Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Frank Apisa]

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?

What makes you think I disagree with the proposition "there is some nonzero quantity of gods?"

That has not even been proposed here.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What makes you think I disagree with the proposition "there is some nonzero quantity of gods?"

That has not even been proposed here.

You asserted that you disagree with the proposition that there are no gods. You asserted equivalence between the proposition that there are no gods and the proposition that there is at least one god, so you disagree with the proposition that there is at least one god as well. You just disagreed with the assertion that there is a nonzero quantity less than one, and there are no nonzero quantities aside from those less than 1 and those that are at least one.

But if you like, you can tell us explicitly. Do you disagree with the proposition "there is some nonzero quantity of gods?"

 

[Frank Apisa]

You asserted that you disagree with the proposition that there are no gods. You asserted equivalence between the proposition that there are no gods and the proposition that there is at least one god, so you disagree with the proposition that there is at least one god as well. You just disagreed with the assertion that there is a nonzero quantity less than one, and there are no nonzero quantities aside from those less than 1 and those that are at least one.

But if you like, you can tell us explicitly. Do you disagree with the proposition "there is some nonzero quantity of gods?"

You asked, "Are you asserting the existence of a nonzero fractional number of gods less than one?"

I responded, "I am not."

You are taking that to mean that I disagree with it.

That is not the case.

When I wrote "I am not"...I had no idea of what a "nonzero fractional number" meant. I could not be asserting anything about it. (I have since looked it up and still have trouble understanding it.)

CC, if you are attempting to establish that you are smarter than I or that you have more accessible knowledge than I, allow me to save you some trouble. YOU ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN I AND YOU ALMOST DEFINITELY HAVE MORE ACCESSIBLE KNOWLEDGE THAN I. Now...I acknowledge that I do not know that, but I would bet a considerable sum that I am correct about it.

I am 88 years old and 60 years removed from University. And quite honestly, I have forgotten more in the last decade than I thought would ever possibly happen. So...beating that horse to death is not worthwhile.

It is my contention that it is possible that there are no gods. I've fought that battle with theists in many fora; with Jehovah Witnesses; and in newspaper op ed pieces before the Internet. It also is my contention that it is possible that it is possible that at least one god exists with atheists...under those same circumstances.

I stand by my contention without regard to whether there are nonzero fractional considerations to deal with or not. And if you are saying that this nonzero fractional considerations are your alternative...you should just have said it, and I would have asked to study up on nonzero fractional whatevers and gotten back to you.

No need for that now. I'm tired of the discussion. To me, the notion that it IS possible that either there are no gods...or that there is at least one. You are not going to convince me otherwise...and I doubt I will ever convince you of the validity of that assertion.

Let's end this in peace.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You are taking that to mean that I disagree with it.

That is not the case.

Fascinating. So you do not disagree with proposition "there is a nonzero fractional number of gods less than one."

As theists go, you are the only one I have met who believes in a partial deity.

When I wrote "I am not"...I had no idea of what a "nonzero fractional number" meant. I could not be asserting anything about it. (I have since looked it up and still have trouble understanding it.)

It's pretty much just everything between 0 and 1. Like 1/2 a god, or 3/4 of god, or 0.2 gods. If you disagree with the proposition that there are no gods, and also disagree with the proposition that there is at least one god, it pretty much narrows the number of gods down to some fraction of a god between 0 and 1.

It is my contention that it is possible that there are no gods.

But you don't know that it is possible any more than you know that there are no gods. It could be possible, or it could be impossible.

I stand by my contention without regard to whether there are nonzero fractional considerations to deal with or not. And if you are saying that this nonzero fractional considerations are your alternative...you should just have said it, and I would have asked to study up on nonzero fractional whatevers and gotten back to you.

My contention is that it is as accurate to say "there are no gods" as it is to say "it is possible that there are no gods." Theoretically, either could be incorrect. You can't prove that it is possible that there are no gods any more than you can prove that there are no gods.

It is your belief that it is possible that there are no gods, and it is your belief that it is possible that there is at least one god, but you could be wrong about either of those beliefs. You don't know what is or isn't possible any more than you know whether gods do or do not exist.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Fascinating. So you do not disagree with proposition "there is a nonzero fractional number of gods less than one."

As theists go, you are the only one I have met who believes in a partial deity.

I am not a theist by any stretch of the imagination. I do not "believe" there is at least one god; I do not "believe" there are no gods; I do not believe there is a partial deity. I simply am unwilling to "believe" on this question.

It's pretty much just everything between 0 and 1. Like 1/2 a god, or 3/4 of god, or 0.2 gods. If you disagree with the proposition that there are no gods, and also disagree with the proposition that there is at least one god, it pretty much narrows the number of gods down to something fraction of a god between 0 and 1.

I have been talking NOT about what is...but what is POSSIBLE...

