D
Deleted member 619
Guest
australopithecus said:Joe, Hack, play nice.
We are playing nice, if a little rough. There is no acrimony here, just playful banter.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
australopithecus said:Joe, Hack, play nice.
australopithecus said:Swing and a miss, chuckles. I assign no truth value to the existence of gods, I merely remain unconvinced. Nothing more. I'm no saying it's not true, just that I haven't seen anything to believe it is.
Do try again though, without the strawman.
hackenslash said:>< V >< said:Agnosticism is not a position?
Yes it is, it's a position regarding the possibility of knowledge. Specifically, it is the position that knowledge is not possible, even in principle, with regard to a specific proposition.
Of course it isn't, because atheists try to define themselves as the true skeptics.
No, we don't try to define ourselves as anything. We are skeptics, by definition, with regard to a specific set of claims.
If I claimed there exists underwear on my body right now, how would you address my claim?
Well, I'd be tempted to take it on face value, for several reasons; first, this is not an extraordinary claim for a human (assuming you are, in fact, human). Second, you are not basing an entire view of the world, with attendant attempts to define legislative and political strictures, on the basis of whether or not you are, in fact, adorned in lingerie.
Would you be a theist and support the existence of my underwear?
Are you suggesting that your lacy nightwear is a deity? If not, then your personal fetishes are not a matter of concern for the atheist, whose only characteristic is the rejection of truth claims, and extraordinary ones at that, concerning the existence of invisible magic men who, in spite of the inherent contradiction in such a position, suggest that all that exists was created by some entity whose existence is not merely asserted, but asserted against all logical barriers to said existence.
Of course, if you wish to assert that this entity can exist in spite of logical contradiction that suggests otherwise, then I invite you to do so. This would begin with the provision of suitable evidential support for this entity, and a robust explanation of why this entity is unfettered by logical constraints. The problem then becomes, of course, that you would have to employ logic in order to support an entity that is allegedly free from said constraints, somewhat fucking your own argument up the arse in the process. Can't fucking wait for that.
Would you be an atheist and deny the existence of my underwear?
Oh look; it's bad fucking analogy time.
Even were your scrot-sack to be a deity, no I would not. I would merely suggest that you present evidence a) for the existence of said dick-truss and b) that your cock-sling was actually divine in any sense. Perhaps you've heard of this; it's called skepticism. If you were not claiming your knob-hammock to be a god, and that it were merely a device for keeping your tackle in check, then I would rely on the time-worn principle of male humans keeping their john-thomases in such a receptacle and simply move on to more interesting matters. Up to you. Are your Y-fronts god?
Or would you say, you know what, I really don't need to answer this question right now and being that I have no information to answer it, I will refrain from answering?
Well, the first thing to note is that none of your fatuous bollocks actually needs to be answered. It might do, if it constiuted anything remotely resembling a cogent argument but, as it is, it requires only scorn and derision, since it attempts to conflate acceptance of the existence of the receptor of your skid-marks with an entity capable of creating existence (if this is not your deity, please say so, and I'll fuck that one over as well).
Which is the most logical position?
You want to talk about logic here as if you understand the first fucking thing about it? The hubris on display here is galactic. After erecting the fatuous, sophomoric example of failure of logic above, you purport to be in a position to teach the critical thinkers her about logic? Are you having a fucking giraffe?
No one is forcing you to assign a truth value to the existence of God. You choose to answer it yourself with insufficient information, otherwise known as faith.
No, faith is required to adopt a position without evidence. The critical thinkers here adopt no position with regard to the existence of a deity, except where the existence of a particular deity is defeated by logical necessity. I don't know (although maybe I should) which particular celestial peeping-tom you support, but state your case, and I'll be happy to show that it doesn't exist. None of the fuckwitted conceptions of deity propounded by the terminally credulous do, and I can demonstrate this to be the case.
Would you like a shot at the title? I'm all yours.
Do you believe God exists?
Anachronous Rex said:Do you believe God exists?
Can't answer until you define god. Please do.
>< V >< said:God is the consciousness that created the universe.
Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?
If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.
If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.
If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.
Doesn't seem like a very good definition. What if there is another universe? What if there are many? Do they each have their own god? What if someone from one universe found a way to create another? If tomorrow Dr. Krauss discovered a technology able to create a universe? Would that make him a god? What if he devised a means to make many - perhaps infinite - universes? Wouldn't that make him more powerful than god? And what of the many, many beings described as gods throughout the ages that clearly did not create this or any other universe? Are they not gods?>< V >< said:Anachronous Rex said:Can't answer until you define god. Please do.
God is the consciousness that created the universe.
No more than I believe it was created by an eggplant.Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?
And if I relentlessly mock the language of the question?If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.
If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.
If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.
Anachronous Rex said:And if I relentlessly mock the language of the question?
>< V >< said:God is the consciousness that created the universe.
Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?
>< V >< said:God is the consciousness that created the universe.
Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?
If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.
If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.
If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.
>< V >< said:yada yada yada atheism/theism is a false dichotomy there is also agnosticism
ImprobableJoe said:Except that's actually sort of dumb, the way you phrased it. I can't really answer "I don't know" to a "do you believe" question about anything that I've given thought to.
Anachronous Rex said:Doesn't seem like a very good definition. What if there is another universe? What if there are many? Do they each have their own god? What if someone from one universe found a way to create another? If tomorrow Dr. Krauss discovered a technology able to create a universe? Would that make him a god? What if he devised a means to make many - perhaps infinite - universes? Wouldn't that make him more powerful than god? And what of the many, many beings described as gods throughout the ages that clearly did not create this or any other universe? Are they not gods?
