Rusting Car Bumper

Why should I explain comments which I did not make and have nothing to do with my claim?

DC

Koyaanisqatsi

So, your answer to my question is two questions. I will take it then, that you are going to argue that you can see no qualitative difference in saying, "I believe this is true, based on little to no verifiable evidence," and, "I believe this is true, based on considerable and varried verifiable evidence."

Now, to answer your questions, verified by what's commonly called the "scientific method" (i.e., in a nut, examination, falsfication and repetition). I'll try to answer your second question, but it's currently incoherent. I used "considerable" as a counter-balance to "little to no;" a quantitative difference that goes back to the qualitative difference between the two scenarios.

In other words, if there are five apples on the table and you say there are only two apples on the table, the "considerable and varried verifiable evidence" demonstrates that you are incorrect.

Now can you see a qualitative difference in what I asked? You can be in denial over the existence of five apples on the table, but you cannot be correct that only two apples are on the table, if in fact there are five, so if you were to say, "I believe there are only two apples on the table," then it can be demonstrated fairly easily that your belief is not supported by the evidence at hand, yes? Again, you can deny that the evidence demonstrates you to be incorrect, or even be seriously mentally incapable in some manner to determine the actual number of apples on the table, but that doesn't change any of the facts involved.

Now please continue with your solipsist argument and further disprove the objective existence of a god.

Actually, you've got that backwards, especially if a god exists, so please, continue to argue it.

Even if that were so, it does nothing to negate the fallacy of either, so whatever point you were trying to make is moot. That somebody else also may (or may not) engage in presuppositionalist thinking and or circular reasoning does not mean that either is valid.

And if you say, "to who [sic]" again, then I would humbly suggest you never engage in a debate with anybody ever again. If truth is only in the eye of the individual and no other considerations (such as the evidence that supports a truth claim) is relevant, then there is no point in you posting anything in a thread on the legitimacy of debates, now is there?

The very fact that you are engaging in response to any of us demonstrates, however, that you do accept an objective existence apart from just your mind (not to mention, again, that without such an objective quality to existence, your god can't exist), so while Freshman Existential Paradox 101 was exciting for a semester or two when I was a kid, it's pointless now that we're adults.

Either I exist independently of your mind or I do not. If I do not, then what would be the point of pretending that I do in order to respond to a non-existent or "fantasy" me? And if I do not exist independently of your mind, then what does that say of the existence of your god?

Thanks. That's called "emphasis." I typically use it in a post modern sense to call attention to certain important elements of my posts that people tend to repeatedly ignore in their own responses. As you've done, so thank you for demonstrating the continued need for it.

EDITED TO ADD: This is supposed to be a thread about the legitimacy of debates, so if you feel that no debate is ever legitimate, then why engage in this one to continue to tell us so? Wouldn't that tend to directly contradict your own polemic?

And be careful about responding to my post. That might actually be construed by others (and yourself, if you're not seriously mentally damaged in some way) as "considerable and varried verifiable evidence" that I exist independently of your mind, thereby forming a strong foundation for objective existence; where five apples on a table are five apples on a table, regardless of your denial based on your belief that there are only two.

streamline

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by theghostinthemachine

Hmmm...perhaps you could explain these comments:

"As an atheist who looks forward to reading (and critiquing) the best the god-talkers can muster in their and our forums, there is nothing like the mix of disappointment and disgust when yet another version of the ontologicalifragilisticexpialidosis song and dance is trotted out as proof for the existence of a god-thing (or not-thing, I suppose). "

(me) That is pretty insulting making reference to theists as god-talkers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why should I explain comments which I did not make and have nothing to do with my claim?

DC

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those were my words, and I will gladly "explain" them. I referred to theists as "god-talkers" because, well, that is how I tend to think of them. They talk and talk (and talk) of this God entity, and yet, after more than two decades of listening, I have yet to hear of a coherent version of this God-thing that also seems likely to exist in the universe as we find it.

I gladly fess up to having next to no respect for the intellectual merit of the personal god concept that rules theism. I think it absurd and dangerous, an idea whose expiration date is long overdue, and I have yet to encounter an intellectual defense of said god-concept that holds up under scrutiny. Regarding my OP, I was addressing one pro-God argument in particular -- the ontological argument -- an argument I tend to see as nothing more than an exercise in sophistry and word-play. Mr. McHugh is clearly a (very?) intelligent person, and has an impressive command of his reasoning and writing skills. This does not, however, change my low opinion of the argument which he employs in his defense of (his version of) God....a defense, I think, fails.

I grew up in a religious environment, and to this day, I maintain friendships with people who remain in that community, but this does not mean I respect their stance on the God question. At the same time, when I am in the company of these people, unless we have explicitly agreed to discuss such things, we all do our best to avoid rankling the other(s) with such sentiments. In fact, we all agree to disagree, and try not to let these issues infect our socializing whenever we get together. However, here, in the II Forum, though I am aware there are plenty of theists lurking -- and occasionally posting -- I do not feel the same inhibitions. In fact, I do not expect nor need any other atheists to necessarily agree or share my sentiments, either. I am interested in hearing from other non-theists, though, hence my OP.

