If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(DW-World)   Atheists make children's book teaching acceptance of all beliefs and sharing. Nah, just kidding, it is portrays all religions as evil and bloodthirsty complete with a crazed Jew   (dw-world.de) divider line 943
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

16944 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2008 at 10:59 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



943 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-03 04:16:39 AM
Archie_Steel: strafe: Not that I don't agree with that. However, saying that there is no proof really doesn't support your argument here considering the topic.

Which is why I said my argument was unrelated to that particular proposition. I was merely commenting on his definition of God, and showing to him that I can agree with it (though I would not call it God) while still disagreeing with his the argument it was meant to support.

With that said, good night everyone, I got to get up in six hours to help someone move, which goes to show that atheists are perfectly capable of altruistic gestures involving self-sacrifice. :-)


Night night.
 
2008-02-03 04:18:46 AM
Samsaran: The spirals in my morning coffee resemble spiral galaxies not by coincidence but because the same forces are at work in both.

Not really. Gravity is responsible for the patterns of stars in a galaxy. Gravity has no real effect on the movement of milk in your coffee.

Ok, now I'm *really* going to bed. Peace to you all.
 
2008-02-03 04:21:30 AM
Samsaran: The spirals in my morning coffee resemble spiral galaxies not by coincidence but because the same forces are at work in both.

I see clouds in my coffee. Clouds in my coffee.

/if I'm God, this thread is about me.
 
2008-02-03 04:22:48 AM
Archie_Steel: Samsaran: The spirals in my morning coffee resemble spiral galaxies not by coincidence but because the same forces are at work in both.

Not really. Gravity is responsible for the patterns of stars in a galaxy. Gravity has no real effect on the movement of milk in your coffee.

Ok, now I'm *really* going to bed. Peace to you all.


You say this as I spill coffee on myself.
 
2008-02-03 04:25:11 AM
Guys. Samsaran is a troll, not a serious poster.

The funny thing is, this book portrays caricatures of the religious world, but really, who here hasn't seen these caricatures right here on Fark? Bevets, and god, I know there's got to be at least one crazy Muslim here...

My favorite part about religionists is they purport that religion is love, God is love, etc, but if you aren't their religion, you'll go to hell. If you're not Muslim, you're nothing. If you're not Jewish, you're unclean. If you're not Christian, you're not saved. You all can't be right, lol.

The reason why God is so irrational sounding in the Torah, Quran and Bible is because he is a creation of many men who wrote according to their needs to control the people at the time.
 
2008-02-03 04:27:36 AM
ah3133:
I will re-phrase:

"Object of God" = the thing which is being described by you
"the fact that I can have no true knowledge about ..." = an limiting attribute which you have imputed to the thing which is being described by you

If your concept of God is that you cannot have any knowledge about the object which is being addressed, then it is impossible for your concept of God to include any notion that the object of God is beyond your knowledge, because that entails knowledge of the object.

No, it entails knowledge of the CONCEPT. He can put anything he wants in his concept... it doesn't describe reality. A concept can correspond to reality, or not correspond to reality, but it does not DEFINE reality.

Like my garden rock, God, if such a being exists, is divinely indifferent to what I might think of Him.


You are making the exact same mistake, over and over and OVER. Stop repeating your flawed tautology like it is some triumphant proof no one else has ever discovered.

Here's a hint for you. If YOU think your logic is sound, and many other people tell you it's flawed, you should go check on the flaw before repeating yourself. Otherwise, you make yourself look foolish.


ad hominem


Not ad hominem, because the personal attack wasn't directed at you in order to disprove the argument. The classical ad hominem fallacy attacks the argument by criticizing the source -- an example: "How can you believe that argument when the guy beats his wife?"

So, no, it's no ad hominem. He's just calling you out on the fact that you keep repeating the same error over and over again.
 
2008-02-03 04:28:30 AM

0Icky0
Samsaran: I cannot see how anyone faced with the enigma of life can believe that the universe is dead and empty.

I cannot see how anyone can write something so mind-boggling stupid.
Do I really need to explain why it is stupid? Is it possible to lower my thought processes far enough to do so?


The pagan Vikings upon raiding the monasteries of Ireland around 1000 A.D saw no use in the parchments the monks so fearlessly tried to preserve. They gathered them together in piles and burned the works of Aristotle to keep warm. Likewise the Mongols, primitive herders and hunters from the Eurasian Steppe saw no value in the farms and cities of Eastern Europe. So they burned the villages, slaughtered the people and turned their ponies out to graze upon the ruins.

