(November 24, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Does invoking experience (touch, taste, sight, etc) actually overcome the objections that an "invisible" something presents? I would find it difficult to make that argument myself - if I accepted that premises of the "invisible this or that". I think that we've all seen things that aren't actually as we see them. Heard things, every one of us has an issue with touch ( a metal pole feels colder than the air on a cold day...but it probably isn't).

I think that you might find that proving anything is a little more difficult than you think - and that there is never any certainty offered even from that which is proven - it's all provisional. What would you feel comfortable calling proven and therefore known in some way that the god proposition cannot be? Can I take a knife to it?

Hmmm...no I don't think you can. I have a hard enough time grasping reality as it is. I think I'd prefer you not take a knife to things I think I thought I knew were real thank you. :p

I guess I'll have to concede that you either can know there are no gods, or you can't know anything.

But then it gets too deep for me. Which is always the end reason why I stick with not caring if gods exist, and not caring if truly knowing anything is even possible. This approach is kinder to my brain.

*waves surrender flag*

ETA 7000 posts

You know (or do you ), it might just be me who finds himself in that position....lol. My experience and positions aren't indicative of anyone else's.

(November 24, 2014 at 1:08 pm)Losty Wrote:

(November 24, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Does invoking experience (touch, taste, sight, etc) actually overcome the objections that an "invisible" something presents? I would find it difficult to make that argument myself - if I accepted that premises of the "invisible this or that". I think that we've all seen things that aren't actually as we see them. Heard things, every one of us has an issue with touch ( a metal pole feels colder than the air on a cold day...but it probably isn't).

I think that you might find that proving anything is a little more difficult than you think - and that there is never any certainty offered even from that which is proven - it's all provisional. What would you feel comfortable calling proven and therefore known in some way that the god proposition cannot be? Can I take a knife to it?

Hmmm...no I don't think you can. I have a hard enough time grasping reality as it is. I think I'd prefer you not take a knife to things I think I thought I knew were real thank you. :p

I guess I'll have to concede that you either can know there are no gods, or you can't know anything.

But then it gets too deep for me. Which is always the end reason why I stick with not caring if gods exist, and not caring if truly knowing anything is even possible. This approach is kinder to my brain.

*waves surrender flag*

No surrender

Atheism if the default position. everyone is a atheist of something like Christians are atheists of every other god except their own and it is true with every other religion that believes in a god(s).
Atheists however do not believe in a god due the lack of credible evidence and the supposed evidence that does exists is man made and not inspired. religion is a tool that i hate for good reason.
so when it comes to theists getting mad at atheists there is no rational explanation as to why get get upset. Me as a person do not believe in god but when i say that to a theist they take great offence
and go into you better believe in god or else. its like confronting a child who believes in santa. you tell the kid santa does not exist they get angry and yell yes he does and has the point of saying he brings me
presents for Christmas and all the other kids. you will see why i make the comparison "santa" like "jesus" do good for others. One brings presents all year round but in reality its just parents really doing while jesus
is thanked for situations that play out in a persons favor. so compare how many kids get gifts from santa and how many miracles did for people. so many kids get gifts the unfortunate get hardly any while the more fortunate
have easier lives than the less fortunate.... so i hope you see the point i am getting at is the odds for a god and odds for a santa existing are low. people can dress up as santa or jesus but doesn't make them really that person.
as for history plays more well on santa or he as known as saint Nicholas for one he did exist. were as jesus of Nazareth really never born there by the way and never existed.

(November 24, 2014 at 11:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: Asmodee.......I also think that people can be agnostic. Ive said that a couple of times. You find me abrasive...I'm certain that I am being abrasive - that's why.

(November 21, 2014 at 7:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm suggesting that they know -whether or not they believe-

Okay, I guess you win, then, because I really don't have any idea what you're saying.

But thank you for the reply which did not make me want to tear my hair out and feel as if responding would simply set up checking on the conversation later as a huge chore I didn't want to do. I do appreciate it. Frankly, I was expecting a conversation like this to happen eventually, but not immediately. I really, REALLY hate having unproductive arguments instead of spirited debates.

Then read what people write to you next time.
(happens to us all, btw, sure as hell been there myself)

(November 24, 2014 at 5:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Then read what people write to you next time.
(happens to us all, btw, sure as hell been there myself)

I can see I'll have to get used to your personality. It seems abrasive one sentence and downright friendly the next. Frankly I have no idea how to take you, but I'm starting to think that you are not what I at first assumed (a massive cock), but something else entirely (kind of a dick, but in a fun way?) That last sentence, by the way, was playful. Insulting, yes, but in a fun way.

When I feel you're being condescending or rude it puts me on the defensive, making me not want to read what you write, this time or next. Why would I want to read past the sentence which, from my perspective, says, "You're an idiot"? Once I get to a sentence which is rude what incentive to I have to read on? What reason do I have at that point for even wanting to learn your perspective? I don't like getting into arguments. I like enlightening debate. And frankly, I don't care if I lose most of the time. The one who loses a debate is the one who learned something (except in the case of "believers", in which case they don't even know they lost the debate and are generally incapable of actual learning by choice, not mental capacity). But once the conversation gets personal, all that is out the door. It's no longer "a conversation" or "a debate". It's now "an argument" and there's nothing to be learned by losing "an argument" except how bad you are at arguing, which is completely pointless, as is an argument.

Can I opt for "friendly massive cock"......(ladies )? I guess maybe I didn't have to call you gigglesticks....but how often do you get the opportunity, you know?

-ah, as for the enlightening debate...stick around until Benny gets back, he and I go at it periodically (and I bet I'm much more grating and dickish with him....but only because I like the guys opinions and style so much) - and I have a bone to pick, related to our (you and I) little misunderstanding.

I think that people often confuse subject with status when they consider agnosticism and atheism/theism. Agnosticism refers to the subject of belief, the ism that follows: the status of their belief (either in relation to or completely absent of knowledge). Benny essentially allowed a definition of god that could be anything or nothing, and so saying that he didn't know what he was talking about (and neither did others) was an effect of that slippery definition, imo. He's that super neutral neutral, the agnostic agnostic I was talking about - that claims no knowledge of his own beliefs, or at least he seems to think so. I have doubts. While I;m perfectly willing to accept that he (or anyone who claims so) is an agnostic regarding gods - the subject, I have difficulty making sense of claiming agnosticism regarding the ism that follows, the status of belief. As far as that's concerned, I feel that it's a binary proposition and each of us is pretty well aware of where we stand (and that's how I got into it with you...btw). Agnosticism doesn't, to me, seem to apply -to that-.

(November 24, 2014 at 6:57 pm)Asmodee Wrote: (a massive cock)

---

(November 24, 2014 at 7:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Can I opt for "friendly massive cock"......(ladies )? I guess maybe I didn't have to call you gigglesticks....but how often do you get the opportunity, you know?