 AM

Okay...but I want to discuss this issue with you, Anarchon, and I am not a theist. So my perspective will be that of an "agnostic." **

First of all, if we "define" any X as something that cannot exist...we will always (and correctly) conclude that X does not exist. Conversely if we "define" any X as something that MUST exist...we will always (and correctly) conclude that X exists.

We agree that if a god (however it eventually is “described”) exists…it EXISTS and is not supernatural. In fact, we seem to agree that the word “supernatural” is incongruous…so using it as a descriptor in a discussion about whether gods exist...is incongruous. (Theists using that descriptor are making a huge mistake…lexicographers using that descriptor are making the same mistake.)

Ancients did NOT make that mistake. They made their gods part of nature…and they made their gods “godS” rather than “God”…plural and sorta uncapitalized. The step to monotheism…may have been a step forward (I sometimes think NOT), but the move to “supernatural” was definitely a step backward. The god of Abraham was NOT originally supernatural. That is a relatively recent investiture.

Okay…enough for initial remarks right now. Some comments, if you will, about what is here so far.

**I prefer not to use descriptors like "atheist" or "agnostic" except as a shortcut, because they mean so many different things to different people. So to be sure we are on the same page when I use "agnostic" to describe me, I essentially mean:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

You are an agnostic, a.k.a. weak/soft/negative, atheist. Your position is not uncommon.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 06:42 AM

You keep making all kinds of claims about atheists that aren't true.

You've made your claim. Now, support it by supplying one of those claims about atheists that isn't true.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 06:57 AM

just stop.....you do not have right to change the meaning of words......atheists are atheists and agnostics are agnostics......I can see why you are embarrassed by the stupid things atheists say but man up.....either admit what you believe or stop saying you're an atheist......

Have you dumped your gyro? I posted definitions for both atheists and agnostics... and neither is a religion.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:00 AM

no......agnostics lack a belief.......atheists deny......

Gnosticism speaks to knowledge, where theism speaks to belief. They are different issues. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You can also be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist.

A gnostic theist knows that god exists.
An agnostic theist believes god exists, but lacks knowledge.
A gnostic atheist knows god does not exist (a.k.a. strong or positive atheism).
An agnostic atheist lacks belief that god exists (a.k.a. weak or negative atheism).

The Greek "a" simply means without. If the meaning were as you claim, it would be called antitheism (and some people do call it that).

8182

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 07:08 AM

Why is it necessary for you to identify atheiism as a religion?

Your lying loses the debate for you. I wrote, "Faith belief is theism is similar to faith belief in atheism".

You are acting, though, like an evangelical religionist in the smarminess of your defense.

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 07:10 AM

Atheism is a faith. It is a belief. "I believe there are no gods."
Why is it necessary for you to identify atheism as a religion?

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's not the same as what you said.Sure, it is. Why are you defensive about your faith belief that no gods exist.

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 07:11 AM

Why is it necessary for you to identify atheiism as a religion?

Agreeing with you on that matter is another thing that is not a requirement for being an atheist. You keep making all kinds of claims about atheists that aren't true. Why is that? Are you a habitual liar? That would fit, seeing how you support religion the way you do.

You don't have the tools to disprove God: that is true.

My points are in fact: true.

Calling me a liar makes you a very weak opponent: true.

I don't support religion at all, kid. You don't need to believe. But you simply can't prove that gods do not exist.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 07:14 AM

Your lying loses the debate for you. I wrote, "Faith belief is theism is similar to faith belief in atheism".

You are acting, though, like an evangelical religionist in the smarminess of your defense.

Atheism is NOT a religion.

Frank Apisa

12-01-2018, 07:21 AM

You are an agnostic, a.k.a. weak/soft/negative, atheist. Your position is not uncommon.

Bad start.

My position on the question, "Do any gods exist?" is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

If you want to insist that perforce I am an "agnostic"...or one of those other pieces of bullshit, we are going nowhere.

Internet discussions of the question often (almost always) devolve into fights over the "meaning" of descriptors that have no reason for being...except to act as a deflection from an actual discussion of the subject.

That is what is happening here.

Too bad. The discussion is actually an interesting one...for people willing to get past all that descriptor nonsense.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:22 AM

You don't have the tools to disprove God: that is true.

My points are in fact: true.

Calling me a liar makes you a very weak opponent: true.

I don't support religion at all, kid. You don't need to believe. But you simply can't prove that gods do not exist.

I did prove that no gods can exist.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:25 AM

Atheism is a faith. It is a belief. "I believe there are no gods."

Sure, it is. Why are you defensive about your faith belief that no gods exist.

I'm a strong atheist, a.k.a. a gnostic theist. It actually goes beyond belief. I know that no gods can exist. However, not all atheists are strong.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:30 AM

Bad start.

My position on the question, "Do any gods exist?" is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

If you want to insist that perforce I am an "agnostic"...or one of those other pieces of bullshit, we are going nowhere.

Internet discussions of the question often (almost always) devolve into fights over the "meaning" of descriptors that have no reason for being...except to act as a deflection from an actual discussion of the subject.

That is what is happening here.