Perhaps you see no value in my words for the same reason.
 
2008-02-03 04:29:31 AM
Cerebral Ballsy: Guys. Samsaran is a troll, not a serious poster.

The funny thing is, this book portrays caricatures of the religious world, but really, who here hasn't seen these caricatures right here on Fark? Bevets, and god, I know there's got to be at least one crazy Muslim here...

My favorite part about religionists is they purport that religion is love, God is love, etc, but if you aren't their religion, you'll go to hell. If you're not Muslim, you're nothing. If you're not Jewish, you're unclean. If you're not Christian, you're not saved. You all can't be right, lol.

The reason why God is so irrational sounding in the Torah, Quran and Bible is because he is a creation of many men who wrote according to their needs to control the people at the time.


Oh man I thought the thread was dying out finally... You say that like it's a bad thing. I keep trying to tell people that's the fun part about religion.
 
2008-02-03 04:32:13 AM
Samsaran: The pagan Vikings upon raiding the monasteries of Ireland around 1000 A.D saw no use in the parchments the monks so fearlessly tried to preserve. They gathered them together in piles and burned the works of Aristotle to keep warm.

Are you comparing your Fark posts to the writings of Aristotle?

Wow. And you said *I* had hubris.... We'll see who's talking about your Fark posts in 2400 years....
 
2008-02-03 04:34:25 AM
Archie_Steel: ah3133, it is actually pretty easy to show that it is *your* reasoning that is contradictory.

Let us assume that you are correct, and that by trying to deny the existence of God, one proves that God exists (essentially because you wouldn't be able to discuss its existence if he didn't).


Wrong. You don't have to prove God's existence in order to discuss it. If you are discussing it, you have already accepted the axiomatic truth of the premise that God exists.


Let's take that one step further. Since you claim that saying "God doesn't exist" is self-contradictory, then the logical solution would be to say "God exists".

By definition, the existence of God precludes the existence of a God-less universe. Therefore, saying "God exists" is the same thing as saying "a God-less universe does not exist." However, if your original premise is true, then stating that a God-less universe does not exist is self-contradictory.


No, the logical solution is to make no claims about the existence or non-existence of God, since there is evidence of God. By saying "God exists", all you have done is replace one unfalsiable, nonsensical self-contradictory claim with another.


Therefore, following *your* logic, a God-less universe must exist, which means that God doesn't exist, and so on.


Logic only deals with that which exists. Unless you can provide some empirical proof of God which can be measured and analyzed, then it's existence or non-existence is irrelevant and any conundrums and paradox which are predicated on God's existence or non-existence are equally irrelevant.
 
2008-02-03 04:35:47 AM
If people here think Atheists are rude and bigoted, it is because we're losing patience with the world being run by superstitious fools.

I don't have to respect your religion, especially not here in the internet.

The one thing that probably peeves me the most are the solemn "teachers" of religion. The ones who have studied for most of their lives, a subject that has as much credibility as healing with magnets or any other witchcraft superstition. Sorry, I just can't take your doctorate in mythology.. I mean theism seriously. You are not a doctor, you're a con man (or woman). You lie for personal gain.

This includes the stupid masses of muslims who spend their formative years reading the Quran instead of getting a real education. The year is 2008! When are we going to stop wasting our time with this superstitious bullsh*t?

Like I've said before, If I'm wrong may Goooood strike me down and make me and other atheists stop posting on Fark!
 
2008-02-03 04:36:10 AM

Cerebral Ballsy

Guys. Samsaran is a troll, not a serious poster.


Not true. A troll takes a viewpoint merely to agitate people. These are my views as expressed in detail in my profile. Perhaps you consider me a troll merely because I disagree with YOU or the majority of this thread. If that is the case then a more self-centered and arrogant position cannot be imagined. Sure, I hold FARK in low esteem generally; however, that does not extend to this discussion. There have been some really insightful and intelligent discussion here tonight. This is a rare thing on this forum and I for one am happy to see the level of discourse so elevated.
 
2008-02-03 04:37:22 AM
Samsaran: Cerebral Ballsy
Guys. Samsaran is a troll, not a serious poster.

