Apology to AR

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jo's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

Because a large furry ape like animal that lives in the woods is not invisible.
He does not know everything and cannot do everything.
One is a natural being, the other a supernatural being.

If Cognostics Big Foot is as he describes, than his Bear Detector Kit will not work.

If Big Foot does have the attributes of God, than he is God.
Seems pretty obvious and clear to me.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: Again you are playing

@Jo: Again you are playing the black and white fallacy card. (STOP USING THE WORD PROVE) it is a math term and does not apply to life. I have a complete lack of evidence for a Bigfoot in my room. I can make the assertion with 99.99% accuracy that there is no big-foot in my room. I live my life as if there is no big-foot in my room. There is absolutely no reason what so ever to imagine there is a big-foot in my room. NONE.

RE: It is not black and white thinking to try and use the right tool for the right job.
Please show us the tool you are using and demonstrate its effectiveness. If you come up with a tool that can measure the supernatural, predict outcomes, and validate its existence, we will all be believers. So...... what'cha got?

RE: You present a false analogy fallacy by equating a natural being such as Big Foot with God.
Please demonstrate that Big-foot is less natural than god. How so? I know of no one that has ever seen a big-foot up close but many people have seen God. Jacob Wrestles With God, And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved (Genesis 32:30). Isaiah saw God: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple (Isaiah 6:1). Job saw God: "Job 42:5 "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; So Manoah and his wife saw God, So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God. 13:22 So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God."

Apparently there is no difference at all in testing for the supernatural or the natural. If there was, wouldn't you be able to demonstrate it? What evidence do you have for the God that everyone has seen being supernatural instead of just ridiculous to believe in, like Big-foot.

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

If Big Foot exists as a large furry animal, like a bear, we can demonstrate if he is in the room or not.

If he is like God, then we cannot.

You are the one who has a Bear Detection Kit that you claim can detect God.
I have no such machine. Testing for God and a animal in nature are very different.

I am 100% certain there is no Bear or Big Foot (natural animal) in my room.
That can be demonstrated with your detection kit.
But God in our room is not able to be tested with your kit. If you do you get a false negative.

Are you 99.99% sure there is no God in your room? Why do you beleive that?

Cognostic's picture
@JO: I absolutely believe it

@JO: I absolutely believe it and have no reason to believe anything else. Actually you are just a bit off on the Bigfoot thing. There actually is more evidence for Bigfoot and it is more current. Bigfoot rates about a 98.999% Is god walking around the mountains being photographed and leaving footprints? NO!

I don't have to "believe" there is no god in my room. It's demonstrable. Come on over and have a look. Both can be completely demonstrated with my detection kit. For all intent and purposes they do not exist and there is no reason to assume they do, unless you have some reason to sway me from my position. Love to hear it.,

Cognostic's picture
RE: If Big Foot exists as a

RE: If Big Foot exists as a large furry animal, like a bear, we can demonstrate if he is in the room or not. (YES - we can demonstrate it because, so far, Big-foot is no more a large furry animal, like a bear, than God is a magical flying sky daddy with a white beard.) THE EVIDENCE FOR BOTH IS THE SAME - (Actually the evidence for big foot is better. We have footprints, current testimony and blurry photographs. Please provide the same level of evidence for your God.)

RE: If he is like God, then we cannot. (He is just like god and we certainly can. )

RE: Testing for God and a animal in nature are very different. (But a magical Big-foot and a magical God are not different.)

RE: I am 100% certain there is no Bear or Big Foot (natural animal) in my room. That can be demonstrated with your detection kit.
(YES) For all intent and purposes. (YES) I have no supernatural beliefs. If you can demonstrate existence of the supernatural I will be happy to alter my position.

RE: But God in our room is not able to be tested with your kit. (Correct.) (I am not testing for god but for the absence of god. In every case and in every way the "absence of god" is confirmed by the test.) *Could there be something I am missing? Of course. But given all the current evidence, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME SO. For all intent and purpose there is no reason to assume the existence of a God. You got a reason?

RE: Are you 99.99% sure there is no God in your room? Why do you believe that? (EXPLAINED ABOVE.) Nothing can be "KNOWN" 100% It can certainly be "BELIEVED" 100%. To avoid a "Black Swan Fallacy" I must admit that I could be wrong. But I do this while indicating "Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence." I see no evidence at all for your God thing. I see 10,000 years of God thing failures. Asserting your God thing is the only real God thing amounts to nothing more than "Special Pleading."

In "ULTIMATE REALITY" the special God thing does not exist. I know this because I can directly experience "ultimate reality." When you get here I will explain it to you.

