Epimethean Wrote:Well, at least many of the under five crowd imagine cooler things than a dead jew on a stick.

That sounds like a food you would get at the county fair.

(June 30, 2012 at 5:53 am)fr0d0 Wrote: THE MOST ignorant thing a person can say is to demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject.

Becaaaaaaaauuuuuse.....some ignorant twat on the internet says so.

Right.

WOW, what a fucking retard you are.

Quote: I certainly don't call Dawkins ignorant, but I do call his foray into religion so.

He knows enough about your superstitions to see that they are utter twaddle. That's plenty.

Quote:Just like his criticism of theologions who violate science in opposing it with religion, his correct assertion, equally he commits the same glaring fallacy in reverse.

Ah, yes, the Courtier's Reply. You forget that even the fucking village idiot can see that The Emperor Has No Clothes.

Quote:Those of you calling me ignorant of theology based on scientific reasoning, I can't laugh enough at you.

I don't call you "ignorant of theology". You are simply willfully ignorant.

Quote:Please continue wasting your time with your idiocy.

Quote:Me, I shall continue to FULLY appreciate scientific endeavour as much as any scientist, and religion unencumbered by logical fail.

Impossible to appreciate scientific endeavour while blinded by superstition. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

The thing is, how do you tell the difference between an existent deity that is not empirically testable, and a non existent deity?

You can't.

We can only establish something is true by demonstrating it, by examining it's properties and effects, in reality.

If that can't be done, then it's not worth consideration.

Faith, that's all Frodo has. Faith is nothing.

(June 29, 2012 at 3:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Dawkins is a self proclaimed religious ignoramus Epi. See the way he flushes with embarrassment when he talks about it sometimes. He's the perfect counter fundy to his own argument.

Fr0d0, knowing by heart every bullshit ever concocted for religion, just like knowing exactly how many fairies dances on the head of a pin, only underscores the fact religion has prevented you from knowing nothing.

By knowing religion is bullshit, his knowledge of religion surpasses in profoundness and breadth the utmost you as a christian can ever even dream of existing, Fr0d0.

(July 2, 2012 at 5:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Isn't that the whole thing with religion, Fr0ds? No matter which way you're coming at it, it IS all a matter of view.

No. It's a matter of understanding information. Lack of understanding = lack of belief. Belief = informed choice.

I would hope to believe of you that you've thought about what you believe and have reached an informed descision. Religion or no religion that remains the same.

Oh please, Fr0dz, drop the "you don't believe just because you don't understand" argument, that one got old years ago. It got old back when I actually DID believe. The very thing that drove me most from being a believer was having far too many questions, and far too few satisfactory answers. Oh there ARE answers, sure...and they all sound half-assed and far too convenient. The problem with religion is that it tries to simplify everything into the contexts of black and white, and in life there is very little black and white; virtually everything, not literally, but virtually, is in shades of grey. Plus there's the fact that if you look through the bible and any other religious texts AFTER you take off the rose-tinted glasses it all suddenly starts betraying its man-made tendencies. I understand perfectly. It is not a decision I came to because "atheism is cool" or some garbage or because I am a rebellious individual or whatnot, it's a decision I reached because reconciliation is simply not possible. I chose to become religious at a young age. It was not forced nor even introduced to me. I willingly pursued it. I wasn't indoctrinated into it, I pursued it on my own accord. But after accumulated weeks of time of reading through the bible, asking questions of ministers, fellow adherents, even bishops of the Catholic church, the answers I got were always unsatisfactory.

Yes. I understand. I probably understand far better than you, in fact, which is precisely why I don't believe.

(July 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(July 2, 2012 at 5:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No. It's a matter of understanding information. Lack of understanding = lack of belief. Belief = informed choice.

I would hope to believe of you that you've thought about what you believe and have reached an informed descision. Religion or no religion that remains the same.

Oh please, Fr0dz, drop the "you don't believe just because you don't understand" argument, that one got old years ago. It got old back when I actually DID believe. The very thing that drove me most from being a believer was having far too many questions, and far too few satisfactory answers. Oh there ARE answers, sure...and they all sound half-assed and far too convenient. The problem with religion is that it tries to simplify everything into the contexts of black and white, and in life there is very little black and white; virtually everything, not literally, but virtually, is in shades of grey. Plus there's the fact that if you look through the bible and any other religious texts AFTER you take off the rose-tinted glasses it all suddenly starts betraying its man-made tendencies. I understand perfectly. It is not a decision I came to because "atheism is cool" or some garbage or because I am a rebellious individual or whatnot, it's a decision I reached because reconciliation is simply not possible. I chose to become religious at a young age. It was not forced nor even introduced to me. I willingly pursued it. I wasn't indoctrinated into it, I pursued it on my own accord. But after accumulated weeks of time of reading through the bible, asking questions of ministers, fellow adherents, even bishops of the Catholic church, the answers I got were always unsatisfactory.

Yes. I understand. I probably understand far better than you, in fact, which is precisely why I don't believe.

You seem to have taken that too personally Creed. How can you be uncommitted to something you fully understand? Are you uncommitted to your current stance? I presume not, and that your current stance represents your best understanding. Or you are the first to declare Cognitive Dissonance as your atheistic stance that I'm aware of. Or does Non Cognitivist cover that??

---

(July 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: The thing is, how do you tell the difference between an existent deity that is not empirically testable, and a non existent deity?

You can't.

There you go banging your head against your own wall of empiricism. It stops you thinking.

(July 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: We can only establish something is true by demonstrating it, by examining it's properties and effects, in reality.

So my belief in God effects my actions. Explain.

(July 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Faith, that's all Frodo has. Faith is nothing.

There you go adding in your own fantasies again. Like I said, stick to the topic and we can discuss it.

Frodo, explain to me how you could tell the difference between a non empirically testable god and a non existent god.

Thanks.

PS without meaningless waffle.

Quote:You seem to have taken that too personally Creed. How can you be uncommitted to something you fully understand? Are you uncommitted to your current stance? I presume not, and that your current stance represents your best understanding. Or you are the first to declare Cognitive Dissonance as your atheistic stance that I'm aware of. Or does Non Cognitivist cover that??

When someone accuses me of not being informed on a topic I am informed on, yes, I tend to take it on a slightly personal level. I'm not exaggerating the "slight," however; it is only a minor annoyance. Now, you can always be uncommitted to something you fully grasp. I fully grasp the nature of love, for example, though I am not committed to being in love. I ONCE was, though, which is largely what the case was with my beliefs. My current stance, well, I suppose you could say I am committed to it, in the sort of way one becomes committed via not being convinced of something. Can't really say I see your point there. Grasping for straws, hm?

(July 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 2, 2012 at 9:11 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And how exactly is reality on your side?

Reality is what I claim. If you claim that there is no such thing as non empirical then that's up to you to prove against the hard evidence.

Completely meaningless statement.

Reality in essence is that which can be measured.

Since by your own admission god CAN"T be measured he cannot therefore be part of reality.

So reality is not on your side.