Ice

Before we fall into the seemingly inevitable decline to ad hominem attacks, Yguy, how do you define your god?

RevDahlia

yguy, you seem to be taking others' atheism awfully personally.

as an atheist, i do not see my atheism as reflecting on theists. why would it?

on this board, some of the resident infidels have taken issue with your arguments this does NOT mean that they have issues with you personally.


big, big IMHO here:

i think you are mistaken.

i do not think that anybody here is trying to convince you of what you believe.

i think the infidels are trying to explain why they do not believe, and why your arguments hold no water with them.

i think you are trying to convince the infidels of what they believe, per your own admission.

i think that the exasperated comments on this thread come not from a disdain for you, yguy, the human being, or your theism. i think they come from a frustration with your arguments.

wait... how does that follow?! not even gonna get in to the fallaciousness of that statement. anyway...

i used "we" to refer to all the infidels who have participated in this discussion and who might be affronted at the idea that you know why they believe better than they. if i had perceived your assertion as being directed at me personally, i would have used the first-person singular pronoun.

you seem awfully defensive. i must say again, other people's atheism has nothing to do with YOU, yguy, the human being. "they think i'm bad because i'm a theist, and that gets them off"? where did that come from?

really now... yguy's views on the almighty hadn't come up before you appeared, actually. nobody is out to get you, and paranoia is not the most reliable basis for an effective argument.

yguy

Of course it doesn't. Clutch, however, has made it clear in this thread and my "Third Way" thread in the Elsewhere forum that at leasts he does, by his almost unvaryingly condescending insolence.

Not that it matters. I don't care whether you guys have a problem with me or not.

I'm aware of that. I'm doing the same to them. Where's the problem?

Not quite accurate. It is the basis for their belief that I am attacking.

Why would my arguments frustrate them? Their arguments don't frustrate me. If they did, it would mean that either my arguments were faulty, or that they were manipulating me. If they think I'm manipulating them, they would do well to ask themselves how it is that I am able to do it.

Since you associated yourself with the other atheists on this thread, I guessed, rightly or not, that your motivation was similar to that plainly evidenced by HawkingFan, Clutch, and others by their condescending hostility.

Why would they be affronted at that? If I'm wrong, how does it hurt them?

What you see as defensive hostility is no more than my determination not to be distracted from making my points.

Is there another theist on this thread? How is it that all these guys want a piece of me? Because there is a determination on the part of some to find fault with my logic, whether it exists or not.

While you may find it comforting to think that my arguments are based mainly in paranoia, you will find - if you stick around long enough - that your intel is bad.

SanDiegoAtheist

You mean our lack of belief. There IS a difference you know.



Because what we have seen so far from you as arguing against our unbelief is the lack of our ability to make an absolute proof of anything.

There is a problem with this, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to you throughout this thread:

Namely, that to make any sense at all of reality, that one must make the assumption that what our senses (either directly, or extrapolated by evidence) tell us about the universe in fact matches what is REAL about the universe. You seem to be trying to imply that this is not actually an absolute proof (e.g. your "prove to me a rock exists" type questions).

The problem is, we accept that our senses are most likely correct as a BRUTE FACT. Indeed, you MUST accept the same. It is a minimal axiom that all human beings MUST accept about the world. I don't argue that we might not live in a "matrix-like" construct - it is certainly possible. However, it is unhelpful in trying to understand the world - and if such is the case, then YOU are as deceived as we are, and neither of us can do ANYTHING at all about it. Solipsism is a one way ticket to the insane asylum.

What we disagree with you is that you seem to demand an ontological answer to WHY we can experience reality - and you seem to think that God (specifically the Xian God) gives you that answer. It may very well - however, it is NOT demonstrated that God (let alone the Xian God) is the ONLY possible ontological answer - nor, indeed, that an ontological reason as to why MUST exist. We don't see that as proved, and therefore, all your attempt to show our beliefs as solipsistic simply tell us what we already know.

We already KNOW we have to make certain brute fact assumptions about the reliability of our senses in telling us about the world. This isn't anything new to us. What we doubt is YOUR explanation as to why those brute fact assumptions are correct. We see you making the EXACT SAME ASSUMPTIONS as us, but then going one further and making an extra assumption that GOD is the reason that our senses match reality.

