Typical atheist fallacies

[Chuck]

THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY

"There is no evidence for God's existence."

"What about transcendent principles, cosmological necessity, anthropic
principle, ontological necessity, the historical events of the Bible,
teleological probability, morality, absolutism of knowledge, the
metaphysics of the scientific method, and the real experiences of
people?"

"That's not true evidence."

====================================

THE TESTED/OBSERVED FALLACY

"We should not believe in anything unless it can be observed and
tested to be true."

"Can you observe and test the principle that you've just mentioned?"

"Yes. I can test it and observe that it works."

"That's based on your presupposition that the principle is true. If
you did not presuppose that, then you would not know that those
actions validated the methodology itself."

::Atheist puts fingers in ears::

"Lalalalalalala!!!"

[Simon Ewins]

You forgot that the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god (and pretty much all the
rest that are claimed to think, emote, or intend to do anything) is just
waaaaaaay too silly to be real.

[Chuck]

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"The Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you
come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will
realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you
will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are
that poverty."
[Jesus]
%

"Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth,
faithfulness the best relationship."
[Buddha]

[Chuck]

THE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE FALLACY

"Why would you make a decision based on faith?"

"You tell me. You do it too. You have faith everytime you give your
credit card number to a customer service representative over the
telephone."

"No. I research the reputation of the company and also inquire about
previous experiences that other people had."

"Despite all of that, you still have no proof that our credit card
number will not be stolen."

"No, but I have good reason to believe that it will not be. It's not
an extraordinary claim to say that phone reps will be honest. God
existing is pretty extraordinary."

"Actually, I think God not existing would be even more extraordinary.
Nevertheless, even if I grant you that God's existence is
extraordinary, I believe that my arguments for God are also
extraordinary. And even if they do not indisputably prove God, they
give us pretty good reasons to believe, just as you have a good reason
to believe that phone reps will be honest even though you are not 100%
sure they will not be."

"It's not the same."

"How so?"

"It just is not."

"You are special pleading. You've arbitrarily established the
parameters of "extraordinary" and excluded God from that."

"You idiot! You believe in mythology! Gahhhhhh!!"

[Drafterman]

On Mar 2, 4:58 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY
>
> "There is no evidence for God's existence."
>
> "What about transcendent principles, cosmological necessity, anthropic
> principle, ontological necessity, the historical events of the Bible,
> teleological probability, morality, absolutism of knowledge, the
> metaphysics of the scientific method, and the real experiences of
> people?"
>
> "That's not true evidence."

The response of an actual atheist:

"What about them?"

>
> ====================================
>
> THE TESTED/OBSERVED FALLACY
>
> "We should not believe in anything unless it can be observed and
> tested to be true."
>
> "Can you observe and test the principle that you've just mentioned?"
>
> "Yes.  I can test it and observe that it works."
>
> "That's based on your presupposition that the principle is true.  If
> you did not presuppose that, then you would not know that those
> actions validated the methodology itself."
>
> ::Atheist puts fingers in ears::
>
> "Lalalalalalala!!!"

Response of an actual atheist:

"I don't see why that can't be an axiom"

Straw men are fun, but don't get you anywhere.

[Drafterman]

It's not special pleading. Obviously the atheist here is not in
possession of the reasons you are, hence the treatment of credit card
companies and God warrant different responses.

You're the one at fault since, knowing the atheist doesn't possess
reason enough to believe in God (otherwise they'd believe and not be
an atheist) you equivocate any belief without proof (which would be
not just belief, but knowledge) as not only "faith" but as the same
type of faith of the same magnitude. It's an equivocation fallacy on
behalf of the theist; thank you for demonstrating it.

[Chuck]

Drafterman wrote:
> Straw men are fun, but don't get you anywhere.

Actually, these are based on real conversations that I had with
atheists on Paltalk.

They really do use these fallacies.

[Drafterman]

Justify your use of the qualifier "Typical", then.

[Drafterman]

Oh, and when are we going to see the connection between the eternal
substance and God?

[Rupert]

On Mar 3, 8:58 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY
>
> "There is no evidence for God's existence."
>
> "What about transcendent principles, cosmological necessity, anthropic
> principle, ontological necessity, the historical events of the Bible,
> teleological probability, morality, absolutism of knowledge, the
> metaphysics of the scientific method, and the real experiences of
> people?"
>

Just pick one of those and go through it...

> "That's not true evidence."
>
> ====================================
>
> THE TESTED/OBSERVED FALLACY
>
> "We should not believe in anything unless it can be observed and
> tested to be true."
>
> "Can you observe and test the principle that you've just mentioned?"
>
> "Yes.  I can test it and observe that it works."
>
> "That's based on your presupposition that the principle is true.  If
> you did not presuppose that, then you would not know that those
> actions validated the methodology itself."
>

?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 2, 4:58 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:

> THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY
>
> "There is no evidence for God's existence."
>
> "What about transcendent principles, cosmological necessity, anthropic
> principle, ontological necessity, the historical events of the Bible,
> teleological probability, morality, absolutism of knowledge, the
> metaphysics of the scientific method, and the real experiences of
> people?"

Typical Christian fallacy: "There is no evidence for karma and
reincarnation."
What about the historical events in ancient Indian writings, the real
experiences of people, ontological necessity, etc.?

> "That's not true evidence."
>
> ====================================
>
> THE TESTED/OBSERVED FALLACY
>
> "We should not believe in anything unless it can be observed and
> tested to be true."
>
> "Can you observe and test the principle that you've just mentioned?"
>
> "Yes.  I can test it and observe that it works."
>
> "That's based on your presupposition that the principle is true.  If
> you did not presuppose that, then you would not know that those
> actions validated the methodology itself."
>
> ::Atheist puts fingers in ears::
>
> "Lalalalalalala!!!"

EVIDENCE FOR REINCARNATION OF 13TH DALAI LAMA AS THE 14TH
http://www.reincarnationexperiment.org/home/dalailamareincarnation.html

Christian covers eyes and ears and says "Lalalalalalala!!!"

[LL]

LL: What are your claims that other gods do not exist based on? Give
us your evidence. Start with Thor.

**********************************************

[Dead Kennedy]

whats that Chuck? "lalalalalalala"?
>
> **********************************************- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Treebeard]

On Mar 2, 5:02 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You forgot that the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god (and pretty much all the
> rest that are claimed to think, emote, or intend to do anything) is just
> waaaaaaay too silly to be real.

That's a fallacy in and of itself; how silly a belief may seem to
someone is not evidence or indication that it is not true or shouldn't
be believed in.

> [Buddha]- Hide quoted text -

[Treebeard]

A belief in an incompatible one.

That was easy.

What's your basis for your lack of belief in all of them?

Give
> us your evidence. Start with Thor.
>

> **********************************************- Hide quoted text -

[Chuck]

It's my hypothetical, so the atheist will be in possession of whatever
I want him to be in possession of. I will just say that me and him
had a prior conversation where I presented all my reasons for
believing in God.

> You're the one at fault since, knowing the atheist doesn't possess
> reason enough to believe in God (otherwise they'd believe and not be
> an atheist) you equivocate any belief without proof (which would be
> not just belief, but knowledge) as not only "faith" but as the same
> type of faith of the same magnitude. It's an equivocation fallacy on
> behalf of the theist; thank you for demonstrating it.

It's not an equivocation. Belief without proof extends from the
credit card example to belief in God. "Magnitude" is totally
subjective. Given the evidence we *have* of God, I would say that we
have better reason to believe in God than we have to believe that our
credit card numbers won't be stolen.

[Chuck]

Drafterman wrote:
> Justify your use of the qualifier "Typical", then.

These fallacies are used by many atheists. Therefore, they are
typical.

[Chuck]

Drafterman wrote:
> Oh, and when are we going to see the connection between the eternal
> substance and God?

Revisit my thread on "Eternity".

[Chuck]

"ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> Typical Christian fallacy: "There is no evidence for karma and
> reincarnation."
> What about the historical events in ancient Indian writings, the real
> experiences of people, ontological necessity, etc.?

THE UNKNOWN GOD FALLACY

"You cannot prove which religion is right. Therefore, you should just
reject them all."

[Drafterman]

That's not what "typical" means.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 3, 7:02 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:

I've been watching it, somehow I missed the connection.

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]

> On Mar 2, 5:02 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You forgot that the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god (and pretty much all the
>> rest that are claimed to think, emote, or intend to do anything) is just
>> waaaaaaay too silly to be real.
>
> That's a fallacy in and of itself; how silly a belief may seem to
> someone is not evidence or indication that it is not true or shouldn't
> be believed in.

Well, it may not prove that it is not true but it is a good indication;
and as for a reason to not be believed in, it is a real good one for me.
You may like to believe in stupid and silly ideas, good for you. I'd
rather not.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it."
[Buddha]

[Sigmund]

I'm always surprised that the transcendental, ontological and
cosmological arguments are still used. The teleological argument
isn't, of course, an argument at all, but an interpretation of nature
as evidence to support the assumption that God exists. Check out a
short discussion here: http://atheistprinciples.tripod.com/discussions.htm#_Arguing_Against_Theism_1

Historical/biblical evidence is the weakest of all theist arguments,
as it (a) conflicts with similar 'evidence' from other religions, and
(b) conflicts with science and logic.
If you believe in God, you are actively denying scientific evidence
and logic - why bother trying to use logic and history to support your
argument? It's never going to work.
For this matter, see: http://atheistprinciples.tripod.com/atheism.htm

[Treebeard]

On Mar 3, 9:05 am, Sigmund <atheism...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm always surprised that the transcendental, ontological and
> cosmological arguments are still used. The teleological argument
> isn't, of course, an argument at all, but an interpretation of nature
> as evidence to support the assumption that God exists.

Which would make it the best argument going, and the equivalent of the
"Problem of Evil" reply. That it isn't the only possible
interpretation doesn't make it a bad argument.

