I have some questions for the posters here.

[arewethereyet]

Thank you for the good wishes, but I do not do spamming.

Baloney. A little investigoogling reveals that you copypasta the same crap everywhere. And amusingly get the same answers everywhere.

Wanna disagree? Shall I start to post links? Or would you rather I didn't? Because I have a lot. Up to you.

---

Bold mine.

And there it is folks...the answer to why Frankly Scooter is here.

Sometimes it takes the slow ones a while to answer a simple question.

I can cite loads of Frank's copypasta identical to his posts here. He claims to try to make things non-routine? Like fuck he does.

Yeah, he's spattered all over the Internet with the same shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose that was directed to me...but I have no idea of what the "I wish they did" applies to.

Sorry that you consider "most of (your) routine" to be boring. I do not think it is. In any case, I try to make my routine anything but boring. Normally I succeed. Seldom start a thread anywhere without lots and lots of responses.

Interesting you think that a person can KNOW if there are no gods (one side of the question). We definitely disagree there. I defy anyone to show a P1 and P2 that resolves into a C of: Therefore no gods exist. 

Sure, you and most of the people here are agnostics, this is known.

Do it if you can. I would be delighted if you can. You would make my lifetime if you can. I would see that you and your "proof" got world attention. I would do that personally...and I can do it.

So...DO IT. Give me the P1 and P2 that arrives there.

I've already given you my thoughts on the matter.  They haven't changed since.  I think that gods are characters in stories we use to communicate normative and expository content through the familiar narration of personhood.  Not some gods or a specific god or a particular kind of god - the entire genre.

[Deesse23]

People like you are the reason so few rational conversations can occur on the Internet.

...says the guy who claims not to be an atheist and not to be a theist.
...says the guy who believes he doesnt believe anything
...says the guy who constantly tells other people what they believe
...says the guy who doesnt understand the most basic fact about atheism (ok, that is only the consequence of the issue he has with the logical abolutes)
...says the guy who doesnt know the logical absolutes
...says the guy who created a 30 page thread with word games only

[Frank Apisa]

Thank you for the good wishes, but I do not do spamming.

Theists think comments calling attention to their blind guesses about the REALITY...is spamming.

Atheists think comments calling attention to the fact that they do as much blind guessing as theists...is spamming. 

Oh, well.

---

At no point have I ever...EVER...demanded that anyone adhere to definitions from 70 fucking years ago...asshole. NEVER. Here or anywhere else where I post.

So take you strawman shove it where the sun does not shine.

So, you're not actually interested in intelligent conversation. Good to know. I'll not bother with you then.

So you send me a message to tell me you are not bothering with me????

Not very bright. But to be expected from someone who thinks I am not interested in intelligent conversation.

---

Thank you for the good wishes, but I do not do spamming.

Baloney. A little investigoogling reveals that you copypasta the same crap everywhere. And amusingly get the same answers everywhere.

Wanna disagree? Shall I start to post links? Or would you rather I didn't? Because I have a lot. Up to you.

---

Bold mine.

And there it is folks...the answer to why Frankly Scooter is here.

Sometimes it takes the slow ones a while to answer a simple question.

I can cite loads of Frank's copypasta identical to his posts here. He claims to try to make things non-routine? Like fuck he does.

Interesting that you ask me to tell you if it is okay for you to post whatever you want to post.

I do appreciate all the work you put into doing whatever the hell you think you are doing. Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read your post. I laughed so spontaneously, I'd have sprayed my keyboard.

---

Baloney. A little investigoogling reveals that you copypasta the same crap everywhere. And amusingly get the same answers everywhere.

Wanna disagree? Shall I start to post links? Or would you rather I didn't? Because I have a lot. Up to you.

---

I can cite loads of Frank's copypasta identical to his posts here. He claims to try to make things non-routine? Like fuck he does.

Yeah, he's spattered all over the Internet with the same shit.

Awww. You are bothered that I post lots on the Internet. How sad.

I do post lots on various boards...and obviously the posts in the "atheist" boards will be similar stuff. Just as the crap you atheists post about theists has similar content. 

Main thing, though, is that most atheists are as much into "believing" as are theists. You assholes "believe" in the opposite direction from theists...BUT YOU DO "BELIEVE."