Anachronous Rex said:Seeing as how everything we know about consciousness indicates that it requires both time and matter to operate, and these are emergent properties of the universe.
Anachronous Rex said:No more than I believe it was created by an eggplant.
australopithecus said:That's not a definition, I'll clue you in as to why. Consciousness, is not a definition, it's a description. If I described Da Vinci as 'the consciousness that created art" I have not described anything. I've just given you a specific attribute of Da Vinci. You've defined absolutely nothing. Do try again.
australopithecus said:Until you can provide a better definition and description of God then I cannot answer the question honestly.
DepricatedZero said:>< V >< said:yada yada yada atheism/theism is a false dichotomy there is also agnosticism
I'm not going to rehash something that I've bludgeoned to death. Here's my argument, if you care to review it.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5587
You, sir or madam, are a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.
DepricatedZero said:You, sir or madam, are a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.
>< V >< said:Your actions and beliefs define your position, not what words you choose to create a definition. And atheists walk and talk only the disbelief in God. It's that action that defines your atheism. And only arguing one side of a debate is not the skeptic position.
Perhaps you need to work on your definition of clear, because I just did. Your definition of god both does not apply to the vast majority of entities described as gods, and could conceivably apply to humans (or creatures similar to humans.) If that doesn't strike you as a problem then I label you a sophist.>< V >< said:Anachronous Rex said:Doesn't seem like a very good definition. What if there is another universe? What if there are many? Do they each have their own god? What if someone from one universe found a way to create another? If tomorrow Dr. Krauss discovered a technology able to create a universe? Would that make him a god? What if he devised a means to make many - perhaps infinite - universes? Wouldn't that make him more powerful than god? And what of the many, many beings described as gods throughout the ages that clearly did not create this or any other universe? Are they not gods?
I see no relevance to your questions. If you have a problem with my definition, then clearly state what that problem is.
You seem to have missed the point. It is not merely that you have assumed something outside of the universe, rather it is that what you have proposed as being outside of the universe is something we know itself requires the universe. I question your judgment if this was not immediately obvious to you, and your intellectual honesty if it was and you simply chose to ignore it.Anachronous Rex said:Seeing as how everything we know about consciousness indicates that it requires both time and matter to operate, and these are emergent properties of the universe.
I agree, assuming anything outside of the universe is highly problematic. Not just a consciousness, but anything. But in the end, this gets us no where, because all creation hypotheses face this challenge, whether they be religious or from "potential emerging science" (ie, multiverse, branes). Again, I agree with your point, but this can't just end the debate. We can't just pack up our bags and call it quits, just because we might have to postulate something outside the universe.
This is sometimes what it's like when trying to understand the unknown. We postulate various ideas to see how well the hypothesis fits the facts. And if the hypothesis works well, the postulate gains credibility, no matter how counter-intuitive the postulate may seem. And due to the enormous challenges of creation, the origins of the universe, this may be our only strategy for trying to understand the beginnings, for many, many centuries.
I contend that no fair-minded person would approach this conclusion from what I wrote.Anachronous Rex said:No more than I believe it was created by an eggplant.
So by your own admission, you give equal weight to the possibility that the universe was consciously and non-consciously created. 50% chance of conscious creation and 50% chance of non-conscious creation.
That is agnosticism.
>< V >< said:If that is not a quality of God that defines "it", then what are you atheist about?
Then your atheism is a lie. Because you already answered the question with atheism.
Seriously, what is wrong with you? How can you be atheist yet, not know what you're atheist about?
Is it not true, atheist, that what you don't believe, is that God is a consciousness that created the universe?
I know, I know, you want a simple definition of God that's easy to refute.
Like God is all loving, yet there is evil in the world.
Maybe it's about time you elevate your understanding and address the crux of the matter on whether or not the universe is a conscious creation, instead of constantly focusing on the different clothes people dress God in.
This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."australopithecus said:...and given those definitions I lack faith in those gods. Hence atheism.
Sparky said:This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."australopithecus said:...and given those definitions I lack faith in those gods. Hence atheism.
Surely if atheism can be defined as above, a theist should be able to be defined as "one who lacks disbelief in a god/gods?" i.e. the opposite of the definition of atheism provided above. This definition of a theist now encompasses those who claim to lack belief in a god but who are unwilling to claim that they believe no gods exist just as the definition of an atheist does.
This, to my mind, lends credence to there being a middle ground that should not belong to either atheism or theism.
Is there merit to this?
Sparky said:This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."
Surely if atheism can be defined as above, a theist should be able to be defined as "one who lacks disbelief in a god/gods?" i.e. the opposite of the definition of atheism provided above.
That logic seems a little desperate to me. Generally speaking the suffix 'ist' ought to apply to a positive belief, which is one reason I don't really like the word 'atheist' because its meaning is thereby disputable. Clearly it doesn't refer to a positive belief either in original usage or in etymology, but the 'ist' ending entreats people to think otherwise.Sparky said:This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."australopithecus said:...and given those definitions I lack faith in those gods. Hence atheism.
Surely if atheism can be defined as above, a theist should be able to be defined as "one who lacks disbelief in a god/gods?" i.e. the opposite of the definition of atheism provided above. This definition of a theist now encompasses those who claim to lack belief in a god but who are unwilling to claim that they believe no gods exist just as the definition of an atheist does.
This, to my mind, lends credence to there being a middle ground that should not belong to either atheism or theism.
Is there merit to this?
Do you believe God exists?
If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.
If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.
If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.
Do you believe God exists?