...of the new theists, that join this forum? Their false indignation. Their lack of answering the simplest question. Their crackpot theories that we collectively shoot gaping holes through only to be called names for even questioning their myths.
I know I am. I am not a grammar NAZI but Andrewcgs (at least I think it is he), uses no punctuation, no capitals (as if he is e.e. cummings), and blathers in streams of consciousness that are incoherent. Then there are the apologist, the surrogates that defend these inane ideas. Their tactic is to call everyone immature if they don't agree with the OP.
I really like how they try to sound intelligent, as if we haven't all seen that tactic before, but if you look closely, you can see they don't have a clue about what they are talking about.
My biggest pet peeve is the false indignation.
A thread is started.
A theist makes a claim.
That theist is challenged on that claim.
And OMG you'd think the world had ended.
In may cases the theist has forgotten the original post, which is WHY they were challenged in the first place.
This is a good forum. I want it to stay that way. I just thought I would air what is painfully obvious to the most casual observer.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Aired, observed, and noted. Heartily agreed with, as well.
I have yet to meet a strong-willed, logical theist on this site, but the atheist tactics here are equally ineffectual to help others to revise their ideas. I agree that it's all tiring.
Revision is not my goal. I'm just here for the intellectual fulfillment I can't get anywhere else.
Then 'The Debate Room' may be mislabeled. By intellectual fulfillment, do you mean picking apart the low-hanging fruit in others' arguments?; I agree that that can be quite fun. The posts I have read through all seem to behave more like echo chambers than anything else, though.
Perhaps. But when several people share the same conclusion, what more can be achieved than an echo?
Well, that's part of the fun of it! Irrespective to your beliefs, you can always play the devil's advocate. The apologists need new material, and the atheists should welcome it, for it keeps their minds sharp.
I also hold the opinion that it is in the best interest of all humans, whether theist or atheist, to seek to prove the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god, and of a heaven, as any human could stand to benefit from such a benefactor and from a possibly pleasant afterlife.
I still remember an piece of lyrics. I can't quite remember the song. "You were warned to remain on your side, you'll be starting a war now if you cross that line."
Maybe it would be a lot more easier if the irrational idea about Earth being created 6.000 years ago and Humanity starting from Two People named Adam and Eve.
Maybe it would be a lot more easier if the irrational idea about Earth being created 6.000 years ago and Humanity starting from Two People named Adam and Eve.
Several people on this forum gave you the benefit of the doubt. They have asked you and your fellow theist for empirical evidence. They have provided you with unrefutable facts. You at least have posted some things that YOU call facts but in actuality have fallen far short of that bar. Kudos for attempts. But YOU in particular, have engaged in character assassinations and name calling, albeit in a rather odd manner. You Freeslave and Andrewcgs have not made a compelling statement since you have joined the forum. You have engaged in exactly what I described in the OP. I have read post after post where you three have interprited a simple question as a personal insult, and your reply has always been an insult. You take facts and proof that complete refute your claims with indignation, as if no one is allowed to even question what you have posted.
Look the forum members don't want a rah-rah cheerleader atheist only discussion. We welcome theist. What we don't welcome is thin skinned theists with an agenda unwilling to think or reason.
You certainly don't take kindly to bullshit, do you? Then again, why should you?
Nope, never have. I spent 22 years in the USMC and never accept BS from anyone, and never will.
10 years in the Russian Air Force. It's good to meet a fellow former military man who dosent preach god every half hour.
I am not a theist; I play the devil's advocate because I think that the existence of a god as a benefactor to all would be a good thing for atheist and theist alike. Making an argument large enough to support the existence of a god takes more than the two days that you seem to have decided I deserve. As for what is compelling and what is not, the difference is subjective. Only pure, calculated logic will garner you consensus therefor. Show me one post in which my opinion has been immutable without defense. Show me one post where I refused to think or reason. If you cannot procure any, then I ask that you withdraw the attack to character.
I think the existence of such a being would be detrimental to humanity's overall potential.
Maybe I have you confused with freeslave. If so I apologize and retract my statement. But never think you have the right to lecture me.
Me? I'm not sure you have the right person.
I think mykcob4 was referring to M. V. Reeves. Saying that he has confused him with Freeslave. That would certainly explain my confusion when reading some of mykcob4's posts. :)
Your profile page says you are a/an Non Atheist.
You claim here you are not a theist
Not a theist directly implies Atheist - Literally. Thats the definition.
So what are you? And please don't say the devils advocate, that doesn't make sense here.