We don't make that leap - because we don't have to. We ALL must assume that our senses match reality - it's the only possible way to make sense of what our brains take in every waking minute. However, we simply don't see any evidence that the reason that our senses match reality is a God, let alone the Xian God - and THAT is what you must provide evidence for.

Saying "prove to me a rock exists" is sophomoric. It annoys us because it shows a serious lack of reason on your part, because you MUST know that a rock exists because your senses tell you so, and if your senses are fooling you that completely, than you know NOTHING at all - not even about your God.

Every human being must make the axiomatic assertion that what their senses tell them exists. That is a BARE minimum. Both you and us must make that assumption to function at all. We choose not to go beyond that. You choose to believe that a God is behind it. We tell you "prove it". You haven't.


Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

hyzer

Nicely written SDA.

yguy

I wasn't referring to atheism there, but the apparent belief of dogmatic atheists that scientific knowledge is an adequate criterion by which to ascertain the existence or non-existence of a Creator.

Wrong again. There is know necessity for assuming anything whatsoever. I don't have to make the assumption that my car won't devour me - I know it.

You appear to be implying that since, for example, I've never seen anyone walk on water, I must accept the fact that it can't be done. Not so.

Now HERE is an interesting possibility. The only thing wrong with it is that you appear to make it an all or nothing deal, whereas it is more likely there are degrees of self-deception involved. An advocate of pedophilia, for instance, is very deceived, while a Bible literalist is generally less so.

To apply such a label to what I'm saying is a disservice to your own understanding. If in fact we are deceived by our senses to ANY degree, it behooves us to know it.

Demand? When have I demanded anything? To do so, I'd have to have something you want. What would that be?

I'm aware of that. You guys aren't ready to consider such questions because, for the most part, you can't admit that you don't know how you know things.

No you don't. It is convenient for you to cast my claim to knowledge as assumption, because that way it puts me on an equal footing with you in your own mind. I don't ASSUME God exists. I know it. How do I know it? Couldn't tell you - any more than you can tell me how you know rocks exist.

I must do no such thing, since I never promised anything like that.

Why would that annoy you? I don't let idiots annoy me, I ignore them.

I know nothing? You're the one who has to make assumptions about everything. If you know, you don't have to assume. The two are mutually exclusive.

It's only a choice in the sense that I choose not to doubt an obvious (to me) perception.

Of course I haven't. How many times to have to repeat that such is not my intention?

Alix Nenuphar

Ygyuy:

Correct (for once): your self-stated aim is to annoy everyone and disprove lies. So far, you haven't done either, despite a fair number of posts. Are you unable or unwilling or do you simply no longer care about these goals?

Just curious.

Clutch

The Cassandra of Bullshit strikes again. All these important things you grasp, but just... can't... make... intelligible.

Hawkingfan

yguy,

Please tell me why you believe in God. You don't have to use "scientific" evidence. Just tell me why.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by yguy :

Ah, the infamous Bible contradiction in which God lies to Adam, telling him he'll die on the day that he eats the fruit (KJV). But he didn't die. Anyway, suffering isn't the same as death, and so Adam didn't even know he'd be suffering because of his choice. Further, I have no reason to believe I would have disobeyed God in Adam's place, and further still, even if I had, I wouldn't have known I would be causing intense suffering.

Again, I have not seen a single reason to think I have chosen that I suffer, or that I have done something knowing that it would cause me to suffer to the degree I suffer.

God is omnipotent. God could find a better way -- he could reveal his existence, for example. You're going to need to be a more convincing theist than this if you're going to try to fool us into thinking you believe in God.

"Analytic" is what you want. I know there are no married bachelors because of the definitions of "married" and of "bachelor." It's like asking me how I know P is not equal to not-P. If you want to deny that we have knowledge of analytic truths, go for it, but I won't believe you actually think you understand English then.

If he doesn't conform to your definition of "omnipotent", then you don't believe he's omnipotent. You might believe he's something like omnipotent, but in that case, he's conforming to your definition of "something like omnipotent."