Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Frank Apisa]

It is no more of a fact than if you were to assert that it is impossible that at least one god exists.

It might be possible, or it might be impossible. You don't know, and you don't have any way of establishing which is more likely.




Those are fine guesses to make. But the fact that you can't articulate any logic to support them apart from just "because" should clue you in to the fact that they are guesses, rather than logically supported positions.

So...do you often get people to play your game?

If YES...well...as PT Barnum is reported to have said, "There is a sucker born every minute."

I am not one of them.

 

[Frank Apisa]

It is no more of a fact than if you were to assert that it is impossible that at least one god exists.

It might be possible, or it might be impossible. You don't know, and you don't have any way of establishing which is more likely.




Those are fine guesses to make. But the fact that you can't articulate any logic to support them apart from just "because" should clue you in to the fact that they are guesses, rather than logically supported positions.

They are not guesses...it is a fact that it is possible for each of those to be the case.

But, I guess the rules of your game require you to make that statement...so I understand.

Have fun. Never give up.

 

[Frank Apisa]

My, what a large font you have.

If you click the little arrow next to my name in the quote box, it will take you to where that quote was made.

Just keep clicking the arrows to follow the exchange and it will take you to both.

If you want to offer a link to where I said it...offer it. If you cannot, I understand.

Never give up...and have fun with what you are doing.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Your ignorance of whether a god exists or not does not make the existence of a god possible. The existence of a god could still be impossible without you knowing it.

One of the primary rules of the game, it seems.

Okay. You stick with it. I enjoy all this I break away from all the other things I have to do to get back here as often as possible. I hope you have as much fun with it as I.

 

[Frank Apisa]

By the definition of the words you are wrong

No, I am not.

If a thing has not been established as impossible...it is possible. Even if it later is shown to be impossible...during the time when it was not established as impossible...it was possible.

 

[BabaVoss]

Frank Apisa said:
Most people who use "atheist" as a self-descriptor and claim it is because of a "lack of belief"...are either kidding themselves or lying.

Me: Hmmm. Because you know better than they do?

No.

Then why would you attempt to describe why they believe what they do? I am not ‘kidding myself” nor am I lying.

You apparently use the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor.

People do that. This thread title does that. It has a very simple meaning.

Do you "believe" there are no gods?

Do you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

Asked and answered;
If you ask me what I believe, I will tell you I am an atheist.
If you ask me what I can prove, I will tell you I am agnostic.

That is the snake oil many atheists try to sell. But I lack a belief in any gods...AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

I am not trying to “sell” anything.

I do try to avoid descriptors completely, although I occasionally use "agnostic."

People who insist on using "atheist" seem to do so because they either believe there are no gods or believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is one.

Yeah...I would bet you would.

And the reason you would tell me you are an atheist is because you allow SOME dictionaries to dictate what you can use as a descriptor???

I can only tell you what I believe, and I have done so.

 

[Ouroboros]

I did you are imparting a special status on humans that you have yet to prove exists. Dolphin brains are bigger than ants Humans, dolphins, ants all live in groups

Again it can be seen through physical defects don't need massive time for that. Now how can lions perceive that advantage are you saying they can use reason?
But you seem to be assuming based on one paper that humans are the only animals that avoid incest this is incorrect.

Incest Avoidance | Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA)

carta.anthropogeny.org

Im sorry if you think its to broad you seem to be using an even broader idea of religion and you have yet to refute anything I have said you have made claims but of them have actually been supported by anything other than your say so
I have demonstrated that good/bad, right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable ca be communicated without language
There is literally no logical reason to assume morals require religion

