Voltaire and God

[Ross Dolan]

So nothing serious.

What makes you think the GIANTS season is not serious? It is a serious as a heart attack.

You reserve your "agnosticism" about God.

When I am in a discussion in an Internet forum that is titled, "Voltaire and God"...yeah.

I am also agnostic about lots of things that I prefer not to discuss with people I do not know well...or people like you that I have reservations about their integrity and truthfulness.

Is it so you don't feel like you are insulting God?

What god? Fuck any gods that are worshiped currently or previously...and fuck any gods that actually exist.

Okay?

 

[Mason 22]

That is, of course, if you blind guess that a "Holy Spirit" actually exists...rather than that it simply is a fantasy of yours to which you are wedded.

The usual answer from an atheist!

 

[Ross Dolan]

The usual answer from an atheist!

I am not an atheist.

But, other than guessing that a "Holy Spirit" actually exists...what else is there?

There is no way to verify that such a thing actually exists.

 

[Cypress]

This is all he has got, Cypress.

Ultimately it comes down to these items:



ONE: My take on the question of whether there are any gods or not.



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.)



I haven’t heard any presentation from any of these supposed atheists that comes even close to being as comprehensive or rational…nor have I seen any of them present a coherent argument to rebut any of those comments…or that improves any of them to any significant degree.



TWO: I am saying that the word “atheist” simply means too many different things to different people to be of any use in this kind of discussion. When someone says, “I am an atheist”…I have no idea of what they actually mean…which of the many different definitions apply. So, I have suggested it would be a better plan to actually for atheists to actually give a perspective of what they mean…rather than use a descriptor that can be misunderstood.





THREE: It has become obvious that just as theists cannot acknowledge that “There is a GOD” is nothing more than a guess…atheists cannot acknowledge that “There are no gods” or “It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…are nothing more than guesses.



People who identify as atheists want to pretend they are above the practices of theists.



THEY ARE NOT. And he is not going to deal with any of that stuff...because he can't.

You're right. Everyone seems to have invented their own definition of atheism, so as to render the word practically meaningless.

 

[Obtenebrator]

You're right. Everyone seems to have invented their own definition of atheism, so as to render the word practically meaningless.

 

[Hume]

You're right. Everyone seems to have invented their own definition of atheism, so as to render the word practically meaningless.

Only Christians obsess with atheism. They want their religion to be dominant.

 

[Cypress]

I'm not impressed by a chart some guy made on put on the internet.

 

[Obtenebrator]

I'm not impressed by a chart some guy made on put on the internet.

It was merely to show you that I am not simply "making this up" or that it is some sui generis designation.

If you like I believe the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also covers weak and strong atheism.

Assuming you have an interest in philosophy.

 

[Obtenebrator]

I am also agnostic about lots of things that I prefer not to discuss with people I do not know well

Like Santa Claus?

...or people like you that I have reservations about their integrity and truthfulness.

"integrity and truthfulness". At what point have I lied in this conversation? You may disagree with me, but that does not mean I'm lying.

What god? Fuck any gods that are worshiped currently or previously...and fuck any gods that actually exist.

Good for you. You have the blasphemy card out. Pretty brave for someone who claims he doesn't know if God is real or not.

 

[Cypress]

It was merely to show you that I am not simply "making this up" or that it is some sui generis designation.

If you like I believe the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also covers weak and strong atheism.

Assuming you have an interest in philosophy.

I didn't say anything about you making it up.

A chart some guy made is not a guide for how we are supposed to use language.

I was agreeing with Ross that atheists are all over the map.

You seem to be a 'religious' atheist who writes that your atheism is a path to spirituality.

Meanwhile Niftyniblick has the fortitude and integrity to stake his claim on atheism by asserting there is nothing real apart from subatomic particles, and our lives have no grander purpose or meaning in the grand scale of the universe

 

[Hume]

I didn't say anything about you making it up.

A chart some guy made is not a guide for how we are supposed to use language.

I was agreeing with Ross that atheists are all over the map. You seem to be a 'religious' atheist who writes that your atheism is a path to spirituality. Meanwhile Niftyniblick has the fortitude and integrity to stake his claim on atheism by asserting there is nothing real apart from subatomic particles, and our lives have no grander purpose or meaning in the grand scale of the universe

You are a religious fanatic. Nothing other than your views can be valid.

 

[Obtenebrator]

I didn't say anything about you making it up.

A chart some guy made is not a guide for how we are supposed to use language.

