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 23, 2015 at 2:22 am (This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 2:48 am by robvalue.)
(July 23, 2015 at 12:53 am)ignoramus Wrote: Rob, here's one for you....
Excercise those fallacy detecting skills of yours.... There's several.
Can't spoil it too early.... it's a little quiet, let's milk this one...
Yeah There are a few little errors. It would be interesting to see if any theists have learned enough to be able to spot them. Let's see if they have!
I hope you don't consider it rude IATIA? I'm not making fun of you, just responding to ignor's idea. It gives the theists a chance to interact in a non-preachy way.
Some general ponsy thoughts:
I still think the most compelling argument for gnostic atheism is via ignosticism. The claim is incoherent. How can I differentiate between a god, and an arbitrarily powerful non God? I doubt anyone asking me if there is a god could answer that question. None have so far. To give an answer, I have to make a lot of assumptions about the person asking the question. Assumptions which would be wrong in most cases. So I have no choice but to say, "What is a god?" I simply can't give a blanket answer without an accompanying definition. And it's about the least well defined term ever. I know there is no such thing as a "God" as put forward in the question in general discussion with random people, because it's a non-concept. Not only do I not know what a god is, but most of the time they don't either. It requires clarification, not an answer.
In almost all cases, the question is really, "Is/was there some intelligent intent behind our reality?"
And then the implication which makes it an incoherent and loaded question, is "If so, I call it god. I then reserve the right to give this god any attribute I see fit without explanation, or demonstrating it's even possible."
Remove this second load of garbage and we have a coherent question. And of course, the answer is, "I don't know. Neither do you."
You could say this is the "philosophical" God or whatever, but still, it's a completely needless muddying of the question with loaded terms. If the philosophical God is just a being which creates realities, then it's a useless tautological definition added onto the aforementioned first question. So it's a fucking stupid question whatever way you slice it. To simply assume the person "means" the philosophical god when being asked this question in general would be a mistake, I think you'll agree.
Strong atheism (the belief that there is no God) is easily justified by simply observing there is no evidence for one, even if you give the benefit of the doubt that it's a coherent concept and try and "best guess" what they are talking about.
Tl;dr- I'm a ponsy fuck, aren't I? Geez.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
There are a few little errors. It would be interesting to see if any theists have learned enough to be able to spot them. Let's see if they have!