trancendent dice

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok, sure thing. I don't remember you giving evidence for your claims...that's all.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't think you answered me Kyu. I make no assertions about the beliefs of non Christians. You can't use that as proof, it isn't a given.

You said, "How on earth does belief without evidence=questioning?" followed by the question "DOESN'T it? LOL *winks*" ...

Now that constitutes an implicit question, which I answered by saying, "You gotta be joking here. As Adrian has already said faith (belief in something without evidence) is the very opposite of doubt and questioning."

So yes, I do think I answered you. If you still think I didn't I'm afraid you're going to have to stop speaking in tongues.

Should I be?!? [afraid of Quetzalcoatl]

You said, "The opposite of faith isn't doubt, it's fear."

I said, "Um, no ... it's not." And noted that it implied that you thought atheists were afraid to embrace faith in a god, I further assured you that virtually none of us were afraid of your god or any other.

My answer therefore is a question, should I be afraid of Jehovah (or whatever you call your god)?

Confidence with faith is no where near absolute assurance of fact.

Confidence with faith is the equivalent of vapourware. Have you ever heard the tale of Hank?

The theory goes that God does actually do stuff in this world, but the signature of God is that it is never provable. You can reasonably assume that God doesn't exist, sure. I think I can reason that he does. If we're talking science than yeah, I agree with Dawkins.. on probability we can say he most likely doesn't exist. Theologically that's absolutely correct too. We can't know.

Excuse me for being picky but "theory"? Theories require evidence, they should explain things reasonably and predict things previously didn't so "theory" no, I think you mean idea.

IOW you have no evidence at all and can supply no rational reason whatsoever to believe outside of wishful thinking ... quite apart from that making you look rather foolish (and please don't try to claim I'm insulting you again) it means I can (apparently with great confidence) ignore your god and anyone who witters on about it yes?

It also begs the question, why don't you go somewhere else and talk about this stuff to people who will actually empathise with you or even treat what you say with some kind of respect?

OK, you say theology is correct (despite the lack of evidence) so let's run with that. I have a question ... which theology?

---

That God's signature is that he leaves no proof does not equate to him explaining gaps in knowledge. That doesn't follow.

Yes it does, logic dictates it.

God doesn't hide from reason, but he does from science.

That, if you'll excuse the pun is one hell of an assertion (another utterly baseless one as far as I can tell) so the question becomes why?

---

You're like a broken record

I don't know the history leading to that assertion but unfortunately, with people like you, that can be necessary ... I know I do it when the person I am discussing something with doesn't answer the point made.

---

I've decided you're a bot EvF. No one could ignore responses like you have and deny what has been said.

Yet curiously you didn't answer Ev's question.

Your remark's imply you have done so, outside of saying, "God don't need no steenkin' evidence" (which leads to all kinds of other questions none of which are likely to end well for your claims) can I ask where?

---

I have answered you EvF and you don't think I have - is the problem. Check your pm's - perhaps we can communicate better using instant chat.

Don't do it Ev ...going personal with theists seems to not only like a waste of time but an excuse to take the conversation out of public scrutiny.

TBH I can't see why anyone would even want to discuss these things privately with theists.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I don't think you answered me Kyu. I make no assertions about the beliefs of non Christians. You can't use that as proof, it isn't a given.

You said, "How on earth does belief without evidence=questioning?" followed by the question "DOESN'T it? LOL *winks*" ...

Now that constitutes an implicit question, which I answered by saying, "You gotta be joking here. As Adrian has already said faith (belief in something without evidence) is the very opposite of doubt and questioning."

So yes, I do think I answered you. If you still think I didn't I'm afraid you're going to have to stop speaking in tongues.

Another insult.

Adrian said that, and I've answered Adrian. Moving on...

Should I be?!? [afraid of Quetzalcoatl]

You said, "The opposite of faith isn't doubt, it's fear."

I said, "Um, no ... it's not." And noted that it implied that you thought atheists were afraid to embrace faith in a god, I further assured you that virtually none of us were afraid of your god or any other.

My answer therefore is a question, should I be afraid of Jehovah (or whatever you call your god)?

No (like I've already said).

Confidence with faith is no where near absolute assurance of fact.

Confidence with faith is the equivalent of vapourware. Have you ever heard the tale of Hank?

Nope. And I'm not interested either, with your condescending tone I see no point in talking.

The theory goes that God does actually do stuff in this world, but the signature of God is that it is never provable. You can reasonably assume that God doesn't exist, sure. I think I can reason that he does. If we're talking science than yeah, I agree with Dawkins.. on probability we can say he most likely doesn't exist. Theologically that's absolutely correct too. We can't know.

IOW you have no evidence at all and can supply no rational reason whatsoever to believe outside of wishful thinking ... quite apart from that making you look rather foolish (and please don't try to claim I'm insulting you again) it means I can (apparently with great confidence) ignore your god and anyone who witters on about it yes?

Let me be equally polite in return.

You make yourself look like a fool unable to read a sentence or grasp the concept of rationalism. Your mind is obviously in the land of the fairies and you have the intellectual capabilities of an amoeba.

It also begs the question, why don't you go somewhere else and talk about this stuff to people who will actually empathise with you or even treat what you say with some kind of respect?

Is that what you do? Only speak with people who agree with you? That would stop you having to think about it I suppose.

