Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: 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??
Curious. So, your position is that even though one fully understands the consequences of eating shit, one should nonetheless eat shit.
Quote:
(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.
There you go, N&C, banging your head against your own wall of honesty. Things are so much easier for pathological liars like frodo, who make up whatever shit they like whenever they want.
Quote:
(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.
Yes, your delusional belief has contributed to and aggravated your being an insufferable, arrogant, asinine pathological liar. We can see that you are indeed delusional and that it makes you even more of an asshole.
Quote:
(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.
N&C is analyzing the data and drawing conclusions from it. You reject reality and wallow in superstition and self-delusion. Sad.
July 3, 2012 at 2:55 pm (This post was last modified: July 3, 2012 at 3:35 pm by fr0d0.)
(July 3, 2012 at 6:42 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:
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?
I don't remember accusing you personally. Perhaps it's interesting the way you took it
You're interested in opposing religion. Not the same thing as interest in religion as a participant. That also informs your worldview, so it's quite important.
(July 3, 2012 at 7:04 am)Zen Badger Wrote:
(July 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.
Not only by my admission > by proffession of Christianity - my faith.
But you missed the point. I'm sticking to real life. You are fantasizing about your material world. Reality consists of more than can be measured, and the burden of proof lies with yourself if you wish to oppose that. Like empirical proofs of God, your proofs are rarer than chicken teeth.
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?
I don't remember accusing you personally. Perhaps it's interesting the way you took it
You're interested in opposing religion. Not the same thing as interest in religion as a participant. That also informs your worldview, so it's quite important.
Ah, yes, the accusation that you are being "closed-minded" because you don't buy into superstitions. CoH, you should be ashamed of yourself.
/s
Quote:
(July 3, 2012 at 7:04 am)Zen Badger Wrote:
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.
Not only by my admission > by proffession of Christianity - my faith.
But you missed the point. I'm sticking to real life.
ZB has just shown that you aren't. Superstitions are not "real life". Sorry you can't see that.
Quote:You are fantasizing about your material world
Great bit of self-delusion there. A classic.
Quote: Reality consists of more than can be measured, and the burden of proof lies with yourself if you wish to oppose that.
Superstitions and fairy tales are not reality. Thought you might need to nknow.
Quote: Like empirical proofs of God, your proofs are rarer than chicken teeth.
If your gawdthang existed, it would be able to show itself. thsnks for admitting it doesn't exist.
Quote:Taqi in effect said:
"Baaa"
Do you feel sheepish Taqi?
I see that you have given up even trying to answer my rebuttals. no surprise here.
Fr0d0's thesis - Because he, Fr0d0, divined from the smell of his own fart god exists, therefore all those who insist his fart simply smells bad is wrong, and god exists.
Quote:You don't have to take my word for it. All you need do is use your inate reasoning powers.
My innate reasoning powers require evidence to evaluate. Human imagination has no limits. People have thought of all sorts of silly things... from the Easter Bunny to jesus.
July 3, 2012 at 5:09 pm (This post was last modified: July 3, 2012 at 5:09 pm by Skepsis.)
You know, I find it sort of ironic that a thread entitled "The debate is over" is now over 13 pages long, and currently has ongoing conflict on some issue or another.
Just my ten cents.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
How can anyone say Dawkins is an ignoramus? The guy knows more about the subjects he speaks of than most fools who like to think they know more such as Craig or Lennox. Religion needs to provide evidence of its outlandish claims before it has a leg to stand on. But we all know it can't.
(July 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm)dean211284 Wrote: How can anyone say Dawkins is an ignoramus? The guy knows more about the subjects he speaks of than most fools who like to think they know more such as Craig or Lennox. Religion needs to provide evidence of its outlandish claims before it has a leg to stand on. But we all know it can't.
Dawkins is a good scientist. This is his specialism. He had some crazy opposition from the usual religious crazies and understandably retaliated. He writes clearly and well, and found himself suddenly a best selling author. Rich on the back of a popularist ignorant perspective. Anyone doing slightly more than scratching the surface sees this for what it is: unadulterated ignorance.
