Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[soylentgreen]

I suspect that is why atheists want to argue with theists rather than agnostics.

It is so much easier.

Not at all. Agnostics have the same problem as theists in that they cannot back a belief that a god might exist. And use the excuse that they also hod a god might not exist to distract from the fact that they also think a god might exist.
Also with theists there is the added bonus of explaining to them why their religion is ridiculous and their church is corrupt. Where as agnostics tend not to have a religion or church.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Not at all. Agnostics have the same problem as theists in that they cannot back a belief that a god might exist.

Theists do not "believe" a god might exist. They "believe" a god DOES exist.

Agnostics do not "believe" a god might exist. They KNOW a god possibly exists.

And use the excuse that they also hod a god might not exist to distract from the fact that they also think a god might exist.

I don't. I KNOW it is possible that no gods exist. I also KNOW it is possible that at least one god does exist.

You have gotten everything wrong so far.

Hope you do better in the remainder of this post.

Also with theists there is the added bonus of explaining to them why their religion is ridiculous and their church is corrupt.

Yeah. You people who blindly guess that no gods exist...mock people who blindly guess that one does.

That is so cute...and so hilarious. If only you could see it...you would enjoy the laughter.

Where as agnostics tend not to have a religion or church.

Wow. Bingo. You finally got something correct.

Good for you.

 

[soylentgreen]

Theists do not "believe" a god might exist. They "believe" a god DOES exist.

Agnostics do not "believe" a god might exist. They KNOW a god possibly exists.

If you think a god is possible then that would be the same as thinking a god might exist.

I don't. I KNOW it is possible that no gods exist. I also KNOW it is possible that at least one god does exist.

You have gotten everything wrong so far.

Hope you do better in the remainder of this post.

You know it is possible that a god might exist Based on what? But I already know your answer. It will be you not answering and instead distracting by saying you also know a god might not exist. You simply use one excuse to avoid answering the other.

Yeah. You people who blindly guess that no gods exist...mock people who blindly guess that one does.

That is so cute...and so hilarious. If only you could see it...you would enjoy the laughter.

Wow. Bingo. You finally got something correct.

Good for you.

Again you ignore what is being said. there is no blind guess that no evidence has ever been produced, There is no blind guess that no good reason has ever been produced. Try producing even one of any. But you will not because you cannot.

 

[Frank Apisa]

If you think a god is possible then that would be the same as thinking a god might exist.

Yes. A god might exist. It is possible.

Why do you disagree. Do you suppose it is impossible? What evidence do you have that it is impossible for at least one god to exist?

You know it is possible that a god might exist Based on what?

Based on common sense and the meaning of the words.

I do not know it to be impossible (neither do you)...so it is possible.

Not sure why you are fighting that.

But I already know your answer. It will be you not answering and instead distracting by saying you also know a god might not exist. You simply use one excuse to avoid answering the other.

I did not do that...and I never have. I have answered why each time you have asked.

Again you ignore what is being said.

I assure you I am not ignoring anything you are saying.

there is no blind guess that no evidence has ever been produced,

There is no blind guess that no good reason has ever been produced.

I cannot make sense of that sentence at all.

Please re-write it in legible form.

Try producing even one of any. But you will not because you cannot.

Producing what?

I have acknowledged I cannot produce evidence that a god exists...and I also cannot produce evidence that no gods exist.

Neither can you.

I also have acknowledge that I cannot produce evidence that it is impossible for a god to be the REALITY....and I also cannot produce evidence that it is impossible for no gods to be the REALITY.

Neither can you.

What is your point?

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes. A god might exist. It is possible.

Why do you disagree. Do you suppose it is impossible? What evidence do you have that it is impossible for at least one god to exist?


Based on common sense and the meaning of the words.

I do not know it to be impossible (neither do you)...so it is possible.

Not sure why you are fighting that.



I did not do that...and I never have. I have answered why each time you have asked.


I assure you I am not ignoring anything you are saying.

there is no blind guess that no evidence has ever been produced,



I cannot make sense of that sentence at all.

Please re-write it in legible form.