As for you, Ghost in the Machine -- if you are insulted by any words I might use here in the II Forum, quite frankly, I do not care. From what I have read of your postings thus far, you are filled with plenty of vitriol and god-talk to fire back whenever you feel like it (it is a tribute to this forum that you are allowed to do so whenever and however you want. My experience has been that atheists are not accorded the same freedoms on theist websites).

Normal

Huh? You're confused. Your "considerable evidence" and my "considerable evidence" are "considerably different".

We both have a "scientific method". In fact, everyone has a "scientific method". "Scientific method" is a synonym for "correctly verifying evidence", so if we reach different conclusions, our "scientific methods" are different, and based very much on our presuppositions.

If I say there is considerable evidence for two apples, and you say there are considerable evidence for five apples. I verify there are two, you verify there are five. Who are we to believe? I guess we'll have to trust our own presuppositions.

All this is based on your presuppositions of what qualitative evidence should convince you of what. See, I can be post modern too.

The facts are the same but the conclusions are different.

It's not a solipsist argument, it's a solipsist presupposition argument. You want your presuppositions to be weighed more heavily over others, which is special pleading.

Non sequitir.

The point is that you do when it comes to your beliefs, so the fact that you condemn others for the same practice is special pleading.

That is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. Truth is in the eye of the system of verifiable evidence acceptable by the beholder.

Another misunderstanding of my argument. Objective existence apart from the mind has nothing to do with it. The issue is your heavy special pleading on the basis of circular belief systems.

It says your circular reasoning has reached a new diameter.

Hedshaker

I agree with this last paragraph. The burden of proof rests with the theists. It is their job to disprove my disbelief by offering objective evidence for their deity. It's prosptrous to ask me to prove their deity does not exist in order to exhonerate my disbelief. Yet that's exactly what they do.

Naturalists need only to prove that nature exists. No proof required. Case closed.

Supernature, however, requires extraordianry proof, of which there is not a shread.

Peace

bya

Spenser

It's funny that one of the most condescending theists I have come across on this site, Ghost, complains about condescending atheists. Quit bitching and formulate an argument. Personally I think the following truly tells us just who you are:

or is it usually your argument has failed much like in the Omniscience, Salvation and Free Will thread and you flee like rats from a sinking ship? Wait, am I being reflectively condescending?

*grabs your head and gives you a noogie*

To make it simple for you, it goes kind of like this: You start with nothing. You then add what you see; the universe. This is where most atheist's stop; prove the universe, there it is. Theists go one step further and add God. This is why theists have been given the burden of proof, they have created an unsubstantiated assertion which completely lacks evidence and needs to be proved NOT disproved.

Atheism is the default position because it is not making a positive assertion, its waiting for you to prove one...

mosaic

So is your argument better than Koyan's normal? Are you answering him? All he needs to do is considered his belief superior, and you yours, and according to this nonsense you're both right. So again, what is your point? Let the naturalists continue to take the world seriously.

By the way, I dont agree that bullets harm people. The evidence from experience is presuppsosiotnal, so is science-- Prove to me that people who die from gunshots wounds arent demons which is what I believe they are? Only demons die from gunshots wounds. Should I go test this method?

Normal

mosaic, that is a clear strawman of my whole argument, and I anticipate Koy is going to do the same thing. Take one detail and then blow it way out of proportion. Just watch.

mosaic

I suppose you stating that its a clear strawman is sufficient enough to make it a strawman thus I'm not going to argue against you.

And if I dont consider my reply "blowing out of proportion,"? I guess, I'm left saying you're being biased, and or special pleading. Your "blowing out of proportion" and my "blowing out of proportion," are "blowing eons away from each other." Again, these are suffiecient replies according to your reasoning in this thread.

Let me comment on a part of your post:


How does that follow? Why cant they be using the same premisebut reach faulty conclusions? If everytime I pray rain falls what am I using to correlate the two? If I see that when coulds form rain falls, what am I using to make the correlation? And about the last part abput presuppostions. Is their a basis for this? Can you determine why you'd intially think something? Of course you can but your argument denies this. It denies examination. It denies the very activity of the mind.

Normal

Non sequitir. Where did I imply this?

I answered him, didn't i?

Non sequitir. Where did I imply this?

Strawman. I never said naturalists don't take the world seriously. Non-naturalists take the world seriously too, you know?

What does this have to do with reducing everyone's believes to circular reasoning? Nothing. It's a blatent straw man of what I was saying, along the lines of this:

I'm talking about basic beliefs being victims of circular reasoning. What you decide concludes what is based on a presupposition that you have the authority to conclude what you do, get it? The facts are the same, the conclusions are different.

?!?

It denies the very activeity of the mind?

What?

I can't tell if thats more of a strawman or a non sequitir, but either way:

Out of proportion.