|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2019 8:02:49 GMT
Are you "just asking to see evidence" yet again? It has already been pointed out to you that you never were, are not now, and likely never will be, appointed arbiter of what is or is not evidence. That being the case, you dismiss evidence based on your beliefs Now, this is ironic since the regular reader on this board will remember how Arlon has told us lately that, apparently, "all definitions are arbitrary", and so here he ought to be saying exactly the opposite: that what can be defined as evidence is after all in this context a matter for me, even if he may not agree. But as it happens I am not here asking Arlon for positive evidence for his purported deity (mainly since he never really offers anything more than Arguments from Popularity or the God of the Gaps.) I am just reminding him that one can easily deduce the sort of god he believes in based on what he has already, quite clearly, told us - despite his usual obfuscation. QED. You are obviously having great difficulty understanding that "all definitions are arbitrary" does not in any way whatsoever imply that all opinions are correct. All opinions are not correct and yours especially are not. I told you before there is the set of symbols used to represent reality and reality itself and that people, especially you, are confused by the different rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2019 8:07:34 GMT
If you look thoroughly enough you might find "theists" who believe all sorts of ridiculous things about gods. There are also "science" fans who believe all sorts of ridiculous things about science. There is no difference whatsoever. If religion is "defeated" by its least informed followers than science should be too. That is to be consistent. It is not my opinion. In my opinion some science is valuable and some religion is even more valuable. Neither is defeated by the least informed. What, about nothing more don't you understand? It is also clear that you don't ,never have and never will, actually understand what science really is. Oh and I don't 'believe' in it! What about actually use science don't you understand?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 2, 2019 8:18:16 GMT
What, about nothing more don't you understand? It is also clear that you don't ,never have and never will, actually understand what science really is. Oh and I don't 'believe' in it! What about actually use science don't you understand? Everything. You didn't say that until now and it is out of context meaningless and unintelligable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2019 8:54:10 GMT
What about actually use science don't you understand? Everything. You didn't say that until now and it is out of context meaningless and unintelligable. The problem is on your end. I have mentioned it many times.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 2, 2019 11:12:40 GMT
Everything. You didn't say that until now and it is out of context meaningless and unintelligable. The problem is on your end. I have mentioned it many times. WTF does that have to do with people actually using science all the time as we do...evidence you and me on computers?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 2, 2019 20:55:08 GMT
You are obviously having great difficulty understanding that "all definitions are arbitrary" does not in any way whatsoever imply that all opinions are correct. All opinions are not correct and yours especially are not. You have your opinions and are welcome to them, right or wrong (and I think we both know what the regular consensus is here about that) just as I am, which was why I wrote "that what can be defined as evidence is after all in this context a matter for me, even if [you] may not agree.." remember? Of course you are the one who arbitrarily 'argues with dictionaries and wins'. So perhaps we must take it that your definitions must, er, be more likely to be accurate and true? If you mean that my opinion that your - fairly traditional, as it turns out - idea of god can largely be deduced from what you have already told us is especially mistaken or, come to that, your recent supposed evidence for God was not an Argument from Popularity or argument from the God of the Gaps, then you will need to show why given the examples I have used. If now you are claiming that God is just symbolic and you wish to discuss the notions of Tillich and other thinkers, then I am happy to proceed to help clear up any confusion. But I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ᵗʰᵉᵃᵘˣᵖʰᵒᵘ on Aug 4, 2019 20:36:23 GMT
12/15 – I am not religious and don’t believe in gods. Not sure why it needs to be essential, though, as these are basic questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Aug 7, 2019 16:51:35 GMT
my guns my guns (why has thou mistaken me)
the instigation of child labor laws
here in
the united states of hysteria
saved
some photographer the trouble
of having to shoot
a promotional calendar
showing eleven year olds
packing
plastik explosive into what appear to be
juice boxes
but are in reality
save me jesus grenades.
so we brainstormed
and decided to ship the real nasty ingredients
to countries we control
but have
no constitutional right to be in
telling the children:
god is indeed merciful
but
you'll still have to stand in line
for body parts.
one would think
even a master of the universe
would step in
unless
his heart as well
was as black as sin.
sjw 08/07/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the tail of the serpent smacking the head.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by klandersen on Aug 7, 2019 18:48:32 GMT
Not bad I got 12/15.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 8, 2019 9:09:00 GMT
Why do atheists think they have a lack of belief, when they do have a belief in NO existence of a supreme deity creating the universe? Their belief is founded on the dill headed theist one of a supreme deity\being creating the universe. Both fail to understand the true nature of reality\being.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 8, 2019 18:48:58 GMT
Why do atheists think they have a lack of belief, when they do have a belief in NO existence of a supreme deity creating the universe? Their belief is founded on the dill headed theist one of a supreme deity\being creating the universe. Both fail to understand the true nature of reality\being. But I'm an atheist lacking belief in the deliberate supernatural and yet don't affirm anything about any presumed deity at all. I may have my suspicions of course, but that is not the same as holding negative belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 8, 2019 21:13:03 GMT
Why do atheists think they have a lack of belief, when they do have a belief in NO existence of a supreme deity creating the universe? Their belief is founded on the dill headed theist one of a supreme deity\being creating the universe. Both fail to understand the true nature of reality\being. I have always disputed this idea. To me an absence of belief by definition cannot be replaced by anything, even a negative. Anyway, if you wish to be picky, that is probably why I am an agnostic atheist. What is the true nature of being/reality? You know this and you haven't told us before or written a book on it for the benefit of mankind? So slack!
|
|