Not true. A troll takes a viewpoint merely to agitate people. These are my views as expressed in detail in my profile. Perhaps you consider me a troll merely because I disagree with YOU or the majority of this thread. If that is the case then a more self-centered and arrogant position cannot be imagined. Sure, I hold FARK in low esteem generally; however, that does not extend to this discussion. There have been some really insightful and intelligent discussion here tonight. This is a rare thing on this forum and I for one am happy to see the level of discourse so elevated.


No, I think you're actually a troll. A well-developed character created to irritate people.
 
2008-02-03 04:38:52 AM
strafe: Oh man I thought the thread was dying out finally.

I know. I missed all the real fun. And the con jobs upthread.
 
2008-02-03 04:39:28 AM
Assgasket
Samsaran: The pagan Vikings upon raiding the monasteries of Ireland around 1000 A.D saw no use in the parchments the monks so fearlessly tried to preserve. They gathered them together in piles and burned the works of Aristotle to keep warm.

Are you comparing your Fark posts to the writings of Aristotle?

Wow. And you said *I* had hubris.... We'll see who's talking about your Fark posts in 2400 years....


Now you are just being silly. You know very well that my point was that people do not value that which they do not understand.
 
2008-02-03 04:41:14 AM
Assgasket: Samsaran: The pagan Vikings upon raiding the monasteries of Ireland around 1000 A.D saw no use in the parchments the monks so fearlessly tried to preserve. They gathered them together in piles and burned the works of Aristotle to keep warm.

Are you comparing your Fark posts to the writings of Aristotle?

Wow. And you said *I* had hubris.... We'll see who's talking about your Fark posts in 2400 years....


It's a bet.

/e-mailing johntitor.com
 
2008-02-03 04:41:59 AM
ah3133: KiltedBastich:

No, for the tenth time, I have made a statement about the CONCEPT of God, as distinct from God itself. It refers to God, but is not God. I can point to infinity. I can make symbols that represent infinity. I can think about infinity. But I can't actually encompass infinity. See how that works? They are not the same thing.


What you said was:


I can have knowledge about the concept of God, such as the fact tht I can have no true knowledge about the object the concept addresses.


I will re-phrase:

"Object of God" = the thing which is being described by you
"the fact that I can have no true knowledge about ..." = an limiting attribute which you have imputed to the thing which is being described by you

If your concept of God is that you cannot have any knowledge about the object which is being addressed, then it is impossible for your concept of God to include any notion that the object of God is beyond your knowledge, because that entails knowledge of the object.


Your statement is a meaningless paradox. I know the concept of God exists. I know the concept of God refers to an entity that if it exists, is unquantifiable in every sense. Saying something is unquantifiable is not the same thing as quantifying it, which is what you are implying. Saying something is beyond understanding is not understanding it.

How many times must this basic logical fallacy be explained to you? A concept =/= the object it describes. True statements about the limits of the concept are not true statements about the object of the concept.

The CONCEPT of God is a finite thing, residing in my brain. I can have all sorts of ideas about it, including very straightforward logical reasoning about how if God were to be all the things claimed about him/her/it/om, I could never have any true knowledge about the actual object, as opposed to the concept, because for God to exist he/she/it/om would have to be something not limited by the boundaries of our universe.


If the object God is not limited by the boundaries of our universe, then why is the object of God prohibited from making he/she/it/om known to you as a concept?

For you to make the claim that God is not limited by the boundaries of our universe, then you should be able to answer that question.


Nothing easier to do. Because it's the only conclusion about the nature of God that accounts for what we already know and does not require positive assertions about the nature of God that are by necessity either unprovable or necessarily wrong.

The logic is as follows. We exist in a material universe that demonstrates attributes of consistency (the same rules appear to apply everywhere as near as we can tell), knowability (the effects of the rules are detectable by our senses and understandable by our cognitive faculties) and regularity (the rules always work the same way).

The universe also shows no evidence of being limited by our understandings of it, that is, we can observe far more than we can understand. Our understanding therefore has no ontological effect on the universe. It can affect the universe (cf. quantum physics) but it does not create or define the universe.

It follows from these empirical findings, that so long as these observations hold true, there is no supernatural effects in the universe. If we see what we think is a supernatural effect, the logical inference of the previous two rules is that we are in error to think it is supernatural, and that instead what we are observing is a facet of the natural universe we do not yet understand. So far, this also has held true, empirically, without fail.

In fact, these premises are the basis for reason and logic. If the universe is not consistent, knowable and regular, logic, science, reason all become meaningless, for you can no longer assert with consequence even something as simple as X = X.