Simon Moon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

No, that is not how I reject those claims.
We could drain the Loch Ness and prove there is no monster.
I am 100% certain there is no Big Foot in the room I am in.
I could prove it.

Thanks for proving my point.
What you are doing there is disbelieving because there is no evidence.

Hell, you even came up with good method to prove there is no Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot. Are you 100% certain there is no invisible, transcendental Bigfoot in your room right now?

However,
I cannot prove that God is in my room right now, but I believe it.
You cannot prove God is not in my room right now, but you believe it.

I don't care what you believe, I care why you believe it. If you have good, evidence based, logical reasons for your belief, I want to know about it.

The "why" is the important part.

You cannot prove God is not in my room right now, but you believe it.

How dense are you? Or are you just dishonest? I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but this has been explained to you countless times.

Again, it is not up to us to prove there is no god in your room right now. You are the one making the claim, that there is a god in your room.

Yes, I disbelieve your claim that there is a god in your room. I base this belief on your (and every other theist) inability to demonstrate your belief is rational and evident.My disbelief in your claim is not dogmatic. I am opened to being convinced my disbelief is unjustified.

Now, if you can provide good reasons WHY you believe a god exists, I will be forced by my intellectual honesty (a term you should understand and aspire to) accept your claim.

Jo's picture
@ Simon Moon

@ Simon Moon

Sorry for my delay in responding to your posts.

“I used to be a theist. I used to believe I had good reasons for my theistic beliefs. It turned out, the evidence was drastically insufficient to support the god claim. I have read the Bible several times while I was still a believer, and after I became an atheist. I also read the Quran and some of the Vedas, I've read dozens of apologetics books, attended lectures, watched many videos by the best apologists in the world. Their so called evidence and logical arguments are ALL flawed. And yes, I prayed sincerely for years before I became a nonbeliever.”

In your post #52 (above) you explained your journey from a believer to a non-believer.
I understand your explanation and the reasons for your non-belief.
However, I noticed that your reasoning contained no empirical evidence.
There was no demonstrable, and falsifiable evidence.
Shouldn’t I use the same standard you did for me?
If so, I would have to say that there are no rational reasons for non-belief.

If someone goes from non-belief to belief, or belief to non-belief, shouldn’t we use the same standard to judge the rationality of their belief or non-belief?

The same paragraph that you explained your reasons for non-belief I could use for my belief. I could change a few words and it could be my journey.
I used to be an Atheist…I found the evidence and arguments insufficient…read Quran, Vedas, books by prominent Atheists, lectures, debates...prayed…became a believer.
Looked at the same evidence and arguments that you did. Just reached a different conclusion.

In your post #53 you made this statement.
“I am not making the claim that those types of evidence (demonstrable, empirical, and falsifiable evidence) can be provided. But without them, there is no rational reasons to believe the claims.”
Your statement seems contradictory.
If a certain type of evidence cannot be provided than why do you use its lack, as a reason not to believe?
When you ask for those types of evidence, are you not making a claim that they should be able to be provided?

In post #56 you said, “Are you 100% certain there is no invisible, transcendental Bigfoot in your room right now?” Of course, I was referring to a large furry ape like animal.
Do you use the same standard to determine if the natural animal and the invisible transcendental one is in my room?

For the below statements, please address the four questions below them.
“I believe God exists.”
“I do not believe God exists.”
“I believe God might exist.”
“I believe God does not exist.”

1. Can demonstrable, empirical, or falsifiable evidence be provided for any of the above statements?
2. Which of the above statements are irrational and unwarranted?
3. Can good, evidence based, logical reasons be provided for any of the above statements?
4. Which of the above statements are an affirmation of a claim?

David Killens's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"The same paragraph that you explained your reasons for non-belief I could use for my belief. I could change a few words and it could be my journey.
I used to be an Atheist…I found the evidence and arguments insufficient…read Quran, Vedas, books by prominent Atheists, lectures, debates...prayed…became a believer.
Looked at the same evidence and arguments that you did. Just reached a different conclusion."

Being a believer is accepting a story without ANY evidence or proof.

For almost all atheists who started out as theists, they began to apply rational logic and an evidence-based application to the god question and found the argument not convincing.

I have seen enough theist versus debates to understand that once the feeble claims by a theist are dispelled, it comes down to the request by the atheist "offer proof", and at that point the theist cannot offer any valid proof, just unevidenced claims.

All you are doing is equating 1>0 as 0>1.

