(January 23, 2010 at 12:26 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Stands on balcony with arms stretched onward and speaks in a deep dark voice: "I hereby attribute all that is observable to the great Garglemoth"

Looks around, but nothing changed noticebly at all.

So attribution is easy and leaves no observable trace, explains nothing and has no predictive or descriptive power whatsoever. QED

Everything changes. Everything is now understood in the light of Garglemoths' involvement.

You're looking for the trace of a trace, when what's in front of your nose is observable and verifiable fact.

(January 23, 2010 at 5:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 23, 2010 at 12:26 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Stands on balcony with arms stretched onward and speaks in a deep dark voice: "I hereby attribute all that is observable to the great Garglemoth"

Looks around, but nothing changed noticebly at all.

So attribution is easy and leaves no observable trace, explains nothing and has no predictive or descriptive power whatsoever. QED

Everything changes. Everything is now understood in the light of Garglemoths' involvement.

You're looking for the trace of a trace, when what's in front of your nose is observable and verifiable fact.

That's ridiculous. Nothing changes. With the observable facts in front of your nose you cannot distinguish if the world should be understood in the light of the garglemoth, god, zoroaster or satan.

The thing is that attribution alone does not constitute an explanation or causal relation. It's sole purpose is to acquire a carte blanche for further attribution. Once the Garglemoth has thus falsely been given a raison d'être, all attributes you want can be projected onto him. If you want the Garglemoth to be all-good, sure, project it onto him and he's all-good. All-knowing? Same thing. But this is all projection in the head of the believer, there is no basis whatsoever in reality.

There is a technical position used in Australia which accurately describes that position; 'a load of hot cock'.

Another dickhead trying to put atheists as a group into neat little categories.That's like trying to dry a wet cat with a blow dryer. I uses that analogy because I tried it once; I stil have the scars. I kid you not.

'Atheism' means a disbelief in god(s) period.

Some atheists,such as Dawkins and Hitchens are anti religion in principle,but not necessarily antitheist.(the two are not the same thing)

I am neither anti religion nor anti theist in principle,although I consider organised religion to be parasitic an often dangerous.


'As an atheist', my views a far from universal,and I'm fine with that.They are neither implied nor inferred from the fact of my atheism.

@ Rabbit:

Ah but you said you had distinguished, which was what changed your perspective. I have distinguished too, and likewise I can't be acausal... (which is also a position of unknowing). The difference between our positions is that yours was entirely without logic.

You can't know whether it's real or not.. so fact is not what divides us.

"I'm like a rabbit, suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" Tim Minchin

A quote please where I say that I have distinguished if the world should be understood in the light of the garglemoth, god, zoroaster or satan.

"and likewise it can't be acausal" Have you been listening to Deepak Chopra?

In short, and that's all I'll grant you today, you're not acausal your attribution of your god to observable facts is.

The difference between our positions is that yours is vacuous crap and mine is based on what's observable.

(January 23, 2010 at 7:30 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The difference between our positions is that yours is vacuous crap and mine is based on what's observable.

Except when the mood takes you, or you aren't defending atheism.

As a Theological Noncognitivist you simply don't want to think about it. I get it.

(January 24, 2010 at 4:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 23, 2010 at 7:30 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The difference between our positions is that yours is vacuous crap and mine is based on what's observable.

Except when the mood takes you, or you aren't defending atheism.

Have no idea what this vague reference is about, but keep dreaming. From what I've seen from you here I suspect that when we don't address the god subject, we actually might have some values in common. Maybe we should focus more on that 'cause this illogic isn't quite my department.

(January 24, 2010 at 4:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote: As a Theological Noncognitivist you simply don't want to think about it. I get it.

Don't rush now. I'm not there yet.

To summarize our interesting conversation, I've condensed it metaphorically for you:

Recipe for your very own religion about god X:

1. Publicly announce that you officially attribute X to all that is observable. You have a blog? Will do! Have none? Will do too!

2. Now paste all attributes to X. You don't need a GUI for this. You can do this really virtual...in your head.

You're done, you now have a complete religion. Whenever you think you miss something, just go back to step 2 and paste in whatever you feel like. You need to delete attributes? Fine too.

QED

Because of the label you pre categorise as illogic.

You don't want to get it, so you conjure up a smoke screen.

(January 24, 2010 at 5:07 am)fr0d0 Wrote: QED

Because of the label you pre categorise as illogic.

You don't want to get it, so you conjure up a smoke screen.

I see your Quest for Attribution of Illogic continues. Get a life.

I can see your gravestone now:- "Tit for Tat"