News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism Poll

Started by Drew_2017, September 09, 2017, 03:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 28, 2017, 01:27:55 PM
What the holy fuck are you talking about? Did you get up in a bad mood, or have you simply gone bonkers?

It's OK, he often makes no sense.  To paraphrase Wally in 'Dilbert', he thinks he's funny sometimes but he isn't.  I would have quoted it, but the punctuation got a bit weird...  Sort of past pluperfect future garfunkle.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Tejas Green

Gods are all fictitious nonsense. Except DC Comics' Thor. He's too cool to be fake. Except ... Thor's now a woman ... who used to be Dr. Donald Blake's love interest ... and she's a human ... but elevated to godhood status, I guess ... Oh crap, can we please stick with the Thor from my misspent youth, for Odin's sake?

Unbeliever

Hi TG! Welcome aboard, for Odin's sake!
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

Quote from: Tejas Green on September 28, 2017, 03:08:51 PM
Gods are all fictitious nonsense. Except DC Comics' Thor. He's too cool to be fake. Except ... Thor's now a woman ... who used to be Dr. Donald Blake's love interest ... and she's a human ... but elevated to godhood status, I guess ... Oh crap, can we please stick with the Thor from my misspent youth, for Odin's sake?

Marvel Comics...  But I forgive anyone who even remembers Thor's earthly origin; Dr. Don Blake who found a stick in a cave with Nurse Jane Foster and struck it against a wall.

Looking forward to your next posts.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

#364
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 28, 2017, 01:20:39 PM
Oh? What was your first clue?

Well, he does seem to be much like other posters here, except a lot younger ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 28, 2017, 01:27:55 PM
What the holy fuck are you talking about? Did you get up in a bad mood, or have you simply gone bonkers?

In old age, we start forgetting our own posts, or think they were written by someone else, who is impersonating us ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 01:33:03 PM
It's OK, he often makes no sense.  To paraphrase Wally in 'Dilbert', he thinks he's funny sometimes but he isn't.  I would have quoted it, but the punctuation got a bit weird...  Sort of past pluperfect future garfunkle.

So, you are a cunning linguist? ;-))
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Tejas Green on September 28, 2017, 03:08:51 PM
Gods are all fictitious nonsense. Except DC Comics' Thor. He's too cool to be fake. Except ... Thor's now a woman ... who used to be Dr. Donald Blake's love interest ... and she's a human ... but elevated to godhood status, I guess ... Oh crap, can we please stick with the Thor from my misspent youth, for Odin's sake?

Please make an intro post in the intro section.  And yes, I liked Thor too, but not as a feminist.  There are too many Valkyries already!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 11:14:12 PM
I attended a talk by Jerry Coyne (i got him to autograph his wonderful book) and during the Q&A, he mentioned that anyone with the smallest intelligence must know that we do not have free will. I looked at my dad with horror. MENSA tested me and said that I had an IQ beyond the charts which means my IQ exceeds the MENSA maximum of 160 (which made me hope that mine was 200, like Einstein's, but then it's probably much less because I can't understand some physics books that I've read while Einstein could write physics books blindfolded) and I was wondering if there might have been a mistake in the test because I really thought I had free will. Coyne says most people think we have free will because if feels like we have free will but we are really determined by our genes and our upbringing and our genes will determine our reaction to the environment. I haven't thought much about it but I'd like to think that I have free will and I always voluntarily go with the TRUTH because I am...

St Truth

I'd think so even if it wasn't true. What I have found is those who argue against free will invariably exempt themselves from it and claim they arrived at their conclusion independently.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 11:45:43 PM
To postulate the ultimate source as something so developed as a Supreme Intelligence is to put the cart before the horse because it begs the question how indeed such a being could come to exist. To say that this Supreme Being has always existed is of course to make up your own rules to govern a presupposition that you have come up with in the first place. Letting one presupposition ride on the back of another presupposition (both presuppositions of which are not backed by any reason or evidence) is the embarrassing hallmark of theism and I'm not saying this disparagingly or with intent to hurt the delicate feelings of religionists because I too am a Christian and a pious altar boy.

