Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[downbeatplumb]

Did you not understand my reference to Hume's guillotine? Or are you simply incapable of seeing its immediate applicability to the is/ought you established in your justice example? I thought the argument would be understood by someone that hurled a 'problem of induction' grenade in another conversation (the problem predates Hume of course, but his is the most famous and thorough treatment).

Not only did I succinctly express my objection, but simultaneously unveiled your ignorance notwithstanding your constant reminders of your intellectual superiority.

It's typical of people who are uninformed about issues, like you, to resort to empty sloganeering rather than demonstrating a real problem.

Unless you can clearly explain what the problem is (which you still haven't been able to, notice), I don't see a point.

Atheism may be built on empty sloganeering. But in the real world, you need substance.

Theists have not managed to convince me that their idea of gods or god are true. That's it really.

[Cato]

It's typical of people who are uninformed about issues, like you, to resort to empty sloganeering rather than demonstrating a real problem.

Unless you can clearly explain what the problem is (which you still haven't been able to, notice), I don't see a point.

Atheism may be built on empty sloganeering. But in the real world, you need substance.

I did not think that someone extolling their knowledge of epistemology would have a problem with my use of "Hume's guillotine". It was used for economy with the false assumption that you would understand its meaning. After expressing your confusion I used plain language referring to the same idea as the problem of is/ought. You still don't seem to understand.

You don't know what you claim to. Despite your continued belligerent, condescending and insulting tone I have continued to stretch my hand in an effort to help lift you from the ignorance you are wallowing in only to be bitten. You have proven yourself to be wholly unreasonable and have demonstrated a severely misplaced and significantly exaggerated estimation of intellectual self-worth.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

It's typical of people who are uninformed about issues, like you, to resort to empty sloganeering rather than demonstrating a real problem.

Unless you can clearly explain what the problem is (which you still haven't been able to, notice), I don't see a point.

Atheism may be built on empty sloganeering. But in the real world, you need substance.

I did not think that someone extolling their knowledge of epistemology would have a problem with my use of "Hume's guillotine". It was used for economy with the false assumption that you would understand its meaning. After expressing your confusion I used plain language referring to the same idea as the problem of is/ought. You still don't seem to understand.

You don't know what you claim to. Despite your continued belligerent, condescending and insulting tone I have continued to stretch my hand in an effort to help lift you from the ignorance you are wallowing in only to be bitten. You have proven yourself to be wholly unreasonable and have demonstrated a severely misplaced and significantly exaggerated estimation of intellectual self-worth.

If you want a better prescription, then first you need a better description!
Possible Urban Dictionary entry for Hume's Guillotine

[Delicate]

It's typical of people who are uninformed about issues, like you, to resort to empty sloganeering rather than demonstrating a real problem.

Unless you can clearly explain what the problem is (which you still haven't been able to, notice), I don't see a point.

Atheism may be built on empty sloganeering. But in the real world, you need substance.

Theists have not managed to convince me that their idea of gods or god are true. That's it really.

I don't think that's enough.

Someone can be unconvinced because they are irrational. Because they are prejudiced, or stubborn. Because they have an emotional commitment to their view that flies in the face of the evidence. They can be unconvinced because they are stupid or incompetent.

So it's not enough to say you are unconvinced. You have to show that you have made a reasonable attempt at examining purported evidence, and had good reasons for deeming them unconvincing.

Now THAT would be convincing. Can you do that?

[Delicate]

It's typical of people who are uninformed about issues, like you, to resort to empty sloganeering rather than demonstrating a real problem.

Unless you can clearly explain what the problem is (which you still haven't been able to, notice), I don't see a point.

Atheism may be built on empty sloganeering. But in the real world, you need substance.

I did not think that someone extolling their knowledge of epistemology would have a problem with my use of "Hume's guillotine". It was used for economy with the false assumption that you would understand its meaning. After expressing your confusion I used plain language referring to the same idea as the problem of is/ought. You still don't seem to understand.

You don't know what you claim to. Despite your continued belligerent, condescending and insulting tone I have continued to stretch my hand in an effort to help lift you from the ignorance you are wallowing in only to be bitten. You have proven yourself to be wholly unreasonable and have demonstrated a severely misplaced and significantly exaggerated estimation of intellectual self-worth.

Simply bleating "Hume's guillotine" is only marginally worse than simply bleating "is-ought".

I know precision of thought is not very popular here, but what, and how exactly, are you invoking the is-ought problem?

[Losty]

Theists have not managed to convince me that their idea of gods or god are true. That's it really.

I don't think that's enough.

Someone can be unconvinced because they are irrational. Because they are prejudiced, or stubborn. Because they have an emotional commitment to their view that flies in the face of the evidence. They can be unconvinced because they are stupid or incompetent.

So it's not enough to say you are unconvinced. You have to show that you have made a reasonable attempt at examining purported evidence, and had good reasons for deeming them unconvincing.

