• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards (1 Viewer)

I am simply pointing out that “possible” is not that much of an argument. As it stands, and by using your criteria, my Balloob is every bit as “possible” as your creator god or the formless entity of Ouroboros because they are all the product of nothing more than a CLAIM without any supporting actuality-based evidence to support that claim. Why should fhe claim of yourself for Ouroboros have any more merit than my claim in that regard? Let me know when you can show otherwise.
Baloob is still not possible because everyone here knows that you made up the figure to win an argument. We all know the origins of Baloob; we do not know the historically remote origins of Zeus and Shiva because we have dribs and drabs of historical information.
 
I will leave the conspiracy theories to you. My point is that religion is a lie not that people are always evil.
It's your conspiracy of evil, so you ought to be able to argue it to its logical conclusions.
 
Yes, I note that you have given up and instead are resorting to baseless accusations instead. This has been spatter of yours for awhile now.
Are you going to ever get around to defining "actuality based evidence." after I asked for a definition last week?
 
Because they are attacks against the ideology and thinking of a believer, not a personal attack because he cannot think of any way to attack the argument.
You have yet to prove that believers who commit evil do so because of the ideology's evil while believers who do good do so independently of the ideology.
 
"Supposition" is the wrong word because it often implies belief. "Hypothesis" remains the correct word, and its purpose is to illustrate that atheists are the ones placing faith in a paradigm they cannot prove.
Ok.
So, just to recap, you "hypothesize" that the existence of the god of Abraham is more probable than the existence of leprechauns?
You asked if I thought it was "smart" for people to believe in things they could not prove, and I responded that the list of intellectuals who were so invested was much longer than that of the atheist contingency.
And this lends credibility to your hypothesis that the god of Abrahams existence is more probable than the existence of leprechauns how?
If you can't even stay on topic your judgment is rendered dubious by your own posts.
Then don't acknowledge my posts.
 
This depends on X. If X is a teapot in my cupboard, its existence/non-existence is easily observed. If X is a teapot circling the star Earendel, then its existence/non-existence cannot be observed. If X is an incorporeal fire breathing invisible teapot in my garage, then asserting that incorporeal fire breathing invisible teapots have never been observed in a garage is the equivalent of X does not exist.

It does not depend on anything. If a counterclaim is made, the burden of proof for the counterclaim falls on the person making it. If the person cannot make it...the burden is not met. If the person can make it...the burden is not met.

Best to stick with, "I do not accept (the original) assertion."
God does not exist until god is shown to exist. This is the logical conclusion.
No gods exist until it is established that at least one does. I agree in total with that.

But there are people here who assert that it is not possible for any gods to exist. I never ask for proof of that, because I realize it is an absurd assertion to make. It is an assertion not able to be substantiated...just as, "There is a GOD" cannot be substantiated right now.
 
That’s what I have told him and others. If an agnostic is referencing a first cause or an ultimate reality, then those are the terms that they need to use. Throwing in the loaded word “god” is simply carrying water for the theists and religionists by offhandedly affirming their claims. If they insist in using the term “god”, then that is how I am forced to respond.
Your right, god is a loaded word, born out of religion and cults. Scientist are reluctant to use the term.

god as understood by most Americans is a deity, a supernatural being considered to be sacred and worshiped.
 
Last edited:
Your right, god is a loaded word, born out of religion. Scientist are reluctant to use the term.

god as understood by most Americans is a deity, a supernatural being considered to be sacred and worshiped.
Actually, God (with a capital "G"...and minus an article) is a loaded word(s). When the word used is "gods" it is not more "loaded" than any other representation. I use the "god or gods"...and I am NOT carrying water for religionists. Atheism, with their competing blind guess about whether any gods exist...is a form of water carrying. Atheists like Watsup have about as much chance of helping to prevent a looming theocracy here in America as a kindergarten play song.
 
No gods exist until it is established that at least one does. I agree in total with that.

But there are people here who assert that it is not possible for any gods to exist. I never ask for proof of that, because I realize it is an absurd assertion to make. It is an assertion not able to be substantiated...just as, "There is a GOD" cannot be substantiated right now.
God is such a loaded word, your constant use of the word lessons your argument.

Because the term automatically centers you around religion. I agree, its where most atheist are hung up.

Bashing theist is about as far as they get, hardly ever looking at the big picture.
 
Sorry you are not enjoying all this as much as I. But...as the lyrics of the ole song go, "Every party has a pooper, who the hell invited you."

So sorry that you can’t answer my very valid questions. It’s always quite hilarious when a chatter repeatedly demands that their questions be answered but run the other way then posed to them.
 
God does not exist until god is shown to exist. This is the logical conclusion.
If you change the term god to some sort of entity or a first cause, your right.

god is a loaded word, places you smack dab in the center of religion all to the theist's delight.
 
Replace god or gods with an entity of some sort or a first cause and I'm in your corner.
I was responding to Michael Cole...and his question (or assertion) used the word "god."

I understand you may think that using the word "god" somehow "lessens" my argument.

I think otherwise.

I will not change simply because it annoys atheist.
 
It does not depend on anything. If a counterclaim is made, the burden of proof for the counterclaim falls on the person making it. If the person cannot make it...the burden is not met. If the person can make it...the burden is not met.