I'm not a religious theist, I'm a theist on philosophical grounds for the moment the available evidence (imo) tilts in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. Unlike some who answered the poll question I'm no where near as certain of theism as some are of naturalism.

Theism isn't about how a Creator came into existence, my focus on is on how the universe and humans came to exist. The same questions apply either way...how did the universe come to exist? Was it an endless recession of events? Did it poof into existence uncaused out of nothing or did it always exist which you seem to feel is making up my own rules. What rules are you referring to? How do you know the rules you refer to are the only rules? You seem to be injecting your own presuppositions.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

QuoteAs I have said, depending on your definition of God, I may or may not accept its existence. If you define God to include an impersonal force, I accept the likelihood of its existence because a force is nothing new or fanciful. But if your God is a supernatural being with consciousness, I don't accept its existence because you are conjuring up a new entity without reason or evidence. I'm assuming you have neither reason nor evidence because I have been asking for that for a long time and nobody however religious he may be can possibly come up with the smallest shred of evidence.

At least you're an honest atheist who rejects the evidence prior to hearing it. I've duly made a case for why I subscribe to theism you can look on page 16 of this thread for a link but we can save time you'll undoubtedly say its fallacious arguments (without demonstrating how just saying so is more than ample). I'm still patiently waiting for the case for atheism or naturalism which ever you choose I don't play the zero sum game where dismissing one claim off hand makes the contrary claim true by default.

QuoteYou are employing another trickery of the church. Asking me to state my case against God is one famous trickery that the church uses and William Lane Craig (the man who's better off as a mean used car salesman) usually does in his debate. Let me spell it out to you so you don't repeat this egregious blunder.

I don't call people who subscribe to naturalism or atheism imbeciles for thinking so, unlike atheists on this board I don't make the absurd claim there isn't a shred of evidence that comports with belief in naturalism. Actually I'm not very interesting in your case against God I'm more interested in your case for naturalistic forces causing all we observe. Once you have laid it out for me in simple lay terms I'm confident I will agree I've been duped into thinking theism is true and be in your debt.

QuoteIt's NEVER for the atheist to state his case against any imaginary being whether it's God, Narnia, the poltergeist, fairies, pixies, leprechauns or the invisible teacup that circles planet Mars. It's for the person who asserts the existence of these objects to state their case.

Believe it or not I've been arguing with atheists for over 20 years (off and on its good to take a sabbatical from time to time) and I never once heard this argument. Simply brilliant! You just cut right through the chase. In spite of this original thinking...I'd still think someone who calls theists imbeciles would be less of a coward and grow some balls and make a case for what you think is true.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

Quote from: Tejas Green on September 28, 2017, 03:08:51 PM
Gods are all fictitious nonsense. Except DC Comics' Thor. He's too cool to be fake. Except ... Thor's now a woman ... who used to be Dr. Donald Blake's love interest ... and she's a human ... but elevated to godhood status, I guess ... Oh crap, can we please stick with the Thor from my misspent youth, for Odin's sake?

Apparently you haven't witnessed Tom Brady play football. He is at bare minimum a football demi-god. I think his team should kneel before him...in fact the entire stadium should. Make a new anthem to Brady and forget about the national anthem. 
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

St Truth

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 28, 2017, 09:28:47 PM
At least you're an honest atheist who rejects the evidence prior to hearing it. I've duly made a case for why I subscribe to theism you can look on page 16 of this thread for a link but we can save time you'll undoubtedly say its fallacious arguments (without demonstrating how just saying so is more than ample). I'm still patiently waiting for the case for atheism or naturalism which ever you choose I don't play the zero sum game where dismissing one claim off hand makes the contrary claim true by default.

I don't call people who subscribe to naturalism or atheism imbeciles for thinking so, unlike atheists on this board I don't make the absurd claim there isn't a shred of evidence that comports with belief in naturalism. Actually I'm not very interesting in your case against God I'm more interested in your case for naturalistic forces causing all we observe. Once you have laid it out for me in simple lay terms I'm confident I will agree I've been duped into thinking theism is true and be in your debt.

Believe it or not I've been arguing with atheists for over 20 years (off and on its good to take a sabbatical from time to time) and I never once heard this argument. Simply brilliant! You just cut right through the chase. In spite of this original thinking...I'd still think someone who calls theists imbeciles would be less of a coward and grow some balls and make a case for what you think is true.

