(November 23, 2016 at 7:30 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 5:57 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... What I said was that you have a fetish with it.

Well, I do keep a copy of the Summa in the bathroom. One hand on Aquinas, the other on...excuse me me I have to go...

I want to know who had called you a pompous ass.  This is not the post of one of those.

(November 23, 2016 at 11:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Arguments from unnamed authorities...insults...bald assertions...straw men...blah...blah...blah.

Yes that's true, but why don't we stop talking about the deficincies in your posts for a minute?

(November 24, 2016 at 2:55 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 7:30 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Well, I do keep a copy of the Summa in the bathroom. One hand on Aquinas, the other on...excuse me me I have to go...

I want to know who had called you a pompous ass.  This is not the post of one of those.

I guess I best be careful. I have a reputation to protect.

I just read that garbage OP for the first time.  Why is it that theists think that they can "prove" their deity exists if they can simply devise a clever enough argument?  I could argue that fairies exist.  I could develop some clever arguments to "prove" my point.  What I couldn't do is provide actual evidence because fairies don't exist, so all I would have would be arguments.  Do they really think we don't see through that?  Do they really, truly believe that these arguments "sound smart" to literally ANYONE who doesn't already believe?  Do they really think that we are going to smack ourselves on the forehead and say, "Why didn't I see it before?  That argument is air tight!  I no longer need evidence for the existence of God and am not willing and able to ignore all the evidence against the existence of God because I just cannot refute that argument."?

To the OP, no, it is not "irrational" to not believe that magic is real.  It is not "irrational" to question the claim that I could live forever after I die.  It is not "irrational" to disbelieve someone who says, "If you do what I say you'll have everything you ever wanted.  Just look at all these people who already got it!  This is a picture of Helen.  She spent her life in service of God and then she died.  Now she's in Heaven, has eternal life and is happy forever!  And here's a picture of Ted.  He served God, then HE died.  And now HE'S in Heaven too!  That could be you!"  And your argument, like most of these shit arguments, slyly tries to shift reality, just a little, away from the fact that "I DO NOT ACCEPT that God is real" and toward the fantasy that "I DENY that God is real."  To not accept something is simply to assert that there is not enough evidence to convince you, which is atheism.  To deny something is to assert that there is enough evidence to prove it wrong.  It is a shitty way of lowering the bar for yourself while simultaneously raising it for us.

(November 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Asmodee Wrote: I could argue that fairies exist.  I could develop some clever arguments to "prove" my point.  What I couldn't do is provide actual evidence because fairies don't exist, so all I would have would be arguments. 

I'd love to hear them Some demonstrations are better than others. I prefer those that take as given the universe's intelligibility and the efficacy of human reason.

(November 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Asmodee Wrote: To the OP, no, it is not "irrational" to not believe that magic is real. 

Define 'magic'. I probably don't believe in that either.

(November 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Asmodee Wrote: And your argument, like most of these shit arguments, slyly tries to shift reality, just a little, away from the fact that "I DO NOT ACCEPT that God is real" and toward the fantasy that "I DENY that God is real."  To not accept something is simply to assert that there is not enough evidence to convince you, which is atheism.  To deny something is to assert that there is enough evidence to prove it wrong.  It is a shitty way of lowering the bar for yourself while simultaneously raising it for us.

Your post reeks of incredulity.

(November 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Asmodee Wrote: I could argue that fairies exist.  I could develop some clever arguments to "prove" my point.  What I couldn't do is provide actual evidence because fairies don't exist, so all I would have would be arguments. 

I'd love to hear them   Some demonstrations are better than others. I prefer those that take as given the universe's intelligibility and the efficacy of human reason.

Some other time, perhaps.  I have neither the time nor the will to do anything clever right now.

(November 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Asmodee Wrote: To the OP, no, it is not "irrational" to not believe that magic is real. 

Define 'magic'. I probably don't believe in that either.

There's no mysterious definition here.  Simply supernatural influence on physical reality.  Any "miracle" in the Bible is correctly labeled "magic".

(November 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Asmodee Wrote: And your argument, like most of these shit arguments, slyly tries to shift reality, just a little, away from the fact that "I DO NOT ACCEPT that God is real" and toward the fantasy that "I DENY that God is real."  To not accept something is simply to assert that there is not enough evidence to convince you, which is atheism.  To deny something is to assert that there is enough evidence to prove it wrong.  It is a shitty way of lowering the bar for yourself while simultaneously raising it for us.

Your post reeks of incredulity.

Not at all.  If there were any real evidence I would examine it.  I really have no stake in the argument whether or not there is some deity, at least not until AFTER I'm already dead.  But it is a big deal to change my beliefs from "I do not believe any gods exist" to "No gods exist for sure".  Theists often try to slip it by us as if it's no big deal, but it is a VERY big to change my position from disbelief to a positive assertion, from "don't believe in God" to "deny God".

(November 30, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Your post reeks of incredulity.

Theists often try to slip it by us as if it's no big deal, but it is a VERY big to change my position from disbelief to a positive assertion, from "don't believe in God" to "deny God".

I didn't say that you are actively denying that go exists. I am implying that you have taken a stance with this respect to the proposition "Does god(s) exist?" You have tacitly expressed that your answer is "No it/they do not." Based on the way you have chosen to make that position known, I have made a personal judgement that you would resist attributing anything to a divine cause.