> Check out a
> short discussion here:http://atheistprinciples.tripod.com/discussions.htm#_Arguing_Against_...

[Treebeard]

On Mar 3, 9:02 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> > On Mar 2, 5:02 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> You forgot that the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god (and pretty much all the
> >> rest that are claimed to think, emote, or intend to do anything) is just
> >> waaaaaaay too silly to be real.
>
> > That's a fallacy in and of itself; how silly a belief may seem to
> > someone is not evidence or indication that it is not true or shouldn't
> > be believed in.
>
> Well, it may not prove that it is not true but it is a good indication;
> and as for a reason to not be believed in, it is a real good one for me.
> You may like to believe in stupid and silly ideas, good for you. I'd
> rather not.

I can't imagine any stupider or sillier idea than the one that as I
walk across the room and accelerate my pace, not only does my mass
increase but time also slows down for me (even if imperceptibly).
That doesn't in any way stop that from being an implication of
Einsteinian Relativity.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtjNxTkjXjA

[Bob T.]

My favorite!

- Bob T

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

Which god is incompatible with Thor?

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]

>> Well, it may not prove that it is not true but it is a good indication;
>> and as for a reason to not be believed in, it is a real good one for me.
>> You may like to believe in stupid and silly ideas, good for you. I'd
>> rather not.
>
> I can't imagine any stupider or sillier idea than the one that as I
> walk across the room and accelerate my pace, not only does my mass
> increase but time also slows down for me (even if imperceptibly).
> That doesn't in any way stop that from being an implication of
> Einsteinian Relativity.

You can't imagine anything stupider?!?!

I find that brilliant, not stupid. It is incisive, balanced, natural,
even beautiful. If you find the idea of relativity to be the stupidest
idea, you have my sympathies.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
[James Thurber]

[Kippers]

On 2 Mar, 21:58, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY
>
> "There is no evidence for God's existence."
>
> "What about transcendent principles, cosmological necessity, anthropic
> principle, ontological necessity, the historical events of the Bible,
> teleological probability, morality, absolutism of knowledge, the
> metaphysics of the scientific method, and the real experiences of
> people?"
>
> "That's not true evidence."
>
> ====================================
>
> THE TESTED/OBSERVED FALLACY
>
> "We should not believe in anything unless it can be observed and
> tested to be true."
>
> "Can you observe and test the principle that you've just mentioned?"
>
> "Yes.  I can test it and observe that it works."
>
> "That's based on your presupposition that the principle is true.  If
> you did not presuppose that, then you would not know that those
> actions validated the methodology itself."
>
> ::Atheist puts fingers in ears::
>
> "Lalalalalalala!!!"

You have presented the evidence for the existence of the Christian god
in a link to an article which has since been deleted. The evidence in
the article was twofold.

1)The bible says so
2)Lots of people are convinced in the existence of the Christian God.

Over the years you may well have heard many bad arguments against the
existence of your god but bad arguments are not necessary to refute
these two apparent most compelling arguments for the existence of your
god.

I don’t even need to point out what is wrong with these two arguments,
on their own, as they stand, they are clearly bad arguments and should
convince no one who critically assesses them.

[thea]

I think that Y'all don't exist -- you are just mouths talking -- because I cannot see you.

Were you born?

 

[Treebeard]

On Mar 3, 9:54 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> >> Well, it may not prove that it is not true but it is a good indication;
> >> and as for a reason to not be believed in, it is a real good one for me.
> >> You may like to believe in stupid and silly ideas, good for you. I'd
> >> rather not.
>
> > I can't imagine any stupider or sillier idea than the one that as I
> > walk across the room and accelerate my pace, not only does my mass
> > increase but time also slows down for me (even if imperceptibly).
> > That doesn't in any way stop that from being an implication of
> > Einsteinian Relativity.
>
> You can't imagine anything stupider?!?!
>
> I find that brilliant, not stupid. It is incisive, balanced, natural,
> even beautiful. If you find the idea of relativity to be the stupidest
> idea, you have my sympathies.

So, you DON'T find the idea that simply walking across the room causes
time to slow down ridiculous? And that simply walking across a room
increases your mass?

Huh. Interesting.

(Note, the comments are not about relativity in general, but about the
specific implications at small differences.)

[Dead Kennedy]

me? of a jackel.

[Treebeard]

On Mar 3, 9:45 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

Well, most people claim that the Abrahamic God is, since it claims
that there's only one God. There are arguments against it, but since
in general theists and atheists accept that at least most of the gods
can't all be true this is a fairly standard statement, so it shocks me
that you're challenging it so cavalierly.

>
>
>
> > What's your basis for your lack of belief in all of them?
>
> >  Give
>
> > > us your evidence. Start with Thor.
>
> > > **********************************************- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kippers]

On 2 Mar, 21:58, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:

Rather than accuse you of stawman fallacies I will simply reword the
supposed atheist arguments to match the arguments I actually make as
an argument on the same subject and perhaps then you could point out
if they are still fallacious.

> THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY
>
> "There is no evidence for God's existence."
>

Actual Athiest:

"There is not enough evidence to support the belief in the Christian
God. The Christian God may well exist but even if he does I was
right, given the current lack of evidence for and abundance of
contradictory evidence against, to not profess belief in this God."

> "What about transcendent principles, cosmological necessity, anthropic
> principle, ontological necessity, the historical events of the Bible,
> teleological probability, morality, absolutism of knowledge, the
> metaphysics of the scientific method, and the real experiences of
> people?"
>
> "That's not true evidence."
>

If you find such evidence compelling then it should not lead you to
belief in the christian god as nothing here points to that specific
diety.

> ====================================
>
> THE TESTED/OBSERVED FALLACY
>
> "We should not believe in anything unless it can be observed and
> tested to be true."

Actual Athiest:
"Our belief should scale with the evidence. As such it seems that
levels of belief in, for example Allah or the Christian god should be
the same as a similar level of evidence exists for both."

>
> "Can you observe and test the principle that you've just mentioned?"
>
> "Yes.  I can test it and observe that it works."
>
> "That's based on your presupposition that the principle is true.  If
> you did not presuppose that, then you would not know that those
> actions validated the methodology itself."
>
> ::Atheist puts fingers in ears::
>
> "Lalalalalalala!!!"

Real Athiest:
Interested to hear your reasoned responses to any of these objections
but expect nothing at all as has previously been the case.

Cheers
Kippers

[klytu]

klytu: It seems to me that Exodus 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, and some
other place in the O.T. imply that there are in fact other gods.

[Chuck]

Sigmund wrote:
> I'm always surprised that the transcendental, ontological and
> cosmological arguments are still used.

See my thread on the modal ontological argument. Nobody could refute
it.

> Historical/biblical evidence is the weakest of all theist arguments,
> as it (a) conflicts with similar 'evidence' from other religions, and
> (b) conflicts with science and logic.

Okay, in what way is the evidence for Islam similar to that of
Christianity? And how would such evidence disprove the events in the
New Testament?

What laws of logic are violated by the events in the New Testament?

You made the claim, now back it up.

[Chuck]

Drafterman wrote:
> That's not what "typical" means.

It's what I am using "typical" to mean. Therefore, it is what
"typical" means.

Definitions are not right or wrong. They are arbitrarily decided by
people. I really couldn't care less if you use the word differently.
It does not invalidate the point that I am making.

[Chuck]

Drafterman wrote:
> I've been watching it, somehow I missed the connection.

Then fix your glasses.

[Treebeard]

I've mentioned stuff like that before. I haven't made up my mind,
personally, on whether or not it is eliminated, but I think it's a
decent and common starting point for discussion. I never rely on
arguing that there are other gods in my arguments, and so can safely
ignore that for the most part in general discussions.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 3, 10:09 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:45 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 6:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 2:43 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > > LL: What are your claims that other gods do not exist based on?
>
> > > A belief in an incompatible one.
>
> > > That was easy.
>
> > Which god is incompatible with Thor?
>
> Well, most people claim that the Abrahamic God is, since it claims
> that there's only one God. There are arguments against it, but since
> in general theists and atheists accept that at least most of the gods
> can't all be true this is a fairly standard statement, so it shocks me
> that you're challenging it so cavalierly.

A claim would have to exist in the first place, before it can be
challenged. Where does the Abrahamic God claim that there are no other
gods?

[Observer]

On Mar 2, 1:58 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY
>

Observer

Quote

The debate concerning the existence of God raises many philosophical
issues. A basic problem is that there is no universally accepted
definition of God or existence.

Unquote

Wiki

Quote

Empiricism, Scepticism and the Very Idea of God

An obvious starting point for understanding Hume's views on the
philosophy of religion is his empiricism. The potential for empiricism
to produce sceptical conclusions concerning our knowledge of God was
already apparent in Hobbes's work, which embraced similar empiricist
principles concerning the foundations of human knowledge. The most
striking aspect of Hobbes's position on this subject is his claim that
we have no idea of God, and so He is incomprehensible to us.

Whatever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea or
conception of anything we call infinite. No man can have in his mind
an image of infinite magnitude, nor conceive infinite swiftness,
infinite time, or infinite force, or infinite power … And therefore
the name of God is used, not to make us conceive him (for he is
incomprehensible, and his greatness and power are inconceivable), but
that we may honour him. Also because whatsoever … we conceive has been
perceived first by sense, either all at once or by parts, a man can
have no thought representing anything not subject to sense… (Hobbes,
Leviathan, 3.12)

End quote

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#2

Now we can continue to wade through the sewage of the human mind and
we will come to more and more confirmed opinions as to the the
actualities of the of the proverbial 10,000 things (see the I Ching)
all concisely described and none, in any meaningful way real ,or we
can calmly and with great wisdom begin to understand that each and
every idea , object , being , or condition as represented in the human
mind is a fiction and that the quality of such fictions (that is
relative accuracy of our mental images) is that which determines our
ability to best function in our fictive little world or in the
universe at large.