Forgot the thing about the lions: Animals of many species have demonstrated at least the possibility of very elementary reasoning processes. We know that ants use tools, as with transporting liquids. Did they reason, "if I do this thing with this thing X will happen," or did they just stumble across something that worked? We don't know. But in that case, as with the case of male lions murdering other lions' offspring, we're talking about observing possible consequences in the near future. Lions might not be able to articulate: "if I leave the lioness' other cubs alive, the lioness won't have milk for my cubs." But it's a zero sum game that a lion might observe, not any more abstract that making plans to find food. We know that cougars cache their excess of food, which also indicates some sense of future outcomes, though some have argued that the animals don't retain the memory of their caches very long. My earlier example of large rats giving in to smaller rats while in wrestling-play applies here too: it doesn't take abstraction for the big rat to figure out that he has to give a little to get a little. ALL of these examples depend on time-sensitive observations imbued with self-interest. But it takes abstract correlation of many factors to make the conclusion, "Hey, my cubs with a strange lion came out good and the cubs with my sister didn't; ergo, better avoid incest." It's particularly counter-intuitive because offspring with relations don't ALWAYS show immediate physical flaws. Maybe some primates *might* make some such connections, but if so we're getting back into the deep end of the brain-pool. Your concept of animals forming societies through an "ethics" based on acceptable/non-acceptable behavior is also predicated with pre-cognitive reasoning processes. I brought up the lack of strong incest avoidance in lower animals to show one of the places where humans diverged from animals, to give an example of an ethical conclusion founded in abstract conceptualizing. We know that in modern times tribal-level humans correlate their incest injunctions with their religious beliefs, so it's not a giant leap to theorize a parallel development in prehistoric eras. So again, your attempt to segregate "ethics" from "religion" is a dogmatic belief that isn't even justified by available anthropological and ethological evidence.

 

[Quag]

No, I am not.

If a thing has not been established as impossible...it is possible. Even if it later is shown to be impossible...during the time when it was not established as impossible...it was possible.

That is false

 

[Paradoxical]

I avoid using "he" when speaking of any god, Para. "It" works, but I attempt to use "entity" whenever possible.

The gods that have been worshiped over the years on planet Earth ALL seem like a cartoon to me. But that does not mean that there is (or was) no entity that somehow was responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the universe." That essentially is what I am saying.

OK. Now that I understand your position I agree.

 

[devildavid]

The viewpoint is entirely founded by the way so many atheists on this thread tell self-embarrassing lies. Specific lies, not just generalized attacks like my OP.

There are no atheists in this thread doing this.

Good to see you admit that your OP was merely an attack. It is the first honest thing you have posted in this thread.

 

[Quag]

Forgot the thing about the lions: Animals of many species have demonstrated at least the possibility of very elementary reasoning processes. We know that ants use tools, as with transporting liquids. Did they reason, "if I do this thing with this thing X will happen," or did they just stumble across something that worked? We don't know. But in that case, as with the case of male lions murdering other lions' offspring, we're talking about observing possible consequences in the near future. Lions might not be able to articulate: "if I leave the lioness' other cubs alive, the lioness won't have milk for my cubs." But it's a zero sum game that a lion might observe, not any more abstract that making plans to find food. We know that cougars cache their excess of food, which also indicates some sense of future outcomes, though some have argued that the animals don't retain the memory of their caches very long. My earlier example of large rats giving in to smaller rats while in wrestling-play applies here too: it doesn't take abstraction for the big rat to figure out that he has to give a little to get a little. ALL of these examples depend on time-sensitive observations imbued with self-interest. But it takes abstract correlation of many factors to make the conclusion, "Hey, my cubs with a strange lion came out good and the cubs with my sister didn't; ergo, better avoid incest." It's particularly counter-intuitive because offspring with relations don't ALWAYS show immediate physical flaws. Maybe some primates *might* make some such connections, but if so we're getting back into the deep end of the brain-pool. Your concept of animals forming societies through an "ethics" based on acceptable/non-acceptable behavior is also predicated with pre-cognitive reasoning processes. I brought up the lack of strong incest avoidance in lower animals to show one of the places where humans diverged from animals, to give an example of an ethical conclusion founded in abstract conceptualizing. We know that in modern times tribal-level humans correlate their incest injunctions with their religious beliefs, so it's not a giant leap to theorize a parallel development in prehistoric eras. So again, your attempt to segregate "ethics" from "religion" is a dogmatic belief that isn't even justified by available anthropological and ethological evidence.