Jo's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

"Being a believer is accepting a story without ANY evidence or proof."
That is a common phrase that is used by Atheists. but is false.

Do you have any evidence or proof for your Atheism?
I am just using the word proof becasue you did.
Please don't just rehash the definition of Atheism.
Just answer the question. Do you have any evidence or proof? The answer is no.
You have a philosophical position. Just as I do.
You looked at the evidence and arguments and determine they do not meet your burden of proof.
I have also looked at the evidence and arguments and determined they do meet my burden of proof.
We arrived at our answers the same way, just arrived at a difference answer.

Would you say to those who beleive there is no God that they have no evidence or proof?

Sheldon's picture
Jo "@ David Killens

Jo "@ David Killens

"Being a believer is accepting a story without ANY evidence or proof."
That is a common phrase that is used by Atheists. but is false"

Another lie Jo, not one theist is able to demonstrate objective evidence for any deity, and you already admitted you can't, so do stop lying that you have "evidence" as all you've presented in anecdotal claims and vapid rhetoric. Just like all the other apologists.

Jo "
Do you have any evidence or proof for your Atheism?"

Really ho, how can you lie this dishonestly? Its argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, not believing something doesn't require proof, you don't have for any of the deities you don't believe are real. That makes you a liar and a hypocrite.

Jo "Please don't just rehash the definition of Atheism."

You don't get to lie and misrepresent atheism as requiring a burden of proof Jo, then childish try to deny its meaning because you know you're being dishonest.

Jo "
Would you say to those who beleive there is no God that they have no evidence or proof?"

Fuck me Jo, the same tired old lie, atheism is not a belief, are you really this stupid you can't understand a simple word definition, or are you so dishonest you simply are prepared to ignore it relentlessly?

Atheism is not the belief there are no gods, it's the lack or absence of theism. Nothing more. You really are the mother of all liars.

David Killens's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"Do you have any evidence or proof for your Atheism?
I am just using the word proof becasue you did.
Please don't just rehash the definition of Atheism.
Just answer the question. Do you have any evidence or proof? The answer is no."

I am an atheist, and that definition is the rejection of the claim that there is a god, or gods. For me, there is a lack of evidence or any proof to convince me of this claim.

"You have a philosophical position. Just as I do."

No. My position is the rejection of your philosophical claims. My position is not based on any philosophy, it is the application of critical thinking and the rejection of unevidenced claims.

"You looked at the evidence and arguments and determine they do not meet your burden of proof.
I have also looked at the evidence and arguments and determined they do meet my burden of proof.
We arrived at our answers the same way, just arrived at a difference answer."

No. We have not arrived at our answers the same way. My standards of evidence are obviously much higher than yours. Additionally, I applied critical thinking and the rejection of unevidenced claims.

Cognostic's picture
@Simon Moon: Excellent post

@Simon Moon: Excellent post. "The WHY is the important part." Everything else is just a claim.

Sheldon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

Do you believe in invisible fairies Jo? How do you disprove those? How about the other deities you disbelieve in, how do you disprove those exactly, there are literally thousands. If all you have is an arbitrary subjective experience you claim evidences your own deity, then your deity is no more real than the rest, hence your belief is demonstrably biased, but atheists are being objective by definition.

Sheldon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

To recap on your failure in this "debate". I will use bullet points for you to accurately and honestly address.

1) You can demonstrate no objectivece evidence for any deity. Thus your deity is indistinguishable from all the others, and of course from a non existent being.
2) You have repeatedly and dishonestly distorted #1 using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy demanding a position of non belief evidence the non existence of a deity, a deity you can neither evidence nor accurately define.
3) You can't offer a single belief outside of your religious beliefs, that you hold without objective evidence.
4) When asked to falsify other non existent things like mermaids or unicorns, or even other deities, as you demand atheists do for your deity, you dishonestly ignore the request.
5) You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that a belief is the affirmation of a claim, whereas the lack of it is not a contrary claim. A simple epistemological fact. Again do you believe in fairies, if not can you present your evidence for their non existence?
6) You have dishonestly and repeatedly implied bias from atheists who set an objective standard for ALL beliefs, while you set one arbitrary exception for your theistic belief, and again dishonestly refuse to acknowledge this when it is repeatedly pointed out.

That'll do for now, feel free to add to this list if I've omitted anything.

Simon Moon's picture
5) You dishonestly refuse to

5) You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that a belief is the affirmation of a claim, whereas the lack of it is not a contrary claim. A simple epistemological fact.

This seems to be one of the most difficult things to get theists to understand.

