Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists (3 Viewers)

[Quag]

Because the definition I provided did not say that morality was subjective in any way, and you had to add stuff to make it mean what you wanted.

Your inability to comprehend the english language is your fialing not mine

 

[Quag]

I claimed it, several times. Try to keep up. It's not a false claim because you guys keep insisting that religion must be supported by scientific evidence, and I've already indicated the affiliations of religion with poetry. Search "Bataille" on the thread if you want that confirmed.

So you are claiming that science decides who can or cannot appreciate poetry because you said so?

 

[Individual]

So you are claiming that science decides who can or cannot appreciate poetry because you said so?

One can appreciate poetry without needing to believe it be literally true. The Epic of Gilgamesh, perhaps the origin of what became some of the Old Testament stories contained in the Bible was quite intriguing.

 

[Master Debator]

(1) "Materialist drivel" cannot be an ad hominem because materialism is still not a person. I don't call your contradictions of my objective/subjective criteria ad hominems. It app;lies only such when you make remarks about me, a person, as you did. (Saying that it was "a jest" does not change that.)

I can be an ad hominem because materialist drivel is directed at people. Don't play stupid. An as@hole isn't a person either, it's a part of the anatomy of a person but if you call someone an as@hole that is an ad hominem just like when you call opinions from people materialist drivel.

(2) My hyperbole was intended to provoke atheists into saying dumb things, and some of them have obliged me, thus providing me with amusement.

Your ad hominems just inspire more ad hominems but you pretending like your ad hominems aren't ad hominems is pretty funny to the rest of us. You living a life of pretend and make believe for the sake of your frail arguments is ****ing hilarious in its fragility of the truth.

(3) The driver is allowing his subjective state to override any claim to prudent action. This is the subjectivity that materialists rashly attribute to all internal feeling.

What prudent action? Prudence isn't objective, its subjective. What you or I may feel is prudent can be vastly different.

(4) You're still deflecting from your inadequate definition, because science is not predictive across the board. Medicine, for instance, might have some limited claims to prediction of future outcomes, but anthropology is as much a part of "science," and it's confined to analyzing the past, not the future. That's why a better definition is desirable.

1. I said evidence that you know what you're taking about comes in the form of predictability of outcomes.

2. Anthropologist will be the first to tell you that their ability to tell us about previous cultures and human societies is limited by the information we can glean from the things they left behind. I read an anthropologist article a while back about two children buried with hundreds of these beaded ornaments. They couldn't really say if they were worshipped, sacrificed or whatever, the only thing they could really tell us is roughly the amount of hours it would or taken to make all those beaded ornaments and to imagine what cultural reasons lead them to expend so much labor in the effort.

3. Science is about gathering information, making observations and experimentation to understand the world around us.

(5) No, I represented your "science first" argument accurately, and you repeated it once more in the quote above. (6) Why should I repeat myself just because you please to do so. I've already specified that pure subjectivity only applies in the absence of objective input.

Who cares if you represented it accurately? Did you defeat it as an argument? If not then why wouldn't I hit you with it again? And Im not telling you that you should repeat it again. I dont care what you do. Im asking for clarity because i dont sit around thinking of your arguments inbetween you making them. I don't remember what your reply was. If you don't want to clarify what your counter argument was that's fine by me. Your counter argument can be your little secret.

(7) See my post 4972 on Dirac for an example of a scientist whose scientific inquiries did not support an atheist conclusion.

What in the world is this treasure hunt you're sending me on and what does it have to do with your comments about the supernatural? Whatever, I'll look it up..... Oh, absolutely nothing I see... well that was pointless.

But since he did not, the reaction of one atheist was to call him a "religionist" to render him illegitimate. That's a real limitation, but of that speaker's purely personal knowledge.

What the **** does your argument with someone else have to do with me?

 

[Quag]

One can appreciate poetry without needing to believe it be literally true. The Epic of Gilgamesh, perhaps the origin of what became some of the Old Testament stories contained in the Bible was quite intriguing.

His claim isnt about truth it is about appreciation.
He has yet to explain why an atheist lacks any appreciation of The Raven or Ozymandias

 

[Individual]

I was speaking of your scenario in which some evidence was supposedly produced, and making the assertion that most atheists would not accept the evidence because of their commitment to materialistic beliefs.

Gravity serves as an example of something which has been proven to exist, though not in any materialistic way.
Water can be separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen, can you discern the difference between the two gases visually? Science provides a way.

