Theology Question

[Into Тhe Night]

It's still accepting ideas based on faith, not evidence. Twist it all you like.

1. I believe there are no gods.
2. I don't believe in any gods.

If you want to get technical, 1 and 2 are different statements. I've been saying 2, but you're accusing me of expressing 1. For the third time, I don't believe in any gods.

Yes, dear, I'm fully aware of Sagan's ideas and beliefs. I was a big fan of Cosmos back in the day and also of Dr. Sagan's fellow skeptic, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I'm not talking about the show Cosmos. I'm talking about his books, in which he talks about things that he couldn't on TV. Also, I can't stand Tyson. He's arrogant like you.

You strike me as a 30something who thinks he has all the answers. Amirite?

You strike me as a boomer who is afraid of death and needs the crutch of religion. Amirite?

The reason why I believe this is because your arguments are emotionally-based, not logically-based.

Acknowledging that there are no gods and that it's lights out when we die takes courage. You're the one grasping onto fairy tales because you're afraid of death. You're the one who's acting on emotion.

There is no logic to theism or to agnosticism. The question of whether or not gods exist isn't even justifiable, because there is nothing in our reality to justify asking such a question.

 

[Cypress]

Cool. Whatever. But atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. Does your atheism towards Zeus make you a commie? Of course not. It's absurd. So why would my atheism towards Yahweh make me a commie?

That's not what you said.

You said communism was strictly an economic system, period, end of story.

The Soviets and the Chinese Maoists modeled themselves on Marx. Marx fancied himself a social scientist, he promoted a strict theory of scientific materialism, and he specifically wrote about religion as oppressive and inconsistent with the communist vision.

That is precisely why Soviets and Maoists oppressed religion and made State atheism official public policy. It didn't happen just by accident.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

1. I believe there are no gods.
2. I don't believe in any gods.

If you want to get technical, 1 and 2 are different statements. I've been saying 2, but you're accusing me of expressing 1. For the third time, I don't believe in any gods.


I'm not talking about the show Cosmos. I'm talking about his books, in which he talks about things that he couldn't on TV. Also, I can't stand Tyson. He's arrogant like you.

You strike me as a boomer who is afraid of death and needs the crutch of religion. Amirite?

Acknowledging that there are no gods and that it's lights out when we die takes courage. You're the one grasping onto fairy tales because you're afraid of death. You're the one who's acting on emotion.

There is no logic to theism or to agnosticism. The question of whether or not gods exist isn't even justifiable, because there is nothing in our reality to justify asking such a question.

Key word "believe". Jesus fucking Christ, you really are young and stupid, ain'tcha, son? While you may be older, you still strike me as 30s stupid.

You think I'm arrogant but you haven't looked in a mirror lately. LOL

I'm not religious, moron, and have clearly faced death more often you. If you were smarter and less arrogantly stupid you'd know that is true. It's not only a reason why I think you are young but also that you are a sock of another young arrogant atheistic fucking moron with a chip on his shoulder.

Stupid is as stupid does...and you are clearly too stupid to realize your own mistakes.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It's needed because you people constantly misrepresent atheism. My lack of faith in Zeus, Jesus, and the rest is not a belief system.

I do not misrepresent atheism.

Frankly, I think it is a worthless descriptor. Atheists spend more time explaining what they mean by "I am an atheist" than making meaningful contributions to discussions.

Here is what I am with regard to this issue:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Now...without trying to use a descriptor to describe YOUR position...do what I just did. Actually describe your position.

 

[Ross Dolan]

There are no gods, so don't worry.

So you are saying that you KNOW there are no gods?

That is what you mean when you say you are an atheist?

Horseshit!

Your assertion that there are no gods is nothing but a blind guess. I do thank you for that, but don't try to make it anything more than that...a blind guess.

 

[Ross Dolan]

There is difference between "believe" and "don't believe." You're so desperate to depict non-belief as a belief that you play these absurdly transparent word games with yourself.

And the funniest part? You're quoting Carl Sagan, an atheist who has said the same things I'm telling you. Have you ever read his books? Damn.

Carl Sagan was NOT an atheist...and actually got angry when anyone suggested he was.

He was an agnostic.

 

[BidenPresident]

I do not misrepresent atheism.

