Why Atheists and the Religous are Both Wrong

Ask your question Frank and I will answer it.

Just so you know, I love it when you do that 'assumed sense of superiority' and 'I'm laughing at you' thing along with your inability to take criticism of your argumentation as anything other than a personal attack. The fact that you have to say it rather than be happy knowing it tells me much.

 

We've already gone through this, William...a couple of times.

It is "questions" (two of them) not question. You know what they are.

Answer them or continue to avoid them.

Okay...so you love it. As I love what you are doing.

Further evidence that we are in a win/win situation.

The fact that you are doing that same thing tells just as much.

We're both getting a kick out of this.

I trust you are smiling as broadly as I am.

 

Frank, I invited you to ask your question, you declined, I am a reasonable person so, if you have a question ask it.

The most amusing thing is that I just read back through this thread and it pretty much went exactly as I predicted and expected.

 

It is not "a question"...there are two questions.

When you are prepared to answer them...let me know.

There ya go. You are amused by the discussion and I am amused by the discussion.

Definitely a win/win situation.

 

The arguments I'm making have nothing directly to do with exactly what you believe, it has to do with which word the English language uses to describe it. I am not pretending to know what you think better than you do.

It's not a matter of what *I* define you as, it's a matter of what the word means. You are what you are, definitions do not change that, definitions are only relevant to how we describe it.

Ok, I should point out that one of those sites also acknowledge the definition "A person who rejects belief that any deities exist (whether or not that person believes that deities do not exist)" and that one has an active comment section which suggest usage is different to that dictionary (of course, comment sections aren't conclusive, in fact, not even dictionaries are, but it does suggest that usage is more diverse than that dictionary manages to describe). But other than that, this is a more interesting argument.

Words are defined by usage. Dictionaries attempt to describe this. While the dictionaries that say your thing are valid arguments, they are drowned out by the ones that say both.

I cannot stress enough though, that when there is disagreement in what a word means, it should be avoided in favour of explaining exactly what one means.

 

I agree...which is what I have done.

I certainly have defined MY agnosticism.

I acknowledge that there are (at least) two types of "atheists"...the "strong" atheist and the "weak" atheist.

The strong atheist denies the existence of any gods. Usually, it is an assertion, "No gods of any kind exist."

The weak atheist is more circumspect. Some weak atheists cannot be distinguished from someone identifying as an agnostic...while others are a bit more clear. Some weak atheists simply acknowledge a lack of belief in any gods...some go that extra step and indicate a "belief" that although they do not know there are no gods (and do not assert there are no gods)...they feel the evidence available indicates it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Essentially strong atheism is a "belief" category. The strong atheist BELIEVES (or guesses) that no gods exist.

The weak atheist who goes beyond "I lack a belief that there are gods"...comes so close to the edge of belief...as to be a "believer."

I also have described what I mean by my use of the word "god" or "gods."

So???

 

?So wait, God IS dead? and Mick Jagger really IS the Devil?

And Freddie Mercury was the Virgin Mary?

 

Until it sinks in that you twist things in an obviously illogical attempt to prove yourself correct?

THAT won't happen.

You don't think you have any obligation to prove my booga booga wonka doesn't exist but you insist I have an obligation to prove someone's imaginary godsy thing doesn't exist?

Oh, you can't be challenged but everyone else should be ....NOW I get it ...

 

I am NOT incorrect.

If you make an assertion...the burden of proof for that assertion falls on you. If you cannot see that, not much that can be done.

What won't happen?

I am saying that anyone who makes an assertion has to substantiate that assertion. If you assert that no gods exist...you have an obligation to substantiate it.

I have NOT made any assertions about any booga booga wonkas.

You should be able to grasp that by now. I wish you luck in that.

No...that is not what is being said. So...you do NOT GET IT.

 

I claim that the Christian God as written does not exist. This claim is substantiated by the impossibilities written concerning its actions, the massive edits throughout time to attempt correcting this, the lack of agreement amongst those championing its reality and the ever changing persona found in its face, as well as its place as one of the other thousands of Gods that generally suffer the same inconsistency of reality.