Of course you who hold to the utterly stupid misconceptions that
metaphysical concepts serve a purpose other than establishing the
nincompoopery of the thinker (non thinker in this case) have blinded
your self to the fact that all things, conditions, and creatures
considered to have existence by virtue of the magic spells cast by
such uselessness of mental masturbation. Eschew the simple fact that
what can not be studied by scientific method and from such study no
hard data can be elicited by which to make possible accurate
prognostications is irrelevant to humanity nonexistent or both.

You nut cases who belong to the general class of philosophers “
considered by all rational thinkers to be “non compos mentis ” are
incompetent to the task of argumentation on this subject ,in that you
can define neither the god thing nor the word existence its self.

I find it charming to observe one who effectively claims that s/he
doesn't know what it is but but s/he believes in it any way. If You
don't know what it is then how do you know that you believe in it.

Ha Ha Ha ha ha

.

Now it it is only presumptive erudition for one to acquire the
nomenclature of the fictive and nonsensical used to describe the
imaginary concepts of metaphysics , in an attempt the make chicken
salad out of chicken shit . Or in this an attempt to make the product
of undisciplined imagination into a concept that they can get others
to believe is actual.

After all the general purpose of the generalities discussed In what is
called philosophy is to get people the believe that you have learned
how to think when indeed the truth lies closer to your having
accepting being told what to think and eschewing all of the how to
think that might interfere with the former.

>
> "What about transcendent principles, cosmological necessity, anthropic
> principle, ontological necessity, the historical events of the Bible,
> teleological probability, morality, absolutism of knowledge, the
> metaphysics of the scientific method, and the real experiences of
> people?"

Observer
All phrases which are used in attempts to persuade others of the
actuality of the non existent.

If you are devoid of an education as to the truth of what I say then
simply read the clear and aphoristic

destruction of all of your above listed nonsense all of which has
been posted and re-posted on this site for years .

It might interest you to know that there are wonderfully educated and
quite brilliant professional scientists posting here who have troubled
themselves to acquire meaningful educations and who are quick to see
through the veneer of meaningless superstitious nonsense as is
discussed by the morons who “who claim to have educated” you.

>
> "That's not true evidence."
>
> ====================================
>
> THE TESTED/OBSERVED FALLACY
>
> "We should not believe in anything unless it can be observed and
> tested to be true."
>
> "Can you observe and test the principle that you've just mentioned?"
>
> "Yes.  I can test it and observe that it works."
>
> "That's based on your presupposition that the principle is true.  If
> you did not presuppose that, then you would not know that those
> actions validated the methodology itself."
>
> ::Atheist puts fingers in ears::
>
> "Lalalalalalala!!!"

Observer

Here my stupid pseudo philosopher, and quasi thinker, read a simple
summary which for any one who has not had his mental abilities
atrophied by hideous nonsensical religion/zombiism/ and the depravity
of the general slovenly type philosophical nonsense which is home to
those trying to compete in the intellectual special Olympics. And Oh
yes the nonsense Sayers called meta-physicians., might learn the very
basics of how the human mind works.

Quote

In Philosophie des Als Ob, he argued that human beings can never
really know the underlying reality of the world, and that as a result
we construct systems of thought and then assume that these match
reality: we behave "as if" the world matches our models. In
particular, he used examples from the physical sciences, such as
protons, electrons, and electromagnetic waves. None of these phenomena
have been observed directly, but science pretends that they exist, and
uses observations made on these assumptions to create new and better
constructs. Vaihinger admitted that he had several precursors,
especially Jeremy Bentham's Theory of Fictions. In the preface to the
English edition of his work, Vaihinger expressed his Principle of
Fictionalism. This is that "an idea whose theoretical untruth or
incorrectness, and therewith its falsity, is admitted is not for that
reason practically valueless and useless; for such an idea, in spite
of its theoretical nullity, may have great practical importance."
This philosophy, though, is wider than just science. One can never be
sure that the world will still exist tomorrow, but we usually assume
that it does. Alfred Adler, the founder of Individual Psychology, was
profoundly influenced by Vaihinger's theory of useful fictions,
incorporating the idea of psychological fictions into his personality
construct of a fictional final goal.
Frank Kermode's The Sense of an Ending (1967) was an early mention of
Vaihinger as a useful methodologist of narrativity.
Later, James Hillman developed both Vaihinger and Adler's work with
psychological fictions into a core theme of his work Healing Fiction
in which he makes one of his more accessible cases for identifying the
tendency to literalize, rather than "see through our meanings," (HF
110) with neurosis and madness.

End Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vaihinger

Then If you have the capacity I would suggest you read

How the Mind Works (ISBN 0-393-31848-6) is a book by Canadian-American
cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, published in 1997. The book
attempts to explain some of the human mind's poorly understood
functions and quirks in evolutionary terms. Drawing heavily on the
paradigm of evolutionary psychology first articulated by John Tooby
and Leda Cosmides, Pinker covers subjects as diverse as vision,
emotion, feminism, and, in the final chapter, "the meaning of life."
He also advocates the computational theory of mind. He criticizes
difference feminism in his book because he believes scientific
research has shown that women and men differ little or not at all in
their moral reasoning. This book was a Pulitzer Prize Finalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Mind_Works

You at present are in a battle wits unarmed.

First learn to use the tool , the brain, and then search for the best
ways to apply such a wonderful tool.

In this extraordinary book, Steven Pinker, one of the world's leading
cognitive scientists, does for the rest of the mind what he did for
language in his 1994 bestseller The Language Instinct. He explains
what the mind is, how it evolved, and how it allows us to see, think,
feel, laugh, interact, enjoy the arts, and ponder the mysteries of
life. And he does it with the wit, clarity, and verve that earned The
Language Instinct, worldwide critical acclaim and awards from major
scientific societies.

Pinker explains the mind by "reverse-engineering" it—figuring out what
natural selection designed it to accomplish in the environment in
which we evolved. The mind, he writes, is a system of "organs of
computation" that allowed our ancestors to understand and outsmart
objects, animals, plants, and each other.

How the Mind Works explains many of the imponderables of everyday
life. Why does a face look more attractive with makeup? How do "Magic-
Eye" 3-D stereograms work? Why do we feel that a run of heads makes
the coin more likely to land tails? Why is the thought of eating worms
disgusting? Why do men challenge each other to duels and murder their
ex-wives? Why are children bratty? Why do fools fall in love? Why are
we soothed by paintings and music? And why do puzzles like the self,
free will, and consciousness leave us dizzy?

This arguments in the book are as bold as its title. Pinker
rehabilitates unfashionable ideas, such as that the mind is a computer
and that human nature was shaped by natural selection. And he
challenges fashionable ones, such as that passionate emotions are
irrational, that parents socialize their children, that creativity
springs from the unconscious, that nature is good and modern society
corrupting, and that art and religion are expressions of our higher
spiritual yearnings.

How the Mind Works presents a big picture, but it is not a personal
musing; it is a grand synthesis of the most satisfying explanations of
our mental life that have been proposed in cognitive science and
evolutionary biology, with insights from disciplines ranging from
neuroscience to economics and social psychology. It is also
fascinating, provocative, and thoroughly entertaining.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/htmw/index.html

Psychonomist

[Treebeard]

On Mar 3, 10:30 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 21:58, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Rather than accuse you of stawman fallacies I will simply reword the
> supposed atheist arguments to match the arguments I actually make as
> an argument on the same subject and perhaps then you could point out
> if they are still fallacious.
>
> > THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY
>
> > "There is no evidence for God's existence."
>
> Actual Athiest:
>
> "There is not enough evidence to support the belief in the Christian
> God.  The Christian God may well exist but even if he does I was
> right, given the current lack of evidence for and abundance of
> contradictory evidence against, to not profess belief in this God."

While I'd accept that it is reasonable for you to not believe, your
comments about evidence do not seem to justify refusing to allow
ANYONE to reasonably believe in God, which is what the initial
statement implies. In short, to assert that there is not enough
evidence to support the belief universally, you'd have to argue for a
notion of belief that precludes it, which will be difficult
considering the many things we claim to reasonably believe on far less
evidence.

>
> > "What about transcendent principles, cosmological necessity, anthropic
> > principle, ontological necessity, the historical events of the Bible,
> > teleological probability, morality, absolutism of knowledge, the
> > metaphysics of the scientific method, and the real experiences of
> > people?"
>
> > "That's not true evidence."
>
> If you find such evidence compelling then it should not lead you to
> belief in the christian god as nothing here points to that specific
> diety.
>

It, however, can be evidence for a specific god, since it supports all
of them, if they work. Which, to me, they don't.

> > ====================================
>
> > THE TESTED/OBSERVED FALLACY
>
> > "We should not believe in anything unless it can be observed and
> > tested to be true."
>
> Actual Athiest:
> "Our belief should scale with the evidence.  As such it seems that
> levels of belief in, for example Allah or the Christian god should be
> the same as a similar level of evidence exists for both."

This requires a very specific epistemology. I suspect that if we take
any person they will believe options that are no better or even less
evidenced than the alternatives. Belief does not seem to scale as
lineraly as you imagine, and it seems that we would not be able to
function if it did.

>
>
>
> > "Can you observe and test the principle that you've just mentioned?"
>
> > "Yes.  I can test it and observe that it works."

How can you test and observe that testing and observing works? What
is your definition of works?

>
> > "That's based on your presupposition that the principle is true.  If
> > you did not presuppose that, then you would not know that those
> > actions validated the methodology itself."
>
> > ::Atheist puts fingers in ears::
>
> > "Lalalalalalala!!!"
>
> Real Athiest:
> Interested to hear your reasoned responses to any of these objections
> but expect nothing at all as has previously been the case.

I think this is a prime example of what he alluded to above: you in no
way addressed the circularity of claiming that we need testing and
observing for all claims while assuming that you can prove that
assertion through the same principle that you are appealing to justify
your claim.

I'm not saying this is intentional on your part, but you clearly
didn't address that counter.