But you don't know that it is possible any more than you know that there are no gods. It could be possible, or it could be impossible.

Nonsense. At some point I hope you use your intelligence to see how wrong you are here.

My contention is that it is as accurate to say "there are no gods" as it is to say "it is possible that there are no gods." Theoretically, either could be incorrect. You can't prove that it is possible that there are no gods any more than you can prove that there are no gods.

Nonsense. At some point I hope you use your intelligence to see how wrong you are here.

It is your belief that it is possible that there are no gods, and it is your belief that it is possible that there is at least one god, but you could be wrong about either of those beliefs. You don't know what is or isn't possible any more than you know whether gods do or do not exist.

Neither are beliefs of mine.

 

[Quag]

It is not false.

It is

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I have been talking NOT about what is...but what is POSSIBLE...

You don't know what is possible any more than you know what is.

You can't disprove the existence of proof that gods are impossible any more than you can disprove the existence of gods themselves.

 

[Frank Apisa]

It is

No it isn't.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You don't know what is possible any more than you know what is.

You can't disprove the existence of proof that gods are impossible any more than you can disprove the existence of gods themselves.

Yeah, typical atheist. Just like most theists. Afraid.

I do not have to prove anything.

What I am saying would be okay with any logician.

It is possible that there are no gods.

It also is possible that there is at least one.

But keep up with the game.

It gives meaning to your life.

And provides those of us listening to your ravings with entertainment.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I do not have to prove anything.

Of course not. You are welcome to your faith.

But if the were any logic to it, you would be able to articulate that logic.

What I am saying would be okay with any logician.

If you were to tell any logician that it was a logical conclusion, they would ask to see the premises and rules of inference you used to get there.

If you couldn't provide any, they would inform you that your assumptions were, in fact, assumptions.

It is possible that there are no gods.

If it can be proven that it is impossible that there are no gods, then no, it is not possible.

It also is possible that there is at least one.

If it can be proven that it is impossible for there to be any gods, then no, it is not possible.

 

[watsup]

The relative tolerance of a Richard Dawkins is in no way typical of atheists

Here is what Richard Dawkins had to say about agnostics:

"Fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."
— Dawkins on agnostics

Richard Dawkins - TV Tropes

…

tvtropes.org

I agree. I think it applies to you, ouroboros.
I may even begin a thread based on that quote from Dawkins.

 

[renee]

The stories can be explained in a lot of ways. They just don't require what atheists conceive to be "evidence."

Zeus is the king of gods I don’t need evidence

 

[renee]

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?

You are playing with semantics and it is getting silly..an atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. Why is that so complicated?

 

[renee]

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


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.

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

Isn’t there a possibility that there is a pink and yellow striped breed of elephants?

 

[Daisy]

I may even begin a thread based on that quote from Dawkins.

That should prove to be interesting...many are sitting on the fence in one way or another...no one likes a lukewarm person who is neither refreshingly cold or stimulatingly hot...Jesus spoke of how he felt about such ones...

"‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth." Revelation 3:15,16

 

[watsup]

That should prove to be interesting...many are sitting on the fence in one way or another...no one likes a lukewarm person who is neither refreshingly cold or stimulatingly hot...Jesus spoke of how he felt about such ones...

"‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth." Revelation 3:15,16

Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards

Here is the cite from which I got the title of this thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/RichardDawkins His quote, of course, has to do with claims in regards to a God or gods. Here is a dicussion regarding Dawkin's claims about agnosticism in a more general sense: "But...

debatepolitics.com

 

[devildavid]

It is possible there is at least one god...it also is possible there are no gods.

Stick with your blind guess. I'll stick with the truth...no matter how disturbing "the truth" is for someone with that blind guess.

We know that you blindly guess that it is possible there is at least one god. That doesn’t make you an agnostic, it makes you no different than those who say blindly guess that there is no god.

What you have stated is not the truth, but your own blind guess. There is no truth about the possibility of gods.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is neither forced nor irrelevant.

@Frank Apisa's argument is this:

P1. If there is neither evidence for the existence of X, nor evidence for the nonexistence of X, then the existence of X is as likely as the nonexistence of X
P2. There is neither evidence for the existence of gods, nor evidence for the nonexistence of gods
∴ The existence of gods is as likely as the nonexistence of gods

P1 is obviously a ridiculous premise, or as @Frank Apisa would say an "abomination."

There is nothing forced about using substitution to point that out. Substitution is common as dirt in first-order logic. If you think my arguments violate any of the formal substitution rules, feel free to point out the specific rule and where you think it is being violated.