You are agreeing that animals do what humans do then claim humans are different because they do things animals dont do
None of that supports the claim that there can be religion without language nor refutes that morals can come without language
And humans didn't diverge from animals we are still animals we diverged from other animals in the same way dolphins, lions and ants diverged though evolution but all are still animals

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank Apisa said:
Most people who use "atheist" as a self-descriptor and claim it is because of a "lack of belief"...are either kidding themselves or lying.

Me: Hmmm. Because you know better than they do?

Then why would you attempt to describe why they believe what they do? I am not ‘kidding myself” nor am I lying.


People do that. This thread title does that. It has a very simple meaning.


Asked and answered;
If you ask me what I believe, I will tell you I am an atheist.
If you ask me what I can prove, I will tell you I am agnostic.



I am not trying to “sell” anything.



I can only tell you what I believe, and I have done so.

Okay.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That is false

It is not false.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If you want to offer a link to where I said it...offer it. If you cannot, I understand.

Quoth I:

If there isn't any evidence for the existence of something, is the existence of that thing equally likely as the non-existence of that thing?

Quoth thee by reply:

In most cases, a qualified "YES." One of the two qualification being that if there isn't any evidence for the existence of something but is evidence that the "something" does not exist...then "NO." The second being that most of the time, there is no way of knowing what the "likelihood" in either direction is known...so how can one assume that one is more likely than the other?

You are thus asserting that if there isn't any evidence for the existence of something, the existence of that thing is equally likely as the non-existence of that thing, unless there is evidence of the nonexistence of that thing, and so long as most of the time there is no way of knowing what the "likelihood" in either direction is known...so how can one assume that one is more likely than the other?

It would normally be a bit tricky resolving a Boolean value for the qualifier of whether or not it is true that most of the time there is no way of knowing what the "likelihood" in either direction is known...so how can one assume that one is more likely than the other?

That looks like a managed attempt at English, followed by an open ended question to me. Thankfully though, we can deduce that it resolves to true, since you have asserted that both qualifiers are met in most cases, and the qualifier itself always resolves to true so long as it holds "most of the time."

 

[Frank Apisa]

Quoth I:



Quoth thee by reply:



You are thus asserting that if there isn't any evidence for the existence of something, the existence of that thing is equally likely as the non-existence of that thing, unless there is evidence of the nonexistence of that thing, and so long as most of the time there is no way of knowing what the "likelihood" in either direction is known...so how can one assume that one is more likely than the other?

It would normally be a bit tricky resolving a Boolean value for the qualifier of whether or not it is true that most of the time there is no way of knowing what the "likelihood" in either direction is known...so how can one assume that one is more likely than the other?

That looks like a managed attempt at English, followed by an open ended question to me. Thankfully though, we can deduce that it resolves to true, since you have asserted that both qualifiers are met in most cases, and the qualifier itself always resolves to true so long as it holds "most of the time."

If you have a link to me saying what you INSIST I said...put it in your next reply...or I will assume, right or wrong, that you cannot do so. I KNOW you cannot, because I NEVER said what you said I said.

By the way, you may use anything I have ever written here or at any of the many other forums where I have posted. (Save your time. I NEVER said what you claim I said.)

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If you have a link to me saying what you INSIST I said...put it in your next reply...or I will assume, right or wrong, that you cannot do so. I KNOW you cannot, because I NEVER said what you said I said.

By the way, you may use anything I have ever written here or at any of the many other forums where I have posted. (Save your time. I NEVER said what you claim I said.)

The link is right there in the post you quoted. It is the arrow icon next to your name in the quote box. Clicking that arrow will take you to post #1,784 of this thread, where you said verbatim what I quoted you saying.

 

[watsup]

It is not a blind guess. It is a fact that "it is possible that no gods exist" and that "it is possible that at least one god exists."

One of those is correct...we just do not know which it is.

One of those is a blind guess and the other is correct. It’s a shame that you can’t seem to figure out which is which.

 

[watsup]

Most people who use "atheist" as a self-descriptor and claim it is because of a "lack of belief"...are either kidding themselves or lying. People who use "atheist" as a self-descriptor do so mostly because of "beliefs." They either believe there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one."

Are you kidding yourself?

Atheists believe that there is no actuality-based evidence for any god that humans have ever concocted, and they are correct.