>
> Cheers
> Kippers

[Drafterman]

Yes, definitions are arbitrarily decided by people. PEOPLE, not
individuals. Individual meanings would render communication
impossible. As it is, the arbitrarily agreed upon definition of
"typical" does not support your usage. It is not me, as an individual,
using the word differently, it is you, deviating from the accepted
definition.

If you do not wish to adhere to the arbitrarily accepted definition of
words, then I'm afraid you are going to have to explain what the
following words mean:

Am
Arbitrarily
Are
By
Care
Couldn't
Decided
Definitions
Differently
Does
I
If
Invalidate
Is
It
It's
Less
Making
Mean
Means
Not
Or
People
Point
Really
Right
That
The
Therefore
They
To
Typical
Use
Using
What
Word
Wrong
You

And, remember not to use arbitrarily agreed upon definitions in your
explanations here!

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]

> So, you DON'T find the idea that simply walking across the room causes
> time to slow down ridiculous? And that simply walking across a room
> increases your mass?

I thought I expressed that rather clearly.

I am more worried by the fact that you do; and beyond that, you think it
is the stupidest thing you know of. Stupider than the tooth fairy or
other fairies, demons, Santa Claus, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, Loch Ness Monster; the list is endless, and you put relativity
at number one. Wow.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"To be idle is a short road to death and to be diligent is a way of
life; foolish people are idle, wise people are diligent."
[Buddha]

[Bob T.]

"Chuck" is apparently a pseudonym for Humpty Dumpty:

'Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872),
where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I
tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice
objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's
all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty
Dumpty began again.

"They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the
proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs –
however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I
say!"[11]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_dumpty

- Bob T

[Drafterman]

A less facetious response:

You stated that:

"[Definitions] are arbitrarily decided by people."

Unless you've redefined "people" we are talking about more than one
person and the only person that has decided to use "typical" in the
manner you have is YOU. Ergo you, as an individual, simply deciding to
use "typical" in that manner does not, in fact, make that the
definition of "typical", by your own explanation.

I fully agree that if two people agree on a meaning for a word then
they can use that meaning for that word - among themselves. But
definitions of words to not extend past the sphere of people that have
agreed upon those definitions. Thus your individual definition will
not work outside the sphere of people that have agreed upon it: you
and you alone. If you wish to have a meaningful conversation with
other people, you probably should use the actual, existing (even if
arbitrary) definition of words as they already are.

[Simon Ewins]

[Chuck]

Typical would require at least a majority to be 'typical'. So you used
the word incorrectly.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"On life's journey faith is nourishment, virtuous deeds are a shelter,
wisdom is the light by day and right mindfulness is the protection by
night. If a man lives a pure life, nothing can destroy him."
[Buddha]

[Simon Ewins]

[Chuck]

All miraculous and supernatural events. Logic precludes miracles because
all miracles require that something be and not be at the same time.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"There's more to the truth than just the facts."
[Author Unknown]

[Kippers]

On 3 Mar, 15:51, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> > So, you DON'T find the idea that simply walking across the room causes
> > time to slow down ridiculous?  And that simply walking across a room
> > increases your mass?
>
> I thought I expressed that rather clearly.
>
> I am more worried by the fact that you do; and beyond that, you think it
> is the stupidest thing you know of. Stupider than the tooth fairy or
> other fairies, demons, Santa Claus, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, Loch Ness Monster; the list is endless, and you put relativity
> at number one. Wow.
>

For me it is not fallacious to claim an idea is ridiculous IN LIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE. Here Treebeard equivocates or fails to notice the
distinction between intuitively ridiculous statements and statements
which seem ridiculous in light of the evidence.

Christianity is ridiculous in light of the evidence.
Special relativity is intuitively ridiculous but appears correct in
light of the evidence.

It is rational therefore to accept the latter while rejecting the
former.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 3, 10:34 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:

After doing a search the closest thing I could find from you was:

"Therefore, you have to concede that an eternal substance exists. The
only thing left for you to do is question the actual nature of such a
being and whether this being should rightfully be called "God"."

So yes, I question why this eternal substance, based on what you
provided, should rightly be called a god, let alone the Christian God.

[Trance Gemini]

Haha! This is the best response I've seen to the Equivocation fallacy commonly employed by theists to support their claims :-)

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 3, 10:08 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 9:54 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [Treebeard]

> > > I can't imagine any stupider or sillier idea than the one that as I
> > > walk across the room and accelerate my pace, not only does my mass
> > > increase but time also slows down for me (even if imperceptibly).
> > > That doesn't in any way stop that from being an implication of
> > > Einsteinian Relativity.
>
> > You can't imagine anything stupider?!?!
>
> > I find that brilliant, not stupid. It is incisive, balanced, natural,
> > even beautiful. If you find the idea of relativity to be the stupidest
> > idea, you have my sympathies.
>
> So, you DON'T find the idea that simply walking across the room causes
> time to slow down ridiculous?

Yes, it seems ridiculous to me. I don't find it ridiculous for
physicists who understand relativity to believe in this, though.

> And that simply walking across a room
> increases your mass?

As I understand the claims, it is while in motion that mass is
elevated; mass doesn't remain elevated once an object comes to rest at
its destination.

[Chuck]

Drafterman wrote:
> Yes, definitions are arbitrarily decided by people.

No. They are decided by me.

> PEOPLE, not individuals. Individual meanings would render communication
> impossible. As it is, the arbitrarily agreed upon definition of
> "typical" does not support your usage.

No, you are not using "people" in the right way. "People" refer to
porcupine hammers which fly over Tuesday's jealousy.

> It is not me, as an individual, using the word differently

You are using the word differently than me. And your way is improper,
mine is proper.

> If you do not wish to adhere to the arbitrarily accepted definition of
> words, then I'm afraid you are going to have to explain what the
> following words mean:

They mean what they mean because they do not mean what they mean in a
sense that they mean what they do not mean and what they mean.

[Chuck]

Drafterman wrote:
> So yes, I question why this eternal substance, based on what you
> provided, should rightly be called a god, let alone the Christian God.

II. ETERNAL SUBSTANCE IS ONTOLOGICALLY PRIOR TO ETERNAL ATTRIBUTES

An eternal substance is distinct from an eternal attribute. Eternal
attributes are themselves without beginning and without end, but are
ontologically dependent upon subjects to which they are attributed.
Eternal attributes cannot exist without an eternal substance.

III. ETERNAL SUBSTANCE IS NOT SUSTAINED BY CONTINGENT STATES OF
AFFAIRS

Since we've established that an eternal substance must exist by
logical necessity, it follows that such a being X cannot be sustained
by contingent states of affairs Y. This would be unintelligible
because it would be saying that there are no possible worlds where ~X
although there are possible worlds where Y.

IV. ETERNAL SUBSTANCE IS SELF-EXISTENT

Anything substantial which exists by logical necessity, as an eternal
substance does, has an existence which cannot be accounted for by
anything external to itself. It cannot be caused by a separate
being,
unless it is the case that it was logically necessary for such action
to take place. But since it is not a contradiction for any separate
being to not cause, this clearly is not the case. An eternal
substance cannot be the instrument for its own creation because
action
requires existence as a precondition, thus the whole idea is a
logical
contradiction. Further, in both cases, eternity would be violated
because the substance, in order to be eternal, must be without origin
or beginning.

V. NECESSARY STATES OF AFFAIRS DO NOT EXIST FROM OUTSIDE THE ETERNAL
SUBSTANCE

One may object that an eternal substance is made necessary by
necessary states of affairs which are ontologically prior to the
eternal substance itself. But this argument is moot because states
of
affairs are made real by the objects which sustain them, not vice
versa. Therefore, the necessary states of affairs would exist in
necessary beings themselves, which would imply either an eternal
substance or eternal attributes which require an eternal substance.
Reality itself is what Aristotle defined as a "secondary substance",
which constitutes a set of beings which share properties in common.
Secondary substances thus do not exist on their own accord.
Therefore, one cannot separate an eternal substance from necessary
states of affairs.

VI. THE FORM OF AN ETERNAL SUBSTANCE CANNOT BE GIVEN FROM MATTER

Corporeal substances have a twofold structure of form and matter.
Form is the universal category, matter is the material. As matter
manifests in a particular arrangement, it becomes an individual
substance which is of a particular form. Different arrangements of
matter beget different forms. Matter itself does not manifest into
particular forms by logical necessity, therefore it cannot be said
with any logical backing that an eternal substance is material since
an eternal substance cannot be sustained by contingent states of
affairs, which would be the case if an eternal substance consisted of
one particular arrangement of matter and not some other.
(Furthermore, material arrangements (corporeal substances) do not
constitute their own sufficient reason for being; for example, your
computer, which is a particular arrangement of matter, did not
arrange
itself.) Therefore, it can be said that an eternal substance is a
primordial form, that is, form without matter.

VII. ETERNAL SUBSTANCE AS PURE ACTUALITY

Matter constitutes potentiality and form constitutes actuality.
Matter itself is not actualized until it manifests in some form.
Insofar that particular manifestations of matter, in addition to
maintaining determinable attributes, are always spatially
individuated
from others, we will always experience matter in conjunction with
form. Thus, matter is actualized when it is arranged in a particular
way. Take a bronze statue; the statue is the actualization of the
bronze, while the bronze itself is potentially something other than a
statue, such as a dish or a spear. Since potentiality exists in
matter, it can be said that an eternal substance is pure actuality,
given that an eternal substance is immaterial. (Theoretically,
angels, who occupy a mode of existence known as "aeviternity", are
immaterial as well, but they are not eternal. Thus, the same
inferences cannot be made about them.)

VIII. ETERNAL SUBSTANCE IS IMMUTABLE

As form/matter conglomerates, corporeal substances also have a
twofold
structure of actuality and potentiality. The motion from
potentiality
to actuality is called "change", thus it is said that anything which
moves acquires something by its movement which it did not possess
previously. What follows is that anything which changes is in some
way in potentiality. But an eternal substance is pure actuality and
therefore cannot change.