Producing what?

I have acknowledged I cannot produce evidence that a god exists...and I also cannot produce evidence that no gods exist.

Neither can you.

I also have acknowledge that I cannot produce evidence that it is impossible for a god to be the REALITY....and I also cannot produce evidence that it is impossible for no gods to be the REALITY.

Neither can you.

What is your point?

You're not using common sense.. you're just being obtuse by refusing to acknowledge the argument given byr the nonsense reason that you cannot understand the statement.
Nothing i have said is obscure.

And all you are doing is jumping between thinking there might be a god to there might not so as to avoid answering why you think either thought is justified.

 

[devildavid]

All of these assertions, like the post 2915 by Gordy, are based in the atheist assumption that the origins of belief in gods came about for immoral reasons. Since it's merely a rhetorical assumption it doesn't weaken the argument for the existence of a god at all, any more than you would agree than the abuses of Communism invalidate atheist philosophy.

There is no such thing as an atheist philosophy. So there is nothing to invalidate.

 

[devildavid]

Yes. A god might exist. It is possible.

Why do you disagree. Do you suppose it is impossible? What evidence do you have that it is impossible for at least one god to exist?


Based on common sense and the meaning of the words.

I do not know it to be impossible (neither do you)...so it is possible.

Not sure why you are fighting that.



I did not do that...and I never have. I have answered why each time you have asked.


I assure you I am not ignoring anything you are saying.

there is no blind guess that no evidence has ever been produced,



I cannot make sense of that sentence at all.

Please re-write it in legible form.

Producing what?

I have acknowledged I cannot produce evidence that a god exists...and I also cannot produce evidence that no gods exist.

Neither can you.

I also have acknowledge that I cannot produce evidence that it is impossible for a god to be the REALITY....and I also cannot produce evidence that it is impossible for no gods to be the REALITY.

Neither can you.

What is your point?

What makes the existence of something possible?

 

[Quag]

I have done so...and I have in the past.

If we are going to have a reasonable, respectful conversation...you have to stop saying that I have not defended it just because you do not agree with my defense.

No you havent but you can easily prove me wrong by showing where you have or just try to do so now
If we are going to have a debate you have to stop saying you have done so and actually support your claim

 

[Quag]

I am not wrong...and you simply repeating that charge does not make it so.

You are and you have never tried to actually support your claim

I have never run away, which anyone can see.

But your denial that I am here responding to you each time you post is fun. As has been pointed out by others...you dedicated atheists are very entertaining.

And since you are so sure I am wrong...

...why don't you show at least one example of something that is "not possible: but that has not been shown to be impossible.

Just do it.

I have no problem acknowledging when I am wrong if I am shown to be wrong.

Still running agway from supporting your claim instead you are trying to reverse the burden of proof but as I have already disproven your claim with the coins and the wife it doesnt really work

 

[Frank Apisa]

You're not using common sense..

Your disagreement with me is because I AM using common sense.

you're just being obtuse by refusing to acknowledge the argument given byr the nonsense reason that you cannot understand the statement.

That sentence is an abomination. Try to write so that what you say can be understood.

Nothing i have said is obscure.

Damn near everything you say is transmitted by the written word...and you have lots of trouble writing anything clearly.

We can get past that.

And all you are doing is jumping between thinking there might be a god to there might not so as to avoid answering why you think either thought is justified.

I do not have to justify the FACT that there might be no gods...AND there also may be at least one god.

It simply is so...whether you can see it or not.

 

[Frank Apisa]

No you havent but you can easily prove me wrong by showing where you have or just try to do so now
If we are going to have a debate you have to stop saying you have done so and actually support your claim

#3044 is one defense. We have an either/or situation...and we do not know which it is. Neither has been shown to be impossible. So...it is possible that there are no gods...and it also is possible there is at least one.

Same for the flip of a coin. if flipped, we do not know whether it will land "heads" or land "tails." Neither is impossible. So...it is possible it will land "heads" and it is possible it will land "tails."

