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!
Current time: December 13, 2024, 7:48 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Views beyond Atheism
#81
RE: Views beyond Atheism
(May 17, 2009 at 3:01 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 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 Tongue

Depends if you like shit for reasoning or reasoning :p
(May 17, 2009 at 3:10 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:
(May 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.
Reply
#82
RE: Views beyond Atheism
(May 17, 2009 at 3:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(May 17, 2009 at 3:01 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 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 Tongue

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 Wink ) 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.


Tongue

EvF
Reply
#83
RE: Views beyond Atheism
(May 17, 2009 at 3:45 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
(May 17, 2009 at 3:10 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: 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
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#84
RE: Views beyond Atheism
Haha! (I don't go for that Catholic stuff - you should know by now Wink /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!!! Devil

You don't believe that. I do. Big Grin
Reply
#85
RE: Views beyond Atheism
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
Reply
#86
RE: Views beyond Atheism
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.
Reply
#87
RE: Views beyond Atheism
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
Reply
#88
RE: Views beyond Atheism
Well we reduce our statements and I reduced mine more than you did Tongue

Apologies anyway.. I was in a bad mood after watching a sad film so... no excuse but I apologise.
Reply
#89
RE: Views beyond Atheism
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 Smile - you just made me laugh LOL.

EvF
Reply
#90
RE: Views beyond Atheism
Good good Smile
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Finally an atheist proper, with views and questions Lucian 62 3801 June 12, 2024 at 10:32 pm
Last Post: Prycejosh1987
  My views on God and religion ShinyCrystals 72 7123 October 30, 2023 at 8:16 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Your personal views on the Afterlife Mystic Monkey 31 20305 May 12, 2023 at 10:36 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Most humans aren't too logical when it comes to world views and how to go about it. Mystic 28 4914 October 9, 2018 at 8:59 am
Last Post: Alan V
  Atheism VS Christian Atheism? IanHulett 80 30041 June 13, 2017 at 11:09 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  Views that are compatible w/ Atheism free_thinker_at_last 8 1932 August 11, 2016 at 3:27 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Atheism, Scientific Atheism and Antitheism tantric 33 13774 January 18, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Last Post: helyott
  My views on religion dyresand 19 5637 December 24, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Last Post: Tonus
  Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism Dystopia 26 12837 August 30, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: Dawsonite
  Debate share, young earth? atheism coverup? atheism gain? xr34p3rx 13 10952 March 16, 2014 at 11:30 am
Last Post: fr0d0



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)