Lets face it...

[Davian]

No, only with the intent that we can discuss it. But we can't have a discussion of what you believe when you keep it hidden.

Or what what you believe I am hiding.

Gods exist. They are characters in books and movies. They are used to explain life, death, morality, the universe, consciousness, and, I as confirmed within these forums, flush toilets. Some are more popular than others.

What would you like to discuss?

 

[Chesterton]

Or what what you believe I am hiding.

Gods exist. They are characters in books and movies. They are used to explain life, death, morality, the universe, consciousness, and, I as confirmed within these forums, flush toilets. Some are more popular than others.

What would you like to discuss?

Your atheism.

 

[Davian]

Your atheism.

No. I have summarily ruled that word to be off-limits for the time being.

However, you may ask me a question regarding my theistic position without using that word.

 

[TillICollapse]

No it's not the same.

Why isn't it ? How about this:

"I don't believe there is a God. But I could be wrong." Is that the same as claiming there is a God ?

If none of those are the same, then why do you automatically make the leap that a statement such as: "I don't believe there is a god, but I could be wrong" is the same as claiming there is no god ?

Do you believe it's possible for person to hold a belief concerning a thing, without claiming they KNOW definitively one way or another about that thing ? Remember Vegas ? Coins ? Etc ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, the claim that there is no God.

Who here has made such a claim?

Your atheism.

You don't appear to be willing to discuss his atheism, beyond telling him what he must think as an atheist.

 

[quatona]

My short response to the question "Is there a God?" would be: "I don´t know...I don´t believe there is." Try to fabricate a truth claim from that.

 

[Chesterton]

Or what what you believe I am hiding.

Gods exist. They are characters in books and movies. They are used to explain life, death, morality, the universe, consciousness, and, I as confirmed within these forums, flush toilets. Some are more popular than others.

What would you like to discuss?

No. I have summarily ruled that word to be off-limits for the time being.

However, you may ask me a question regarding my theistic position without using that word.

You've had ample opportunity to say something about your "theistic position" and you haven't said anything. There's nothing to discuss or argue if you won't say anything of substance. You make apparently veiled comments, and then seem upset when I have to guess at what they mean. The most you ever say is "gods exist in books". What am I to make of that? One can read of lots of things in books. I've read of Europe and Asia and Africa in books. Can I deduce their existence or non-existence from the fact that someone wrote of them?

Maybe we can talk/argue about baseball or Texas chili recipes or something else you'd be willing to discuss. (It's possible that you've never experienced "Texas chili" and have only read those words on paper, and if so, I promise it does exist.)

 

[Chesterton]

Why isn't it ? How about this:

"I don't believe there is a God. But I could be wrong." Is that the same as claiming there is a God ?

If none of those are the same, then why do you automatically make the leap that a statement such as: "I don't believe there is a god, but I could be wrong" is the same as claiming there is no god ?

Do you believe it's possible for person to hold a belief concerning a thing, without claiming they KNOW definitively one way or another about that thing ? Remember Vegas ? Coins ? Etc ?

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say. Believing that one could possibly be wrong is not believing that one is wrong. It's as simple as that. I've heard that about 90% of new businesses fail. No one would ever offer a new product or service if they thought they were wrong just because they might be wrong.

 

[Chesterton]

Who here has made such a claim?

No one. In fact, in my years on CF no one ever has made the claim even when I've encouraged them to. Yet they still feel justified in mocking theism. Strange.

You don't appear to be willing to discuss his atheism, beyond telling him what he must think as an atheist.

I can't discuss his position until he tells me what it is. He implied at one point that he might believe in something, but he wouldn't say what it was.

 

[TillICollapse]

Believing that one could possibly be wrong is not believing that one is wrong. It's as simple as that.

Focussing on this here. What's the difference ?

ETA: Actually, you don't have to continue. I had an interest last night in going these directions, today I've lost interest lol.

A person stating what they hold beliefs concerning, or lack beliefs concerning, is not necessarily the same as making a positive or negative claim. Stating that one lacks belief in God or gods, is not the same as claiming there IS no God or gods, etc. Furthermore, someone who adopts the term "atheist" does not mean the are necessarily claiming, "There is no God or gods," etc. If in doubt, seek clarification, etc.

I'll leave it at that to keep going round and round. I'm guessing you already see the point and are just refusing to acknowledge it, or you still don't see the point and we would be going round and round and as I said, I just lost interest today lol.

 

[Davian]

You've had ample opportunity to say something about your "theistic position" and you haven't said anything. There's nothing to discuss or argue if you won't say anything of substance. You make apparently veiled comments, and then seem upset when I have to guess at what they mean. The most you ever say is "gods exist in books". What am I to make of that? One can read of lots of things in books. I've read of Europe and Asia and Africa in books. Can I deduce their existence or non-existence from the fact that someone wrote of them?

Maybe we can talk/argue about baseball or Texas chili recipes or something else you'd be willing to discuss. (It's possible that you've never experienced "Texas chili" and have only read those words on paper, and if so, I promise it does exist.)

