Ok, about the text editor on here. It has two modes, one is the fancy WYSIWYG mode that makes quoting a pain and the other is the "source" mode.
When doing a full reply, you should have a button with the label "View Source(ctrl+shift+s)" to switch between the two.
Alternatively, you can do what many of us do and go in your control panel's options (here's a link, for your convenience>> https://atheistforums.org/usercp.php?action=options) and towards the bottom right enable "Put the editor in source mode by default". Don't forget to save your changes.
This will bring to you the joys of BBcode whenever you reply to someone!
The quick reply box on the bottom only accepts BBcode, as far as I'm aware, so you can always use that with some copy/paste and clever use of the quote tags... just don't expect it will include the handy button that links a quote to the original post.
As for post concatenation, is happens for all replies within 20 minutes of your first reply (at least, it used to be 20 minutes a few years ago), unless someone else replies in between.
Also, "Preview Post" is your friend.
With all that out of the way...
Agreement is good!
I suppose it is possible, yes.
But I guess we'd have to expand the meaning of "exist" to embrace something that is neither physical nor mental.
{I hope the 20 years of interneting enabled you to read between the lines... I don't feel like expanding on what physical means}
The mental bit can be said to be an emergent property of physical brains, so it's supported by something physical, but we can say it isn't physical for simplicity.
And I'm including all fiction in the mental category. So Darth Vader exists, but in the context of fiction; in the same vein, The Abrahamic god, Allah, Thor, Zeus, etc. all exist.
My point is that words have a meaning and we should strive to use them as clearly as possible so as to avoid common double-meanings which lead down an argument of zero value.
What does "exist" mean to you?
In what way are you using the word "exist" when referring to a god which creates the physical universe?
Let's push the boundary a bit. Does the vacuum of space exist?
Does a vacuum in the absence of a Universe exist?
Or is vacuum the absence of existence? If so, and in the hypothetical scenario that the Universe did get created by some quantum vacuum fluctuations, then vacuum can be said to qualify as the god you propose... unless vacuum is already considered as something physical. Is it?
My impression is that the evidence purported by theists is, at best, involuntarily generated by their minds. There is never any evidence that can be presented to someone else. It is always a "personal path" kind of thing. Looks a lot like something in the mental category I mentioned above.
And, while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is still a damn good hint of absence.
Because of this, I live my life as if there is no god. Hence the moniker, atheist.
Which seems to be the same thing you do, but you fall short of attributing the moniker to yourself. fine. be that way.
When doing a full reply, you should have a button with the label "View Source(ctrl+shift+s)" to switch between the two.
Alternatively, you can do what many of us do and go in your control panel's options (here's a link, for your convenience>> https://atheistforums.org/usercp.php?action=options) and towards the bottom right enable "Put the editor in source mode by default". Don't forget to save your changes.
This will bring to you the joys of BBcode whenever you reply to someone!
The quick reply box on the bottom only accepts BBcode, as far as I'm aware, so you can always use that with some copy/paste and clever use of the quote tags... just don't expect it will include the handy button that links a quote to the original post.
As for post concatenation, is happens for all replies within 20 minutes of your first reply (at least, it used to be 20 minutes a few years ago), unless someone else replies in between.
Also, "Preview Post" is your friend.
With all that out of the way...
(June 22, 2021 at 5:10 pm)Frank Apisa Wrote: You wrote: As someone who uses the moniker atheist to describe himself, I do not believe that such a god as you describe exists.
This is not synonymous with "I believe that a god such as you describe does not exist", although someone like this could also use the atheist moniker.
RESPONSE: We are in agreement that saying, "I do not believe that such a god as (I) describe exists" is substantially different from "I believe such a god does not exist." I will talk about that difference many times if this discussion goes forward. (I'm not yet convinced it will.)
Agreement is good!
(June 22, 2021 at 5:10 pm)Frank Apisa Wrote:
RESPONSE: I agree. There is absolutely no reason to suspect such an entity is necessary. But it is still possible such an entity exists.
I suppose it is possible, yes.
But I guess we'd have to expand the meaning of "exist" to embrace something that is neither physical nor mental.
{I hope the 20 years of interneting enabled you to read between the lines... I don't feel like expanding on what physical means}
The mental bit can be said to be an emergent property of physical brains, so it's supported by something physical, but we can say it isn't physical for simplicity.
And I'm including all fiction in the mental category. So Darth Vader exists, but in the context of fiction; in the same vein, The Abrahamic god, Allah, Thor, Zeus, etc. all exist.
(June 22, 2021 at 5:10 pm)Frank Apisa Wrote:
You wrote: I too see no reason to suspect that a god is impossible to exist (using exist here as a placeholder for existence in a form other than the imaginary, and the physical, given that I assume we are excluding those two from the equation since god is described as the creator of the physical and we don't want to keep this entity in the realm of human imagination).
RESPONSE: Not entirely sure of your point here. Gods are possible. We can leave it at that.
My point is that words have a meaning and we should strive to use them as clearly as possible so as to avoid common double-meanings which lead down an argument of zero value.
What does "exist" mean to you?
In what way are you using the word "exist" when referring to a god which creates the physical universe?
Let's push the boundary a bit. Does the vacuum of space exist?
Does a vacuum in the absence of a Universe exist?
Or is vacuum the absence of existence? If so, and in the hypothetical scenario that the Universe did get created by some quantum vacuum fluctuations, then vacuum can be said to qualify as the god you propose... unless vacuum is already considered as something physical. Is it?
(June 22, 2021 at 5:10 pm)Frank Apisa Wrote:Back to a more down-to-earth conversation...
RESPONSE: I see no unambiguous evidence whatever in either direction on the question. Theists seem to see lots of evidence that at least one god exists; atheists seem to see lots of evidence that none exist. Confirmation bias, as I see it.
I do agree that the Abrahamic god, like the many gods that pre-date it, seem to be made-made constructs. BUT…gods may exist.
My impression is that the evidence purported by theists is, at best, involuntarily generated by their minds. There is never any evidence that can be presented to someone else. It is always a "personal path" kind of thing. Looks a lot like something in the mental category I mentioned above.
And, while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is still a damn good hint of absence.
Because of this, I live my life as if there is no god. Hence the moniker, atheist.
Which seems to be the same thing you do, but you fall short of attributing the moniker to yourself. fine. be that way.