Therefore, any effects that an omnipotent God may have had on the universe have happened in such fashions that we can not in any way detect them. It follows therefore that if there is such a God, either that God has never done anything to affect the material universe directly (and is therefore of complete irrelevance to any investigation that falls within the material universe), or the effects have occurred in such fashion as to be completely undetectable to human faculties, sensory and cognitive both, at every level.

Either conclusion indicates by process of elimination a God about which we can know nothing. Note that there are NO positive assertions about God. This is deductive reasoning, when you take away everything else, this is all that is left.

That's logical reasoning by elimination. It's not saying what God is. It's saying that all the things we can detect, and by logical reasoning all the things we could possibly detect in any way, aren't God, unless they are all God.

So what you are doing essentially is setting up a condition upon which God may or may not be "all the things we can detect, and by logical reasoning all the things we could possibly detect in any way". So the existence of a purportedly omnipotent God is contingent is subservient to a conditional set of circumstances. This statement is self-contradictory. Omnipotent is not subservient.


You got that exactly backwards. The point is that if we cannot and have not ever detected any sign of God, we cannot assume that God exists in any fashion detectable to us. God has the capacity to do whatever he/she/it/om wants without ever in any way leaving evidence of that action. If God wants to change something, and God is perfect and ommipotent, how are we ever going to know that a change was made? The universe could be remade from the most fundamental sense possible and we would not be able to tell, because time and space are attributes of the universe that would be just as mutable. Anything we could use to try to detect God would lie within the frame of what is changed, and so would not detect anything, unless God decided for some ineffable reason to create an imperfect reality - which we have never seen any evidence for, of any kind.

Furthermore, you completely ignored the last part of my statement, wherein I pointed out that the whole argument was also logically congruent with the assertion that the universe and everything in it is part of God, i.e pantheism. It still does not allow for a personal God who makes miracles, and still does not allow for the introduction of God as a premise in logical reasoning.

You are making the exact same mistake, over and over and OVER. Stop repeating your flawed tautology like it is some triumphant proof no one else has ever discovered.

Here's a hint for you. If YOU think your logic is sound, and many other people tell you it's flawed, you should go check on the flaw before repeating yourself. Otherwise, you make yourself look foolish.


ad hominem


No, ad hominem would be calling you a fool. Saying that what you are doing makes you look foolish is pointing out a serious flaw in your methodology that you are persistently refusing to correct to your own detriment.
 
2008-02-03 04:43:22 AM
Cerebral Ballsy
Samsaran: Cerebral Ballsy
Guys. Samsaran is a troll, not a serious poster.

Not true. A troll takes a viewpoint merely to agitate people. These are my views as expressed in detail in my profile. Perhaps you consider me a troll merely because I disagree with YOU or the majority of this thread. If that is the case then a more self-centered and arrogant position cannot be imagined. Sure, I hold FARK in low esteem generally; however, that does not extend to this discussion. There have been some really insightful and intelligent discussion here tonight. This is a rare thing on this forum and I for one am happy to see the level of discourse so elevated.

No, I think you're actually a troll. A well-developed character created to irritate people.


Wow are you really so full of yourself to think that no one could sincerely disagree with you? The difference between us is that, agree or disagree, I have added to the discussion in a substantive way. You have not. I am respectful and courteous even to those who disagree with me. You are not.
 
2008-02-03 04:45:49 AM
Samsaran: Wow are you really so full of yourself to think that no one could sincerely disagree with you?

Wow, I never said that. For starters, I vehemently disagree with Tats about almost every aspect of religion, yet, I don't think he's a troll.

In fact.. you're the only person in this thread that I've mentioned is a troll. Do you think you are "every person who disagrees with me"?
 
2008-02-03 04:45:56 AM
Cerebral Ballsy:
If I'm wrong may Goooood strike me down and make me and other atheists stop posting on Fark!

I hope God is listening.
 
2008-02-03 04:45:57 AM
ah3133: Wrong. You don't have to prove God's existence in order to discuss it. If you are discussing it, you have already accepted the axiomatic truth of the premise that God exists.

You're now defining the existence of God as your axiomatic premise. In any argument, the test of the argument's truth (not its internal consistency) is whether the premises are sound. That one isn't. You can't assume the truth of your argument as a premise, that's called a tautology.

A: All swans are black
B: There is a swan in front of me
If A, ergo B: The swan in front of me is black.

See the problem here? The fact that the above modus ponens
fails does not invalidate the validity of the argument -- it means your premises are wrong. The argument is correct, but the premises are skewed, and therefore the truth value of the consequent is still false.