Same for whether there is sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. Either there is no sentient life on any of those planets...or there is life on one or more of those planets. Since neither is impossible...either is possible.

As for "Anything that has not been established as impossible IS POSSIBLE." That is self-evident to anyone without an agenda to oppose anything that might establish that "it is possible that at least one god exists."

You may refuse to accept that as a defense, but it is. It may not meet the standards you want to set...but that does not make it any less a defense.

 

[devildavid]

Your disagreement with me is because I AM using common sense.


That sentence is an abomination. Try to write so that what you say can be understood.


Damn near everything you say is transmitted by the written word...and you have lots of trouble writing anything clearly.

We can get past that.

I do not have to justify the FACT that there might be no gods...AND there also may be at least one god.

It simply is so...whether you can see it or not.

There are no FACTS at all regarding gods or the possibility of gods.

 

[devildavid]

#3044 is one defense. We have an either/or situation...and we do not know which it is. Neither has been shown to be impossible. So...it is possible that there are no gods...and it also is possible there is at least one.

Same for the flip of a coin. if flipped, we do not know whether it will land "heads" or land "tails." Neither is impossible. So...it is possible it will land "heads" and it is possible it will land "tails."

Same for whether there is sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. Either there is no sentient life on any of those planets...or there is life on one or more of those planets. Since neither is impossible...either is possible.

As for "Anything that has not been established as impossible IS POSSIBLE." That is self-evident to anyone without an agenda to oppose anything that might establish that "it is possible that at least one god exists."

You may refuse to accept that as a defense, but it is. It may not meet the standards you want to set...but that does not make it any less a defense.

Coins are real and how they come up when flipped is a matter of probability, not possibility.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You are and you have never tried to actually support your claim

I have supported it. And since you are unwilling to accept it...did it again just above.

Still running agway from supporting your claim instead you are trying to reverse the burden of proof but as I have already disproven your claim with the coins and the wife it doesnt really work

I am NOT running away. I am right here. You have not proven anything.

Hope you are having a good day though.
We have lots of sun right now, but it is still cold.

 

[devildavid]

I have supported it. And since you are unwilling to accept it...did it again just above.

I am NOT running away. I am right here. You have not proven anything.

Hope you are having a good day though.
We have lots of sun right now, but it is still cold.

You haven’t supported it. You just keep claiming it.

 

[Quag]

#3044 is one defense. We have an either/or situation...and we do not know which it is. Neither has been shown to be impossible. So...it is possible that there are no gods...and it also is possible there is at least one.

Nothing in that post about your claim that what has not been established as impossible is possible. And the ONLY attemto to supoort anythign was this:

If you are asking me to defend, "It is possible that no gods exist or that at least one does"...that defends itself.

It is self evident. It cannot be otherwise. (CC's 1/5th of a god might exist aside)

Sorry that isnt a defense it is just a claim that you are correct becasue you say so

Same for the flip of a coin. if flipped, we do not know whether it will land "heads" or land "tails." Neither is impossible. So...it is possible it will land "heads" and it is possible it will land "tails."

Except that if it turns out that it was a 2 headed coin it was never possible to land on tails, you merely believed it was.
That is where your claim falls down

Same for whether there is sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. Either there is no sentient life on any of those planets...or there is life on one or more of those planets. Since neither is impossible...either is possible.
As for "Anything that has not been established as impossible IS POSSIBLE." That is self-evident to anyone without an agenda to oppose anything that might establish that "it is possible that at least one god exists."

You may refuse to accept that as a defense, but it is. It may not meet the standards you want to set...but that does not make it any less a defense.

Bolded is not a defense of your claim.
Still waiting for you to actually try to defend your claim rather than run away

 

[Quag]

I have supported it. And since you are unwilling to accept it...did it again just above.

Stating that it is self evident that your claim is true is not defending your claim, it is running away

I am NOT running away. I am right here. You have not proven anything.

I have and you are, see above

Hope you are having a good day though.
We have lots of sun right now, but it is still cold.

Sun and cold here too

 

[Frank Apisa]

Nothing in that post about your claim that what has not been established as impossible is possible. And the ONLY attemto to supoort anythign was this:

I have done that in post #3086.