IX. ETERNAL SUBSTANCE AS INFINITE IN PERFECTION

If every conceivable potentiality is actualized, then one's
attributes
cannot be possessed in any greater sense than they are already
possessed. We occupy a universe full of actualities with
potentialities not yet realized. This is due to the material
constitution of the universe, under which we will never be able to
maximize our actuality. Imagine the basic structure of our existence
as being formalized into a set of numerical values. We have an
intellect, potency, lifespan, and presence. Each one of these
attributes have a finite value. Yet in an eternal subsance of pure
actuality, these attributes are of infinite value. Infinitude is
that
value than which no other value could be greater. It is in this
sense
than an eternal substance does not lack anything. Most of us have an
intelligence quotient, but none of us have omniscience. Most of us
have special talents and abilities, but none of us have omnipotence.
All of us are born and then we die someday, none of us are eternal
(The offer of "eternal life" is a Christian colloqualism and not part
of this domain of discourse). All of us have height, width, depth,
mass, volume. None of us are omnipresent. We are existent beings
not
fully actualized. An eternal substance is.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 3, 12:30 pm, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Drafterman wrote:
> > Yes, definitions are arbitrarily decided by people.
>
> No.  They are decided by me.

That's not what you said. You literally said, verbatim:

"Definitions are not right or wrong. They are arbitrarily decided by
people."

>

> > PEOPLE, not individuals. Individual meanings would render communication
> > impossible. As it is, the arbitrarily agreed upon definition of
> > "typical" does not support your usage.
>
> No, you are not using "people" in the right way.  "People" refer to
> porcupine hammers which fly over Tuesday's jealousy.

Thank you for proving my point.

>
> > It is not me, as an individual, using the word differently
>
> You are using the word differently than me.  And your way is improper,
> mine is proper.

But you've already proved my point, and I thank you immensely for it.

[Drafterman]

Except this disproves any and all gods.

[TRUECRISTIANBorn Again Fundamentalist Christianity ]]

On 3 mar, 12:59, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:34 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Drafterman wrote:
> > > I've been watching it, somehow I missed the connection.
>
> > Then fix your glasses.
>
> After doing a search the closest thing I could find from you was:
>
> "Therefore, you have to concede that an eternal substance exists.  The
> only thing left for you to do is question the actual nature of such a

Wake up America! Rock-n-Roll Music, Television and Movies have largely
helped destroy America's value

[Treebeard]

On Mar 3, 10:51 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> > So, you DON'T find the idea that simply walking across the room causes
> > time to slow down ridiculous?  And that simply walking across a room
> > increases your mass?
>
> I thought I expressed that rather clearly.

Yes, I' m incredulous that you really understand what you're
rejecting.

>
> I am more worried by the fact that you do; and beyond that, you think it
> is the stupidest thing you know of. Stupider than the tooth fairy or
> other fairies, demons, Santa Claus, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, Loch Ness Monster; the list is endless, and you put relativity
> at number one. Wow.

Yep. My aging slower as I cross the room is, in the fact of it,
utterly ludicrous. This all in spite of the fact that it happens to
be true.

You seem to be falling for the old problem of attaching your perceived
truth value to the statement in determining how "normal" it is. If
you don't believe it, it's incredibly stupid and no one should believe
it. If you do, then it boggles your mind how anyone could ever
possibly find it strange.

Sad for someone who wants to stand on a rationality claim ...

[Treebeard]

Actually, it is that distinction that I am relying on, and have
stated. I accuse Simon of rejecting certain things a priori, and
calling them ridiculous not because of the evidence, but because of
the concepts. But that sort of determination, as I showed with
relativity, does not make it true. I think that Simon and a lot of
atheists are making the determination on the basis of "intuitively
ridiculous" and then trying to translate that to the latter. Which
means that they equivocate on the terms, not me.

However "ridiculous in light of the evidence" is a mostly meaningless
term, since it can be replaced with "wrong" in all cases except the
"intuitively ridiculous case". And no atheist has been able to
properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]

> Yes, I' m incredulous that you really understand what you're
> rejecting.

I am rejecting Christianity on the basis that it is stupid. What did you
think I was rejecting?

--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the universe." - Einstein

"The secret of health for both mind and body is not to mourn for the
past, nor to worry about the future, but to live the present moment
wisely and earnestly."
[Buddha]

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 3, 7:01 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> However "ridiculous in light of the evidence" is a mostly meaningless
> term, since it can be replaced with "wrong" in all cases except the
> "intuitively ridiculous case".

Let's give this a workout:
"That retrocognition is evidence of reincarnation is ridiculous in
light of the evidence that some remember the past life of another
who's still alive" is mostly meaningless since it can be replaced with
"That retrocognition is evidence of reincarnation is wrong"? What
might be the intuitively ridiculous case where this replacement cannot
be done?

> And no atheist has been able to
> properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.

Has any monotheist been able to properly argue that polytheism is in
fact wrong in light of the evidence?

[grisha]

Chuck:

You abandoned that thread probably because you cannot answer anything
convincing to my and klytu's questions.

Grisha

On Mar 3, 7:30 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Sigmund wrote:
> > I'm always surprised that the transcendental, ontological and
> > cosmological arguments are still used.
>
> See my thread on the modal ontological argument.  Nobody could refute
> it.
>
> > Historical/biblical evidence is the weakest of all theist arguments,
> > as it (a) conflicts with similar 'evidence' from other religions, and
> > (b) conflicts with science and logic.
>
> Okay, in what way is the evidence for Islam similar to that of
> Christianity?  And how would such evidence disprove the events in the
> New Testament?
>
> What laws of logic are violated by the events in the New Testament?
>

> You made the claim, now back it up.

[grisha]

Sorry, I was talking about Eternity thread.

[lawrey]

Treebeard,

You make great play of nothing don't you?
what a ridiculous comment:

"And no atheist has been able to properly argue
that theism is in fact wrong in light of the
evidence."

Atheist have no need to prove anything to do
with the gods of theism, they are neither known
or described to withstand any empirical test.

Since there is no evidence, the fact remains
that no evidence is required to show no evidence.
nothing is nothing and is of itself explanatory.

You therefore take a presumptuous not to say
irrational delight in a deceptive play on
words, that amount to nothing of import and
think yourself clever.

No creator of theism's devising is shown to
exist and no evidence to the contrary can be
produced by theism.

And no theist has been able to properly argue
that Atheism is in fact wrong in light of the
evidence.

> properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.- Hide quoted text -

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 7:03 am, lawrey <commentslaw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Treebeard,
>
> You make great play of nothing don't you?
> what a ridiculous comment:
>
> "And no atheist has been able to properly argue
>  that theism is in fact wrong in light of the
>  evidence."
>
> Atheist have no need to prove anything to do
> with the gods of theism, they are neither known
> or described to withstand any empirical test.

If you want to say, as Kippers did, that it is "ridiculous in light
of the evidence", you'd have to show that it is that, and I contend
that that is the equivalent of saying that it is wrong. Actually,
it's slightly stronger than that, in that it is the equivalent of
saying it is INCREDIBLY wrong, so that in the light of evidence no one
could ever have any recourse to saying that it made sense.

"The Earth is flat" is about that level. As are caloric and
phlogiston. You aren't even close for theism to either of those
levels.

>
> Since there is no evidence,

Bullshit. There is evidence, and Chuck pointed that out. That it
isn't compelling does not make it suddenly stop being evidence. We
accept that sort of evidence as evidence for pretty much everything
else, so why not allow it here?

>the fact remains
> that no evidence is required to show no evidence.
> nothing is nothing and is of itself explanatory.
>
> You therefore take a presumptuous not to say
> irrational delight in a deceptive play on
> words, that amount to nothing of import and
> think yourself clever.

Sorry, but that really describes you, here, not me. And I don't
respond to such comments that are never justified, but merely
asserted.

>
> No creator of theism's devising is shown to
> exist and no evidence to the contrary can be
> produced by theism.
>
> And no theist has been able to properly argue
> that Atheism is in fact wrong in light of the
> evidence.

I've never argued that they could, nor are any of my arguments based
on it. So ... what was your point, again?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Treebeard]

On Mar 3, 7:42 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:01 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > However "ridiculous in light of the evidence" is a mostly meaningless
> > term, since it can be replaced with "wrong" in all cases except the
> > "intuitively ridiculous case".
>
> Let's give this a workout:
> "That retrocognition is evidence of reincarnation is ridiculous in
> light of the evidence that some remember the past life of another
> who's still alive" is mostly meaningless since it can be replaced with
> "That retrocognition is evidence of reincarnation is wrong"? What
> might be the intuitively ridiculous case where this replacement cannot
> be done?

I really don't see what you are trying to get at here. My basic reply
to what I THINK you're saying is that if either retrocognition or
reincarnation are intuitvely ridiculous, you could call the statements
"ridiculous", but otherwise you should just call it "wrong".

>
> > And no atheist has been able to
> > properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.
>
> Has any monotheist been able to properly argue that polytheism is in
> fact wrong in light of the evidence?

But monotheists aren't claiming that polytheism is ridiculous in light
of the evidence; if they call it ridiculous, they do so in light of it
being intuitively ridiculous.

[Treebeard]

On Mar 3, 7:04 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> > Yes, I' m incredulous that you really understand what you're
> > rejecting.
>
> I am rejecting Christianity on the basis that it is stupid. What did you
> think I was rejecting?

In context -- which you always lose when it suits you -- this was you
rejecting the idea that the odd things about relativity are, in fact,
ridiculous, or even odd. What else could you have thought I meant?