The 'jury' analogy sometimes gets the point across, but not always.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: RE: " You dishonestly

@Jo: RE: " You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that a belief is the affirmation of a claim, whereas the lack of it is not a contrary claim. A simple epistemological fact."

Odd or Even Gumball / star / sands on a beach analogy. Jury Analogy. Bear Cave Analogy. NOTHING SINKS IN. IT IS THE SAME REPETITIOUS BULLSHIT, over and over and over, since day one. Jo is simply pulling everyone's chain and has no honest intent in learning a damn thing. I am half convinced that he is an atheist pretending to be a Christian as it is really difficult to believe any theist is as dense as Jo pretends to be.

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

Here are some antonyms for affirmation.
Negation
Denial
Veto
Rejection

If I am affirming God exists, are you not denying?

Please don't tell anyone at my Church our little secret, that I am an Atheist pretending to be a Christian. :-)
They already know I am dense.;-)

Tin-Man's picture
Quick disclaimer: This post

(Quick disclaimer: This post is primarily for the lurkers and others on the site, as it has become more than apparent Jo has listened to absolutely NOTHING anybody else has said since he joined the AR.)

@Jo Re: "Please don't tell anyone at my Church our little secret, that I am an Atheist pretending to be a Christian. :-)"

Aw, shucks, Jo. Give us a little credit, would ya? We would be absolutely foolish to let your congregation know your little secret, because in doing so we would risk compromising one of the best atheist allies we have. By golly, there is no telling how many people your own posts have helped escape from their religious shackles. Speaking for myself, I can honestly say your posts certainly do help reinforce my own atheism. Who knows? Perhaps one day we may all vote to give you a medal of honor for helping us allow others to see the true insidious nature of religion. So, please, by all means, keep up the good work. Your little secret is safe with us.... *miming zipping lips shut*...

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: @Jo: RE: " You

@Jo: @Jo: RE: " You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that a belief is the affirmation of a claim, whereas the lack of it is not a contrary claim. A simple epistemological fact."

I have no idea why I responded the way I did to the post above. Perhaps I misread it or just was not paying attention. YES - "A BELIEF IS THE AFFIRMATION OF A CLAIM." The lack of belief "IS NOT" a contrary claim. I have no idea why I would ever disagree with that. I must have been tired at the time or something - I certainly could have been responding to one of the inane claims you have made, and yet, that is not evidenced in the post above or the citation. My Mistake. Apologies on this one.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "I understand your

Jo "I understand your explanation and the reasons for your non-belief.
However, I noticed that your reasoning contained no empirical evidence."

So even now Jo is continuing to lie that disbelief requires empirical evidence of non existence, and rehashing the same dishonest argument from ignorance fallacy.

For shame Jo. Now please demonstrate your empirical falsification for the non existence of all the deities you don't believe exist, then you can do the same for mermaids, unicorns, garden fairies, et all.....

You are a dishonest liar Jo. Atheism is the lack of belief any deity or deities exist, not a claim to knowledge. Again it's now a blatant lie on your part to keep misrepresenting it as you've done here yet again.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "I would have to say

Jo "I would have to say that there are no rational reasons for non-belief."

Another lie, clearly the inability to demonstrate a single shred of objective evidence, coupled with the woeful arguments apologists use all containing known common logical fallacies like the ones you dishonestly repeat ad nauseam even after they're pointed out to you, is the very definition of a rational reason to disbelief your claim a deity exists.

That's before whole swathes of biblically errant claims are shown to contradict objective scientific facts.

Again you're being shockingly dishonest Jo, even mentioning rationality given your propensity to base all your arguments on irrational fallacies. Known logical fallacies you have dishonestly refused to even acknowledge.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - If I am affirming God

Jo - If I am affirming God exists, are you not denying?

No. You've been here this long and you are still suffering from this fundamental misunderstanding?

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

I perfectly understand the definition of Atheism and the "lack of faith".

You do not deny God exists?
Do you have a lack of faith in God's non existence, just as you do in his existence?
You do not have any beliefs, opinions, or conclusions, about God.
You are not saying I am wrong, or that any theist is wrong?
You have no answers to any questions about God?
You have no ideas on how God could be evidenced?

Tin-Man's picture
Ahhhhh, Jo. Jo, Jo, Joey-Joey

Ahhhhh, Jo. Jo, Jo, Joey-Joey, Jo... Still got your fingers stuffed on your ears yelling, "La-la-la-la-la-la-la-...!", as usual. Once again, this is for the benefit of the lurkers, as you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no intentions of paying attention to anything we say here.

