The main issue with Christianity

[Saint Guinefort]

little anime pillow biters want war OK...come get some.

You don't know much about Asian cultures, do you?

 

[BidenPresident]

yeah, I know.

The key to peace on earth is uninteresting to military industrial complex shills such as yourself.

you are the problem.

You are nuts.

 

[Litmus]

You are nuts.

ok, psychopathic regime toady.

 

[BidenPresident]

ok:

back to ignore you jerkoff troll

 

[Litmus]

back to ignore you jerkoff troll

whatever, renfield.

 

[IBDaMann]

Frank, I'm going to use this post to pull us back to where we were. You misunderstood something and took us on a long detour, and although the scenery was interesting, I think we should get back to our discussion.

I will even consider a thorough description of HOW IT CAN BE DONE, if you can come up with that.

No, you will not consider such a description. You spent the past two posts explaining how you wouldn't even consider it. I was not arguing that there are no gods; I was showing you that knowability could be argued. You flatly rejected my explanation based on your denial of math. That effectively ended the discussion.

On that last point, if you acknowledge that math is not your strong suit, why would you get all bent out of shape at the suggestion that you independently research some aspect of math that you don't know, an aspect that happens to be the crux of the discussion? You had three options:

1. Take me on my word that the Incompleteness Theorem states what I claim, for the sake of discussion.
2. Independently research the Incompleteness Theorem, learn the proof and see for yourself that it states what I indicated.
3. Reject the Incompleteness Theorem and not perform any independent research.

You chose #3. That effectively ended that discussion. If you would ever like to reengage on this point, or if you have any questions about the Incompleteness Theorem, I will be more than happy to answer your questions and/or point you in the right direction so you can research all you wish.

I do not plan on doing any independent research.

OK, but I'm not going to hold you to this. Feel free to change your mind.

One does not need mathematical theorems to posit that some truths cannot be proven.

The Incompleteness Theorem exists for those who need one.

And it is bullshit to assume someone has proven that that is ALWAYS the case.

You are denying math, specifically the Incompleteness theorem.

The entry of the Gödel crap into the discussion also played a part. That theorem is not the kind of thing one would expect a participant in a discussion such as we are having...to understand sufficiently.

Which is why I acknowledged up front that most lay, normal, rational adults will find what you wrote to be reasonable and "intuitive" ... but that in our discussion, all concepts are on the table, and that includes math, which might not be the kind of thing one would expect in a discussion over some beers. You were in total agreement. I don't know what changed thereafter, but you seem to have returned to agreeing now.

I have never insisted on a logical contradiction in a discussion of this sort

You did.
Incompleteness theorem: There is always a statement about the system that cannot be proven by the system, X
Frank Apisa: There isn't necessarily any statement about the system that cannot be proven by the system, ~X
X ^ ~X = False.

You are saying that "there are no gods" CANNOT be established...which is exactly what I have been asserting.

I was saying that the knowability of that statement could be effectively argued. I was not establishing any truth value for any theistic belief.

But you want me to accept that there are no gods simply because you want me to do so.

Neither you nor I assert that there are no gods. We were not discussing any theistic statement. We were discussing the positions of knowability of those statements.

This brings us back to where we were. I claim that the knowability of the theistic position "there are no gods" can be argued. One manner involves the Incompleteness theorem.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Frank, I'm going to use this post to pull us back to where we were. You misunderstood something and took us on a long detour, and although the scenery was interesting, I think we should get back to our discussion.

Let's see how that works out.

No, you will not consider such a description.

I would consider such a description...no matter that you think you can read minds.

You spent the past two posts explaining how you wouldn't even consider it.

I have never ever said that...or inferred it.

I was not arguing that there are no gods; I was showing you that knowability could be argued. You flatly rejected my explanation based on your denial of math. That effectively ended the discussion.

I did no such thing. I do not deny math, but I do deny that anyone has changed the factors that form the basis of my assertion. That includes Gödel.

I am asserting that the assertion "there are no gods" CANNOT be established logically.

On that last point, if you acknowledge that math is not your strong suit, why would you get all bent out of shape at the suggestion that you independently research some aspect of math that you don't know, an aspect that happens to be the crux of the discussion? You had three options:

1. Take me on my word that the Incompleteness Theorem states what I claim, for the sake of discussion.
2. Independently research the Incompleteness Theorem, learn the proof and see for yourself that it states what I indicated.
3. Reject the Incompleteness Theorem and not perform any independent research.

I am not about to enter what amounts to a high level college course in math in order to show that you are bullshitting on this issue.

If you could show that "there are no gods" can be established...you would have done it already.

Essentially what you are doing is to say that IT CANNOT BE ESTABLSIHED, but that shouldn't matter because YOU want to say that it can.

You chose #3.

I have not chosen #3...and I have not rejected it. But I am not going to engage in what amounts to a college course in the math in order to do whatever the hell you want to do, BUT OBVIOUSLY CANNOT.

One CANNOT logically assert there are no gods.

Now stop with the bullshit attempting to show that you are correct in some way...when you are dead wrong.

If it can be established that there are no gods...do it.

If you cannot, but can show a way that it can...do that.

Stop beating around the bush.

That effectively ended that discussion.

Jesus H. Christ...stop saying that. You said it several times. THE DISCUSSION IS STILL GOING ON. Are you actually unaware of that?

If you would ever like to reengage on this point, or if you have any questions about the Incompleteness Theorem, I will be more than happy to answer your questions and/or point you in the right direction so you can research all you wish.

I do not give a shit about this theorem. If you want to use it to show that "there are no gods"...fucking do it. Just do it...or stop with whatever the hell else you are doing.

OK, but I'm not going to hold you to this. Feel free to change your mind.

YOU are not going to "hold me" to anything. I do not give you that permission. AND I am not going to research the theorem.

The Incompleteness Theorem exists for those who need one.

I do not need it. YOU apparently do. SO USE IT TO SHOW THAT "there are no gods" CAN BE ESTABLISHED.

You are denying math, specifically the Incompleteness theorem.

Use it to establish that "there are no gods"...can be established.

Which is why I acknowledged up front that most lay, normal, rational adults will find what you wrote to be reasonable and "intuitive" ... but that in our discussion, all concepts are on the table, and that includes math, which might not be the kind of thing one would expect in a discussion over some beers. You were in total agreement. I don't know what changed thereafter, but you seem to have returned to agreeing now.

If you can use that theorem to establish that "there are no gods" can be established...use the goddam theorem to establish it.

You did.
Incompleteness theorem: There is always a statement about the system that cannot be proven by the system, X
Frank Apisa: There isn't necessarily any statement about the system that cannot be proven by the system, ~X
X ^ ~X = False.

If you can use the mother-fucking theorem to establish that "there are no gods" can be established...do it.

I was saying that the knowability of that statement could be effectively argued. I was not establishing any truth value for any theistic belief.

I assert that "there are no gods" cannot logically be established. If you can refute that statement...do so. Use whatever means and theorems you want to do it.

Neither you nor I assert that there are no gods. We were not discussing any theistic statement. We were discussing the positions of knowability of those statements.

I am saying that one cannot logically establish that no gods exists. You seem to be saying that I am wrong. Fine.

So...logically establish that "no gods exist"...and you will be handing me my ass.

This brings us back to where we were. I claim that the knowability of the theistic position "there are no gods" can be argued. One manner involves the Incompleteness theorem.

Anything can be argued! If you want to argue that mice are larger than elephants...YOU CAN ARGUE THAT. If you want to argue that you can run faster than Usain Bolt....YOU CAN ARGUE THAT.

I am not saying that you cannot argue it.

If you can establish that there are no gods...or explain a way it can be done...DO IT.

You will show me to be a chump.

So do it.

 

[Litmus]

atheism is just assertions to get around the morality in traditional religions.

mostly its to justify killing everybody in nihilistic nazi plots.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

atheism is just assertions to get around the morality in traditional religions.

mostly its to justify killing everybody in nihilistic nazi plots.

So in your version of Christianity it is OK to bear false witness?

 

[Litmus]

So in your version of Christianity it is OK to bear false witness?

no. and your conclusion of such is ass-tarded.

 

[IBDaMann]

atheism is just assertions to get around the morality in traditional religions.

When observing someone bashing atheists, realize that you are witnessing a guilty theist who doesn't quite know who to blame for the unconvincing nature of his own theism, and blaming "atheists" is usually a safe bet.

mostly its to justify killing everybody in nihilistic nazi plots.

Yeah, I think about all those atheist crusades and inquisitions, forcing the abandonment of all theism at the edge of the sword, and their arbitrary and capricious redefinition of half the dictionary, and I think "Wow! JesusAI has a point!"

 

[Litmus]

When observing someone bashing atheists, realize that you are witnessing a guilty theist who doesn't quite know who to blame for the unconvincing nature of his own theism, and blaming "atheists" is usually a safe bet.


Yeah, I think about all those atheist crusades and inquisitions, forcing the abandonment of all theism at the edge of the sword, and their arbitrary and capricious redefinition of half the dictionary, and I think "Wow! JesusAI has a point!"

agnostic is an honest position.

 

[IBDaMann]

So in your version of Christianity it is OK to bear false witness?

no. and your conclusion of such is ass-tarded.

@Quincux, remember that JesusAI employs custom definitions for the words he uses. If he writes "no. and your conclusion of such is ass-tarded" then you can assume right off the bat that the one thing he does not mean is "no. and your conclusion of such is ass-tarded" but rather something more along the lines of "well yes, are you only now realizing this?"

 

[Litmus]

@Quincux, remember that JesusAI employs custom definitions for the words he uses. If he writes "no. and your conclusion of such is ass-tarded" then you can assume right off the bat that the one thing he does not mean is "no. and your conclusion of such is ass-tarded" but rather something more along the lines of "well yes, are you only now realizing this?"

im sorry you resort to word games to try to win dumb prizes.

 

[IBDaMann]

agnostic is an honest position.

... but it is not a theistic belief and has no place in a discussion of theism/atheism.

The claim that "agnostic" is somehow interchangeable with "I don't know" is false. Insisting on this is dishonest.

 

[IBDaMann]

im sorry you resort to word games to try to win dumb prizes.

So when I translate your custom definitions into straightforward English, it reads:

"I resort to word games to make my weak positions appear identical to stronger positions, to make my opponents appear identical to Mussolini, and to blame you, IBDaMann, for seeing right through my design."

 

[IBDaMann]

You don't know much about Asian cultures, do you?

Was it his inclusion of the word "anime" that made it obvious or was it something else?

 

[Litmus]

... but it is not a theistic belief and has no place in a discussion of theism/atheism.

The claim that "agnostic" is somehow interchangeable with "I don't know" is false. Insisting on this is dishonest.

of course it has a place in that discussion, idiot.

you're retarded.

 

[Litmus]

So when I translate your custom definitions into straightforward English, it reads:

"I resort to word games to make my weak positions appear identical to stronger positions, to make my opponents appear identical to Mussolini, and to blame you, IBDaMann, for seeing right through my design."

what design?

you're a blatant idiot for just refusing to use a common word, "agnostic".

 

[Saint Guinefort]

no. and your conclusion of such is ass-tarded.

So why did you bear false witness?