Too bad. The discussion is actually an interesting one...for people willing to get past all that descriptor nonsense.

You cannot have a meaningful discussion without the parties agreeing on definitions. Most "debates" on the internet are not meaningful because of this, amongst other reasons.

iolo

12-01-2018, 07:31 AM

Atheism is NOT a religion.

Except negatively perhaps. There are many things I don't believe in, but I don't define myself by them. There are huge problems with all emotionally-powerful labels. I think, on the whole, that Marx gave the best description of human development so far, but to call oneself a Marxist is to get oneself associated with people who clearly weren't, so I tend not to do it because it isn't worth the fuss, whereas Darwinist, a similar term in many ways, is, outside the US, safe but pointless. I approve highly of most of the non-religious statements reported of Jesus of Nazareth similarly, but simply couldn't face being considered to think as nonsensically as some of the evil persons who use the 'Chrisdtian' label. And as to God, what conceivable point would there be?

Frank Apisa

12-01-2018, 07:42 AM

You cannot have a meaningful discussion without the parties agreeing on definitions. Most "debates" on the internet are not meaningful because of this, amongst other reasons.

One can avoid debating the meaning of the word "atheist"...if one simply avoids using it...and instead states a position.

You can see this thread devolving into a discussion about what "atheist" means...and whether atheist is a religion...and what "religion" means.

It is absolute bullshit...because it can be avoided.

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 07:43 AM

You've made your claim. Now, support it by supplying one of those claims about atheists that isn't true.

#1 you claim that "atheists" INCLUDES PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ACTIVELY DENY THE EXISTENCE OF DIETY.........

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 07:45 AM

Have you dumped your gyro? I posted definitions for both atheists and agnostics... and neither is a religion.

your efforts to redefine atheism underscores your fundamentalism......

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 07:50 AM

Gnosticism speaks to knowledge, where theism speaks to belief. They are different issues. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You can also be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist.

A gnostic theist knows that god exists.
An agnostic theist believes god exists, but lacks knowledge.
A gnostic atheist knows god does not exist (a.k.a. strong or positive atheism).
An agnostic atheist lacks belief that god exists (a.k.a. weak or negative atheism).

The Greek "a" simply means without. If the meaning were as you claim, it would be called antitheism (and some people do call it that).
]
you are afraid to admit your own beliefs....
you people love to change the meaning (https://www.conservapedia.com/Attempts_to_dilute_the_definition_of_atheism)

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 07:52 AM

I did prove that no gods can exist.

?....lol......did you really think so?......now you are just being silly.....

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 07:54 AM

Atheism is NOT a religion.

is that part of your catechism....

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 07:55 AM

I'm a strong atheist, a.k.a. a gnostic theist. It actually goes beyond belief. I know that no gods can exist. However, not all atheists are strong.

your faith is strong, your logic is non-existent.....

Frank Apisa

12-01-2018, 07:56 AM

Except negatively perhaps. There are many things I don't believe in, but I don't define myself by them. There are huge problems with all emotionally-powerful labels. I think, on the whole, that Marx gave the best description of human development so far, but to call oneself a Marxist is to get oneself associated with people who clearly weren't, so I tend not to do it because it isn't worth the fuss, whereas Darwinist, a similar term in many ways, is, outside the US, safe but pointless. I approve highly of most of the non-religious statements reported of Jesus of Nazareth similarly, but simply couldn't face being considered to think as nonsensically as some of the evil persons who use the 'Chrisdtian' label. And as to God, what conceivable point would there be?

Good points, Iolo.

Although the question of whether or not "atheism" is a "religion" can be avoided by not using the word.

I do not use the words "believe" or "belief" for several reasons...except in sentences like this one. I'll make an exception for this post.

Whether "atheism" is a religion or not depends on what one means by "religion."

If by religion one means something like, "A system of guesses (called beliefs) that arrive at a conclusion about the unknown"...then "atheism" certainly is a religion.

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor are kidding themselves if they think they are merely describing a lack of "belief" in a god.

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor do it because they are expressing a system of guesses (beliefs) about the unknown.

(The "unknown" is the "true nature of the REALITY of existence"...specifically whether or not there are gods involved in the REALITY.)

EVERY person I've personally known who uses "atheist" as a descriptor...HAS MADE A GUESS. They either guess "There are no gods" or a variation of "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

(There are a few who use, "None of the gods that have been worshiped on planet Earth have existed"...but even those make one of the first two guesses.)

Whether atheism is a religion or not is still up in the air, because of the word religion...BUT FOR CERTAIN every person using the descriptor "atheist" is part of a BELIEF SYSTEM.

Atheists are "believers" every bit as much as are theists. They simply "believe" different things. That is to say...they make different blind guesses about the REALITY from each other.

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 07:57 AM

You cannot have a meaningful discussion without the parties agreeing on definitions.

then correct your errors......only other atheists agree with your definitions.....

iolo

12-01-2018, 08:02 AM

Frank - Yes, good. I reckon, more and more as I get older, that 'think quite possible' is about as near as I get to a statement of 'absolute belief'. The difficulty, always, is the nature of the language we've inherited from our stone-age ancestors: it hasn't changed sufficiently!