You don't have the spine to acknowledge that the answer to the question, "Are there any gods or not?"...cannot be answered by humans right now. You cannot just leave it at that...you are compulsive about guessing. And so you guess.

You end up being a laughable bunch of clowns, pretending that your guesses are somehow better than the guesses of others on this issue. 

[The Grand Nudger]

What's the point of accusing people of holding a position that they do not when you're not prepared to discuss that same position with a person who does hold it?

---

Let me give you something to ponder.  Why would it be unknowable whether or not entities we created for effect had an independent existence, part of which, per the claim, that they created our world?  How might a thing we've created create the world in which we live before the fact of our own existence?  Now, mind you, I'm not asking you whether or not you agree that we created gods, I want to know why you think the answer to the question of a gods existence, as you describe them, would be unknowable.  

Why, if a person can make such an assertion, and that assertion can be true or false, would the existential status of gods be a cognitive black box? What prevents any interested observer or potential knower from leveraging true assertions toward a valid conclusion that they then claim as knowledge? Would that hypothetical thing or issue or problem also apply to other knowledge claims, claims like knowing my own name, or whether the sun is currently shining? Obviously, it would be difficult to speak directly to your concerns about knowledge and knowledge claims unless you can articulate exactly where you veer off the path others might take, or..alternatively, why you feel that the path you also take when making knowledge claims is fundamentally inapplicable to this one item or whatever set of items you believe gods belong to.

[Frank Apisa]

What's the point of accusing people of holding a position that they do not when you're not prepared to discuss that same position with a person who does hold it?

---

Let me give you something to ponder.  Why would it be unknowable whether or not entities we created for effect had an independent existence, part of which, per the claim, that they created our world?  How might a thing we've created create the world in which we live before the fact of our own existence?  Now, mind you, I'm not asking you whether or not you agree that we created gods, I want to know why you think the answer to the question of a gods existence, as you describe them, would be unknowable. 

I did not say "gods exist" was unknowable.  (It may well be, but I never said it was.) 

I DID say that "no gods exist" is unknowable.

If that has to be explained "why?"...you are not capable of understanding.

Why, if a person can make such an assertion, and that assertion can be true or false, would the existential status of gods be a cognitive black box?  What prevents any interested observer or potential knower from leveraging true assertions toward a valid conclusion that they then claim as knowledge?  Would that hypothetical thing or issue or problem also apply to other knowledge claims, claims like knowing my own name, or whether the sun is currently shining?  Obviously, it would be difficult to speak directly to your concerns about knowledge and knowledge claims unless you can articulate exactly where you veer off the path others might take, or..alternatively, why you feel that the path you also take when making knowledge claims is fundamentally inapplicable to this one item or whatever set of items you believe gods belong to.

There is a VERY remote possibility that someone could KNOW that a god or gods exist. IF there are gods, they certainly can make the  fact of their existence known.

There is NO way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist. There is NO WAY for a 'no god" to inform anyone that it does not exist. 

Like I said, if you cannot see that plainly...you would not understand any explanation.[/quote]

[LadyForCamus]

What's the point of accusing people of holding a position that they do not when you're not prepared to discuss that same position with a person who does hold it?

---

Let me give you something to ponder.  Why would it be unknowable whether or not entities we created for effect had an independent existence, part of which, per the claim, that they created our world?  How might a thing we've created create the world in which we live before the fact of our own existence?  Now, mind you, I'm not asking you whether or not you agree that we created gods, I want to know why you think the answer to the question of a gods existence, as you describe them, would be unknowable. 

I did not say "gods exist" was unknowable.  (It may well be, but I never said it was.) 

I DID say that "no gods exist" is unknowable.

If that has to be explained "why?"...you are not capable of understanding.

Why, if a person can make such an assertion, and that assertion can be true or false, would the existential status of gods be a cognitive black box?  What prevents any interested observer or potential knower from leveraging true assertions toward a valid conclusion that they then claim as knowledge?  Would that hypothetical thing or issue or problem also apply to other knowledge claims, claims like knowing my own name, or whether the sun is currently shining?  Obviously, it would be difficult to speak directly to your concerns about knowledge and knowledge claims unless you can articulate exactly where you veer off the path others might take, or..alternatively, why you feel that the path you also take when making knowledge claims is fundamentally inapplicable to this one item or whatever set of items you believe gods belong to.