Best to stick with, "I do not accept (the original) assertion."

No gods exist until it is established that at least one does. I agree in total with that.

But there are people here who assert that it is not possible for any gods to exist. I never ask for proof of that, because I realize it is an absurd assertion to make. It is an assertion not able to be substantiated...just as, "There is a GOD" cannot be substantiated right now.
You seem knowledgeable, so it must be me. The real point of my posts can get lost in my cryptic style.

The code words in my reply, among others, are teapot and garage. I'm not really up to rereading Russell and Sagan right now, but I'm hoping you get the gist. And if I'm incorrect, I'm still not rereading Russell and Sagan. Lol.
 
So sorry that you can’t answer my very valid questions. It’s always quite hilarious when a chatter repeatedly demands that their questions be answered but run the other way then posed to them.
Which question? You are full of them...but never with an answer to one of you...especially one as easy as, "Do you think it is possible that there are no gods?"

And on the MANY times I have answered your questions...you simply refuse to accept my answer. You do not necessarily disagree with my answer, but you claim it is not an answer.

So anyway: Do you think it is possible that there are no gods?
 
You seem knowledgeable, so it must be me. The real point of my posts can get lost in my cryptic style.

The code words in my reply, among others, are teapot and garage. I'm not really up to rereading Russell and Sagan right now, but I'm hoping you get the gist. And if I'm incorrect, I'm still not rereading Russell and Sagan. Lol.
I understand your code...and the (what I consider) childlike argument of Russell. Any kid can make a hypothetical that is absurd...and say, "You cannot prove that it is not so." Cannot understand why Russell thought that a reasonable argument. Many other philosophers have suggested it is a poor analogy.

As for Carl Sagan...he was an agnostic. As was Einstein and Hawking**...and as is Tyson.

**There are unsubstantiated rumors that Hawking, near his deathbed, claimed atheism. Since throughout his life he heatedly refuted the notion that he was an atheists...I doubt that rumor.

This conversation is fun. I suspect you are enjoying it much more than watsup.
 
I understand your code...and the (what I consider) childlike argument of Russell. Any kid can make a hypothetical that is absurd...and say, "You cannot prove that it is not so." Cannot understand why Russell thought that a reasonable argument. Many other philosophers have suggested it is a poor analogy.

As for Carl Sagan...he was an agnostic. As was Einstein and Hawking**...and as is Tyson.

**There are unsubstantiated rumors that Hawking, near his deathbed, claimed atheism. Since throughout his life he heatedly refuted the notion that he was an atheists...I doubt that rumor.

This conversation is fun. I suspect you are enjoying it much more than watsup.
Agnosticism is irrelevant. The argument is one of observation. Both Russell and Sagan's works make quite powerful empirical arguments.

But, like I said, it's early, and I'm not gonna reread.
 
Agnosticism is irrelevant. The argument is one of observation. Both Russell and Sagan's works make quite powerful empirical arguments.

But, like I said, it's early, and I'm not gonna reread.
I understand. I certainly an not suggesting you do...or encouraging that you do. I agree with most of what you write.

Just as an aside, the notion of "empirical evidence" does not have the strength for me that some people assign to it. At some point humans have to learn that their ability to perceive (sense though the senses humans possess) is not the end-all that folks want to suppose it is. Human MAY only be able to perceive a tiny part of what actually exists. In fact, we may only be able to imagine a small part of what actually exists. To suppose REALTY (or the reality of REALITY) depends on what humans are able to perceive or infer...is human chauvinism of the worst kind.
 
Tyson.

**There are unsubstantiated rumors that Hawking, near his deathbed, claimed atheism. Since throughout his life he heatedly refuted the notion that he was an atheists...I doubt that rumor.

Not sure why you keep telling that lie. It as not “unsubstantiated”. It was well reported. And it was not “on his deathbed”. It was in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo in 2014, four years before his death in 2018. Here is what he said. Please note the last four words: ““Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,” he said. “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

Please do more research in the future before posting inaccuracies.
 
Which question? You are full of them...but never with an answer to one of you...especially one as easy as, "Do you think it is possible that there are no gods?"

While you call the question “easy”, the more proper word is “simplistic”. And no, I don’t give yes or no answers to simplistic questions as if they were the be-all, end-all of a discussion.
Here is a more valid question: Do you have any evidence that at least one god is possible? And no, the repetitive use of a talking point on your part is not evidence.
 
When the word used is "gods" it is not more "loaded" than any other representation.

Of course it is. When you refer to a creator god, the implication is an entity so powerful that it can simply “create” an entire almost infinitely complex universe, evidently just because it wants to. That is a totally ludicrous concept, and yet one to which you hold firmly as “possible”. Sorry, I am not buying it any more than I buy a Zeus or a Thor or a Baloob.
 
Your assumption that all gods were completely imaginary remains as insubstantial as Baloob.

You are always welcome to provide the instances of non-imaginary gods, along with the evidence for them. I’m sure that the theists will yet again appreciate your water- carrying.
 
You have given repeated evidence of my original post every time you natter about evidence but can't cite any for your own positions, like your "all anthropologists" blunder.

Hilarious! Like Frank and DrewPaul , you insist on going around in a big circle of repeated accusations that have already been addressed. Please excuse me if I decline because I have already been down that particular rabbit hole.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom