Voltaire and God

[Ross Dolan]

I find your self-absorbed superiority exhausting.

I don't want to exhaust you. Perhaps you should take a break.

Sure. So when did you lose your ability to listen to or read what others say?

I haven't.

Perhaps you should take a break. You do not seem to be enjoying the exchange. I am.

 

[Hume]

I understand your position. I still doubt you understand it, though.




I had some excellent ones The college where I went required what amounted to a major in philosophy. Interesting subject...and my personal library has lots of books on the subject.

You sound as though you know nothing about philosophy. Maybe you forgot it all.

 

[Kafka]

I haven't.

Perhaps you should take a break. You do not seem to be enjoying the exchange. I am.

Of course I'm not enjoying having someone like you suggest I'm not smart enough to understand my own fucking position.

Either I don't understand my own position or you don't understand it. Your ego is what is getting in your way. Try reading my posts for comprehension and maybe, just maybe something will get through.

 

[Cypress]

Not really. Let's pick it apart for a second:

1. It is a claim that is made by people to other people (just like the claim "God is real")
2. It is a claim believed by millions on the planet

It very much mimics religion. But, the reason I chose that particular one, is because it is so ABSURD to be agnostic about Santa. But why is it absurd? Well we all "know" Santa isn't real.

But the same "evidence" exists for God. It is a claim merely asserted by one person to another. It is pretty hard to falsify (exegesis helps explain away all the strange weirdnesses).



Your version of "God" is admirable because it has almost no bearing to the concept of God as 99.99999999999% of the believers on the planet think of it. God was FIRST a personal-focused being who cared about individuals. When that God was shown to be hard to evidence God became more of a "concept" in the Englightenment. A way to preserve the "God concept" without having to worry about God having any real evidence for his existence.

I'm 100% down with that sort of God because it's pretty much unfalsifiable, untestable and, as far as I can tell, meaningless.

It's a placeholder for an unknowable origin.

The Santa Clause is a long standing tactic atheists use to diminish and derail agnosticism.


Santa Claus and Leprechauns aren't need to explain anything, they are totally superfluous to any realities, and they are well known fairytales to entertain children.

Religions, at some level, are attempting to address real and legitimate unanswered questions: what is the origin and purpose of the universe, is there any meaning and purpose in life, is there a universal moral imperative, and what kind of life should we live?

 

[Hume]

The Santa Clause is a long standing tactic atheists use to diminish and derail agnosticism.


Santa Claus and Leprechauns aren't need to explain anything, they are totally superfluous to any realities, and they are well known fairytales to entertain children.

Religions, at some level, are addressing real and legitimate unanswered questions: what is the origin and purpose of the universe, is there meaning and purpose in life, is there a universal moral imperative, what kind of life should we live?

Philosophy asks fundamental questions as well. Religion thinks it has the answers.

 

[Kafka]

The Santa Clause is a long standing tactic atheists use to diminish and derail agnosticism.

I couldn't care less who has used the argument before. It is still a valid question for the reasons I stated.

I understand you don't want to engage with the point, but the point still stands for the reasons presented.

Santa Claus and Leprechauns aren't need to explain anything,

Again, I'm fine if your "God" concept is little more than a placeholder for an unknowable origin. It has little effect on anything and carries no explanatory value whatsoever. It is, effectively, an empty concept.

Religions, at some level, are attempting to address real and legitimate unanswered questions:

As it always was. Just as demons were previously assumed to cause mental illness and cancer remission was attributed to God's benevolence. It is the "God of the Gaps" at it's extreme endpoint.

what is the origin and purpose of the universe, is there any meaning and purpose in life, is there a universal moral imperative, and what kind of life should we live?

That sounds a LOT like religion is seeking a being who has direct contact with and interaction with reality. Yet when faced with finding evidence of this interaction nothing seems to show up.

That is why I'm more than happy for you to limit your concept of God as the placeholder for an unknowable origin, but it carries no explanatory value and answers no questions and is, effectively, meaningless.

It almost HAS to be meaningless or there would be some way to test the truth claim of whether God exists or not (and that test should result in something MORE than the mere ABSENCE of an explanation for the universe.)