Sorry that isnt a defense it is just a claim that you are correct becasue you say so

Accept it or do not accept it. It is a defense whether you do or don't.

Except that if it turns out that it was a 2 headed coin it was never possible to land on tails, you merely believed it was.
That is where your claim falls down

If it were a two headed coin, it would be established that it could not land "tails."

How about giving us an instance where something has NOT been established as impossible...but that IS NOT POSSIBLE.

C'mon. Give it a shot.

Bolded is not a defense of your claim.

Yes it is.

Still waiting for you to actually try to defend your claim rather than run away

I am not running away. I am right here. Your charge that I am running away is hilarious.

And I have defended my claim. You just refuse to accept it.

Fine. Don't.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Stating that it is self evident that your claim is true is not defending your claim, it is running away

It is not. But if you need to pretend that I am "running away"...do it. I am enjoying watching you do so.

I have and you are, see above

Wrong.

Sun and cold here too

I want to play some golf...probably more than that guy who now lives in the White House. Hoping it happens soon..FOR ME.

But there are worse things than very cold weather and no golf. Wednesday and Thursday were the two coldest days of the year here, with temps only getting into double digits for an hour or two on both days. On Wednesday, my wife had to visit a sick relative; I was home alone. I was working the Internet speaking with you among other friends...and I remember thinking that my fingers were especially cold while typing. But I have Raynaud's syndrome, so I didn't put much concern into it.

At some point I went into the living room where we have an indoor/outdoor thermometer. The outdoor temp was 10...the indoor temp was 50! Holy shit...we have the thermostat set low, but at 66 - 67! The furnace had crashed! When the wife came home, she called the utility company...who scheduled a technician for Thursday morning. We have a wood-burning stove...which we used to heat up the living room where we spent the rest of our waking day. A heating blanket made sleep reasonable Wednesday night.

Next morning the tech spends better part of an hour checking out everything about the furnace...and eventually decides it must be the thermostat.

It was.

I replaced the thermostat...and all got back to normal.

It sure was uncomfortable for a while, though.

 

[Quag]

I have done that in post #3086.


Accept it or do not accept it. It is a defense whether you do or don't.

Saying you are right jus because is not a defence it is running away. Will you actually try to engage in debate or continue to run

If it were a two headed coin, it would be established that it could not land "tails."z

It is still impossible to land on tails before it is established as a 2 headed coin

How about giving us an instance where something has NOT been established as impossible...but that IS NOT POSSIBLE.

C'mon. Give it a shot.<

See above

Yes it is.

No it isnt. it is just claiming you are right because you say so. If it is so self evident you could explain why but you can't so you won't, instead you just run

I am not running away. I am right here. Your charge that I am running away is hilarious.

And I have defended my claim. You just refuse to accept it.

Fine. Don't.

You are running and you have never defended your claim as pvoen above

 

[Frank Apisa]

Saying you are right jus because is not a defence it is running away. Will you actually try to engage in debate or continue to run

It is a defense. Accept it or continue with your fantasy that it is wrong.

It is still impossible to land on tails before it is established as a 2 headed coin

Yes, it is. I have no problem with that. We have established that it cannot land as "tails." So that IS impossible. We have established that it is impossible in that scenario.

See above

Okay. I looked. So what?

No it isnt. it is just claiming you are right because you say so. If it is so self evident you could explain why but you can't so you won't, instead you just run

I am not running anywhere, which should be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain. But if you want to think I am not here with you...okay with me.

You are running and you have never defended your claim as pvoen above

If you want to continue with this delusion...fine with me.

I am willing to acknowledge that I am enjoying it.

 

[Quag]

It is not. But if you need to pretend that I am "running away"...do it. I am enjoying watching you do so.

It is and watching you prove that you run is amusing

Wrong.

Nope

I want to play some golf...probably more than that guy who now lives in the White House. Hoping it happens soon..FOR ME.