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]

>
>
> On Mar 3, 7:04 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Treebeard]
>>
>>> Yes, I' m incredulous that you really understand what you're
>>> rejecting.
>>
>> I am rejecting Christianity on the basis that it is stupid. What did you
>> think I was rejecting?
>
> In context -- which you always lose when it suits you -- this was you
> rejecting the idea that the odd things about relativity are, in fact,
> ridiculous, or even odd. What else could you have thought I meant?

My original post, probably.

The "odd things" concerning relativity simply do not strike me as odd.
Perhaps it is simply that my mind is better evolved to deal with such
things than is yours. I find relativity and the entirety of quantum
mechanics to be wonderful, not silly, stupid or ridiculous.

God, however and his Christian definitions I do find to be far to silly
to give credence to.

Is that clarified enough for you?

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"When one has the feeling of dislike for evil, when one feels tranquil,
one finds pleasure in listening to good teachings; when one has these
feelings and appreciates them, one is free of fear."
[Buddha]

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 8:47 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 7:04 pm, Simon Ewins<sjew...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> [Treebeard]
>
> >>> Yes, I' m incredulous that you really understand what you're
> >>> rejecting.
>
> >> I am rejecting Christianity on the basis that it is stupid. What did you
> >> think I was rejecting?
>
> > In context -- which you always lose when it suits you -- this was you
> > rejecting the idea that the odd things about relativity are, in fact,
> > ridiculous, or even odd.  What else could you have thought I meant?
>
> My original post, probably.
>
> The "odd things" concerning relativity simply do not strike me as odd.
> Perhaps it is simply that my mind is better evolved to deal with such
> things than is yours. I find relativity and the entirety of quantum
> mechanics to be wonderful, not silly, stupid or ridiculous.
>
> God, however and his Christian definitions I do find to be far to silly
> to give credence to.
>
> Is that clarified enough for you?

Which is ignoring the alternative and I think more credible
explanation that I already provided: you build "truth value" into your
considerations of ridiculous. You don't believe in God, so it is
ridiculous. You do believe relativity true, so it is not.

No rational person can understand the history and ideas of time, mass
and the like as well as common experience and still conclude that,
keeping that in mind, it is not odd or ridiculous ... unless one
rejects that simply because one thinks it true.

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]

> No rational person can understand the history and ideas of time, mass
> and the like as well as common experience and still conclude that,
> keeping that in mind, it is not odd or ridiculous

You have met one who does. Get over it.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"Seeking is not always the way to find."
[Augustus William Hare and Julius Charles Hare, Guesses at Truth, by Two
Brothers, 1827]

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 9:31 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> > No rational person can understand the history and ideas of time, mass
> > and the like as well as common experience and still conclude that,
> > keeping that in mind, it is not odd or ridiculous
>
> You have met one who does. Get over it.

Except that I can then conclude that you are not, in fact, rational,
and therefore have no need to accept your statement.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 4, 7:32 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:42 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 7:01 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > However "ridiculous in light of the evidence" is a mostly meaningless
> > > term, since it can be replaced with "wrong" in all cases except the
> > > "intuitively ridiculous case".
>
> > Let's give this a workout:
> > "That retrocognition is evidence of reincarnation is ridiculous in
> > light of the evidence that some remember the past life of another
> > who's still alive" is mostly meaningless since it can be replaced with
> > "That retrocognition is evidence of reincarnation is wrong"? What
> > might be the intuitively ridiculous case where this replacement cannot
> > be done?
>
> I really don't see what you are trying to get at here.

I was trying to figure out why you would find the following sentence
mostly meaningless:

"That retrocognition is evidence of reincarnation is ridiculous in
light of the evidence that some remember the past life of another
who's still alive"

> My basic reply

> to what I THINK you're saying is that if either retrocognition or
> reincarnation are intuitvely ridiculous, you could call the statements
> "ridiculous", but otherwise you should just call it "wrong".
>
> > > And no atheist has been able to
> > > properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.
>
> > Has any monotheist been able to properly argue that polytheism is in
> > fact wrong in light of the evidence?
>
> But monotheists aren't claiming that polytheism is ridiculous in light
> of the evidence; if they call it ridiculous, they do so in light of it
> being intuitively ridiculous.

Ah! Then, has any atheist been able to properly argue that theism is
ridiculous in light of its being intuitively ridiculous?

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]
>>> No rational person can understand the history and ideas of time, mass
>>> and the like as well as common experience and still conclude that,
>>> keeping that in mind, it is not odd or ridiculous
>>
>> You have met one who does. Get over it.
>
> Except that I can then conclude that you are not, in fact, rational,
> and therefore have no need to accept your statement.

That may be true, actually. I don't suppose a completely rational person
would carry on a conversation with you.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"We often repent the good we have done as well as the ill."
[William Hazlitt, Characteristics, 1823]

[Kippers]

But you seemed to be using the example of an intuitively ridiculous
statement being true as a means to show that other types of ridiculous
statements --those ridiculous in the light of evidence—can also be
true.

Most religions actually contrast sharply with ideas like special
relativity in that they are intuitively appealing yet ridiculous in
the light of modern evidence.

Anyway its good that we both acknowledge these distinctions.

> However "ridiculous in light of the evidence" is a mostly >meaningless
> term, since it can be replaced with "wrong" in all cases except the
> "intuitively ridiculous case".  

Of course I would agree that “ridiculous in the light of evidence” can
also be synonymous with “wrong” however the statement conveys more
information than the word “wrong” and it includes an indication of why
it is believed to be wrong. It is possible to be wrong for other
reasons, such as moral ones for example.

>And no atheist has been able to

> properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>

Well I don’t consider it a challenge to show how particular beliefs in
Christianity are wrong in light of the evidence. It’s been done many
times before. That people like you and Chuck don’t even try and argue
for particular Christian beliefs is telling in itself.

Do you believe in the global flood or Original sin?
If so we can discuss why such beliefs are ridiculous in the light of
evidence.

If not then I am sure we can find something else.

[LL]

On Mar 3, 3:15 pm, "TRUECRISTIANBorn Again Fundamentalist

Christianity ]" <X...@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:
> On 3 mar, 12:59, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:34 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Drafterman wrote:
> > > > I've been watching it, somehow I missed the connection.
>
> > > Then fix your glasses.
>
> > After doing a search the closest thing I could find from you was:
>
> > "Therefore, you have to concede that an eternal substance exists.  The
> > only thing left for you to do is question the actual nature of such a
>
> Wake up America! Rock-n-Roll Music, Television and Movies have largely
> helped destroy America's value

LL: How about computers and discussion groups?

**********************************

[LL]

LL: No, you've got it completely wrong. We make out determinations on
the lack of evidence. That's where you fail to grasp the concept.
There is nothing wrong with rejecting things that have no evidence,
but you and other theists seem to think there is.

>
> However "ridiculous in light of the evidence" is a mostly meaningless
> term, since it can be replaced with "wrong" in all cases except the
> "intuitively ridiculous case".  And no atheist has been able to
> properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.

LL: Please provide the evidence that any god exists.

********************************************

[Treebeard]

As you miss the entire progression of the discussion to this point ...

Let me retort with that it is not reasonable to call something
ridiculous in and of itself based on lack of evidence.

>
>
>
> > However "ridiculous in light of the evidence" is a mostly meaningless
> > term, since it can be replaced with "wrong" in all cases except the
> > "intuitively ridiculous case".  And no atheist has been able to
> > properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.
>
> LL: Please provide the evidence that any god exists.

Which is not sufficient to get it to "ridiculous is light of the
evidence" as Kippers was suggesting.

[Kippers]

> evidence" as Kippers was suggesting.-

That’s right.
I am being very generous in trying to tease out some of the Christian
beliefs you do hold and (assuming these conform to some of the
orthodox Christian beliefs I have in mind) I will take on the burden
of responsibility to prove them absurd in the light of evidence rather
than taking the usual stance of asking you to provide support for your
beliefs.

I am just feeling in a generous mood today.

However if your specific beliefs turn out to be nothing more than an
agnostic deistic position which is generally all you seem to profess
on this site (despite labelling yourself an agnostic Christian) then
my kind offer will be withdrawn.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 4, 9:12 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:47 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> you build "truth value" into your
> considerations of ridiculous.  You don't believe in God, so it is
> ridiculous.  You do believe relativity true, so it is not.

You build truth value into your considerations of ridiculous. You
don't believe in gods, so it is not just ridiculous but intuitively
ridiculous. You indicate that all monotheists who find polytheism
ridiculous find it so in light of its not merely seeming but also
BEING intuitively ridiculous, which would imply that they therefore
need no evidence of the falsehood of polytheism:

<<But monotheists aren't claiming that polytheism is ridiculous in
light of the evidence; if they call it ridiculous, they do so in light

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 11:29 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

You missed the "if".

I don't consider polytheism ridiculolus in any sense. Some do
consider it ridiculous, but that is clearly in the intuitive sense,
not the "in light of the evidence" sense.

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 10:06 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 4 Mar, 00:01, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Actually, it is that distinction that I am relying on, and have
> > stated.  I accuse Simon of rejecting certain things a priori, and
> > calling them ridiculous not because of the evidence, but because of
> > the concepts.  But that sort of determination, as I showed with
> > relativity, does not make it true.  I think that Simon and a lot of
> > atheists are making the determination on the basis of "intuitively
> > ridiculous" and then trying to translate that to the latter.  Which
> > means that they equivocate on the terms, not me.
>
> But you seemed to be using the example of an intuitively ridiculous
> statement being true as a means to show that other types of ridiculous
> statements --those ridiculous in the light of evidence—can also be
> true.

Um, I have always been acting under the presumption that Simon's
comment is effectively about the intuitive ridiculousness of the
propositions.

>
> Most religions actually contrast sharply with ideas like special
> relativity in that they are intuitively appealing yet ridiculous in
> the light of modern evidence.

Which is why people say that it is ridiculous to believe that someone
could walk on water?