I don't have a word, and you don't need one for me. Unlike the atheist (and the modern logician), I choose to assign a nonzero validity probability to a proposition that has not yet been disproven; I do not shift the burden of proof to the apologist, but I rather accept exactly one half thereof. Therefore, until such time comes as the (non)existence of a deity of desirable qualities is proven, I hold that it is equally probable and improbable that such a deity exists. Though you may, on this grounds, be tempted to think of me as agnostic, I contrarily believe that it is very probably possible to rigorously determine whether such a deity exists for lack of rigorous evidence to the contrary. At best, though it's a stretch, you can sort of stuff me into the box that is agnosticism. Note that the syllogism, "not a theist directly implies atheist," (Charvak) is invalid by the fallacy of false dichotomy by failure to jointly exhaust such that agnosticism lies in counterexample. Moreover, if the syllogism were valid, then the profile options would probably include only 'atheist' and 'theist.' Just as a theist need not be pressured by an atheist to believe in God without proof, so too do I not need be pressured into conferring to myself a label of little real value. If you still feel a need to attempt to label me, but you have no logical discourse to issue, then I ask that you cease to sacrifice my opinions at the alter of the pantheon that is social ritual. The focus of the debate is its logic, not its debaters; on a debate forum, why would one need to group and categorize beliefs arbitrarily?
I still contend that such a deity's existence would be detrimental to humanities overall potential.
On what grounds? You make it sound as though you are itching to explain.
Your speaking of a deity which, under most descriptions : Kills people who don't agree, approves rape, homophobia, and forceful imposing of ideas. He/she/it/they craves attention, forces us to be reliant on them, and preaches free will to us while telling us we can do nothing except what is involved in "It's Plan". I can go on.
I see why you think that such a deity would be detrimental. I was not referring to such a deity, however. I rather pursue the proof of existence for a deity that is benevolent, powerful, and very knowledgeable, and who is not necessarily caught up in the writings of other religions. I seek a deity of which the modern atheist could be proud.
I can except that. So long as "Powerful" does not mean omni-potent. And very knowledgeable does not mean "Knows shit that we wouldn't Learn if humanity kept learning for trillions of years"
Something that seeks to better us, and maybe even make us it's equal. Or allow us to do so on our own. Not something that wants to forcefully keep us "Under its wing"
M. V. Reeves - "Therefore, until such time comes as the (non)existence of a deity of desirable qualities is proven, I hold that it is equally probable and improbable that such a deity exists."
How would you react if I told you I had metal wings growing out of my back, have 7.5 heads, and laser beam eyes? Until that is proven/"disproven" will you "hold that it is equally probable and improbable" that my above statement is true? If you do, well, I don't know what to say. If you don't, then it seems like the statement I quoted from you is special pleading.
I would of course still hold that it is equally probably and improbable, but it would not be difficult to disprove. I feel that it is a necessary allowance to make for subjectivity in the face of epistemological dualism. I would, of course, need to reconcile your claim with the possibilities that you were deluded, intentionally dishonest, or otherwise out of touch with yourself. I take, if you have nothing to say to that, that you can see no logical flaw therein, and that whatever disagreement you may have with respect to the perspective is merely a construction of a 'common sense' with which you think yourself to be imbued. The fact of the matter is that this perspective does not necessarily lead to a greater number of false conclusions, nor does it in any way make me less adaptive; on the contrary, it helps me to remain both open-minded and firm with a resolution that I have yet to see mirrored by another.
M. V. Reeves - "I would of course still hold that it is equally probably and improbable"
OK great. So I've convinced someone that there is a 50/50 chance I have metal wings growing out of my back, 7.5 heads, and laser beam eyes.
Oh I have more news for you: I have 4 heads. I'll assume I can count on you for the same 50/50 on this one.
Oh yeah, I have 11 heads. Again I'll assume you will grant me the 50/50 split.
So now we have reached the point where there is a 50% chance I have 7.5 heads; a 50% chance I have 4 heads, and a 50% chance I have 11 heads. Wow there is a 150% chance that I have more than 1 head!
Physics tells us to add probabilities using a root method, not linearly, as you have done. You also forgot to weight the probabilities according to the number of heads for which they account. Since the measurement process regarding your number of heads (in the absence of experimentation) is indeterminate, the magnitude of uncertainty is indeterminate. Therefore, and by definition, the probability that you have multiple heads is as arbitrary as the number of heads that you claim to have, and the probability (in this system and at this time) can be assigned any magnitude {u|u on [0,1] in R} without impacting the future use of propositional logic regarding the matter.
Further, I have provided no evidence to you of my conviction of your proposition, only of tolerance and consideration.
Pages