There is a VERY remote possibility that someone could KNOW that a god or gods exist. IF there are gods, they certainly can make the  fact of their existence known.

There is NO way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

Is that a blind guess, an opinion, an estimate, or a knowledge claim?

[The Grand Nudger]

What's the point of accusing people of holding a position that they do not when you're not prepared to discuss that same position with a person who does hold it?

---

Let me give you something to ponder.  Why would it be unknowable whether or not entities we created for effect had an independent existence, part of which, per the claim, that they created our world?  How might a thing we've created create the world in which we live before the fact of our own existence?  Now, mind you, I'm not asking you whether or not you agree that we created gods, I want to know why you think the answer to the question of a gods existence, as you describe them, would be unknowable. 

I did not say "gods exist" was unknowable.  (It may well be, but I never said it was.) 

I DID say that "no gods exist" is unknowable.

If that has to be explained "why?"...you are not capable of understanding.

I'm pretty sure it works the other way around, if you understand something, that implies that you can explain your understanding.  If you understand your skepticism in this regard, perhaps you could explain it.  I, for example, understand my own position on the matter and have very clearly explained my own position to you, again, above.  

Why, if a person can make such an assertion, and that assertion can be true or false, would the existential status of gods be a cognitive black box?  What prevents any interested observer or potential knower from leveraging true assertions toward a valid conclusion that they then claim as knowledge?  Would that hypothetical thing or issue or problem also apply to other knowledge claims, claims like knowing my own name, or whether the sun is currently shining?  Obviously, it would be difficult to speak directly to your concerns about knowledge and knowledge claims unless you can articulate exactly where you veer off the path others might take, or..alternatively, why you feel that the path you also take when making knowledge claims is fundamentally inapplicable to this one item or whatever set of items you believe gods belong to.

There is a VERY remote possibility that someone could KNOW that a god or gods exist. IF there are gods, they certainly can make the  fact of their existence known.

There is NO way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist. There is NO WAY for a 'no god" to inform anyone that it does not exist. 

Like I said, if you cannot see that plainly...you would not understand any explanation.

I already understand that you believe is much, but, again, in the question posed above, I'm wondering why. I can't address your concerns directly unless you understand what your concerns are, and can communicate that understanding.

It's a pretty generalizable question, gods needn't be the focus.  If some process or action is taken to be a foundation for knowledge claims in any other (or all other) cases, what should prevent that same process or action being categorized as knowledge in any one particular area or with respect to any particular item? If I know my own name and whether or not the sun is currently shining by plugging sound assertions into a valid inference, what is the difference between knowing those things, and any other thing?

Is it really just that you wouldn't be comfortable saying no gods exist unless no god came and told you it existed? There are two ways to interpret that proposition. One in which your criteria for no gods as knowledge has been met..seeing as how no god has, in fact, told you that it doesn't exist - or anything else....and the other in which it's an irrelevant triviality. Which of the two should I proceed with, or, is there some other issue or problem that needs attention?

In the meantime, I'd like to call to your attention something else I know. I know that your two statements above cannot be simultaneously true, which is to say that they are mutually exclusive. It is either true that there is some possibility for a person to know whether gods exist, or it is true that there is no way for anyone to know that gods exist. Either state of affairs falsifies the other on their face.

If a thing is possible, it cannot be impossible..and, if impossible..cannot be possible. Wouldn't you agree?

[Frank Apisa]

I did not say "gods exist" was unknowable.  (It may well be, but I never said it was.) 

I DID say that "no gods exist" is unknowable.

If that has to be explained "why?"...you are not capable of understanding.


There is a VERY remote possibility that someone could KNOW that a god or gods exist. IF there are gods, they certainly can make the  fact of their existence known.

There is NO way anyone can KNOW that no gods exist.

Is that a blind guess, an opinion, an estimate, or a knowledge claim?

It is stating an obvious truth for anyone with a functioning brain.

[LadyForCamus]

Is that a blind guess, an opinion, an estimate, or a knowledge claim?

It is stating an obvious truth for anyone with a functioning brain.

How do you know it’s true?