Views beyond Atheism

[fr0d0]

Books are no more evidence of God than the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is evidence of his noodliness the holy FSM tho....

Bollocks

Depends if you like shit for reasoning or reasoning :p

---

Well Dawkins covered evidence so why shouldn't he cover non empirical evidence??

Because it can't be evidence for anything UNLESS it's empirical and thus measurable and/or verifiable (at least potentially so).

Kyu

Right. Well that makes sense then.

[Edwardo Piet]

Books are no more evidence of God than the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is evidence of his noodliness the holy FSM tho....

Bollocks

Depends if you like shit for reasoning or reasoning :p

---

I know of no MORE evidence of valid reasoning for God's actual EXISTENCE than the FSM. Why should I give "God" special treatment? The Bible is not evidence or remotely valid reasons for God's existence just as the Gospel of the FSM isn't for the FSM.

Your response is simply a bare assertion that it's "bollocks" what I said and that it depends if I like "shit for reasoning" or "reasoning"...

Well - I have explained that I know of no more evidence or valid reasons to believe God or the Bible should be treated any differently to the FSM or the FSM Gospel. All these things I require evidence for and I don't know of any reasons whatsoever of why the bible (or other books about God that contain this 'reasoning') should be treated any different to the FSM Gospel - why should I treat it any differently?

See my sig, I haven't got the time. There are a MILLION things that I can't disprove that there's no evidence of! I can't check them ALL out - so why should I give some special treatment? It's all bollocks until I know of any actual evidence whatsoever.

Your bare assertions mean nothing. The Bible is not evidence (or remotely valid reasoning for God's existence) for EXACTLY the same reason that the FSM Gospel isn't. I know of no evidence (or valid reasoning ) to believe otherwise. Why should I?

Amount of evidence/valid reasoning for existence for God: ZERO.

Amount of evidence/valid reasoning for existence for The Flying Spaghetti Monster: ZERO.

Amount of known evidence/valid reasoning to give God special treatment: ZERO.




EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Because it can't be evidence for anything UNLESS it's empirical and thus measurable and/or verifiable (at least potentially so).

Right. Well that makes sense then.

Can you specify a kind of evidence that can't be classed as such?

EDIT: Hey, at time of posting (well shortly after since this is an edit) you had 666 posts to your credit ... woooo ... maybe "the gods" are trying 6to tell us something?
fr0d0 Offline, Senior Member, Religious Views: Christian, Posts: 666

ROFLMAO

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Haha! (I don't go for that Catholic stuff - you should know by now /sarcasm :p)

No - I meant it does make sense / I wasn't being sarcastic there.

@ Evie

Hey you made an empty assertion then you slam me for it!? I assert that the bible is reasoned & rational observations of God. Don't make me quote it on yo ass now!!!

You don't believe that. I do.

[Edwardo Piet]

I explained that I know of no rational reason to believe that the Bible is any more evidence or contains any more valid reasoning for GOD's existence than the FSM Gospel does for the FSM.

And that I know of no valid rational reasoning or evidence for giving God any special treatment either.

I gave my reasons...it wasn't a bare assertion.

YOU however simply barely asserting that it was "Bollocks" and that it depends if I like reasoning or shit reasoning.

THAT WAS a bare assertion that what I said was bollocks. You gave no counter argument whatsoever. And in what I said I gave my reasons and an explanation for why I didn't think the Bible should be treated any different in respect to God than the FSM Gospel should be in respect to the FSM. And how I knew of no valid, rational reasons or evidence to believe that God should get any special treatment. I gave my reasons - you responded with a bare assertion that it was "bollocks" and made a bare assertion with an implication that suggests that the Bible has more valid reasons to believe God exists than the FSM Gospel has for the FSM - and that the FSM Gospel has "shit reasoning". Well, no - the Bible's valid reasons (or evidence) to believe that God exists are just as bad as the FSM Gospel's - because they both equate to ZERO - why do I believe this? Because I have no reason to believe that the Bible should be treated any differently to the FSM Gospel or any other book when it comes to whether books can give evidence for (or valid reasons *rolls eyes*) the existence of supernatural entities.

I don't have to read the FSM Gospel to reject the FSM; to rationally disbelieve the FSM. So I don't have to read the BIBLE to reject God or to rationally disbelieve in HIM either.

And there's no reason I should give EITHER attention because it would still be special attention over the near infinite amount of OTHER undisprovable bullshit out there with no evidence whatsoever. I can't go around looking for them ALL - why should I pick out a few (like God, etc) when there's no reason to believe they're any more valid; any more probable - than any of the other extremely improbable undisprovable supernatural bullshit completely lacking in evidence that is possible to conceive of?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well I see your banal repetition as bare assertion too.

Blah blah blah blah blah....

We're discussing rationalism and you don't yet know. That'd be your position if you were truthful.

[Edwardo Piet]

I repeat the same answers to the questions because I think they're still relevant and you're either ignoring them/responding with bare assertions/misunderstanding them it seems, etc.

I gave explanations.

If I were truthful? LMAO! I AM being truthful believe me!

I gave my reasons why the bible is no more evidence for God than the FSM Gospel is for the FSM (because what reason do I have to think otherwise? WHY should I give God special treatment?) but you simply say it's bollocks. I gave MY reasons - you simply dismiss it with a bare assertion that it's "bollocks".

Who's the one not giving their reasons THERE then?

My repetition WOULD be a banal assertion except that I GAVE my reasons so it's not one. Since AT LEAST on that one post you simply said it was "bollocks" - that's a bare assertion. There is no reasoning communicated simply by the word "Bollocks".

However I simply said that the Bible is no more proof of "God" than the FSM Gospel is of the FSM.

Why? Because what reason is there to think otherwise?! AS I have said: Why should I give God special treatment? I should treat him the same as the FSM untill I have any reason to think otherwise! They're both extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well we reduce our statements and I reduced mine more than you did

Apologies anyway.. I was in a bad mood after watching a sad film so... no excuse but I apologise.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's ok, it's np. I just wanted you to get my point that is all. I was responding to you saying I wasn't being truthful.

I don't actually know what you were apologizing for tho...

I mean if you really did HONESTLY think I wasn't being or am not truthful then you're entitled to your opinion. If you didn't really think that and DO think I'm truthful then what can I say? At least you think I'm truthful in that case but I do not know why you said otherwise ...but ALSO - I don't not only not know why you said otherwise in that case - but I also don't give a shit either way... I'm only interested in your response I don't expect an apology. If YOU want to give one then fine. But I don't personally need nor expect one because I don't know what there is to apologize about. You didn't bother me - you just made me laugh LOL.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Good good