You do not deny the rainbow farting unicorn exists?
Do you have a lack of faith in the rainbow farting unicorn's non existence, just as you do in his existence?
You do not have any beliefs, opinions, or conclusions, about the rainbow farting unicorn.
You are not saying I am wrong, or that anyone believing in the rainbow farting unicorn is wrong?
You have no answers to any questions about the rainbow farting unicorn?
You have no ideas on how the rainbow farting unicorn could be evidenced?

(By the way, please feel free to substitue any other god and/or fairytale creature in place of the rainbow farting unicorn.)

Jo's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

I can't think of a scenario when I would use "lack of faith" as an answer.
It is not an answer, or at best a partial answer.
I would be more forthright and just say I do not believe in farting unicorns.

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: "I would be more

@Jo Re: "I would be more forthright and just say I do not believe in farting unicorns."

Ugh!... *rolling eyes*... Not just ANY ol' farting unicorn, silly. ALL unicorns fart. (Duh!) I said The Rainbow Farting Unicorn. It is special beyond all the regular farting unicorns... *exasperated sigh*.... Anyway, regardless....

So, you say you do not believe in it, huh? Okay, that's cool. I totally understand. Just like I do not believe in your god. See how that works? However, if you still insist that atheists have some burden of proof as to why they do not believe in your god, please prove how you know The Rainbow Farting Unicorn does not exist. In which case we could possibly use your method in regards to your god.

Jo's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

Let me be more forthright.

I believe there are no regular or rainbow farting unicorns. It is not lack of faith. In fact, I have faith they do not exists.
Can you say the same about my God?

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo

@Jo

Aaaaaaand, once again, dip-duck-dodge, just as expected. No big surprise, obviously. Although, in all fairness, at this point in the game I suppose it would be rather drastic of you to actually give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Might end up sending a few people into shock if you did. Certainly wouldn't want you to have THAT grinding at your conscious.

By the way, what in the blue blazes of a horny toad ball sac does "faith" have to do with my not believing in your god??? Read my lips: I simply do... not... believe... in... your... god. Period. In the exact same way I do not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. ZERO faith involved. After all of your time here on this site, how the hell can you NOT understand that by now???... Have you ever considered seeking medical help from a neurologist for short-term memory loss? If not, you might want to do so. Just a suggestion.

Jo's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

I was very forthright in my answer.
What do you think I dodged?

You do not believe in Santa Clause, I believe Santa Claus does not exists.
Same with Easter Bunny and all Unicorns. Flying Spaghetti Monster also.
See the big difference between your answers and mine?

You really have lack of faith in the Easter Bunny?
That is really how you would answer?

I believe that you believe the same thing as me about the Easter Bunny.
Unicorns and the Spaghetti Monster also.
The difference is that I am willing to admit that I believe they do not exists.

I can't think of anything I would use 'lack of faith" or "do not believe in".

If someone said the direction you would travel in to go from London to Scotland was south.
Would you reply that you have lack of faith, or do not believe in that?
Or would you say, no, the direction to go from London to Scotland is north?

Why would anyone say lack of faith or don't believe?
Why not say what you do believe and what you do have faith in?
Is it just a desire to not have to make an argument, or defend your argument?

Saying what is right and what is wrong is more forthright and clear.
Saying I do not believe or have lack of faith is vague and seems evasive.

Would you say - I have lack of faith, or do not believe Donald is a humble person?
Or would you say - Donald is not humble, in fact, he is very arrogant.

See the big difference.

Saying what you DO believe and what IS true is much more forthright.
Saying - JO has not evidenced his claim, only speaks directly to Jo's abilities.
Maybe Jo is a bumbling idiot that could not evidence a simple math equation (can I get an amen).

Negating someone else belief or claim is a position of passivity and weakness.
Saying what is and what is not takes risk and requires a defense.
Shouldn't that be the goal and not be avoided?

/edited for grammar

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Jo - "I was very

Re: Jo - "I was very forthright in my answer. What do you think I dodged?" (And everything that followed in that post...)

...*turning green from nausea*... *holding tummy and trying not to puke*.... *wavering unsteadily on feet*.... What the...???... *dry heaving*... Umph! Ohhhhhh...... Shit... I haven't been this dizzy since that one time at the state fair on the Tilt-a-Whirl ride... *groan*... Holy hell, Jo! You really should be more careful talking in circles like that! The wrong person comes along and reads that and you could find yourself hooked up to a pulley system with a drive-belt and being used as a source of mechanical power.... *dry heave*.... Awwww, maaaan.... Somebody please find me some Pepto Bismol... *groan*....

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.