Apostates versus converts

[Kafka]

Oh, horseshit AND bullshit.

One can simply say about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...I DO NOT KNOW.

And because that does not do that with all things one encounters that one does not know...DOES NOT INVALIDATE DOING SO.

I do not know who will win the next Super Bowl. NO ONE DOES. It is a mystery that is unknowable presently...but which will be knowable and KNOWN on the day after the next Super Bowl is contested. But I am going to make a guess on it...when I place my annual bets on the Super Bowl.

So either stop your bullshitting...or stop being offended when someone calls bullshit on your bullshit.

Once again, I'm the only one providing support for his position. You just rant and scream "bullshit". That's all you ever do.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Once again, I'm the only one providing support for his position. You just rant and scream "bullshit". That's all you ever do.

You want me to provide support for my position of, "I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"

Okay, if you insist.

Your honor, I would like to call the world's foremost authority on what poster Ross Dolan knows and does not know...Ross Dolan himself.

Mr. Dolan, as the world's foremost authority on what you know and do not know...I ask you, and please be as specific as possible when you answer: Do you KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

ROSS DOLAN: "No, I do not."

Are you certain of that?

ROSS DOLAN: "I am fucking certain."

Thank you.

I rest my case, Your Honor.

 

[Hume]

You want me to provide support for my position of, "I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"

Okay, if you insist.

Your honor, I would like to call the world's foremost authority on what poster Ross Dolan knows and does not know...Ross Dolan himself.

Mr. Dolan, as the world's foremost authority on what you know and do not know...I ask you, and please be as specific as possible when you answer: Do you KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

ROSS DOLAN: "No, I do not."

Are you certain of that?

ROSS DOLAN: "I am fucking certain."

Thank you.

I rest my case, Your Honor.

You are proud of your ignorance. Pathetic.

 

[Kafka]

You want me to provide support for my position of, "I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"

No I want you to explain to me how you test truth claims. The last time I asked your answer was akin to "I look at the truth claim and decide if I think it is true or not". That's insufficient.

I will ask you again: given that you will NEVER have perfect information on ANYTHING in the world, when you test the veracity of any given claim, are you consistently agnostic? Or do you bias your decision one way or the other but ultimately make a decision?

 

[Ross Dolan]

No I want you to explain to me how you test truth claims. The last time I asked your answer was akin to "I look at the truth claim and decide if I think it is true or not". That's insufficient.

I will ask you again: given that you will NEVER have perfect information on ANYTHING in the world, when you test the veracity of any given claim, are you consistently agnostic? Or do you bias your decision one way or the other but ultimately make a decision?

I decide on a case by case basis. MOST of the time, when discussing the true nature of the REALITY of existence, I just laugh at any claims such as, "There is at least one god involved" or "There are no gods involved."

You seem to think that to be inconsistent...that I should be doing something for all that I do for some...BECAUSE YOU SAY THAT IS WHAT YOU DO.

THAT is the reason I have asked you to assess (or test) this positive statement which I have seen made many times:

There are no gods.

So...test it...and let's see how that works out.

 

[Kafka]

Why do you so constantly charge people who disagree with you with being "uninformed" or "not understanding what you say?"

Only those people who demonstrably have no clue. It is abundantly clear based on your posts that you don't understand my position. Otherwise you would be able to answer the various questions I've asked but you have dodged.

So tell me, young man (or woman if you happen to be a woman)...are you actually saying that you DO NOT BELEIVE that it is more likely that there are no gods...than that there is at least one??? Are you actually saying that to your way of thinking it is just as likely (or more likely) that there is a god...as it is likely that there are no gods?

It is likely that there are no gods. It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god. It is more likely that there are no gods than that there are multiple gods. It is more likely that there are no gods than that there are any random number of gods. It is more likely that there are no gods than that there are several gods.

I've actually answered this tortured syntax question multiple times now. I've been 100% absolutely clear on all variants of however you wish to parse your question.

The fact that you will not accept it is not my problem. It is your problem.

Or how about this: There are people who assert, "There are no gods." (A POSITIVE CLAIM)

A universal negative which CANNOT be proven. Ergo it is a meaningless statement.

If you test that the way you say you test things (oh, so scientifically) and find that you cannot reject the null hypothesis of "there is a god".

See? I knew you didn't understand the point I've made now repeatedly. The null hypothesis is "no God". (Do you see the word "no" there?) That's what I'm testing against.

If you were actually following along you would have noted that since I literally say it every single time. And even then you got it wrong.

..do you then adopt the descriptor "theist?"

Try running that one, again, only properly worded.

 

[Kafka]

I decide on a case by case basis. MOST of the time, when discussing the true nature of the REALITY of existence, I just laugh at any claims such as, "There is at least one god involved" or "There are no gods involved."

You seem to think that to be inconsistent...that I should be doing something for all that I do for some...BECAUSE YOU SAY THAT IS WHAT YOU DO.

I don't expect you to be consistent on your verification of claims. Far from it. Those who have no training in hypothesis testing or philosophy can be expected to be as laissez faire about their epistemology as anyone.

But here's a way to better understand the question:

I claim there is an invisible micro elephant that lives in your refrigerator. Are you agnostic about the claim? Or do you simply fail to believe the claim?

You simply fail to believe me. Why would you believe me that there is such a thing just because I said it? BUT, you do NOT have perfect knowledge of all space in your refrigerator and this micro elephant is very small and invisible. How could you POSSIBLY decide whether the claim is true or false?

Ergo in order to be consistent with your epistemology you would be REQUIRED to be agnostic about the claim.

That would be fine. But you and I both know you wouldn't believe the claim just because someone made it.

That would mean you are doing EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING IN REGARDS TO THE CLAIM THAT GOD EXISTS.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Only those people who demonstrably have no clue. It is abundantly clear based on your posts that you don't understand my position. Otherwise you would be able to answer the various questions I've asked but you have dodged.

Bullshit. You use that tactic on way too many people to say that you are discriminate in its use. In any case, I do understand your position (your attempted rationalization). I simply think it is a bunch of bullshit...designed to pretend that your "atheism" is not based on "beliefs." (Blind guesses.)

You are not doing an especially efficient job of it.

It is likely that there are no gods. It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god. It is more likely that there are no gods than that there are multiple gods. It is more likely that there are no gods than that there are any random number of gods. It is more likely that there are no gods than that there are several gods.

Thank you for finally sharing your blind guesses about what is more likely than other blind guesses.

Did you use that test on those blind guesses that you claim you use with consistency?

I've actually answered this tortured syntax question multiple times now. I've been 100% absolutely clear on all variants of however you wish to parse your question.

Bullshit. If you had, I would have given you the same response I just gave.

The fact that you will not accept it is not my problem. It is your problem.

The only reason I do not accept it...is that it is bullshit. THAT, young man or woman, IS your problem.

A universal negative which CANNOT be proven. Ergo it is a meaningless statement.

If "there is a god" is a positive statement that can be tested in your "scientific" way...

...then "there are no gods" is also a positive statement that can be tested in your "scientific" way.

But apparently you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that.

Okay...no surprise there.

See? I knew you didn't understand the point I've made now repeatedly. The null hypothesis is "no God". (Do you see the word "no" there?) That's what I'm testing against.

Because you need that rationalization.

But let the null hypothesis be "there is a god" in order to test the assertion "there are no gods", the opposite side of that issue. C'mon...be consistent.

You won't do it, because you see the result of the attempt. It shows the bullshittedness of your argument.

If you were actually following along you would have noted that since I literally say it every single time. And even then you got it wrong.

I have been following you...and you are the one who has dug the hole...and are digging it even deeper.

I wonder why?

Try running that one, again, only properly worded.

It is worded just fine the way it is. But if you are having trouble with it, I will put it into other words.

If you tested the assertion, "There is a god" and determined that it cannot meet the "standards" of your test...and therefore have arrived at "therefore I am an atheist"...

...why not test the assertion, "There are no gods" (you will determine that it cannot meet the "standards" of your test)...and therefore should lead you to "therefore I am a theist. If you truly have any devotion to consistency.

N'est-ce pas?

I know you won't, Ob. You are a phony.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I don't expect you to be consistent on your verification of claims. Far from it. Those who have no training in hypothesis testing or philosophy can be expected to be as laissez faire about their epistemology as anyone.

But here's a way to better understand the question:

I claim there is an invisible micro elephant that lives in your refrigerator. Are you agnostic about the claim? Or do you simply fail to believe the claim?

