Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or what what you believe I am hiding.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?
Why isn't it ? How about this:No it's not the same.
Again, the claim that there is no God.
Your atheism.
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.
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 ?
Who here has made such a claim?
You don't appear to be willing to discuss his atheism, beyond telling him what he must think as an atheist.
Focussing on this here. What's the difference ?Believing that one could possibly be wrong is not believing that one is wrong. It's as simple as that.
Post #44 I said, "I am ignostic on the subject of deities, and my disbelief is not a claim."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.
"Not fair!"First, I ignored it because ignosticism is a bogus idea. Why is it applied only to religious concepts?
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.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.
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?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.
"Not fair!"
Did someone promise you that things would always be 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.
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?
I have been completely fair with you. That the burden of evidence is heavily to your side of the table is beyond my control.No, but I prefer to debate with people who are fair.
Indeed. How far would those concepts get without testable, falsifiable hypotheses?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.
I do not know why.No I haven't. Tell me why.
I have been completely fair with you. That the burden of evidence is heavily to your side of the table is beyond my control.
Indeed. How far would those concepts get without testable, falsifiable hypotheses?
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?
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?
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].
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?