International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Religion and Philosophy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   When Does Religion Become Just Silly? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341273)

Darat 18th January 2020 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958009)
Is this because you know (rather than believe) that there are no gods?



If so, I'm sure that the world is eagerly awaiting your proof of the negative.

Serious question do you believe a gildflopit exists or it is possible one exists?

Because that is the question you are actually asking when you stop defining god as a religious believer does. The label is absolutely meaningless.

I am 100% certain the god the RCers believe in doesn't exist.
I am 100% certain the god the CofErs believe in doesn't exist.
I am 100% certain the god the Sunnis believe in doesn't exist.
I am 100% certain the god the Orthodox Jews believe in doesn't exist.

Which god that the religious actually hold exists do you think we can't be 100% doesn't exist?

JoeMorgue 18th January 2020 06:38 AM

DO NOT GO DOWN THE GODDAMN RABBIT HOLE.

Stop letting "Believers" drag us down into this "Okay but let's all stop the conversation and define exactly the positive/negative point of our opinion POVs."

It's meaningless argumentative nonsense we don't have in literally any other discussion because it's not necessary.

I've said this a dozen times now. We've walked into the room and are discussing whether or not there is a chair in the room.

It's "Is there a chair or not?"

There's no stupid questions about "Do I positively believe there is a chair in the room or negatively believe that there is not a chair in the room? Am I chairnostic? What is the exact percentage point of absolute metaphysical certainty I have to achieve before I can say the chair exists? Have we considered all possible hypothetical chairs that might be literally made of special pleadings as to why we can't see it?"

Everybody is allowed to just go "Here's my opinion as to whether or not there is a chair in the room" and leave it at that and nobody, nobody, runs in demanding clarification of type of opinion or degree of opinion or positive versus negative or weak vs strong opinions because that's just goddamn stupid.

And those questions SHOULD NOT be in this discussion either because they are sealioning stalling. Theology is Bobbing with a history and pretensions.

The giant invisible sky wizard is not different or special so that the very concept of "My opinion as to its existence" has to have an entirely new language, argumentative structure, and very concept of "opinion" applied to it. And no before anyone tries you cannot special plead a reason why special pleading is okay when talking about God.

*Very slowly* People who believe in God or who are obsessed with apologetics about God do not get to force the rest of us to have a conversation tailor made for them to stall it out forever so they never lose.

abaddon 18th January 2020 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12957111)
Sure, the existing religious answers seem implausible - even if we assume somebody is reading the religious texts correctly.

That doesn't mean that "no gods" is the correct answer. Even the atheists on this forum stop short of saying that.

Demonstrate an actual god and I will believe in it. You won't because you can't.

Of the countless thousands of claimed deities, not a single one has been demonstrated, ever.

It may amuse you to take a contrarian position. If so, which god has been demonstrated and when. Knock yourself out.

figarot 18th January 2020 10:28 AM

RE: Why would a God allow a child to be raped, or have bad things happen to good people, not intervene etc.

Back when I was a child and believed much of the Bible that question was answered to my satisfaction with the story from the New Testament where Satan tells Jesus that were mankind left to our own devices that we would turn from God. Jesus disagreed and the two of them had something akin to a wager, with Jesus saying God would no longer intervene, only observe. It's the same story (not read it in years) where I believe Satan tempts Jesus, or asks him to throw himself off a mountain...

I stopped believing long ago but am always riled when the question comes up as to why God would not intervene when someone is raped as that story made the why very clear to me.

Steve 18th January 2020 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958079)
It makes all the difference in the world. Either you know that there are no gods or you believe that there are no gods. You can't weasel out of this by trying to change your unequivocal declaration into "lack of belief".

If you know that there are no gods then you must have proof. Otherwise, this when it becomes silly.

Easy there big boy. You are getting way too emotional about this. I am willing to read your explanation of how having a lack of belief in something that does not exist is in any way “weaseling”.

psionl0 18th January 2020 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12958190)
Serious question do you believe a gildflopit exists or it is possible one exists?