Logic only deals with that which exists. Unless you can provide some empirical proof of God which can be measured and analyzed, then it's existence or non-existence is irrelevant and any conundrums and paradox which are predicated on God's existence or non-existence are equally irrelevant.

Horse-hockey. Logic is a rational process involving the use of reasoning tools applied to concepts. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the concepts to which logic is being applied have any independent basis whatsoever.

See my earlier example. All swans are clearly not black -- there are white swans. Yet the logic of my MP above is flawless.
 
2008-02-03 04:47:02 AM
ah3133: Cerebral Ballsy:
If I'm wrong may Goooood strike me down and make me and other atheists stop posting on Fark!

I hope God is listening.


If he is, he hasn't done anything yet, and I've been saying that for years.

Oh.. oh my god, I think I'm having a heart attack.. uh uh, no it was just heartburn.
 
2008-02-03 04:47:03 AM
Does anyone else just skip through these threads looking at the pictures?
 
2008-02-03 04:47:47 AM
Samsaran: Now you are just being silly.

You just figured that out? Bully for you.
 
2008-02-03 04:47:54 AM
i229.photobucket.com
And this is when you realized the paradox.


And because the Jaeger's almost gone:
i229.photobucket.com
Leave God alone!
 
2008-02-03 04:48:44 AM
Cerebral Ballsy: strafe: Oh man I thought the thread was dying out finally.

I know. I missed all the real fun. And the con jobs upthread.


You didn't really miss anything. It's not like anybody won.
 
2008-02-03 04:50:38 AM
let's even out the idiocy a bit here, folks.

img87.imageshack.us
 
2008-02-03 04:51:44 AM
strafe: Cerebral Ballsy: strafe: Oh man I thought the thread was dying out finally.

I know. I missed all the real fun. And the con jobs upthread.

You didn't really miss anything. It's not like anybody won.


Every day that I dance on God's grave and tell him to come get me if he doesn't like it is another day I've won. I'm still waiting for him to claim revenge for those pesky humans who killed his own son.

Humans 1 God 0
 
2008-02-03 04:52:28 AM
bakarocket: Does anyone else just skip through these threads looking at the pictures?

Sometimes.
 
2008-02-03 04:52:41 AM
Xenomech: let's even out the idiocy a bit here, folks.

Loling WTF at the lab coat.
 
2008-02-03 04:52:59 AM

Archie_Steel

Samsaran: The spirals in my morning coffee resemble spiral galaxies not by coincidence but because the same forces are at work in both.

Not really. Gravity is responsible for the patterns of stars in a galaxy. Gravity has no real effect on the movement of milk in your coffee.

Ok, now I'm *really* going to bed. Peace to you all.


Heh. His physics is as sketchy as his metaphysics.
 
2008-02-03 04:55:13 AM
Cerebral Ballsy: strafe: Cerebral Ballsy: strafe: Oh man I thought the thread was dying out finally.

I know. I missed all the real fun. And the con jobs upthread.

You didn't really miss anything. It's not like anybody won.

Every day that I dance on God's grave and tell him to come get me if he doesn't like it is another day I've won. I'm still waiting for him to claim revenge for those pesky humans who killed his own son.

Humans 1 God 0


Wait for it.....
 
2008-02-03 04:55:59 AM
Assgasket: ah3133: Wrong. You don't have to prove God's existence in order to discuss it. If you are discussing it, you have already accepted the axiomatic truth of the premise that God exists.

You're now defining the existence of God as your axiomatic premise. In any argument, the test of the argument's truth (not its internal consistency) is whether the premises are sound. That one isn't. You can't assume the truth of your argument as a premise, that's called a tautology.

A: All swans are black
B: There is a swan in front of me
If A, ergo B: The swan in front of me is black.


The axiomatic statement is not the attributes of the swan. The axiomatic statement is the fact that there is a swan toward which attributes can be applied. You cannot make a describe a swan without implicitly assuming the existence of a swan which can be described. If that description is to say that the swan doesn't exist, then you have made a statement which is self-contradictory.
 
2008-02-03 04:56:32 AM
strafe: Cerebral Ballsy: strafe: Cerebral Ballsy: strafe: Oh man I thought the thread was dying out finally.

I know. I missed all the real fun. And the con jobs upthread.

You didn't really miss anything. It's not like anybody won.