Post #44 I said, "I am ignostic on the subject of deities, and my disbelief is not a claim."

Look it up: "Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable." -wiki

You completely ignored that, and responded with "So you claim there is a God?"

It does not look like you are here to discuss, but to tell others what they think.

 

[Chesterton]

Post #44 I said, "I am ignostic on the subject of deities, and my disbelief is not a claim."

Look it up: "Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable." -wiki

You completely ignored that, and responded with "So you claim there is a God?"

It does not look like you are here to discuss, but to tell others what they think.

First, I ignored it because ignosticism is a bogus idea. Why is it applied only to religious concepts? If you applied the idea to other things in life, such as science, there'd be no science. Science could not proceed if it weren't able to discuss concepts before meeting those conditions.

Second, if that's really what you believe, if those practically impossible conditions can't be met to your satisfaction before we can talk about them, then as I said, we should talk about baseball or something.

 

[Davian]

First, I ignored it because ignosticism is a bogus idea. Why is it applied only to religious concepts?

"Not fair!"

Did someone promise you that things would always be fair?

If you applied the idea to other things in life, such as science, there'd be no science. Science could not proceed if it weren't able to discuss concepts before meeting those conditions.

Don't be silly. For example, astrometric observations indicate that there is... something... that causes the galaxies and the light from distant stars to behave in a manner that would be evidence of gravitational forces from... something... that does not obstruct, emit, or block light. We define it as having those properties, and label it "dark matter". We observe and predict, and others observe and confirm. Now, we can discuss it: is it an exotic form of matter? do we need new physics? etc.

Second, if that's really what you believe, if those practically impossible conditions can't be met to your satisfaction before we can talk about them, then as I said, we should talk about baseball or something.

This is what you stumble over. Now, have you ever seriously considered why those conditions are "practically impossible" to meet, for this religious concept of yours?

 

[Chesterton]

"Not fair!"

Did someone promise you that things would always be fair?

No, but I prefer to debate with people who are fair.

Don't be silly. For example, astrometric observations indicate that there is... something... that causes the galaxies and the light from distant stars to behave in a manner that would be evidence of gravitational forces from... something... that does not obstruct, emit, or block light. We define it as having those properties, and label it "dark matter". We observe and predict, and others observe and confirm. Now, we can discuss it: is it an exotic form of matter? do we need new physics? etc.

Take it a step further back to hypotheses and thought experiments. You know Einstein's first theory of relativity began as a thought experiment. The ancient Greeks hypothesized the atom and evolution with no direct evidence.

This is what you stumble over. Now, have you ever seriously considered why those conditions are "practically impossible" to meet, for this religious concept of yours?

No I haven't. Tell me why.

 

[Davian]

No, but I prefer to debate with people who are fair.

I have been completely fair with you. That the burden of evidence is heavily to your side of the table is beyond my control.

Take it a step further back to hypotheses and thought experiments. You know Einstein's first theory of relativity began as a thought experiment. The ancient Greeks hypothesized the atom and evolution with no direct evidence.

Indeed. How far would those concepts get without testable, falsifiable hypotheses?

No I haven't. Tell me why.

I do not know why.

However, one may hypothesize. If, hypothetically speaking, this "god" concept of yours is merely a human construct, a product of the imagination, I would think it would be practically impossible to provide a coherent, falsifiable definition for it beyond that of a character in a book. Agreed?

 

[Chesterton]

I have been completely fair with you. That the burden of evidence is heavily to your side of the table is beyond my control.

Of course the burden is on my side. When you yourself have no side, mine's the only side there is.

Indeed. How far would those concepts get without testable, falsifiable hypotheses?

The question isn't how far would they get, but whether they are true. A true concept would be true regardless of whether humans could fully explain it or even be aware of it.

I do not know why.
However, one may hypothesize. If, hypothetically speaking, this "god" concept of yours is merely a human construct, a product of the imagination, I would think it would be practically impossible to provide a coherent, falsifiable definition for it beyond that of a character in a book. Agreed?

That's an interesting question. What you say might be true, but I think If my God concept was actually real, then I should expect the statement would apply even more. Whereas, if my God concept were the product of human imagination, shouldn't human imagination be capable of fully defining it? Science fiction writers have always created entire worlds along with foreign concepts and foreign modes of being and whatnot.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The question isn't how far would they get, but whether they are true. A true concept would be true regardless of whether humans could fully explain it or even be aware of it.

It doesn't matter that we know that we know?

 

[Chesterton]

It doesn't matter that we know that we know?

No, it doesn't matter to the truth of the concept. It might matter in some way to us humans, but we got along fine before we knew that e=mc[sup]2[/sup].

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, it doesn't matter to the truth of the concept.

That's right. But it does matter to us.

It might matter in some way to us humans, but we got along fine before we knew that e=mc[sup]2[/sup].

We "get along" much better knowing it, in terms of our understanding of the universe.

 

[Chesterton]

We "get along" much better knowing it, in terms of our understanding of the universe.

We also make a lot bigger bomb with it.