But this issue isn't just about miracles. Reported miracles are not a cause of faith. No one reads the bible and says, "wow! they recorded miracles, therefore God exists." No, they see them not as evidence; but rather, as instruction. That a miracle occurred is far less important than why it occured. I have no experience with the miraculous. Instead, I see the work of Providence in entirely natural processes.

(November 30, 2016 at 7:05 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Asmodee Wrote: Theists often try to slip it by us as if it's no big deal, but it is a VERY big to change my position from disbelief to a positive assertion, from "don't believe in God" to "deny God".

I didn't say that you are actively denying that go exists. I am implying that you have taken a stance with this respect to the proposition "Does god(s) exist?" You have tacitly expressed that your answer is "No it/they do not." Based on the way you have chosen to make that position known, I have made a personal judgement that you would resist attributing anything to a divine cause.

But this issue isn't just about miracles. Reported miracles are not a cause of faith. No one reads the bible and says, "wow! they recorded miracles, therefore God exists." No, they see them not as evidence; but rather, as instruction. That a miracle occurred is far less important than why it occured. I have no experience with the miraculous. Instead, I see the work of Providence in entirely natural processes.

You kind of just did it there again.  The question isn't, "Does God exist" because that question is unanswerable.  Am I a God?  I know that Ghostbusters taught me to say "yes", but I am not.  And no gods walk openly among us.  So I cannot answer that question.  Nobody can.  The proper question is, "Do you believe god(s) exist?", and THAT is the question to which I answer "no".  I do not believe any gods exist.  Not believing something is not even close to denying that thing.  I don't believe you to be a billionaire, but I'm not making the statement that you definitely are not.  Completely and utterly different.

I don't think many theists actually realize it when they're shifting the language like that to bolster their own beliefs and arguments.  It is, after all, much easier to dislike a person who "denies" your beloved beliefs than it is to dislike one who simply doesn't believe it.  It makes it easier for you to make the "personal judgement" that I would resist "the truth", which takes the sting out of it when I find your argument unconvincing.  Then it's not a problem with your argument, it's a problem with me, exactly as you expected.

Your response about miracles is actually very interesting to me.  On another forum I was recently discussing miracles with a Catholic, who thinks every parlor trick that even his own church won't certify is absolute proof of magic.  Something about blood liquefying.  I actually pointed out to him there there was not a single mention in the Bible of a pointless miracle like goo getting runnier.  Not one.  Without exception, every single display of magic in the Bible had a clear purpose.  The wedding needed wine.  The people needed fed.  The world needed cleansed.  Moses needed to show Pharaoh's magician his cock was bigger.  There is not one instance where God cast a pointless spell just because he could.  And interestingly, there was also not one instance where God cast a spell with the purpose of convincing people that his magic was real.  More powerful, yes, but not "real".  In fact, Jesus actually refused to do that very thing.  So I don't know what the red goo in the bottle is, but I do KNOW it's not blood.  But I don't "know" that because it's what I want to believe.  I know that because I have never seen magic AND the claims they are making simply do not match the past actions of the deity they are attributing it to.

But you are wrong about one thing there.  There has been at least one reported miracle which very much was the "cause of faith", if you take the claims at face value.  It happened on the road to Damascus.

(December 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm)Asmodee Wrote: [quote='Neo-Scholastic' pid='1460170' dateline='1480547117']I didn't say that you are actively denying that go exists. I am implying that you have taken a stance with this respect to the proposition "Does god(s) exist?"

(December 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm)Asmodee Wrote: You kind of just did it there again. The question isn't, "Does God exist" because that question is unanswerable. Am I a God?

I actually answered this question elsewhere to another member albeit not very respectfully:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-46490-po...pid1459683

(December 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm)Asmodee Wrote: I don't think many theists actually realize it when they're shifting the language like that to bolster their own beliefs and arguments. It is, after all, much easier to dislike a person who "denies" your beloved beliefs than it is to dislike one who simply doesn't believe it.

I don’t want to dislike anyone; I just get a little peeved sometimes. With all due respect, I think it is most atheists who are unwittingly playing with semantics. And this series of posts gives my reasoning.
This one is intentionally sarcastic, so keep that in mind: http://atheistforums.org/thread-46320-po...pid1451557
http://atheistforums.org/thread-46320-po...pid1453174
http://atheistforums.org/thread-46320-po...pid1453724

(December 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm)Asmodee Wrote: Your response about miracles is actually very interesting to me.

Thank you.
Right now a parallel thread is discussing miracles. Here is the link http://atheistforums.org/thread-46490-po...pid1461133 It gives a fairly neat summary of how I view miracles. Maybe you could jump over and participate on that

(December 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm)Asmodee Wrote: But you are wrong about one thing there. There has been at least one reported miracle which very much was the "cause of faith", if you take the claims at face value. It happened on the road to Damascus.

Well, I personally think that gnostic visions fall into a different category: theophany.

All miracles are made up stories told to promote some idea or other and are believed by gullible people.

That is my stance and will remain until someone can actually prove that one really happened.

"A miracle is an event described by those to whom it was told by people who did not see it." Elbert Hubbard