- Joined
- Aug 9, 2018
- Messages
- 22,899
- Reaction score
- 2,959
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Context never matters to the illogical.You are impossible.
Just like a never-give-in religionist.
Context never matters to the illogical.You are impossible.
Just like a never-give-in religionist.
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 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.
It's your conspiracy of evil, so you ought to be able to argue it to its logical conclusions.I will leave the conspiracy theories to you. My point is that religion is a lie not that people are always evil.
Are you going to ever get around to defining "actuality based evidence." after I asked for a definition last week?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.
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.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.
What assumption do atheists make?The atheist assumption is no better than the religious one, as I've said from the beginning.
Ok."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.
And this lends credibility to your hypothesis that the god of Abrahams existence is more probable than the existence of leprechauns how?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.
Then don't acknowledge my posts.If you can't even stay on topic your judgment is rendered dubious by your own 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.
No gods exist until it is established that at least one does. I agree in total with that.God does not exist until god is shown to exist. This is the logical conclusion.
Your right, god is a loaded word, born out of religion and cults. Scientist are reluctant to use the term.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.
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.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.
God is such a loaded word, your constant use of the word lessons your argument.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.
Replace god or gods with an entity of some sort or a first cause and I'm in your corner.No gods exist until it is established that at least one does. I agree in total with that.
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."
If you change the term god to some sort of entity or a first cause, your right.God does not exist until god is shown to exist. This is the logical conclusion.
I was responding to Michael Cole...and his question (or assertion) used the word "god."Replace god or gods with an entity of some sort or a first cause and I'm in your corner.
You seem knowledgeable, so it must be me. The real point of my posts can get lost in my cryptic style.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.
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?"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.
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.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.
Agnosticism is irrelevant. The argument is one of observation. Both Russell and Sagan's works make quite powerful empirical arguments.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. I certainly an not suggesting you do...or encouraging that you do. I agree with most of what you write.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.
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.
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?"
When the word used is "gods" it is not more "loaded" than any other representation.
Your assumption that all gods were completely imaginary remains as insubstantial as Baloob.
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.