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 09:17 AM

I said it was a faith belief, kudzu. It operates similarly to other faith beliefs.

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 09:18 AM

kudzu

12-01-2018, 09:21 AM

I said it was a faith belief, kudzu. It operates similarly to other faith beliefs.

You aren't thinking.. You can't have faith in something that you believe doesn't exist.

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 09:21 AM

I'm a strong atheist, a.k.a. a gnostic theist. It actually goes beyond belief. I know that no gods can exist. However, not all atheists are strong.

You nothing of the sort. You even misuse the word "gnostic."

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 09:22 AM

You aren't thinking.. You can't have faith in something that you believe doesn't exist.

You faith is in your belief that it does not exist.

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 09:22 AM

You nothing of the sort. You even misuse the word "gnostic."

gnostics are essentially people who believe everything they have ever heard, regardless of contradictions......

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 09:23 AM

You faith is in your belief that it does not exist.

score!......

kudzu

12-01-2018, 09:24 AM

You faith is in your belief that it does not exist.

Your critical thinking skills are crap..

Let's try this?

Do you believe in Irish Leprechauns ? If not, is that a sign of "faith"?

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 09:29 AM

fallacy of false equivalency saves no atheist

keep trying

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 09:29 AM

:bigthink:

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 09:30 AM

:laugh:

kudzu

12-01-2018, 09:44 AM

gnostics are essentially people who believe everything they have ever heard, regardless of contradictions......

Gnostic and agnostic are very different things. Have you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels?

kudzu

12-01-2018, 09:53 AM

:laugh:

Gnostic is a member of any of certain heretical early Christian mystical sects that claimed that matter was evil and denied that Christ had a natural corporeal existence.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 09:56 AM

score!......

The Gnostic Gospels The 52 texts discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt include 'secret' gospels poems and myths attributing to Jesus sayings and beliefs which are very different from the New Testament.

Has NOTHING to do with agnostic.

kudzu

12-01-2018, 10:01 AM

Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism

Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism. A one-sentence description of Gnosticism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil ..

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 12:51 PM

Gnostic and agnostic are very different things.

no shit, sherlock.....did you see someone say otherwise?....

PostmodernProphet

12-01-2018, 12:55 PM

Has NOTHING to do with agnostic.

tell it to the guy who said he was a gnostic theist......maybe he gives a flying fuck about your irrelevant ramblings......

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:20 PM

You sound autistic.

If I were, it wouldn't change the truth of what I said. If you were capable, you'd attack the argument, instead of the person making it.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:22 PM

then correct your errors......only other atheists agree with your definitions.....

Who better to define atheism?

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:29 PM

your faith is strong, your logic is non-existent.....

All beliefs involve faith. Knowledge is a belief that is true. Therefore, knowledge doesn't require faith. Some atheists believe there is no god; this involves faith. Some atheists know there is no god, this does not involve faith. Some atheists simply lack belief in god; this doesn't involve faith. Your claim that atheists must have faith is demonstrably false. As for logic, you wouldn't recognize it if it was ass-raping you.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:30 PM

?....lol......did you really think so?......now you are just being silly.....

You're free to point out a flaw in it instead of making ad homs.

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 07:43 PM

You sound autistic.

If I were, it wouldn't change the truth of what I said. If you were capable, you'd attack the argument, instead of the person making it.

The truth is that you have not proved deity does not exist, and your continued repeating is not an attack on you but rather the monotonous way it is keep being expressed.

Anarchon

12-01-2018, 07:44 PM

One can avoid debating the meaning of the word "atheist"...if one simply avoids using it...and instead states a position.

You can see this thread devolving into a discussion about what "atheist" means...and whether atheist is a religion...and what "religion" means.

It is absolute bullshit...because it can be avoided.

It takes you 5 lines to describe your position. It takes me one word. That's why people create words. These two theists are using every form of fallacy they can to avoid arguing their point, because it's so easily assailable. That they'd want to devolve into arguing semantics is not surprising.

I don't know if you're familiar with Venn diagrams or not, but they are specifically avoiding allowing parts of the diagram via their definitions, because they destroy their arguments. The definitions I've used here allow every different viewpoint to be represented and discussed. The bias is plain to see.

If I were to ask what classification a newborn baby would be, they'd be unable to answer it. A newborn baby knows nothing of god, and therefore lacks a positive belief in it. Their viewpoint maintains that you either believe in god, or you have faith that god doesn't exist. This baby doesn't have faith that god doesn't exist, because it isn't aware of the concept of god (fyi, that's called implicit atheism, as opposed to explicit).

These terms are all useful and important.

jimmymccready

12-01-2018, 07:45 PM

All beliefs involve faith. Knowledge is a belief that is true. Therefore, knowledge doesn't require faith. Some atheists believe there is no god; this involves faith. Some atheists know there is no god, this does not involve faith. Some atheists simply lack belief in god; this doesn't involve faith. Your claim that atheists must have faith is demonstrably false. As for logic, you wouldn't recognize it if it was ass-raping you.

You don't "know" because you don't have the language, symbols, and logic to prove (know) it is true.

Frank Apisa has had no trouble besting Anarchon in this thread.