To illustrate how ridiculous the premise is, one has only to apply it to any random, ridiculous value of X:

P1. If there is neither evidence for the existence of X, nor evidence for the nonexistence of X, then the existence of X is as likely as the nonexistence of X
P2. There is neither evidence for the existence of a purple-and-green-striped-27-headed-cyborg-goat-with-rubber-duckies-for-hands, nor evidence for the nonexistence of a purple-and-green-striped-27-headed-cyborg-goat-with-rubber-duckies-for-hands
∴ The existence of a purple-and-green-striped-27-headed-cyborg-goat-with-rubber-duckies-for-hands is as likely as the nonexistence of a purple-and-green-striped-27-headed-cyborg-goat-with-rubber-duckies-for-hands

Or, one could also use it to refute @Frank Apisa's own assertions:

P1. If there is neither evidence for the existence of X, nor evidence for the nonexistence of X, then the existence of X is as likely as the nonexistence of X
P2. There is neither evidence for the existence of proof that gods are impossible, nor evidence for the nonexistence of proof that gods are impossible
∴ The existence of proof that gods are impossible is as likely as the nonexistence of proof that gods are impossible

Since his entire argument is built upon that ridiculous premise, pointing out that it is a ridiculous premise is anything but irrelevant.

Your equivalence is completely irrelevant because you have falsified the POV of the believers by stating that they believe without YOUR kind of scientific evidence. You do not have to credence the evidence of "road to Damascus" conversions, but that is the evidence to which a majority of believers refer, and thus you have rendered actual positions as false as your imaginary positions that all men with mustaches as evil or your cherished chocolate dodecahedron. Frank's position as I understand it has focused upon the inability of atheists to prove that there is sufficient reason (I don't recall if he's used the word "evidence" as you have) to reject the existence of at least one deity, and you have in MY view proved his point by resorting to a false equivalence between religious belief and belief in one individual's made-up nonsense.

 

[Ouroboros]

“As is your strange obsession with and ignorance of atheism.”

You post an awful lot of meaningless drivel. Your characterization of this singular lack of belief in a supernatural deity is transparently ignorant. People here have tried to correct you, but you continue to imagine all sorts of presumptive ideas about people who don’t believe in gods.

I;’m glad you are able to find some entertainment.

Atheists on this thread have tried to protect their egos, as you do here, by pretending that your fallacious assumptions are logically sound. It's not the greatest entertainment in the world, but it has its special appeal.

 

[Ouroboros]

Then show some of this scientific evidence especially that which supports your claims

It need not require generations and we haven't established that primates have something akin to religious impulse. Your article was about one group of primates and was about the possibility of ritualism not religion. Rituals do not require religion.
Also it isnt just primates you found one article and assumed it applied to all animals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/329328a0.pdf

So why woudl lions do this? Do they have advanced critical thinking skills or does your argument fail?

Actually you are doing that

Your discussion on this thread is about morals requiring religion so yes you are most categorically stating that
You have yet to explain how that can be while I have provided an explanation to the contrary

(1) Your argument still depends on the unsourced argument that human societies evolve as you presume animal societies do, on your false theory that this would invalidate religion. You need to provide evidence of your argument before asking me to provide evidence of the universal view that human brains contain capacities beyond those of other animals. (2) You have cited no paradigm by which animals might deduce the harmfulness of incest without the benefit of observations made over time. Your CARTA article does not support your atheist's beliefs in the magical powers of your agreeable/disagreeable dogma. (3) Thartere's rational support for the idea of non-cognitive religion in the cited essay; that you want to separate proto-religion from your "ritualism" merely shows that you're forcing the evidence to conform to your definitions, (4) Your CARTA essay is just one essay, whether it purports to represent others or not. (5) Presumably you've now responded to my response 2307 about your false definition of animals' elementary reasoning powers, so I suppose I'll be wading through more special pleading from you there. (5) It's your argument that your pre-cognitive social organization makes religion unnecessary but you have failed to prove that a substantial morality evolved for humans in the exact same way that you think it did for other animals.

 

[Ouroboros]

Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards

Here is the cite from which I got the title of this thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/RichardDawkins His quote, of course, has to do with claims in regards to a God or gods. Here is a dicussion regarding Dawkin's claims about agnosticism in a more general sense: "But...

debatepolitics.com

Ho hum. https://theweek.com/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

I never said the OP wasn't an attack. It was also an analysis of false positions, which means that the attack is not gratuitous, but an effort to tear down the many falsehoods asserted by you and other atheists on this thread. I'm doing in reality what atheists like to imagine they're doing in their fantasies.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

(1) Humans do some things animals do and then diverge because they absolutely can do things that animals can't do. (2) The rituals practiced by some primates indicates that there may be a proto-religion akin to the earlier-cited phenomenon of animism. (3) Pointless hair-splitting on your part.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Rack up more bills from the Freud family as you will; you won't make your weak position any stronger.

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

Why are you deflecting? Either Drew Paul made the "complexity argument" in service of belief or he did not. Which is it?