 

[Individual]

His claim isnt about truth it is about appreciation.
He has yet to explain why an atheist lacks any appreciation of The Raven or Ozymandias

Or, "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore, While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door."

 

[Quag]

Or, "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore, While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door."

Quoth the Quag nevermore

 

[Individual]

Quoth the Quag nevermore

Now that's Poe etry.

 

[Quag]

Now that's Poe etry.

From childhood’s hour I have not been
As others were—I have not seen
As others saw—I could not bring
My passions from a common spring

 

[Individual]

From childhood’s hour I have not been
As others were—I have not seen
As others saw—I could not bring
My passions from a common spring

Is Poe still taught in school today?

 

[Quag]

Is Poe still taught in school today?

He was never taught in any school I went to. He is however IMHO the greatest writer in the English language
Now lets turn this into a poetry aprpeciation thread,

I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand —
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep — while I weep!
O God! Can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?

 

[Individual]

He was never taught in any school I went to. He is however IMHO the greatest writer in the English language
Now lets turn this into a poetry aprpeciation thread,

I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand —
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep — while I weep!
O God! Can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?

Not as a course, but it was a reading assignment.
Come on, we'd probably just bore the thread creator.

 

[Quag]

Not as a course, but it was a reading assignment.
Come on, we'd probably just bore the thread creator.

True I doubt he would appreciate it but that is their proplem.
Just to mix it up

My mind to me a kingdom is;
Such present joys therein I find,
That it excels all other bliss
That earth affords or grows by kind:
Though much I want that most would have,
Yet still my mind forbids to crave.

 

[Individual]

I know.

Not believing in a god is by definition, not a belief. Just like not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

Lack of a belief in god(s) is predicated on the absence of any rational reason.

 

[Michael Cole]

Your fact isn't even a grammatical sentence.

Grammatically correct. Your fact isn't even a grammatically correct sentence. My oh my. How embarrassing.

 

[watsup]

Grammatically correct. Your fact isn't even a grammatically correct sentence. My oh my. How embarrassing.

Embarrassment is a key trait of Ouroboros multiple times every single day.

 

[watsup]

But I can still say "define your criteria for evidence,"

Define your criteria for evidence.

Define your criteria for evidence.

Your surrender in resorting to your own dictionary is noted.

According to your criteria. What are they?

Put up some criteria for evidence.

As Ouroboros moves the goal posts yet again because he is so afraid to offer his claim of evidence for his particular figments of imagination such as “formless entities” or “entities that appear to be a god”. As such, he has officially been awarded a “FAIL” months ago and his posts since then have been nothing more than embarrassments, although he does not seem to realize that.
As for criteria, have long stated that it is the same one used by science, which is that it must be available to be independently checked by others. Simply stating a claim such as is done in “witnessing” is clearly not a valid criteria.

P.S. You clearly still do not understand the function of a dictionary. This was taught in second grade.

 

[watsup]

you've failed to provide your criteria for validation.

Define your criteria for evidence.

Define your criteria for evidence.

According to your criteria. What are they?

And what are the criteria u

Put up some criteria for evidence.

Sealioning.

 

[Ouroboros]

A quite relevant question, perhaps you're just too young to have seen any change but that doesn't excuse you from learning from the historical records of human societies.

A long view of history, whether gained from personal experience or reading records, does not automatically support atheist relativism regarding morality. Atheists endorse relativism in reaction against theism, which can be equally at fault for embracing dogma re morals. But atheists throw out the baby with the bathwater, invalidating any conception of morality formulated by theists because it came from theists. This results in the fallacy that every society just formulates its own ethos in isolation, and it leads to the concomitant fallacy that one cannot morally judge any society (except that of Current Theists to which the Current Atheists are opposed).

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you a flat earther?

Bark some more, sealion.

 

[Ouroboros]

When something hypothetically/theoretically believed to exist or function can repetitively be shown to exist or function as previously believed.

You said that before and it's still a tautology until you speak to the means by which the phenomena are validated.

 

[Ouroboros]

Post #6398.

Not even close.

 

[Ouroboros]

I know.

Not believing in a god is by definition, not a belief. Just like not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

False for the reasons stated. Repeat your dogma all you please, it will remain false every time.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's for the one making the claim to figure out what or how they could demonstrate their claim to be factual in an undeniable way.
That which doesn't exist is impossible to prove one way or the other, leaving it only for those who want, to believe while still others find reality to be where useful knowledge exists.

Nope, you make the same mistake re criteria that you do regarding morality. You ignore common, defining factors to promote meaningless tautologies.