 

[watsup]

My characterization of atheists is borne out every time one of you makes a lousy argument. And your psychologism remains superficial. It amuses me to see you guys flounder, so if anything, I'm being amused by the obsessions of dogmatic atheists.

The first projection of Ouroboros today. There will be many more.

 

[watsup]

Not replying on Frank's behalf, but the complexity of the universe has often been a reason for believers to believe and for agnostics to weigh their arguments. You've continued to bag on Drew Paul in his absence, but even you cannot deny that he justified his belief in part in the argument that the universe was too complex to be the result of random physical forces (unless I misunderstood his argument).

Hilarious that you are now trying to justify the meaningless blabber of DrewPaul who absolutely refuses to take the next logical step of identifying from whence his Creator came. As such, the entire silly “logic” that he tries to foist on others goes down in flames. Why do you insist on trying to support the claims of every weak-logic agnostic who shows up here? First Frank and now DrewPaul. Why do you pick the losing side in chat argument?

 

[watsup]

Nope, still what an agnostic would say to a dogmatic atheist.

So says the dogmatic agnostic losing the argument, just like dogmatic agnostics Frank and DrewPaul. They both have been buried in logic by numerous atheists. Just like you are being done the same.

 

[watsup]

Your own idea of evidence is undercut by your original citation of a few abstracts that didn't even say what you claimed they said.

And yet they did. You can read it here: https://debatepolitics.com/threads/how-and-why-humanist-ethics-predated-god-based-morality.558153/

 

[watsup]

Said many of the posters who responded, either directly (arguing that morality is socially programmed) or indirectly (telling lies themselves).

Morality is socially programmed. What alternative do you offer? The very same inanity of religionists/theists that insist that it was simply supplied by some imaginary “supreme” entity? Please tell me that you don’t actually believe that! And if not that, then what? What alternative do you offer? I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The link is right there in the post you quoted. It is the arrow icon next to your name in the quote box. Clicking that arrow will take you to post #1,784 of this thread, where you said verbatim what I quoted you saying.

You wrote: ""@Frank Apisa, by contrast, has asserted that rather than an infinitesimal likelihood, the likelihood of the existence of any conjecture is equivalent to the likelihood of the nonexistence of any conjecture if there is neither evidence of its existence, nor evidence of its nonexistence."

I have asked you to provide a link to where I said that. You claim you have done so. (You have revised that a bit in this post.) But it is apparent that you cannot provide the link...BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT...AND IN NO WAY DO I CONSIDER ANYTHING I HAVE SAID TO IMPLY THAT.

We are not going to discuss this anymore.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for you to tell me what you disagree with about:

It is possible that no gods exist...it also is possible that at least one god exists.

Just that. I do not want to deal with xypropops, or thamperset or any other nonsense that you want to present. If you disagree with "It is possible that no gods exist"...tell me why you disagree.

If you disagree with "It is possible that at least one god exists" tell me why you disagree.

We can discuss our differences, but first I have to know why you disagree.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You wrote: ""@Frank Apisa, by contrast, has asserted that rather than an infinitesimal likelihood, the likelihood of the existence of any conjecture is equivalent to the likelihood of the nonexistence of any conjecture if there is neither evidence of its existence, nor evidence of its nonexistence."

That is what you asserted. I asked you in post #1782:

If there isn't any evidence for the existence of something, is the existence of that thing equally likely as the non-existence of that thing?

You replied to that question in post #1784:

In most cases, a qualified "YES." One of the two qualification being that if there isn't any evidence for the existence of something but is evidence that the "something" does not exist...then "NO." The second being that most of the time, there is no way of knowing what the "likelihood" in either direction is known...so how can one assume that one is more likely than the other?

That is the verbatim quote, which you later denied having ever said. It includes a link to the post where you said it. Clicking your name at the top of the quote box will take you to where you said it in post #1784.

You are clearly asserting that in "most cases" rather than an infinitesimal likelihood, the likelihood of the existence of any unsupported conjecture is equivalent to the likelihood of the nonexistence of that unsupported conjecture, but not in cases where there is evidence for the nonexistence of the conjecture.