Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Daisy]

I almost had to have them complete a questionnaire to find out what they meant by Christianity because if you were to get 100 Christians in separate rooms and ask them a hundred questions you would get answers on what they believe that were radically different on what the common understanding of Christianity is to such an extent that it made Christianity into a belief system that was so vague and different as to be unrecognizable.

"By their fruits you will know them"

I have one question for you...if you were in an orchard of 100 trees, all of different fruits and there was only one apple tree, would you be able to recognize the fruit on that apple tree?

 

[Frank Apisa]

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

Here is what I said:

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?

Here is what you said I said:

"@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 DID NOT say what you said I said. That was your erroneous evaluation of what I said.

You replied to that question in post #1784:



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.

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

You are just being silly now...and I am going to ignore the silly part.

This started with me writing: It is possible there are no gods...and it also is possible that there is at least one god.

Let us stick with that.

Do you disagree with "It is possible there are no gods?"

Do you disagree with "It also is possible that there is at least one god?"

How about just a YES or NOl to both of those questions...after dozens upon dozens of pages of avoidance on the one question?

 

[Paradoxical]

"By their fruits you will know them"

I have one question for you...if you were in an orchard of 100 trees, all of different fruits and there was only one apple tree, would you be able to recognize the fruit on that apple tree?

If you clone apples, you get the same fruit on each tree. If you cloned Christianity properly you would have agreements on the "truth". As it is Vhristianity is like globalism. Everyone and anyone can twist scripture into a pretzel until it means what they want.

In any event I don't care what scripture says because I didn't drink the Kool aid that says the priests and bishops who tossed out various books were inspired or that things written 30-90 years later is somehow the word of any god.

But you do you. Hundreds of other denominations say you're wrong. I simply say you ALL are.

 

[Daisy]

If you clone apples, you get the same fruit on each tree. If you cloned Christianity properly you would have agreements on the "truth". As it is Vhristianity is like globalism. Everyone and anyone can twist scripture into a pretzel until it means what they want.

In any event I don't care what scripture says because I didn't drink the Kool aid that says the priests and bishops who tossed out various books were inspired or that things written 30-90 years later is somehow the word of any god.

But you do you. Hundreds of other denominations say you're wrong. I simply say you ALL are.

So, you're clueless and you choose to remain that way...got it...

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I DID NOT say what you said I said. That was your erroneous evaluation of what I said.

Rather, it is a logical consequence of what you said.

You are really being very silly now. Allow me to illustrate by way of Platonic dialogue:

Socrates: "Is A true?"
Sisyphus: "Yes, unless B is true."
Socrates: "is B true?"
Sisyphus: "No."
Socrates: "So you are asserting that A is true then."
Sisyphus:"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."

 

[Frank Apisa]

Rather, it is a logical consequence of what you said.

You are really being very silly now. Allow me to illustrate by way of Platonic dialogue:

Socrates: "Is A true?"
Sisyphus: "Yes, unless B is true."
Socrates: "is B true?"
Sisyphus: "No."
Socrates: "So you are asserting that A is true then."
Sisyphus:"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."

Play that game. But it is a silly game...unfit for an intelligent individual.

 

[Paradoxical]

So, you're clueless and you choose to remain that way...got it...

What? Clueless that your beliefs are just that..,,beliefs that you imagine to be true?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Do you disagree with "It is possible there are no gods?"

Do you disagree with "It also is possible that there is at least one god?"

I've already answered both. It's your turn.

Do you disagree with the proposition "there are no gods?"

Yes or no?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I've already answered both. It's your turn.

Do you disagree with the proposition "there are no gods?"

Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Yes.

Which gods are there then?

 

[Frank Apisa]

My turn...

I've already answered both. It's your turn.

I remember you claiming you answered the first one...but I do not remember the latter one being answered.

Just answer. A simple YES or NO will do.

I'll just ask one for now...you can ask your next question with your rely:

Do you disagree with "It is possible there are no gods?"

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

My turn...

I remember you claiming you answered the first one...but I do not remember the latter one being answered.

Just answer. A simple YES or NO will do.

I'll just ask one for now...you can ask your next question with your rely:

Do you disagree with "It is possible there are no gods?"

Yes.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Which gods are there then?

First, my question gets answered...then you go.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Oops, I see you answered. I reply now.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Which gods are there then?

I have no idea.

My question:

Your answer was YES...you disagree with the statement, "It is possible there are no gods."

Are you then saying that it is not possible that there are no gods?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I have no idea.

My question:

Your answer was YES...you disagree with the statement, "It is possible there are no gods."

Are you then saying that it is not possible that there are no gods?

No, I'm not.

My turn. Are you saying that there are gods?

 

[Frank Apisa]

No, I'm not.

My turn. Are you saying that there are gods?

Absolutely not. Nor am I saying there are no gods.

My next question:

So you are saying that you disagree with the statement, "It is possible that there are no gods" but you are also saying that you are not saying it is not possible there are no gods.

I can think of an alternative, but I am asking you for your alternative.

If you are saying you disagree with "It is possible there are no gods" but are not saying "It is not possible that there are no gods"...what is your alternative?

 

[soylentgreen]

You are wrong.

There is no contradiction in the statement, ""It is possible that no gods exist...AND it is possible that at least one god exists."

In fact, one supposes the other.

No, because they contradict each other. Either it exists or it does not exist.

I have not created any god at all. I am talking about the possibility of things.

No, you are talking about using your imagination. Creating imaginary friends does not give them existence.

If you think there is no possibility of a god that creates (what we humans call) the universe...and then goes away...

...explain why.