>
> Anyway its good that we both acknowledge these distinctions.
>
> > However "ridiculous in light of the evidence" is a mostly >meaningless
> > term, since it can be replaced with "wrong" in all cases except the
> > "intuitively ridiculous case".  
>
> Of course I would agree that “ridiculous in the light of evidence” can
> also be synonymous with “wrong” however the statement conveys more
> information than the word “wrong” and it includes an indication of why
> it is believed to be wrong.  It is possible to be wrong for other
> reasons, such as moral ones for example.

It's hard to argue that you could ever call a proposition about the
world "wrong" and include moral reasons and be considered to be making
a valid claim, as is cited quite regularly even on this board.

>
> >And no atheist has been able to
> > properly argue that theism is in fact wrong in light of the evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well I don’t consider it a challenge to show how particular beliefs in
> Christianity are wrong in light of the evidence. It’s been done many
> times before.  That people like you and Chuck don’t even try and argue
> for particular Christian beliefs is telling in itself.
>
> Do you believe in the global flood or Original sin?

I'm not a Biblical literalist, and I'd suggest that most Christians
aren't either. So the former is probably "No, but it doesn't matter"
and for the latter is "Yes, but not literally".

> If so we can discuss why such beliefs are ridiculous in the light of
> evidence.
>
> If not then I am sure we can find something else.
>
>
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>

[Treebeard]

I am an agnostic, and am certainly not a deist, so I'm not sure what
that means. I've never actually expressed a deist position, so I'm
puzzled why you think I have.

(I have stated that proving at least a deist god disproves atheism,
but that isn't sufficient for your above claim).

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Mar 4, 11:34 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:29 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 9:12 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 8:47 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > you build "truth value" into your
> > > considerations of ridiculous.  You don't believe in God, so it is
> > > ridiculous.  You do believe relativity true, so it is not.
>
> > You build truth value into your considerations of ridiculous. You
> > don't believe in gods, so it is not just ridiculous but intuitively
> > ridiculous. You indicate that all monotheists who find polytheism
> > ridiculous find it so in light of its not merely seeming but also
> > BEING intuitively ridiculous, which would imply that they therefore
> > need no evidence of the falsehood of polytheism:
>
> > <<But monotheists aren't claiming that polytheism is ridiculous in
> > light of the evidence; if they call it ridiculous, they do so in light
> > of it being intuitively ridiculous.>>
>
> You missed the "if".

I didn't. The implication is that each and every monotheist who finds
polytheism ridiculous do so not because they find it ridiculous but
because it IS intuitively ridiculous.

> I don't consider polytheism ridiculous in any sense.

If you don't consider it ridiculous, why do you say that it is
intuitively ridiculous?

> Some do
> consider it ridiculous, but that is clearly in the intuitive sense,
> not the "in light of the evidence" sense.

How do you know? Have you surveyed everyone who calls polytheism
ridiculous to determine whether they arrived at this opinion
intuitively or by examining evidence?

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]

>> But you seemed to be using the example of an intuitively ridiculous
>> statement being true as a means to show that other types of ridiculous

>> statements --those ridiculous in the light of evidence�can also be

>> true.
>
> Um, I have always been acting under the presumption that Simon's
> comment is effectively about the intuitive ridiculousness of the
> propositions.

Um, I said silly, and I meant all kinds of silly, be it intuitive,
baronial, green, offensive, laughably, onerously, darkly, brightly or
any adjective you care to use.

>
>>
>> Most religions actually contrast sharply with ideas like special
>> relativity in that they are intuitively appealing yet ridiculous in
>> the light of modern evidence.
>
> Which is why people say that it is ridiculous to believe that someone
> could walk on water?

Isn't it?

>> Do you believe in the global flood or Original sin?
>
> I'm not a Biblical literalist, and I'd suggest that most Christians
> aren't either. So the former is probably "No, but it doesn't matter"
> and for the latter is "Yes, but not literally".

Even figuratively it is silly.

>> If so we can discuss why such beliefs are ridiculous in the light of
>> evidence.

--

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the universe." - Einstein

"Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of
the light?"
[Maurice Freehill]

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 11:56 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:34 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 11:29 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 9:12 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 8:47 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > you build "truth value" into your
> > > > considerations of ridiculous.  You don't believe in God, so it is
> > > > ridiculous.  You do believe relativity true, so it is not.
>
> > > You build truth value into your considerations of ridiculous. You
> > > don't believe in gods, so it is not just ridiculous but intuitively
> > > ridiculous. You indicate that all monotheists who find polytheism
> > > ridiculous find it so in light of its not merely seeming but also
> > > BEING intuitively ridiculous, which would imply that they therefore
> > > need no evidence of the falsehood of polytheism:
>
> > > <<But monotheists aren't claiming that polytheism is ridiculous in
> > > light of the evidence; if they call it ridiculous, they do so in light
> > > of it being intuitively ridiculous.>>
>
> > You missed the "if".
>
> I didn't. The implication is that each and every monotheist who finds
> polytheism ridiculous do so not because they find it ridiculous but
> because it IS intuitively ridiculous.

I'm not sure that distinction can be drawn as tightly as that, since
intuitions are influenced by things personal to the person, like their
other beliefs, cultural background, etc, etc.

All you can say is that some monotheists find polytheism intuitively
ridiculous. I wouldn't even wager that's most of them, though.

>
> > I don't consider polytheism ridiculous in any sense.
>
> If you don't consider it ridiculous, why do you say that it is
> intuitively ridiculous?

YOU started it. I said that monotheists who found it such clearly
meant "intuitive", and that most just consider it wrong, not
ridiculous.

>
> > Some do
> > consider it ridiculous, but that is clearly in the intuitive sense,
> > not the "in light of the evidence" sense.
>
> How do you know? Have you surveyed everyone who calls polytheism
> ridiculous to determine whether they arrived at this opinion
> intuitively or by examining evidence?

Since there IS no evidence that can do that, and since most
monotheists DON'T consider it so ridiculous (but just wrong) it's a
reasonably safe argument. You don't get to presume the latter.

And it is at this point that I am wondering what the point of this is
supposed to be.

[lawrey]

Treebeard,

"If you want to say, as Kippers did, that it is "ridiculous in light
of the evidence", you'd have to show that it is that, and I contend
that that is the equivalent of saying that it is wrong. Actually,
it's slightly stronger than that, in that it is the equivalent of
saying it is INCREDIBLY wrong, so that in the light of evidence no
one
could ever have any recourse to saying that it made sense."

And why would I wish to do that

"The Earth is flat" is about that level. As are caloric and
phlogiston. You aren't even close for theism to either of those
levels.

More gaseous emissions.

"Bullshit. There is evidence, and Chuck pointed that out.
That it isn't compelling does not make it suddenly stop
being evidence. We accept that sort of evidence as evidence
for pretty much everything else, so why not allow it here?"

Well that's one thing you got right; all you and chuck say about
evidence is pure Bullshit if that is what you wish to term it.
try reading:

"the gods of theism, they are neither known
or described to withstand any empirical test."

"Sorry, but that really describes you, here, not me.

And I don't respond to such comments that are never
justified, but merely asserted.

Sorry but you have responded and this is just your assertion.

> And no theist has been able to properly argue
> that Atheism is in fact wrong in light of the
> evidence.

"I've never argued that they could, nor are any of my
arguments based on it. So ... what was your point, again?

You sought to imply the opposite, which is
wrong, since no gods are shown in fact.

[lawrey]

Kippers,

Treebeard's enthrawl is argumentum ad nauseum over semantics
he loves playing with words. It makes him feel superior and
a cut above the rest of us. He's harmless enough.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 1:08 pm, lawrey <commentslaw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Treebeard,
>
> "If  you want to say, as Kippers did, that it is "ridiculous in light
>  of the evidence", you'd have to show that it is that, and I contend
>  that that is the equivalent of saying that it is wrong.  Actually,
>  it's slightly stronger than that, in that it is the equivalent of
>  saying it is INCREDIBLY wrong, so that in the light of evidence no
> one
>  could ever have any recourse to saying that it made sense."
>
> And why would I wish to do that

I presumed that you were discussing things in the context of the
discussion, but then again I'm not surprised that you somehow think
that you can walk into the middle of a discussion and assert that I'm
saying nothing or twisting things even though you have no idea what's
actually being discussed.

>
>  "The Earth is flat" is about that level.  As are caloric and
>   phlogiston.  You aren't even close for theism to either of those
>   levels.
>
> More gaseous emissions.

Wow. So you think that "The Earth is flat", "Heat transfer is caused
by caloric" and "The substance lost in burning is pholgiston" are NOT
ridiculous beliefs in light of the evidence? Seems that you couldn't
consider ANYTHING that, then. And you can't dismiss the entire
paragraph as "gaseous emissions" without dismissing the main point of
it, which was to show and clarify what counts as "ridiculous based on
evidence".

>
>   "Bullshit.  There is evidence, and Chuck pointed that out.
>    That it isn't compelling does not make it suddenly stop
>    being evidence.  We accept that sort of evidence as evidence
>    for pretty much everything else, so why not allow it here?"
>
> Well that's one thing you got right; all you and chuck say about
> evidence is pure Bullshit if that is what you wish to term it.
> try reading:
>
> "the gods of theism, they are neither known
> or described to withstand any empirical test."

To withstand any empirical test how? To prove that they must exist?
Yeah, they don't do that, but that doesn't mean that there's no
evidence because not all evidence is compelling.

Really, you don't know what you're talking about.

>
>   "Sorry, but that really describes you, here, not me.
>    And I don't respond to such comments that are never
>    justified, but merely asserted.
>
> Sorry but you have responded and this is just your assertion.

And people accuse ME of splitting hairs. Although I did expect it.

Obviously, I meant that I wasn't going to try to prove you wrong on
that sort of point when you haven't done anything to prove it. And
the original point here, to remind everyone, was:

> You therefore take a presumptuous not to say
> irrational delight in a deceptive play on
> words, that amount to nothing of import and
> think yourself clever.

Since it's you who is playing with words, and since I'm actually being
very clear -- and even clarifying! -- what I mean ...