OK, you say theology is correct (despite the lack of evidence) so let's run with that. I have a question ... which theology?

At this point I lost interest in answering this drivel. Forgive me if you said anything interesting after this point.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Another insult.

For the same reasons as before no, it was simply a cynical comment on the confusing way you worded the point you were making, if indeed there actually was one?

No (like I've already said).

That implies there are no consequences to not believing in Jehovah, correct?

Nope. And I'm not interested either, with your condescending tone I see no point in talking.

You should be as it bears on the entire Christian ethos.

Condescending? Perhaps I am but firstly I've seen you and others like you do much the same, secondly it isn't unreasonable in debate/discussion and thirdly it isn't a crime (against the rules of this forum).

Let me be equally polite in return.

Oh please do ... I'm WYSIWYG so the one thing I truly admire is being is brutal honesty.

You make yourself look like a fool unable to read a sentence or grasp the concept of rationalism. Your mind is obviously in the land of the fairies and you have the intellectual capabilities of an amoeba.

And then there's the brutal honesty of personal insult, not that I'm complaining (you've been warned by other mods and, as far as I'm aware, told in no uncertain terms that you risk being banned) as I prefer a straight-forward, no-holds barred, face-off. Maybe we should move this to the debate forum, start from basics and go at each other in that very fashion?

FYI I am highly educated, part technical author, part technical specialist, my wife is an English language tutor specialising in dyslexia and generally both she and others view my writings as exceptionally well written if a little on the wordy side; Friends and family tend to view me as very intelligent, if a little full-on and very straight (no side). So, you'll forgive me if I tell you I couldn't give the merest rat's arse what you think of my intellectual capabilities

Can we get back to the discussion now?

Is that what you do? Only speak with people who agree with you? That would stop you having to think about it I suppose.

That wasn't what I said, was it? I was asking why YOU bothered to come here ... I know EXACTLY why I am here and am prepared to deal with all-comers regardless of their personal point of view.

At this point I lost interest in answering this drivel. Forgive me if you said anything interesting after this point.

Cluck, cluck, cluck ... chicken.

Nice dodge but no one's gonna talk to you if you cut and run like that.

Kyu

[lilphil1989]

fr0d0... please continue....

Seeing you getting shot down in flames repeatedly is much more fun than fitting Gaussians to gamma emission spectra :p

[Tiberius]

Fr0d0,

I've approached this with an open mind, but I cannot see how Kyu insulted you in any way. You are now baiting in hopes that it will cause some kind of war on the forums, please don't.

"stop speaking in tongues" - Not an insult (can't even see how it could be one)

"Confidence with faith is the equivalent of vapourware. Have you ever heard the tale of Hank?" - You said this tone was "condescending". I seriously have to boggle at the logic you used to get to that conclusion.

"You make yourself look like a fool unable to read a sentence or grasp the concept of rationalism. Your mind is obviously in the land of the fairies and you have the intellectual capabilities of an amoeba." - You claim this is "equally polite" to Kyu's assertion that your beliefs made you look foolish, only you decide to use personal attacks (which are against the rules btw).

"At this point I lost interest in answering this drivel. Forgive me if you said anything interesting after this point." - Kyu asked a simple question, you call it drivel, and you wonder why so many people on this forum are wanting you banned?

Well this is your final chance. Stop baiting, stop dodging, stop being insulting. If you want to debate then we will do so, but refrain from the immaturity. Otherwise you aren't welcome here.

[fr0d0]

Looking at my reply to Kyu tonight it looks way out of context. I am fed up with the round robin of answering Kyu's questions and then to get it thrown in my face again. Stalking comes to mind. Personally I only see Kyu's postings to me as a wind up.. I see no meaningful rebuts. At the moment I see no point in continuing discussion with Kyu, this may change. For now, forgive me if I take a break with you Kyu.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Looking at my reply to Kyu tonight it looks way out of context. I am fed up with the round robin of answering Kyu's questions and then to get it thrown in my face again. Stalking comes to mind. Personally I only see Kyu's postings to me as a wind up.. I see no meaningful rebuts. At the moment I see no point in continuing discussion with Kyu, this may change. For now, forgive me if I take a break with you Kyu.

My style is uncompromising but no they weren't meant to wind you up specifically, merely to demonstrate that you were wrong.

If you don't want to debate or discuss with me that's up to you (it won't stop me commenting on your posts) but to my mind all you're doing is a particularly good flightless avian impression.

Kyu

[Edward]

Theists would argue that they can see the dice and would marvel that you cannot. They would try to point to evidences that the dice exist, but because the dice are transcendent those would never amount to proof, just evidence. To the theist, the athiest is either blinded by Satan, or willfully blinded, or is cursed and thus spiritually blinded. The problem for the theist is not the invisibility of the transcendent dice, it is the blindness to the dice that has to be remedied.

And keep in mind the most important thing: in this hypothetical thought experiment, the dice are real.

[Demonaura]

Nonono, the important part to remember is specifically that they are NOT real. the theists can SAY whatever the hell they want, they're lying.

The whole point is that I'm SAYING the dice are real but, I'm lying too because in order to say these dice are real I have to redefine what is real, I have to strip down the definition of what is real so that the word has lost it's entire purpose. Because now the word real is being used to describe things that are NOT real, and have no value. Which is exactly how I know the dice are NOT real, because to say they are real I can't use the word real.