Now THAT would be convincing. Can you do that?

What evidence?

[downbeatplumb]

Theists have not managed to convince me that their idea of gods or god are true. That's it really.

I don't think that's enough.

Someone can be unconvinced because they are irrational. Because they are prejudiced, or stubborn. Because they have an emotional commitment to their view that flies in the face of the evidence. They can be unconvinced because they are stupid or incompetent.

So it's not enough to say you are unconvinced. You have to show that you have made a reasonable attempt at examining purported evidence, and had good reasons for deeming them unconvincing.

Now THAT would be convincing. Can you do that?

There was a time when everybody believed in elves and fairies. This was the way the simple folk explained certain phenomena, flint arrow heads were "fairy shot" and sudden pains were caused by being shot by a fairy, that's why they are called "shooting pains". Belief in god is no different, it is a way for the feeble minded to explain things to themselves without actually finding out what actually is going on. What you are doing is using the medieval technique of having simplistic and vapid ideas for things and slapping your hands together and saying "that's that then god did it" you seem to see it as plus that you can hold on to such outmoded ideas when in fact it just shows you as being intellectually bankrupt. The answer to no question when properly investigated, has required a god or any other supernatural or paranormal explanation your position is only backed up by empty words that have been thought up by people trying to wish their stupid and delusional beliefs into being even a little likely and they all fail badly. I find unconvincing because they are not backed by actual evidence. I find them unconvincing because arguments can be made to support any position you want to take. I find them unconvincing because the thing they are trying to support is the most unlikely thing that I can imagine.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Theists have not managed to convince me that their idea of gods or god are true. That's it really.

I don't think that's enough.

Someone can be unconvinced because they are irrational. Because they are prejudiced, or stubborn. Because they have an emotional commitment to their view that flies in the face of the evidence. They can be unconvinced because they are stupid or incompetent.

So it's not enough to say you are unconvinced. You have to show that you have made a reasonable attempt at examining purported evidence, and had good reasons for deeming them unconvincing.

Now THAT would be convincing. Can you do that?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Christopher Hitchens, who happens to be dead - as in unlikely to be conscious anywhere like the place where smug, cruel believers may fantasize of seeing him tortured in

It is you, not us who claims to know things that others cannot see. It is you, the theist who asserts your claim to know a supernatural, and powerful god which is also a reality outside of its believer's minds. You take the position that we ignore obvious evidence, but you haven't provided even the smallest scrap of that. Just because you call it evidence doesn't make it so! If it requires a willingness to be convinced, a tendency to jump to pre-supposed conclusions, and a bit of imagination, then this does not evidence make! If you have evidence which is empirical and not rhetorical, than you have the chance to show it here. Nobody's stopping you, so why won't you do that?

I don't believe your god really exists, and that does not mean I believe he doesn't exist - I have not eliminated every last possibility. There's an important difference between "I don't believe" and the assertive "There is no"! Therefore, I have never said he does not or could not exist, nor will I ever tell anyone that.

Please show some evidence, if you really think there is any that cannot be chalked up to emotional chemistry in social situations or coincidence.

[vorlon13]

And as we see in our religion simulator lab (Mormonism) not only is there a profound, overwhelming, comprehensive and total lack of proof for their beliefs, we also have profound, overwhelming, comprehensive and total proof, courtesy of the compulsive bent for record keeping they have, that Joseph Smith fails even the easiest test of religious sincerity.

Just for example (and these problems and others apply to the virtual totality of Mormon scripture) we have at least 6 mutually inconsistent versions (so far) of Joseph Smith's original calling by 'God'. Current Mormon hierarchy insists belief in one particular version is required to be considered a 'good' Mormon. Amazingly and damningly, the version chosen for this religious litmus test, is NOT the version in the Mormon archives penned entirely in Joseph Smith's own handwriting.

Think about that, straight from Joseph Smith's personal experience, the most amazing thing that ever happened in his entire life (leaving his concubine Fanny out of consideration for the moment) from his eyes, to his brain, and thence to his hand and onto paper, that version is NOT the version of his original visitation that is required for a Mormon to believe in lest they be expelled.

We don't need to consider anything else, Mormonsim is emphatically and permanently forever falsified by itself !!!



And yet they persist in their belief.



Realize and appreciate what we are up against with all the religiousites on this world, Mprmons and everyone else alike. Religion is a mental disorder, and thanks to the Mormons, we have immutable proof.

[Cato]

Simply bleating "Hume's guillotine" is only marginally worse than simply bleating "is-ought".

I know precision of thought is not very popular here, but what, and how exactly, are you invoking the is-ought problem?

More evidence of what I described in my previous post. If anything, you are tenaciously consistent.

The fact that you are still hammering away at this, in light of the fact that someone else has already engaged you on the ought (your idealistic notion of moral perfection) juxtaposed to the is (morality as it is observed, discussed and practiced), is bizarre.

With this, I suppose I have earned another fine display of your petulant ignorance.