I fail to believe all claims. I either KNOW them to be true or KNOW them to be false.

If you were to make that claim to me in a discussion such as we are having, I would simply indicate that I do know if the claim is true. I just cannot see invisible micro elephants. If we were not in a discussion as rigorous as this...I would laugh at you.

But you simply fail to believe me.

I do fail to "believe" you...mostly because I fail to "believe" almost all things. Additionally, I find you to be a bullshitter...so that provides additional motivation.

Why would you believe me that there is such a thing just because I said it? BUT, you do NOT have perfect knowledge of all space in your refrigerator and this micro elephant is very small and invisible. How could you POSSIBLY decide whether the claim is true or false?

What are you going on about? You asked a question of me...and didn't bother to wait for an answer. Instead, you fabricated an answer...and are poking holes in your fabrication.

Go back and see MY answer.

Ergo in order to be consistent with your epistemology you would be REQUIRED to be agnostic about the claim.

[/QUOTE]

Go back and read MY answer.

That would be fine. But you and I both know you wouldn't believe the claim just because someone made it.

Go back and read MY answer.

That would mean you are doing EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING IN REGARDS TO THE CLAIM THAT GOD EXISTS.

Go back and read MY answer.

 

[Kafka]

But let the null hypothesis be "there is a god" in order to test the assertion "there are no gods",

That is not standard procedure. Sure you can construct it that way but usually one tests against the null which is usually stated as "there is no effect from this treatment" or "there is no slope to this line", or "Not guilty". That's a proper null hypothesis.

And it simply tests the claim that there is a God.

Who would construct the claim "Provide evidence that there is no God"? That's like asking someone to prove a negative which is generally looked down upon. Not impossible but also not quite cricket.

the opposite side of that issue. C'mon...be consistent.

I have been 100% consistent and ALWAYS framed my debate point in terms of the null hypothesis of "no God" against which I test.

You would do well to actually read what has been written and respond to THAT rather than your misinterpretation.

You won't do it, because you see the result of the attempt. It shows the bullshittedness of your argument.

No, because it is a silly way to structure the debate. Remember, it is NOT up to me to provide evidence FOR the existence of God. It is up to those who claim such is a reasonable position to take. I merely observe the evidence on offer and decide.

I have been following you...and you are the one who has dug the hole...and are digging it even deeper.

You clearly misstated the null which was in direct contradiction to literally every single thing I've posted. Ergo it is unlikely you were following the debate.

...why not test the assertion, "There are no gods"

Because it's patently absurd. Why would I prove a universal negative?????? HOW could I prove it? It is unprovable.

I know you won't, Ob. You are a phony.

Except everything I've posted I have been able to muster actual third-party references which makes me more "real" than anything you've posted.

 

[Kafka]

I fail to believe all claims. I either KNOW them to be true or KNOW them to be false.

No you don't. You have imperfect knowledge. You could always be in error.

If you were to make that claim to me in a discussion such as we are having, I would simply indicate that I do know if the claim is true. I just cannot see invisible micro elephants. If we were not in a discussion as rigorous as this...I would laugh at you.

So you are perfectly agnostic.

Yet just above you claimed you would "know" if something was true.

 

[Ross Dolan]

That is not standard procedure. Sure you can construct it that way but usually one tests against the null which is usually stated as "there is no effect from this treatment" or "there is no slope to this line", or "Not guilty". That's a proper null hypothesis.

And it simply tests the claim that there is a God.

Who would construct the claim "Provide evidence that there is no God"? That's like asking someone to prove a negative which is generally looked down upon. Not impossible but also not quite cricket.

[/QUOTE]

TEST THE FUCKING ASSERTION, "THERE ARE NO GODS."

Then we can discuss where that leads you.

I have been 100% consistent and ALWAYS framed my debate point in terms of the null hypothesis of "no God" against which I test.

Well...I am saying you should test against the null hypothesis of "there is a God"...which would be appropriate if you are testing the assertion, "There are no gods."

Do it...or continue to duck it.

You would do well to actually read what has been written and respond to THAT rather than your misinterpretation.

No misinterpretation. You are trying to avoid that which destroys your argument. I don't blame you.

But that is all you are doing. Running away.