Every day that I dance on God's grave and tell him to come get me if he doesn't like it is another day I've won. I'm still waiting for him to claim revenge for those pesky humans who killed his own son.

Humans 1 God 0

Wait for it.....


What, the score to change in the last inning?
 
2008-02-03 04:57:27 AM
ah3133: Archie_Steel: ah3133, it is actually pretty easy to show that it is *your* reasoning that is contradictory.

Let us assume that you are correct, and that by trying to deny the existence of God, one proves that God exists (essentially because you wouldn't be able to discuss its existence if he didn't).


Wrong. You don't have to prove God's existence in order to discuss it. If you are discussing it, you have already accepted the axiomatic truth of the premise that God exists.


Let's take that one step further. Since you claim that saying "God doesn't exist" is self-contradictory, then the logical solution would be to say "God exists".

By definition, the existence of God precludes the existence of a God-less universe. Therefore, saying "God exists" is the same thing as saying "a God-less universe does not exist." However, if your original premise is true, then stating that a God-less universe does not exist is self-contradictory.


No, the logical solution is to make no claims about the existence or non-existence of God, since there is evidence of God. By saying "God exists", all you have done is replace one unfalsiable, nonsensical self-contradictory claim with another.


Therefore, following *your* logic, a God-less universe must exist, which means that God doesn't exist, and so on.


Logic only deals with that which exists. Unless you can provide some empirical proof of God which can be measured and analyzed, then it's existence or non-existence is irrelevant and any conundrums and paradox which are predicated on God's existence or non-existence are equally irrelevant.


Dear FSM, go take some courses on linguistics and basic logic. Proof of the existence of a CONCEPT is not, has never been and will never be proof of existence of the OBJECT the concept refers to.

CONCEPT =/= OBJECT. What is so difficult to grasp about that absolutely basic logical function

A is A.
B is B.
A is not B.
I can assert that A is true and refers to B, without asserting B is true. This is basic stuff.

By your logic, discussing dragons is the same thing as saying actual living dragons exist. Discussing Santa Claus is the same thing as saying an actual person with named Santa Claus exists. Discussing the boogeyman is the same thing as saying the boogeyman exists and is out to get you. Discussing Zeus is the same thing as saying the ancient greek god Zeus exists and actually blasted people with thunderbolts. Discussing the flying purple people eater is the same as saying the flying purple people eater exists, and is therefore something people should worry about. Discussing Superman is the same as saying Superman exists, and by inference Krypton and all the rest.

The logic is exactly the same. And in every case, it's WRONG. Discussing a premise is not the same as accepting a premise is true. A premise is a statement about an object. I can acknowledge the existence of the premise while denying its validity, VERY easily.

Do you not get why discussing God as a concept does not in ANY way say ANYTHING about whether God exists or not? The concept of God is a separate thing from the object God.

At this point, I think you are just being deliberately obtuse because you cannot bear to admit you are in error.
 
2008-02-03 04:59:22 AM
KiltedBastich: ah3133: Archie_Steel: ah3133, it is actually pretty easy to show that it is *your* reasoning that is contradictory.

Let us assume that you are correct, and that by trying to deny the existence of God, one proves that God exists (essentially because you wouldn't be able to discuss its existence if he didn't).


Wrong. You don't have to prove God's existence in order to discuss it. If you are discussing it, you have already accepted the axiomatic truth of the premise that God exists.


Let's take that one step further. Since you claim that saying "God doesn't exist" is self-contradictory, then the logical solution would be to say "God exists".

By definition, the existence of God precludes the existence of a God-less universe. Therefore, saying "God exists" is the same thing as saying "a God-less universe does not exist." However, if your original premise is true, then stating that a God-less universe does not exist is self-contradictory.


No, the logical solution is to make no claims about the existence or non-existence of God, since there is evidence of God. By saying "God exists", all you have done is replace one unfalsiable, nonsensical self-contradictory claim with another.


Therefore, following *your* logic, a God-less universe must exist, which means that God doesn't exist, and so on.


Logic only deals with that which exists. Unless you can provide some empirical proof of God which can be measured and analyzed, then it's existence or non-existence is irrelevant and any conundrums and paradox which are predicated on God's existence or non-existence are equally irrelevant.

Dear FSM, go take some courses on linguistics and basic logic. Proof of the existence of a CONCEPT is not, has never been and will never be proof of existence of the OBJECT the concept refers to.