>
> > And no theist has been able to properly argue
> > that Atheism is in fact wrong in light of the
> > evidence.
>
>   "I've never argued that they could, nor are any of my
>    arguments based on it.  So ... what was your point, again?
>
> You sought to imply the opposite, which is
> wrong, since no gods are shown in fact.

I didn't "imply" the opposite, but flat-out stated that atheists have
not been able to prove theism wrong, which is a pre-condition of
considering them "ridiculous in light of the evidence". If you want
to disagree with this, you need to actually understand the debate and
address the real issue, and not merely assert irrelevant comments that
no one is claiming as if you are addressing something that is relevant
to the discussion.

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 1:17 pm, lawrey <commentslaw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Kippers,
>
> Treebeard's enthrawl is argumentum ad nauseum over semantics
> he loves playing with words. It makes him feel superior and
> a cut above the rest of us. He's harmless enough.

I despair that you will ever be capable of understanding that
sometimes you really DO actually need to know what you're talking
about to have a reasonable discussion [grin].

[Simon Ewins]

[lawrey]

> Kippers,
>
> Treebeard's enthrawl is argumentum ad nauseum over semantics
> he loves playing with words. It makes him feel superior and
> a cut above the rest of us. He's harmless enough.

I have seen this countless times. It is the biggest drawback to reading
too much philosophy, since philosophy, in the end, is nothing but "all
about words". At that point it becomes philobabble and can then no
longer be taken seriously.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"Insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in groups, parties,
nations, and epochs it is the rule."
[Nietzsche]

[Answer_42]

On Mar 4, 2:01 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [lawrey]
>
> > Kippers,
>
> > Treebeard's enthrawl is argumentum ad nauseum over semantics
> > he loves playing with words. It makes him feel superior and
> > a cut above the rest of us. He's harmless enough.
>
> I have seen this countless times. It is the biggest drawback to reading
> too much philosophy, since philosophy, in the end, is nothing but "all
> about words". At that point it becomes philobabble and can then no
> longer be taken seriously.

Especially when one's belief in god rests on
1) mommy and daddy told me so;
2) claims that every single argument against god being real is
lacking;
3) claims that it is utterly irrelevant whether arguments for god
being real are lacking or not when one already holds the belief;
4) that believing in an imaginary all powerful being is exactly as
rational as believing that one's mechanic might be open for business
Saturday morning; and
5) a continual refusal to define the god one believes in and explain
where that definition actually came from.
____________________________________________
All argument is against it; but all belief is for it.
-- Samuel Johnson, speaking of the afterlife

[Bob T.]

On Mar 4, 8:34 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> I don't consider polytheism ridiculolus in any sense.  

Excellent! Thor, Kali, Aphrodite and I agree with you.

- Bob T

[Simon Ewins]

[Bob T.]

>
>
> On Mar 4, 8:34 am, Treebeard<allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I don't consider polytheism ridiculolus in any sense.
>
> Excellent! Thor, Kali, Aphrodite and I agree with you.

Kali is hot! :)

At least as portrayed in last season's closer of Sanctuary.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"One does what one is; one becomes what one does."
[Robert von Musil, Kleine Prosa]

[Answer_42]

On Mar 3, 10:34 am, Chuck <chuckg1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Drafterman wrote:

> > That's not what "typical" means.
>
> It's what I am using "typical" to mean.  Therefore, it is what
> "typical" means.
>
> Definitions are not right or wrong.  They are arbitrarily decided by
> people.

<sigh>

Another theist who uses the Christian Dictionary of Vague Terms. All
along claiming that he is not the guilty one as far as fallacies are
concerned... go figure!

[Answer_42]

On Mar 3, 10:43 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > Rather than accuse you of stawman fallacies I will simply reword the
> > supposed atheist arguments to match the arguments I actually make as
> > an argument on the same subject and perhaps then you could point out
> > if they are still fallacious.
>
> > > THE NO TRUE EVIDENCE FALLACY
>
> > > "There is no evidence for God's existence."
>
> > Actual Athiest:
>
> > "There is not enough evidence to support the belief in the Christian
> > God.  The Christian God may well exist but even if he does I was
> > right, given the current lack of evidence for and abundance of
> > contradictory evidence against, to not profess belief in this God."
>
> While I'd accept that it is reasonable for you to not believe, your
> comments about evidence do not seem to justify refusing to allow
> ANYONE to reasonably believe in God, which is what the initial
> statement implies.  In short, to assert that there is not enough
> evidence to support the belief universally, you'd have to argue for a
> notion of belief that precludes it, which will be difficult
> considering the many things we claim to reasonably believe on far less
> evidence.

Such as?

[Sigmund]

You have misunderstood my point in several ways:

> See my thread on the modal ontological argument. Nobody could refute
> it.

The ontological argument has several fundamental flaws:
a) it doesn't specify/define the 'God' character, hence it could
theoretically hold true for any religion/belief - you could use it to
argue the existence of Allah just as easily as any other god, you're
just naming a concept.
b) it is based on the assumption of God's existence, hence it is
circular in logic - it only works if God exists, otherwise 'God, the
greatest thing I can conceive of' is, precisely, only a concept, and
that indeed exists. That doesn't mean that a 'real' God exists.

>
> Okay, in what way is the evidence for Islam similar to that of
> Christianity?

I'm not saying the specifics are similar, I'm simply pointing out that
both Christianity and Islam base their beliefs on 'historical
documents' that they construe as evidence and the simple existence of
'historical figures' (Jesus and Mohammed) - you can't argue that
Christianity is right just because of Jesus and the Bible, because
exactly the same holds true for Islam - you're just making an
arbitrary choice, to interpret these things as 'evidence'. Stupid and
pointless.

And how would such evidence disprove the events in the
> New Testament?

Firstly, asking me to disprove something for which there is no
concrete, convincing evidence or logical foundation in INSANE. If I
asked you to prove that there is no microscopic magical fairy living
up my ass you'd say I was crazy (which I would be, for believing that
in the first place), and you'd say it was up to me to prove that there
was one...
Secondly, you can't just ignore the Old Testament, however convenient
it might be. It's part of your religion - accept it.
Thirdly, there are lots of factually dubious passages, check out the
sceptic's annotated Bible.

>
> What laws of logic are violated by the events in the New Testament?

Well, for instance, the supposition that there is a God. And that
Jesus was his offspring. Just because you've read it in an old book
doesn't mean it's true.

See also http://atheistprinciples.tripod.com where all of these points
(and many others) are discussed in much greater detail.

[Sigmund]

> Which would make it the best argument going, and the equivalent of the
> "Problem of Evil" reply. That it isn't the only possible
> interpretation doesn't make it a bad argument.

but it's ARBITRARY - there is no sceintific evidence. You're
interpreting nature as evidence for 'something' - calling it 'God' is
pointless, because even if it is a higher force, you haven't learned
anything about it. Everything you claim to know about this 'God' is
made up. Choosing this in preference to a 'natural' explanation
(something that accords with the laws of physics, whether we
understand them correctly or not) is utterly ridiculous.

[Treebeard]

On Mar 4, 2:01 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [lawrey]
>
> > Kippers,
>
> > Treebeard's enthrawl is argumentum ad nauseum over semantics
> > he loves playing with words. It makes him feel superior and
> > a cut above the rest of us. He's harmless enough.
>
> I have seen this countless times. It is the biggest drawback to reading
> too much philosophy, since philosophy, in the end, is nothing but "all
> about words".

It's better put as "all about concepts". Now, demonstrate your
intelligence by understanding a) what the difference is and b) why
that's important.

But the odd thing really is that I'm actually CLEARER about what I
mean that most people posting [grin].

[Simon Ewins]

[Treebeard]

> It's better put as "all about concepts". Now, demonstrate your
> intelligence by understanding a) what the difference is and b) why
> that's important.

I studied philosophy for too many years thinking it was important. It
isn't because it always gets wrapped up in words. Concepts get strangled
by words in philosophy. Best to stay away from it and try and
concentrate on the plainest and simplest ways of explaining complexity;
rather than the most complex way of explaining simplicity.

> But the odd thing really is that I'm actually CLEARER about what I
> mean that most people posting [grin].

No, the odd thing is that you think you are.

--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche

"Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their
suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little."
[Buddha]

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

It might be part of many Christians' religion but it doesn't have to
be part of all Christians' religion, in the same sense that the
Ugaritic materials were not part of Jesus' religion.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2007/08/ugarit-and-bible.html

> Thirdly, there are lots of factually dubious passages, check out the
> sceptic's annotated Bible.

Jesus says that Moses (not God) gave the law allowing husbands to
divorce wives at will. He asserts that this was not the law at the
beginning. So, Jesus seems to claim that Mosaic law, in this instance
at least, is a deviation from his God's law. So, not even Jesus had
the entire OT as part of his religion. Whether he even had most of the
OT as part of his religion is doubtful. He was, however, preaching to
people who considered the entire OT part of their religion, so he had
to be circumspect about in what ways and to what extent he revealed
his disbelief in the OT.

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your
hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. -
Matthew 19:8, NLT*
But Jesus responded, "He wrote this commandment only as a concession
to your hard hearts. - Mark 10:5, NLT*
* New Living Translation, 2007

> Well, for instance, the supposition that there is a God. And that
> Jesus was his offspring. Just because you've read it in an old book
> doesn't mean it's true.

Such a supposition wouldn't even have occurred to Jesus' audiences,
who didn't read any gospels but, rather, got their information
straight from Jesus' mouth. Why not? Because in no sermon did Jesus
preach "My mom's a virgin since she had me through God agency rather
than by knowing a man." And guess what? Even now, there are Jesus
followers/ Christians who don't believe in the incarnation; an
Anglican authority once remarked that it is ironic that in his neck of
the woods, the primary upholders of this doctrine are Muslims.

> See alsohttp://atheistprinciples.tripod.comwhere all of these points