I just dealt with Russell's tea pot. Why are you bringing it up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12958190)
Because that is the question you are actually asking when you stop defining god as a religious believer does. The label is absolutely meaningless.

Nonsense. If you say that there are no gods then that means that you are saying that all gods don't exist. It would be the height of silliness to think that naming a god that doesn't exist bolsters your argument in any manner.

JoeMorgue 18th January 2020 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958652)
I just dealt with Russell's tea pot. Why are you bringing it up again.

Because you didn't deal with it. You just went "God is different because of //mumble mumble reasons mumble mumble//"

Again this insane metadiscussion about "types of beliefs/opinions" that people demand we have on top of the God discussion is just special pleading.

psionl0 18th January 2020 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12958720)
Because you didn't deal with it. You just went "God is different because of //mumble mumble reasons mumble mumble//"

What a liar making up things person you are! You won't find any of those words in my posts in this thread.

JoeMorgue 18th January 2020 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958722)
What a liar making up things person you are! You won't find any of those words in my posts in this thread.

Ease up and calm down there buckaroo.

JoeMorgue 18th January 2020 06:01 PM

But again I stand behind my broad point.

Meta-discussions about the discussion are admissions that the God bothers; both the believers and the apologist, both don't have a solid argument and sort of know it.

Which is why I refuse to play this game anymore and encourage others to do the same.

We're standing in a room with no chair. One side is saying there is no chair, the other side is still screaming that there is.

Present your goddamn evidence for the chair or shutup.

The Atheist 18th January 2020 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958652)
If you say that there are no gods then that means that you are saying that all gods don't exist.

And next up: why we can't completely deny antivaxer points, why climate scepticism is valid, and the Holocaust may not have happened after all.

psionl0 18th January 2020 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12958726)
But again I stand behind my broad point.

Which is what? That it is easier to refute an argument if you make up an entirely different argument and falsely attribute it to the arguer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12958726)
We're standing in a room with no chair. One side is saying there is no chair, the other side is still screaming that there is.

Which is another example of how silly this can get. We are not in a confined space which can be fully explored within minutes.

Steve 18th January 2020 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12958723)
Ease up and calm down there buckaroo.

People can get quite emotional about their gods.

JoeMorgue 18th January 2020 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958760)
Which is another example of how silly this can get. We are not in a confined space which can be fully explored within minutes.

It's not my fault you've built your God out of special pleadings, nor is it my responsibility to tailor my arguments to them.

When you're ready to discuss the existence of God like we discuss the existence of literally everything else I will be waiting. Until then I will not consider your arguments to be in good faith. Huffy anger will not change my mind.

And again I encourage everyone else to do the same. We've let the believers/apologist trap us in the nested meta-discussion for too long.

psionl0 18th January 2020 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12958786)
Until then I will not consider your arguments the arguments that I make up and falsely attribute to you to be in good faith.

ftfy.

Steve 18th January 2020 08:39 PM

I present this entire last page as one answer to the question asked in the OP. It is silly enough that the Python crew would appreciate it.

abaddon 18th January 2020 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958826)
Nobody is even reading (let alone addressing) my argument.

I should expect that from people who think that having sex with children is ok.

People like the religious?

Steve 18th January 2020 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12958864)
People like the religious?

That too. :thumbsup:

psionl0 18th January 2020 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12958855)
It has nothing to do with the non-existence of gods.

Are we back to that argument again or are we still dealing with the argument that Joe changed it to ("God is different because . . . .")?

Steve 18th January 2020 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958880)
Are we back to that argument again or are we still dealing with the argument that Joe changed it to ("God is different because . . . .")?

I don’t know. You tell me. Your post that I quoted said nothing about gods or Joe.

psionl0 18th January 2020 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12958890)
Your post that I quoted said nothing about gods or Joe.

Neither did you in that post.

Steve 18th January 2020 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958913)
Neither did you in that post.

Which post?

Darat 19th January 2020 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958652)
I just dealt with Russell's tea pot. Why are you bringing it up again.

That question is not a teapot question. Read it again.


Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12958652)
I

Nonsense. If you say that there are no gods then that means that you are saying that all gods don't exist. It would be the height of silliness to think that naming a god that doesn't exist bolsters your argument in any manner.

The word god has to be defined if one wants to ask does one exists or not. You are not providing a definition so you are the one who is asking a question that is as meaningless as "Does a goobbledut exist?"

psionl0 19th January 2020 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12959099)
The word god has to be defined if one wants to ask does one exists or not. You are not providing a definition so you are the one who is asking a question that is as meaningless as "Does a goobbledut exist?"

If you want "god" defined "as a religious believer does" then yes, that is one of the god(s) that atheists say doesn't exist.

Darat 19th January 2020 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12959176)
If you want "god" defined "as a religious believer does" then yes, that is one of the god(s) that atheists say doesn't exist.

Again that is not a definition, people who believe in a god or gods have very different definitions for that label.

JoeMorgue 19th January 2020 11:14 AM

Funny. In every other discussion we already have decided what we're talking about before we talk about it.

Again God doesn't require his own special kind of discussion with completely new and different rules.

Is there a chair in the room or not? If we don't agree on what a chair is, then the chair doesn't exist until the people claiming/apologecting (that needs to be a word) for the chair define what chair they are claiming exists and provide their evidence for the chair, not play a rousing game of "How about the people I'm disagreeing with define the thing I'm saying exists." You don't get to argue for the existence of some hypothetical chair to be named later after you finally get around to making up an argument/apologetic for it.

Where is the evidence there is a (defined) chair in the room? Tolerate no other argument.

ynot 19th January 2020 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12959268)
Funny. In every other discussion we already have decided what we're talking about before we talk about it.

Again God doesn't require his own special kind of discussion with completely new and different rules.

Is there a chair in the room or not? If we don't agree on what a chair is, then the chair doesn't exist until the people claiming/apologecting (that needs to be a word) for the chair define what chair they are claiming exists and provide their evidence for the chair, not play a rousing game of "How about the people I'm disagreeing with define the thing I'm saying exists." You don't get to argue for the existence of some hypothetical chair to be named later after you finally get around to making up an argument/apologetic for it.

Where is the evidence there is a (defined) chair in the room? Tolerate no other argument.

GOOD NEWS! - Chair does exist! Chair has always existed. Chair is eternal. Chair is the creator of all chairs. Chair is supernatural and magical and does miracles. You can’t see chair because you don’t believe in Chair. If you really, really, really believe in Chair, and have strong, strong, strong faith in Chair, you will see Chair. Chair loves you (but only if you love Chair first). You need to stop being a nasty aChairist.

Steve 19th January 2020 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12959401)
GOOD NEWS! - Chair does exist! Chair has always existed. Chair is eternal. Chair is the creator of all chairs. Chair is supernatural and magical and does miracles. You can’t see chair because you don’t believe in Chair. If you really, really, really believe in Chair, and have strong, strong, strong faith in Chair, you will see Chair. Chair loves you (but only if you love Chair first). You need to stop being a nasty aChairist.

Chairs are useful. Gods are not.

psionl0 19th January 2020 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12959236)
Again that is not a definition, people who believe in a god or gods have very different definitions for that label.

So?

psionl0 19th January 2020 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12959268)
Is there a chair in the room or not?

There are lots of buildings in the world and each building has lots of rooms. Have you explored them all yet?

Darat 20th January 2020 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12959642)
So?

So the word means different things to different people so unless you tell us what you mean by god you are not expressing anything with meaning.

psionl0 20th January 2020 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12959943)
So the word means different things to different people so unless you tell us what you mean by god you are not expressing anything with meaning.

I don't understand. How is saying that there is no Abrahamic God more meaningful than saying that there are no gods?

Darat 20th January 2020 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12959951)
I don't understand. How is saying that there is no Abrahamic God more meaningful than saying that there are no gods?

Because god as the word is used can refer to a myriad of different things, there is no definition of god that covers all the gods people believe in. Therefore if one asks "Does god exist?" without a definition of god in that question the question becomes nothing more than (and this is at best) "Does something exist?" Which of course is a pretty useless question.