CONCEPT =/= OBJECT. What is so difficult to grasp about that absolutely basic logical function

A is A.
B is B.
A is not B.
I can assert that A is true and refers to B, without asserting B is true. This is basic stuff.

By your logic, discussing dragons is the same thing as saying actual living dragons exist. Discussing Santa Claus is the same thing as saying an actual person with named Santa Claus exists. Discussing the boogeyman is the same thing as saying the boogeyman exists and is out to get you. Discussing Zeus is the same thing as saying the ancient greek god Zeus exists and actually blasted people with thunderbolts. Discussing the flying purple people eater is the same as saying the flying purple people eater exists, and is therefore something people should worry about. Discussing Superman is the same as saying Superman exists, and by inference Krypton and all the rest.

The logic is exactly the same. And in every case, it's WRONG. Discussing a premise is not the same as accepting a premise is true. A premise is a statement about an object. I can acknowledge the existence of the premise while denying its validity, VERY easily.

Do you not get why discussing God as a concept does not in ANY way say ANYTHING about whether God exists or not? The concept of God is a separate thing from the object God.

At this point, I think you are just being deliberately obtuse because you cannot bear to admit you are in error errer.


FTFY
 
2008-02-03 05:01:01 AM
Samsaran: Archie_Steel
Samsaran: The spirals in my morning coffee resemble spiral galaxies not by coincidence but because the same forces are at work in both.

Not really. Gravity is responsible for the patterns of stars in a galaxy. Gravity has no real effect on the movement of milk in your coffee.

Ok, now I'm *really* going to bed. Peace to you all.

Heh. His physics is as sketchy as his metaphysics.


No actually it isn't. The swirling of your coffee is due mainly to the angular momentum of the coffee as it is being poured. It's way too small for the coriolis forces to influence, they are dwarfed by direct forces being applied.
 
2008-02-03 05:01:50 AM
Hector Remarkable: strafe: Cerebral Ballsy: strafe: Cerebral Ballsy: strafe: Oh man I thought the thread was dying out finally.

I know. I missed all the real fun. And the con jobs upthread.

You didn't really miss anything. It's not like anybody won.

Every day that I dance on God's grave and tell him to come get me if he doesn't like it is another day I've won. I'm still waiting for him to claim revenge for those pesky humans who killed his own son.

Humans 1 God 0

Wait for it.....

What, the score to change in the last inning?


Baseball? Holy crap no wonder I'm so confused. I thought we were playing something else.
 
2008-02-03 05:02:53 AM
Hector Remarkable: KiltedBastich:
At this point, I think you are just being deliberately obtuse because you cannot bear to admit you are in error errer.

FTFY


rotsky much?
 
2008-02-03 05:04:47 AM
I'm am getting sick of this debate, I am not a religious person myself, but to slam everyone that's religious is pure lunacy. I have seen Christians do many many great things for their fellow man without preaching to them or expecting any money from them, in fact they even helped my family out when our house burned down, never came to our door trying to convert us to Jesus or anything, it is just appalling at the hate that is directed at the rational, peace loving branch of all religions, it is the extremists that deserve such ire, not the majority. End of rant, it will self destruct in 0 ten hundred hours zulu time
 
2008-02-03 05:05:47 AM
KiltedBastich: Hector Remarkable: KiltedBastich:
At this point, I think you are just being deliberately obtuse because you cannot bear to admit you are in error errer.

FTFY

rotsky much mutch?


/my God commands me
 
2008-02-03 05:06:00 AM
Cerebral Ballsy
Samsaran: Wow are you really so full of yourself to think that no one could sincerely disagree with you?

Wow, I never said that. For starters, I vehemently disagree with Tats about almost every aspect of religion, yet, I don't think he's a troll.

In fact.. you're the only person in this thread that I've mentioned is a troll. Do you think you are "every person who disagrees with me"?


You no doubt are basing that statement on my profile. Well, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion of you is that your are the poster child for the mean spirited, close minded, smug and self-centered Fark atheist. I do not doubt that you would take issue with that profile. It describes you in detail even though I have never, to my knowledge, ever corresponded with you on this board. I put a throw away email address in the profile figuring I would get some interesting hate mail. Instead I have received hundreds of emails from folks who agree with my comments and very few from folks like you.

I was positively amazed at the amount of interest that profile has generated since I wrote it four months ago. It has been quoted in dozens of threads and has received almost 18,000 hits in sixteen weeks. Apparently I am not alone in my opinion of this forum or Farkers such as yourself.
 