Frankly, I think it is a worthless descriptor. Atheists spend more time explaining what they mean by "I am an atheist" than making meaningful contributions to discussions.

Here is what I am with regard to this issue:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Now...without trying to use a descriptor to describe YOUR position...do what I just did. Actually describe your position.

You cling to your ignorance.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You cling to your ignorance.

You seem to relish calling people ignorant.

I can assure you that I am not ignorant...or stupid. And several of the people I see you regularly call ignorant or stupid...seem to me not to be stupid or ignorant.

Get your ducks in a row. BP. Up your game.

 

[BidenPresident]

You seem to relish calling people ignorant.

I can assure you that I am not ignorant...or stupid. And several of the people I see you regularly call ignorant or stupid...seem to me not to be stupid or ignorant.

Get your ducks in a row. BP. Up your game.

I am more articulate than you. You keep reposting the same thing over and over. You never discuss your claims. It is rather boring.

 

[IBDaMann]

1. I believe there are no gods.
2. I don't believe in any gods.

If you want to get technical, 1 and 2 are different statements. I've been saying 2, but you're accusing me of expressing 1.

For the third time, I don't believe in any gods.

This is a very strong opening. Well done. Unfortunately you then make three egregious errors:

ERROR 1

Acknowledging that there are no gods and that it's lights out when we die takes courage.

You just claimed #1. You need to say that it takes courage to profess being/remaining unconvinced by any theism.

ERROR 2

There is no logic to theism or to agnosticism.

You are one of the many people who misunderstand the term "agnostic"...you think it means "to not know.". It does not.

An agnostic is a person who has taken a philosophical position on whether a certain set of beliefs is knowable. Two Christians who have full faith in the Christian God can nonetheless debate whether the existence of their God is knowable.

Your error here is in not recognizing that knowing and believing are separate and disjoint topics, that one does not believe what one knows and vice versa. Ergo, everyone who has a faith "does not know" and would otherwise have to be called an "agnostic" under your mistaken definition.

Additional Error: There is certainly logic to any philosophical position on what is knowable.

ERROR 3

The question of whether or not gods exist isn't even justifiable, because there is nothing in our reality to justify asking such a question.

Philosophy is not constrained to nature. You are conflating philosophy with science. Philosophy also addresses the supernatural and is the basis for religious doctrines.

 

[BidenPresident]

Philosophy also addresses the supernatural and is the basis for religious doctrines.

Cite one philosopher who addresses the supernatural.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I am more articulate than you. You keep reposting the same thing over and over.

There is no say you are more articulate than I.

I say the things I have to say. If you think I am just repeating myself...then that is what you think. Nothing I can do about that.

You never discuss your claims.

Of course I discuss them. Do you have some questions about what I post that you want answered? I will be happy to answer them...and ask some questions about your posts in return.

It is rather boring.

Hummm. This thread is the most interesting one in which I have participated since coming to JPP.

Sorry you are bored.

I am NOT.

 

[BidenPresident]

There is no say you are more articulate than I.

I say the things I have to say. If you think I am just repeating myself...then that is what you think. Nothing I can do about that.



Of course I discuss them. Do you have some questions about what I post that you want answered? I will be happy to answer them...and ask some questions about your posts in return.




Hummm. This thread is the most interesting one in which I have participated since coming to JPP.

Sorry you are bored.

I am NOT.

Ok.

 

[IBDaMann]

Cite one philosopher who addresses the supernatural.

Socrates, in his conversation with Euthyphro.

 

[BidenPresident]

Socrates, in his conversation with Euthyphro.

Yes, Socrates is a critic of the supernatural. Care to cite something from that dialogue which refutes that?

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, Socrates is a critic of the supernatural. Care to cite something from that dialogue which refutes that?

You just pivoted away from the discussion. Would you first acknowledge, and maybe even thank me for, the example that I provided, that you requested, of a philosopher addressing the supernatural?

 

[BidenPresident]

You just pivoted away from the discussion. Would you first acknowledge, and maybe even thank me for, the example that I provided, that you requested, of a philosopher addressing the supernatural?

You must be new to debate.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You must be new to debate.

He's not from around here.

 

[Melchizedek = Michael]

We are done. If you continue to harass people on this thread I will have you banned.

 

[BidenPresident]

View attachment 24872

troll