 

[Ross Dolan]

You sound as though you know nothing about philosophy. Maybe you forgot it all.

For the most part, I haven;t been discussing philsophy.

So tell me, Boy, what do you see wrong about my take on the question of whether gods exist or not/

How would you improve what I have offered?

 

[Hume]

For the most part, I haven;t been discussing philsophy.

So tell me, Boy, what do you see wrong about my take on the question of whether gods exist or not/

How would you improve what I have offered?

You reply with "guess" to any statement about god. So, you want no discussion.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Of course I'm not enjoying having someone like you suggest I'm not smart enough to understand my own fucking position.

I think you are more than smart enough to understnd your own fucking opinion. I suspect you have decided to live a lie in that regard.

I have suggested that you do not read with comprehension...but that is only because you give so much evidence that you do not.

Either I don't understand my own position or you don't understand it. Your ego is what is getting in your way. Try reading my posts for comprehension and maybe, just maybe something will get through.

Keep trying. At some point you will see that you are not up to the job of showing how you can improve the position I have taken...or how your position is somehow superior to mine.

It will finally penetrate. I only hope you are not repairing a roof when it happens.

Take a break, Obtenebrator. Then continue. You may do better then.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Philosophy asks fundamental questions as well. Religion thinks it has the answers.

Yes it does. Atheists think they do also.

We who take an agnostic position simply affirm that we do not.

You ought to give it a try.

 

[Hume]

Yes it does. Atheists think they do also.

We who take an agnostic position simply affirm that we do not.

You ought to give it a try.

You use ad hominems in place of argument.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I couldn't care less who has used the argument before. It is still a valid question for the reasons I stated.

I understand you don't want to engage with the point, but the point still stands for the reasons presented.



Again, I'm fine if your "God" concept is little more than a placeholder for an unknowable origin. It has little effect on anything and carries no explanatory value whatsoever. It is, effectively, an empty concept.



As it always was. Just as demons were previously assumed to cause mental illness and cancer remission was attributed to God's benevolence. It is the "God of the Gaps" at it's extreme endpoint.



That sounds a LOT like religion is seeking a being who has direct contact with and interaction with reality. Yet when faced with finding evidence of this interaction nothing seems to show up.

That is why I'm more than happy for you to limit your concept of God as the placeholder for an unknowable origin, but it carries no explanatory value and answers no questions and is, effectively, meaningless.

It almost HAS to be meaningless or there would be some way to test the truth claim of whether God exists or not (and that test should result in something MORE than the mere ABSENCE of an explanation for the universe.)

Atheists.

They are so like theists.

A bit more duplicitous than theists...but like them.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You use ad hominems in place of argument.

You are getting frutrated seeing you cannot argue with the agnostic position as easily as you do with the theists.

Too bad that.

 

[Hume]

You are getting frutrated seeing you cannot argue with the agnostic position as easily as you do with the theists.

Too bad that.

Looks like you can only post ad hominems.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You reply with "guess" to any statement about god. So, you want no discussion.

I am saying that damn near every comment about whether gods exist or not...IS A GUESS. A BLIND GUESS.

That seems to bother you.

You might question yourself about why.

 

[Kafka]

Atheists.

They are so like theists.

A bit more duplicitous than theists...but like them.

Duplicitous? LOL.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Looks like you can only post ad hominems.

Looks even more as though you are getting more and more frustrated.

 

[Hume]

I am saying that damn near every comment about whether gods exist or not...IS A GUESS. A BLIND GUESS.

That seems to bother you.

You might question yourself about why.

So, you really cannot debate. Ad hominems are dead ends.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Duplicitous? LOL.

Yes...duplicitous.

 

[Kafka]

I am saying that damn near every comment about whether gods exist or not...IS A GUESS. A BLIND GUESS.

Yet you can't see that the same thing applies to the invisible demon in the freezer.

That seems to bother you.

You might question yourself about why.

So everyone who disagrees with your position is too stupid to understand their own point.

Seriously, you had a philosophy class?????