JoeMorgue 20th January 2020 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12959644)
There are lots of buildings in the world and each building has lots of rooms. Have you explored them all yet?

You're a grown person. You know what burden of proof is.

There is no "Chair in the Gaps."

Again I will reject and call out all arguments for God what would be laughed out of the room if anyone tried them in any other circumstances and "Have you turned over ever atom in the universe yet to check?" is certainly one of those.

Where is your evidence for (meaningfully defined, not one built out of special pleadings) God?

psionl0 20th January 2020 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12959974)
Because god as the word is used can refer to a myriad of different things, there is no definition of god that covers all the gods people believe in. Therefore if one asks "Does god exist?" without a definition of god in that question the question becomes nothing more than (and this is at best) "Does something exist?" Which of course is a pretty useless question.

You are still not making sense. "God" is not such a vague word that without a formal definition, people would start calling tadpoles "god".

I'm beginning to suspect that you have another agenda on your mind.

psionl0 20th January 2020 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12960003)
You're a grown person. You know what burden of proof is.

Yes, but do you?

If you say "I believe that there are no gods" then there is nothing to prove. But if you say (authoritatively) "there are no gods" then the burden falls upon you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12960003)
Where is your evidence for (meaningfully defined, not one built out of special pleadings) God?

There is no gaps between the atoms or anything like that. Just a fundamental issue.

In the past, an unbeliever could simply say "the universe was not created - it has always existed". However, since the big bang theory, it is evident that the universe has an origin. With no way to determine the nature of that origin, nothing can be ruled out.

Of course, that's not the silliness. It is believing that your opinion is an undisputable fact.

Darat 20th January 2020 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960196)
You are still not making sense. "God" is not such a vague word that without a formal definition, people would start calling tadpoles "god".



I'm beginning to suspect that you have another agenda on your mind.

Then please share the definition you are using.

psionl0 20th January 2020 10:22 AM

GOTO 241

JoeMorgue 20th January 2020 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960200)
Yes, but do you?

If you say "I believe that there are no gods" then there is nothing to prove. But if you say (authoritatively) "there are no gods" then the burden falls upon you.

Nonsense. Absolute, anti-intellectual, intellectually dishonest nonsense. And absolute, anti-intellectual, intellectually dishonest nonsense that's been refuted a billion times so it's not even original. You're not even special pleading you're just parroting the same old special pleading.

If we walk into a room and there's not chair in the room, I'm not being "authoritative" if I just go "There's no chair" and leave it at that. Again I'm had the talk a thousand times, not doing it again. You don't suffer an existential crisis whenever anyone says "X doesn't exist" when there is literally no presented evidence that it exists so don't waste my or your time pretending you just have to go through one here. Spare me the "OMG YOU CAN'T BE CERTAIN" routine it's old and stale.

I reject the "I don't believe in God" versus "There is no God" distinction as the special pleading it is, nothing more then a sad, transparent way to give people an "out."

God does not meet some special, unique kind of intellectual standard where, when after thousands of years not one shred or iota of evidence for him as been presented, requires people who don't pretend he's there to grovel and phrase everything passively aggressively, covered in ass-covering modifiers.

Where is your evidence for God? That's still the only question. Everything you say that isn't in response to that is dishonest. You grow more dishonest the longer you don't answer that question.

JoeMorgue 20th January 2020 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960225)

Yeah because you keep repeating the same old claptrap nonsense.

Again none of this is even new. It's the same old "Teach the Controversy, bUt hOw caN yoU bE sUuurree?" anti-intellectualism.

There's no chair in the room. There's no teapot orbiting Saturn. There's no invisible dragon in my garage.

It's not "I am of the opinion that I don't think there's a teapot orbiting Saturn, grovel, grovel, grovel, ass-covering, ass-covering, but I could be wrong" no matter how much you want it to be only when we're talking about God.

God doesn't get special slack in discussions and literally nothing you said even approaches anything that isn't just going "God is different and has to be discussed differently because I say so."


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.