Again, I can't stress enough that this is standard language in philosophy for the types of atheism.

I was agreeing with Ross that atheists are all over the map.

Not really. For people who don't understand the topic and wish to compare it to the fractured nature of religion it might APPEAR so, but it's really pretty simple.

I honestly thought you had an interest in philosophy.

You seem to be a 'religious' atheist who writes that your atheism is a path to spirituality.

I believe I was quite clear on that: I NEVER said "path to spirituality". I said "Spiritual path". There's a difference.

Please be courteous enough to not misquote and then critique based on your failure to quote me correctly.

Meanwhile Niftyniblick has the fortitude and integrity to stake his claim on atheism by asserting there is nothing real apart from subatomic particles, and our lives have no grander purpose or meaning in the grand scale of the universe

I believe I've said much the same thing. But the difference is I'm aware of my limitations and that I could be mistaken.

I know that bothers you to no end, but it is the fact of the matter and I've supported not only my position but have explained it ad nauseam. Again, I thought you were interested in philosophy.

 

[Obtenebrator]

I was agreeing with Ross that atheists are all over the map.

Like all those Buddhist sects or Hindu sects you blather on about all the time.

Funny how you have disdain for atheists who wish to be precise but not for the endless litany of Eastern religions you post about all the time.

 

[Cypress]

Again, I can't stress enough that this is standard language in philosophy for the types of atheism.



Not really. For people who don't understand the topic and wish to compare it to the fractured nature of religion it might APPEAR so, but it's really pretty simple.

I honestly thought you had an interest in philosophy.



I believe I was quite clear on that: I NEVER said "path to spirituality". I said "Spiritual path". There's a difference.

Please be courteous enough to not misquote and then critique based on your failure to quote me correctly.




I believe I've said much the same thing. But the difference is I'm aware of my limitations and that I could be mistaken.

I know that bothers you to no end, but it is the fact of the matter and I've supported not only my position but have explained it ad nauseam. Again, I thought you were interested in philosophy.

Ross is right, you use the language of agnosticism and religion to define your atheism. And you seem noticeably reluctant to embrace the genuine atheism of physical materialism and reductionism that atheists like Niftyniblick and Richard Dawkins have the fortitude to stake their claim on

 

[Obtenebrator]

Ross is right, you use the language of agnosticism and religion to define your atheism.

Again, you are incorrect. The existence of "weak" and "strong" atheism has been quite well established in the philosophical community.

And you seem noticeably reluctant to embrace the genuine atheism of physical materialism and reductionism that atheists like Niftyniblick and Richard Dawkins have the fortitude to stake their claim on

I refuse to adopt YOUR made-up designation of what it means to be an atheist.

Just because you don't care about precision in your language or about philosophy in general does not make you the arbiter of what is or isn't atheism.

 

[Cypress]

You are a religious fanatic. Nothing other than your views can be valid.

One thing I always liked about Socrates is that he was dubious of people who expressed certainty of knowledge.

I think Socrates would have been annoyed by both christians and atheists.

 

[Cypress]

Again, you are incorrect. The existence of "weak" and "strong" atheism has been quite well established in the philosophical community.



I refuse to adopt YOUR made-up designation of what it means to be an atheist.

Just because you don't care about precision in your language or about philosophy in general does not make you the arbiter of what is or isn't atheism.

Oh no, is this about the point you start screaming at me in ALL CAPS rants, Perry?

 

[Hume]

One thing I always liked about Socrates is that he was dubious of people who expressed certainty of knowledge.

I think Socrates would have been annoyed by both christians and atheists.

Your obsession with atheists is weird. Why the concern?

 

[Obtenebrator]

Oh no, is this about the point you start screaming at me in ALL CAPS rants, Perry?

No, I'm just pointing out your errors. I understand that will upset you but I'm willing to take the risk.

If you are unable to discuss this because you are now on a hate-bender, please feel free to sit it out. Or you can address the actual topic rather than, as usual, turning it into a bunch of personal attacks on me.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It was merely to show you that I am not simply "making this up" or that it is some sui generis designation.

If you like I believe the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also covers weak and strong atheism.

Assuming you have an interest in philosophy.

Weak atheism is simply the hijacking of agnosticism by atheists without the guts to call themselves agnostics.

In any case, better to just state one's position than to use a descriptor that is ambiguous.

I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY GODS EXIST...and I am not an atheist.

I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS...and I am not a theist.

My take, which I have given several times, is an agnostic one.