2008-02-03 05:06:07 AM
Update: I'm still here.
 
2008-02-03 05:07:43 AM
ah3133: Cerebral Ballsy:
If I'm wrong may Goooood strike me down and make me and other atheists stop posting on Fark!

I hope God is listening.


Evidently he's not. Still, very christian of you to hope another living human being is struck dead for not sharing your mythology. Surely you believe in my Pink Unicorn who sits upon my shoulder and raises folks from the dead? I mean, since the concept exists, the object must exist as well.
 
2008-02-03 05:09:10 AM
Samsaran: Cerebral Ballsy
Samsaran: Wow are you really so full of yourself to think that no one could sincerely disagree with you?

Wow, I never said that. For starters, I vehemently disagree with Tats about almost every aspect of religion, yet, I don't think he's a troll.

In fact.. you're the only person in this thread that I've mentioned is a troll. Do you think you are "every person who disagrees with me"?


You no doubt are basing that statement on my profile. Well, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion of you is that your are the poster child for the mean spirited, close minded, smug and self-centered Fark atheist. I do not doubt that you would take issue with that profile. It describes you in detail even though I have never, to my knowledge, ever corresponded with you on this board. I put a throw away email address in the profile figuring I would get some interesting hate mail. Instead I have received hundreds of emails from folks who agree with my comments and very few from folks like you.

I was positively amazed at the amount of interest that profile has generated since I wrote it four months ago. It has been quoted in dozens of threads and has received almost 18,000 hits in sixteen weeks. Apparently I am not alone in my opinion of this forum or Farkers such as yourself.


There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

/of course it's intentional.
 
2008-02-03 05:09:42 AM
ah3133:
The axiomatic statement is not the attributes of the swan. The axiomatic statement is the fact that there is a swan toward which attributes can be applied. You cannot make a describe a swan without implicitly assuming the existence of a swan which can be described. If that description is to say that the swan doesn't exist, then you have made a statement which is self-contradictory.


Wow. Fail, again, and you've made the same error. Are you really former Cowboys coach Dave Campo? Because he never learned from his mistakes, either.

I can easily describe a swan that does not exist -- I say there's a swan that's purple with polka dots and has seven heads. I've described it -- but it doesn't exist, and describing it doesn't make it exist. It is simply not true that there is or ever will be a seven-headed purple polka dot swan.

It's not self contradictory to describe such a fictional swan. I can even describe a swan whose principal feature is that it doesn't exist. That's not self contradictory -- it's just a description of a concept that I can hold in my head and use to talk about things. I can apply logic to that concept, and use that process to find new concepts. But the concept is completely different than the reality.

But please, by all means, keep using the same failed argument, because maybe if you keep repeating it, it'll work one of these times.

Goodnight.
 
2008-02-03 05:10:50 AM
Cerebral Ballsy: Update: I'm still here.

Humans 2 God 0. Is there a half time show?
 
2008-02-03 05:11:06 AM
Samsaran: You no doubt are basing that statement on my profile.

No, in case you can't remember, I've had wasted-time conversations with you before.

I know I'm smug, mean-spirited and self-centered, especially when I'm logged on in relative anonymity and I can say what I want without pissing my friends and family off.

But closed-minded? No. I used to be a Christian. I simply realized one day that not once have I ever seen any proof of God. My life has not changed one bit for the worse since I've made that realization. There's simply no benefit, unless you count networking at church as a benefit of belief.
 
2008-02-03 05:13:27 AM
Bender The Offender: ah3133: Cerebral Ballsy:
If I'm wrong may Goooood strike me down and make me and other atheists stop posting on Fark!

I hope God is listening.

Evidently he's not. Still, very christian of you to hope another living human being is struck dead for not sharing your mythology. Surely you believe in my Pink Unicorn who sits upon my shoulder and raises folks from the dead? I mean, since the concept exists, the object must exist as well.


Meh. I took him to mean that he hopes God hears me and makes all atheists stop posting on Fark.
 
2008-02-03 05:14:44 AM
I can't keep up with all these Gods. I propose the meatier posters of this thread meet at the crux of the Christian apocalypse - perhaps during the thirty minutes of silence referenced in Revelations. If that happens, I will give all the Christians lollipops, but the athiests get none. However, if we're all just sitting around like a bunch of idiots typing away on some infernal contraption, well, I will buy TotalFark subscriptions for all!
 
Displayed 50 of 943 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report