No, because it is a silly way to structure the debate. Remember, it is NOT up to me to provide evidence FOR the existence of God. It is up to those who claim such is a reasonable position to take. I merely observe the evidence on offer and decide.

C'mon. Anyone with a brain can see what you are doing here.

Test the assertion, "There are no gods"...and see where that leads you.

I do not expect you to do it. I expect you to keep running.

You clearly misstated the null which was in direct contradiction to literally every single thing I've posted. Ergo it is unlikely you were following the debate.

Test the fucking assertion, "There are no gods"...and let's see where that leads you.

Or...continue with this evasion. I'm actually enjoying it. I feel your pain.

Because it's patently absurd. Why would I prove a universal negative?????? HOW could I prove it? It is unprovable.

TEST IT!

There is no way you could prove the assertion "There is a GOD"...but you tested it. Bragged about testing it.

Except everything I've posted I have been able to muster actual third-party references which makes me more "real" than anything you've posted.

You are full of shit.

And I think even you are beginning to see that.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No you don't. You have imperfect knowledge. You could always be in error.

You are swimming in the deep end now. If you want to go back to the shallow end...do it.

So you are perfectly agnostic.

Yet just above you claimed you would "know" if something was true.

Yeah, I do claim that.

I claim that I know that in base 10...2 + 2 = 4.

Do you disagree?

 

[Kafka]

TEST THE FUCKING ASSERTION, "THERE ARE NO GODS."

How do I test a negative claim?

Well...I am saying you should test against the null hypothesis of "there is a God"

I don't believe I can simplify the reasons sufficiently for you why I am not held to proving a negative.

C'mon. Anyone with a brain can see what you are doing here.

I am not on the hook for proving a negative. Sorry. It's up to those making the positive claim to provide evidence for that positive claim.

Test the fucking assertion, "There are no gods"...and let's see where that leads you.

And, again, I am not on the hook to "prove a negative".

You are full of shit.

You are so angry. This is probably why you are unable to discuss this dispassionately. You are too angry and losing perspective.

 

[Kafka]

Yeah, I do claim that.

Excellent. So you are consistent.

You presumably are agnostic about santa claus and the tooth fairy as well.

Strange for an adult to admit but hey, it's cool you are consistent in your epistemology.

 

[Ross Dolan]

How do I test a negative claim?

How do you test a positive one?

And the assertion, "There are no gods" is a positive claim...every bit as positive as the assertion "There is a god."

And you know it. So stop trying to work around it.

I don't believe I can simplify the reasons sufficiently for you why I am not held to proving a negative.

This is not a negative. It is a positive assertion...that there are no gods.

In any case, are you of the erroneous assumption that you cannot prove a negative.

I am not on the hook for proving a negative. Sorry. It's up to those making the positive claim to provide evidence for that positive claim.

The positive claim is..."There are no gods."

Stop with the bullshit. You are not even fooling yourself.

And, again, I am not on the hook to "prove a negative".

The assertion, "There are no gods" is every bit as much a positive assertion as the assertion, "There is a god."

You are so angry. This is probably why you are unable to discuss this dispassionately. You are too angry and losing perspective.

Angry?

I am laughing my ass off. This is one of the most amusing prolonged discussions I have had in this forum.

You are amusing...not anger provoking.

 

[Kafka]

How do you test a positive one?

Let me explain the difference to you:

If you demand I prove there is NO GOD then you are asking me to see the entire universe at all points in time simultaneously in order to ensure God is not simply hiding.

The reason the null is phrased as it is is to ensure that one is testing the POSITIVE claim that there is a god. One tests AGAINST the null. (Like I said it is abundantly clear you are not following any of this conversation or I wouldn't have to keep explaining it to you ).

Asking me to prove the LACK of existence of something is MUCH, MUCH harder especially when it could be anywhere in the universe at any time. How could I possibly prove the LACK of existence.

IF, however the null is phrased as "No God" then the tests are to examine if there is evidence FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE. Which should be quite easy to do if God is real and has any impact on the real world. Does he do miracles? Does he consistently answer prayers? Does everyone have an objective experience of god in the same way? etc.

And the assertion, "There are no gods" is a positive claim.

No. No it is not. It is a negative claim. You can see it by the inclusion of the word "no" in your statement.