I am talking about possibilities. And at no point am I hiding behind a lie "of calling don't know a god."

I don't even understand what that means.

Of course you do. Yours is simply an imaginary solution to a problem. You do not know how the universe was crated so you create an explanation out of your imagination.

 

[Frank Apisa]

No, because they contradict each other. Either it exists or it does not exist.

We are not talking about whether it exists or not. We are asking about the POSSIBILITY.

No, you are talking about using your imagination. Creating imaginary friends does not give them existence.

I am not creating anything. I acknowledge that I do not know if any gods exist or not.

I am making a comment about the POSSIBILITY.

Of course you do. Yours is simply an imaginary solution to a problem. You do not know how the universe was crated so you create an explanation out of your imagination.

I have not created an explanation. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS THING WE HUMANS CALL "THE UNIVERSE" WAS CREATED OR NOT.

 

[soylentgreen]

We are not talking about whether it exists or not. We are asking about the POSSIBILITY.

No, you're simply pretending there is a possibility without giving even one good reason as to why anyone should buy into such nonsense.

I am not creating anything. I acknowledge that I do not know if any gods exist or not.

That is a dishonesty when you openly contradict yourself by then saying there could be a god.

I am making a comment about the POSSIBILITY.

Without even one good reason your possibility has as much credibility as if you say it is possible goblins exists.

I have not created an explanation. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS THING WE HUMANS CALL "THE UNIVERSE" WAS CREATED OR NOT.

I under4stand. In your fear of uncertainty you create a possibility that has no substance.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Absolutely not. Nor am I saying there are no gods.



My next question:



So you are saying that you disagree with the statement, "It is possible that there are no gods" but you are also saying that you are not saying it is not possible there are no gods.



I can think of an alternative, but I am asking you for your alternative.



If you are saying you disagree with "It is possible there are no gods" but are not saying "It is not possible that there are no gods"...what is your alternative?

I have explained this all at length already.

The issue with the proposition "It is possible that there are no gods" is the exact same pedantic issue as with the proposition "there are no gods."

It would be more epistemologically correct in both cases to add the qualifier "to the best of my knowledge."

There are no gods to the best of my knowledge. It is possible that there are no gods to the best of my knowledge.

It may be that the nonexistence of gods is impossible. I can't prove that it isn't impossible. And it may be that gods exist. I can't prove that they do not.

"To the best of my knowledge" should be an implicit caveat for any utterance from any human being. Amelia Earhart did not assassinate JFK to the best of my knowledge.

It is a very pedantic issue to raise. In common conversational parlance, it would be entirely appropriate to say "Trump won the election" instead of saying "Trump won the election to the best of my knowledge."

The more salient issue is how likely it is that Trump won the election, how likely it is that Amelia Earhart assassinated JFK, how likely it is that gods exist, etc.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I have explained this all at length already.

The issue with the proposition "It is possible that there are no gods" is the exact same pedantic issue as with the proposition "there are no gods."

It would be more epistemologically correct in both cases to add the qualifier "to the best of my knowledge."

There are no gods to the best of my knowledge. It is possible that there are no gods to the best of my knowledge.

It may be that the nonexistence of gods is impossible. I can't prove that it isn't impossible. And it may be that gods exist. I can't prove that they do not.

"To the best of my knowledge" should be an implicit caveat for any utterance from any human being. Amelia Earhart did not assassinate JFK to the best of my knowledge.

It is a very pedantic issue to raise. In common conversational parlance, it would be entirely appropriate to say "Trump won the election" instead of saying "Trump won the election to the best of my knowledge."

The more salient issue is how likely it is that Trump won the election, how likely it is that Amelia Earhart assassinated JFK, how likely it is that gods exist, etc.

But you do disagree with, "It is possible that at least one god exists?"

In that case, I see no alternative to "Therefore you think it is not possible that at least one god exists?"

I mentioned that I was able to see an alternative...but you have not given yours. Instead you are saying that you consider my wording to be defective.

But the wording as it stands...you have indicated that you do not agree with.

You also have given some examples of how likely some things are...which does not play any part in what I asked.

I say that it is possible that no gods exist.

You are saying you do not agree...but that you are not saying that it is not possible.

As I see it, either it is possible that no gods exist...or it is not possible.

Please give me an alternative...rather than asking me to change what is a perfectly clear assertion?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

But you do disagree with, "It is possible that at least one god exists?"

In that case, I see no alternative to "Therefore you think it is not possible that at least one god exists?"

I mentioned that I was able to see an alternative...but you have not given yours. Instead you are saying that you consider my wording to be defective.

But the wording as it stands...you have indicated that you do not agree with.

You also have given some examples of how likely some things are...which does not play any part in what I asked.

I say that it is possible that no gods exist.

You are saying you do not agree...but that you are not saying that it is not possible.

As I see it, either it is possible that no gods exist...or it is not possible.

Please give me an alternative...rather than asking me to change what is a perfectly clear assertion?

You disagree with the assertion that there are no gods, but also disagree with the assertion that there is at least one god.

So what is the alternative between there being no gods or there being at least one god?

Are you asserting the existence of a nonzero fractional number of gods less than one?

 

[Frank Apisa]

You disagree with the assertion that there are no gods, but also disagree with the assertion that there is at least one god.

So what is the alternative between there being no gods or there being at least one god?

Are you asserting the existence of a nonzero fractional number of gods less than one?

I am not.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I am not.

So you disagree with the proposition "there are no gods" but also disagree with the proposition "there is some nonzero quantity of gods?"

What alternative is there besides there being no gods or there being some nonzero quantity of gods?