But there are worse things than very cold weather and no golf. Wednesday and Thursday were the two coldest days of the year here, with temps only getting into double digits for an hour or two on both days. On Wednesday, my wife had to visit a sick relative; I was home alone. I was working the Internet speaking with you among other friends...and I remember thinking that my fingers were especially cold while typing. But I have Raynaud's syndrome, so I didn't put much concern into it.

I only consider it really cold when the temperatures enter the negatives. Hope the relative is ok

At some point I went into the living room where we have an indoor/outdoor thermometer. The outdoor temp was 10...the indoor temp was 50! Holy shit...we have the thermostat set low, but at 66 - 67! The furnace had crashed! When the wife came home, she called the utility company...who scheduled a technician for Thursday morning. We have a wood-burning stove...which we used to heat up the living room where we spent the rest of our waking day. A heating blanket made sleep reasonable Wednesday night.

Next morning the tech spends better part of an hour checking out everything about the furnace...and eventually decides it must be the thermostat.

It was.

I replaced the thermostat...and all got back to normal.

It sure was uncomfortable for a while, though.

Had my furnace fail on a Friday when it was -20 about 6-7 years back the weekend before Christmas. I heat with hot water but use an electric furnace. Electricians dont like water and plumbers dont like electricity needed to make a lot of calls before I found anyone to help. Took a plumber and electrician, was lucky they fixed it the next day but they did charge a hefty premium for working saturday before Xmas. Fortunately the pipes didnt freeze

 

[Quag]

It is a defense. Accept it or continue with your fantasy that it is wrong.

No it is running. You cant so you wont actually defend your claim

Yes, it is. I have no problem with that. We have established that it cannot land as "tails." So that IS impossible. We have established that it is impossible in that scenario.

We established afterwards not before just like God(s). God(s) have not been established as impossible (or possible for that matter) that does not mean that God(s) are psosible but you can believe that they are. If someday it is established that God(s) are impossible then it was always impossible.

Okay. I looked. So what?

You failed to support or defend your claim

I am not running anywhere, which should be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain. But if you want to think I am not here with you...okay with me.

You are running from any actual attempt to defend your claim

If you want to continue with this delusion...fine with me.

I am willing to acknowledge that I am enjoying it.

I am not theone claiming to know things that are merely belief

 

[Frank Apisa]

It is and watching you prove that you run is amusing

I am not running, I am right here.

Glad you think it is amusing, because you seem to angry all the time...so frantic. I am delighted your delusion that I am running away helps you.

Nope

Yup.

I only consider it really cold when the temperatures enter the negatives. Hope the relative is ok

Thanks. She isn't. Frontal lobe dementia. It is a cruel disease. The relative, her sister, was a vice president at at a major bank in Manhattan. Very intelligent...and a warm person. Now she is just a shell.

Had my furnace fail on a Friday when it was -20 about 6-7 years back the weekend before Christmas. I heat with hot water but use an electric furnace. Electricians dont like water and plumbers dont like electricity needed to make a lot of calls before I found anyone to help. Took a plumber and electrician, was lucky they fixed it the next day but they did charge a hefty premium for working saturday before Xmas. Fortunately the pipes didnt freeze

These things always seem to happen at the very worst times. We've had our present furnace for 20 years now...and we are going to put in a new one come summer. Might as well try to nip any problems with the furnace going before they come up...although furnaces cost a hell of a lot more than a new thermostat.

 

[Frank Apisa]

No it is running. You cant so you wont actually defend your claim

Yeah, it really is.

We established afterwards not before just like God(s). God(s) have not been established as impossible (or possible for that matter) that does not mean that God(s) are psosible but you can believe that they are. If someday it is established that God(s) are impossible then it was always impossible.

If you want to argue that it is impossible for any gods to exists...I will be happy to accommodate you. But you really shouldn't. You will look even worse with that argument than you look now in this one.

You failed to support or defend your claim

No I did not. You just are rejecting the defense.

You are running from any actual attempt to defend your claim

I am not running away. I am here for you as long as you keep posting.

I promise.

I am not theone claiming to know things that are merely belief

If you say so. Neither am I.