Seriously, you should know this stuff better. This is absurd.

This is not a negative. It is a positive assertion...that there are no gods.

Wow. Just wow.

In any case, are you of the erroneous assumption that you cannot prove a negative.

I never said I "cannot" prove a negative (please DO try to be honest about my points), but rather it is harder and usually not something people are responsible for.

If you think God exists it is up to you to provide evidence for the claim.

The positive claim is..."There are no gods."

Stop with the bullshit. You are not even fooling yourself.

You clearly have no clue on this subject.

The assertion, "There are no gods" is every bit as much a positive assertion as the assertion, "There is a god."

Keep chanting that. But it won't change the facts. Look at the word "no" in your claim. Do you think that might be key?

I am laughing my ass off. This is one of the most amusing prolonged discussions I have had in this forum.

You are amusing...not anger provoking.

You really aren't very sharp on this stuff. I suggest you do a bit of reading and then come back to it. Might hit up some of the many references I have provided. Might help you learn.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Let me explain the difference to you:

If you demand I prove there is NO GOD then you are asking me to see the entire universe at all points in time simultaneously in order to ensure God is not simply hiding.

The reason the null is phrased as it is is to ensure that one is testing the POSITIVE claim that there is a god. One tests AGAINST the null. (Like I said it is abundantly clear you are not following any of this conversation or I wouldn't have to keep explaining it to you ).

Asking me to prove the LACK of existence of something is MUCH, MUCH harder especially when it could be anywhere in the universe at any time. How could I possibly prove the LACK of existence.

IF, however the null is phrased as "No God" then the tests are to examine if there is evidence FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE. Which should be quite easy to do if God is real and has any impact on the real world. Does he do miracles? Does he consistently answer prayers? Does everyone have an objective experience of god in the same way? etc.



No. No it is not. It is a negative claim. You can see it by the inclusion of the word "no" in your statement.

Seriously, you should know this stuff better. This is absurd.




Wow. Just wow.




I never said I "cannot" prove a negative (please DO try to be honest about my points), but rather it is harder and usually not something people are responsible for.

If you think God exists it is up to you to provide evidence for the claim.

I have no guesses about the likelihood of whether any gods exist or not. YOU, on the other hand, do. Both of us acknowledge that we do not know if any exist or not...I acknowledge that I cannot make a meaningful guess about the likelihood in either direction...you, of the other hand, seem to think that you CAN make a meaningful blind guess on the issue...and you seem, ethically, unable to acknowledge that you cannot.

You have repeatedly claimed that you handle situations like this in a scientific way. (I suspect you more closely mean
in a formal logical way, but I allow for silly mistakes in discussions like this.)

I have given you a positive assertion to work with...THERE ARE NO GODS. It is a positive statement that necessarily has a negative word in its construction, so you erroneously want to insist it is a negative statement. It is not. It is a positive assertion about whether at least one god exists OR NOT.

For the record, it is not saying, "Show me proof that there is at least one god"...it is a formal, positive statement with all the intensity of the assertion, "There is a GOD." The fact that you are unable to see that (or unwilling to concede that) is besides the point. If you could handle (in a scientific way) the assertion, "there is a god"...you should be able to handle the assertion, "there are no gods" in that same way.

I am not asking for proof that there is no god...any more than I would be asking for proof that there is at least one god. There is no way one could "prove" there are no gods...any more than I would be able to prove there are no INVISIBLE mini elephants in my sock drawer.

I am asking for you to deal with the assertion, "There are no gods" with the same dispatch that you afforded your dealing with "There is a god." The reason you are not doing it has nothing to do with logic or any of that other bullshit you are trying to sell. The reason you are not doing it...has to do with the implications of the process...and what you laughingly said the process led you to do.

Stop trying to bullshit me, you are not nearly smart enough to get away with it. By now you should realize that.

By the way, I want to acknowledge a mistake I made earlier. When I read your first few posts here and in other threads, I convinced myself that you would be an excellent debate partner.

Big mistake on my part...serious fuck up. I acknowledge that. You are simply a bullshitter without the ethical wherewithal to make the concessions needed for a reasonable debate.

I will deal with the rest of your diatribe at some point in the future. First I want to deal with your response to what I have presented here.

Take your time. I realize I am dealing with someone not especially serious in you.