Now, for those who claim it to be real....your turn.

 

Bolded in blue above mine for showing total FLIP FLOP.


SHOW me the LAW that says "if someone makes something up (god or gods) everyone who doesn't agree MUST BY LAW prove them wrong...""""


YOU have NOT been able to prove booga booga wonkas don't exist so , according to YOU, they do.

 

They are probably not guessing!

 

Following your logic there is no way to come to the conclusion that it is more likely that there is no Easter Bunny than there is at least one. Try substituting Easter Bunny or Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other totally imaginary entity in your logic to see just how flawed that thinking process is.

 

There is no flip flop there.

Anyone who makes an assertion...bears the burden of proof for that assertion.

If you are unable to get that...perhaps this discussion is not for you.

If you are in a debate or discussion...and you make an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on you.

If you are unable to get that...that is your problem.

That is an absurd statement.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone asserting that there are no gods...IS guessing.

 

If anyone asserts that gods do not exist...they are asserting a guess...A BLIND GUESS.

If you want to start with the ASSUMPTION that gods are imaginary entities...do it. But don't for one second suppose you are being logical.

IF this thing we humans call "the universe" IS a creation (something we do not know)...then it implies a creator.

IF this thing we humans call "the univere" IS NOT a creation (something we do not know)...then no creator is implied.

If you want to discuss Easter Bunnies or Tooth Fairies...start a discussion with a toddler...or a fellow atheist. Both are absorbed by Easter Bunnies and Tooth Fairies.

 

^^^^lol, see?^^^

Can't address the analogy because it shows how absurd his argument is.

 

Anyone asserting there are no booga booga wonkas is guessing.

Anyone asserting there is no Easter Bunny is guessing.

 

Be patient. Frank is about to publish his peer reviewed paper refuting Bayes Theorem for all the world to see.

 

On the contrary, it's plenty deniable by anyone with a conscience.

 

Frank is an agnostic trying to help you guys how to debate logically. And I must say he has some pretty good points even though I disagree with him about whether God exists.

- - - Updated - - -

Frank is an agnostic trying to help you guys how to debate logically. And I must say he has some pretty good points even though I disagree with him about whether God exists.

 

I assert there is no santa claus. But I can't prove it.

 

It is bad enough using etymology and dictionary definitions of words to try to define yourself into a winning position but, it is low rent to use them to tell other people what they think. I'm with you, it is far more honest to ask people what they think and argue that than just keep shadow boxing a straw man while pretending that you have hit a philosophical home run.

 

Patently not so. You were asked this question here in this very thread...

and you initially responded evasively like this...

CJ responded like this, spotting your obvious evasion (You could easily have answered at this stage by just saying why you use 'god' and then defining that but, for your own reasons you chose not to)...

So, several posts later you choke something up but, again being very evasive...

CJ offered you this, I suspect as a starting point for you to actually define exactly what you mean...

And you evaded again...

This is no surprise to me Frank because we had an exchange elsewhere where it took over 800 posts in a thread for you to choke up a definition of 'gods' and when you did, it became apparent that you were arguing a definition of 'gods' that no one else in the thread was using but, you continued to do exactly what you are doing here regardless of being exposed.

So, don't claim to be transparent in your use of words because you are not. Your whole evangelical agnostic position is predicated on persistently misusing words and repetition of dogma, it is a religion in that sense which is probably why religious people don't appear to have so many problems with your shtick. In fact, you appear to believe that being fast and loose with words is a positive virtue...

Except when you want to make an inane point about the origins of the word atheist at which point you become very particular.

When you have your question ready Frank go ahead and ask it and I will grant you the courtesy of answering it without evasion even if you cannot do that with your own responses to posts.

 

Unfortunately, the one good point that he makes regarding 'ignorance' is lost in a sea of special pleading, misdirection and an inability to move beyond the dogmatic position adopted. It is clearly more important for the poster to feel right and superior about something very narrow than it is to have a discussion so, I don't. No one should be under any illusions about that.