When I say a theist is an imbecile, I don't mean he has a low IQ. I simply mean he is an imbecile in closing his mind to reality. He is an imbecile for coming up with the God proposition totally without reason and without evidence. You mention philosophy. All theists do that. But most theists who depend on philosophy are mere dabblers in philosophy. They do a Philosophy 101 in uni and they think they've got it all. Or as is more frequently the case they do a spot of self-study (usually from reading what's on the Internet) and they think they're philosophers. If you must look at the statistics, most living philosophers today are atheists. On the internet, it's the dabblers in philosophy who are theists.

ST TRUTH'S OBSERVATION

From my observation, I suspect the reason the dabblers go into philosophy is the same reason physics dabblers sometimes use quantum physics to say God exists. But again, just as the REAL philosophers tend to be atheists, the REAL physicists tend to be atheists too. But like philosophy dabblers, physics dabblers on the internet are almost all theists.

ST TRUTH'S INCISIVE CONCLUSION

I suspect the reason theists are drawn to Internet Philosophy or Internet Physics is they have nothing else to back their beliefs. If Magic were a respectable science, they would have flocked to it like bees to honey. They know that the real philosophers and the real physicists are atheists but they also know that these people won't be found on AF or any internet forum. They believe they can display their little Internet learning and they will at least sound respectable for believing in something that is so laughably discreditable.

I believe you when you said you knew nothing of the onus of proof and you insist that the onus is on the atheist. But that's as outrageous as asking an a-fairyist to prove there are no fairies. Please address your mind to this and I assure you the simplicity of the subject matter should be clear to you. Anyone who asserts the existence of any entity must show the existence of that entity. No, don't turn a blind eye to this because theists are sure to do it when confronted with this. I want you to focus on this for a minute - if you assert the existence of an invisible teapot that allegedly circles Mars, it is impossible for any sane person to show the lunacy of such a proposition. That's because it's implausible to prove a negative. It's for the person who asserts the existence of this teapot to show that it exists.

Similarly (hearken to me please for I can see your theistic fervour is turning your eyes away from my words), a person who asserts the existence of the pixie or (in your case) God, must show the existence of this pixie or (in your case) God.

Please grow a brain and show your evidence why God exists. If you don't like the name 'imbecile', show us you aren't one.

Until you are able to do that, no atheist should venture to prove  the non-existence of the invisible teapot, or the pixie, or the pink polka-dotted unicorn or (in your case) God.

I speak in truth for I am none other than...

St Truth

St Truth

Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 01:33:03 PM
It's OK, he often makes no sense.  To paraphrase Wally in 'Dilbert', he thinks he's funny sometimes but he isn't.  I would have quoted it, but the punctuation got a bit weird...  Sort of past pluperfect future garfunkle.

There is a reason why Baruch makes no sense. If I believed in fairies and I'm in an a-fairyist forum, I would behave the same way too.

1. Never explain why fairyism is true.
2. Never give any evidence for fairies.
3. Never engage anyone in an argument directly. If I do argue, I will sound nonsensical, humorous in a clownish way, and be as evasive as an eel coated in lubricating gel.
4. Mouth philosophical or spiritual inanities, particularly the older philosophers and the more mystical ones.
5. Speak contradictions and paradoxes. The more outrageously contradictory, the better. The wiser I'd appear and the more unlikely anyone would argue with me.
6. Poke fun at a-fairyism and call a-fairyists names in a jocular way.
7. Be light-hearted and comical all the time.

These are St Truth's 7 rules on how to survive if you believe in nonsense and yet want to appear respectable in the company of intelligent atheists.

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings but I can't help speaking the truth, for I am...

St Truth

Baruch

#374
Fair categorization.  Isn't that proof of fair-ies?  Only part of that applies to me, but stereotype away.

Words are slippery things ... they can't be used with the precision you claim.  There are even problems when rigor is attempted in maths.  Ever read Principia Mathematica?

As a young person ... you aren't even a real dabbler yet.  Just a dabbler at dabbling.  Dabble, dabble.  You turkey you ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.