A Question For Supernaturalists

155 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
If I could explain my views

If I could explain my views on methodological naturalism as succinctly, I would have authored more than two books. You have some seriously, wonderful writing skills and are always a pleasure to read.

Makes me want to study tensors.

Generally, when people begin using terms unfamiliar to me, I have to hit the Internet and figure out what in the hell they are talking about. Due to your clarity and the logical flow of information in your writing this, "Internet search step," is generally unnecessary.

I am utterly envious of your ability to string concepts together so wonderfully.

Delaware's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

I agree with Cognostic on your brilliant and impressive post.

Was the intent of Gen 1 to teach the original audience science? Did Gen 1 break any new scientific ground or present new information about science to the original audience? Isn't it just using their knowledge of science to, as you say, teach an ethic?

I am afraid that your example of tensors provides evidence against your claim. I understood closer to 5% than 50% of your post on tensors. My highest level of education in math was algebra. But my grasp of math is far more advanced than the original audience in Genesis 1. They didn't even have a zero. The 14 billion years covered in Genesis is given using only about 100 words, if you take out all the extraneous words. Your tensor post was close to one thousand words. Could you reduce it to 100 words, write in a way that the original audience in Genesis could understand it, remember it, and accurately pass it on for generations? And it has to be in the form of a poem. As brilliant and learned as you are, I don't think you could do it. Maybe God didn't want to risk detracting from his main point with some new scientific information. It could hinder the mesage he is trying to convey in his writings.

In the area that you live, when a weather report is give, do they say something like "sunrise tomorrow is at 6 AM"? The people giving these reports are probably highly educated in some field of science. Yet they seem to not know that the sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates. Does this make the weather report completely unreliable? Are they just saying it in a way so the main point can be easily understood by all listeners? If someone finds a newspaper from your area thousands of years form now. When they read that the sun will rise at 6AM, should they conclude that the entire newspaper is unreliable?

You seem to be saying that the writer of the Bible should have anticipated science in the 21st century. Written the Bible so people in the 21st century can have evidence that it is reliable. What about an alchemist from 1,000 years ago? They could claim the Bible is unreliable because it does not mention the four elements of earth, water, fire, and air. A scientist 100 years ago could say the Bible is unreliable because it says the universe had a beginning. Why science has known for thousands of years that it is static and eternal, they would say. Why does the Bible have to align perfectly with our present scientific knowledge in order to be reliable?

You are using the same line of reasoning that fundies use. They try to align Genesis 1 with science to provide evidence of the reliability of the Bible. They can give you 26 ways that Gen 1 miraculously matches with science. They will say that the Bible knew the universe had a beginning thousands of years before scientists realized this fact. More proof of God they say. You are reaching a different conclusion but using the same line of reasoning. The notion that the science, history, geography, or psychology in the Bible, can be used to prove or disprove its reliability, is faulty reasoning. What is the purpose of the Bible? To teach science? To prove its reliability by its accurate grasp of science? It is more about God revealing himself to us humans, and his relationship with us humans, than about revealing science to us. If someone tries to turn it into something else, they are missing the point.

Has the ideas God was trying to impart in Gen 1 not survived the millenniums since its writing?

Calilasseia's picture
There are several issues here

There are several issues here.

Issue One. The hypothesis I am proposing, is precisely that - the authors of Genesis merely fabricated a cosmology in order to impose an ethic, in a manner that invited much opprobrium from Nietzsche. The problem with launching into the invention of a cosmology, without having as primary aim getting that cosmology right, but instead to use that cosmology, right or wrong, as a means of imposing an ethic on the universe, is fatally flawed. If one's ethical project depends upon a particular cosmology being correct, that project dies a death the moment said cosmology is found to be wrong. I recall having stated this in previous posts.

Issue Two. The point of my pedagogical exercise was not necessarily to be successful with every person I present it to, merely to be successful with enough people for the requisite understanding to be disseminated. There will always be people who struggle to understand even elementary concepts, let alone a concept as powerful and pedagogically challenging as tensors. Furthermore, I chose this concept specifically because I know from experience, that it causes even undergraduate mathematics students to pause for breath. Consequently, any success in disseminating understanding of that concept is considered a plus in the requisite circles. If I had succeeded with you in this regard, then obviously this would have lent a lot of weight to the postulates i am expounding here, but just because it failed with you, doesn't mean it will fail with anyone else.

Indeed, that's one of the points I was seeking to introduce by this example, namely that [1] only partial success would be needed in order to lay the foundations for further development of understanding, and [2] any properly constituted entity seeking to disseminate understanding would know this in advance. As a corollary, we can dismiss the idea that a properly constituted entity possessing the relevant body of knowledge was behind this text, because such an entity would have sought other ways and means to disseminate that understanding. No mathematics lecturer would expect 100% success when teaching this concept, but would be highly delighted if just one student in 1,000 absorbed the concept to the point of being able to move into research with it. Furthermore, even that limited level of success would still form the basis for further development of understanding, especially if that one student in 1,000 also possessed facility with explaining his thinking to a wider audience. Plus, even an incomplete understanding in the initial stages on the part of the rest of the students, would again form the basis for better understanding at a later stage, and any entity with a proper understanding of basic pedagogy would also understand this, and plan accordingly. No evidence that such planning took place is present in the requisite mythology.

Issue Three. Just because a public presenter uses colloquial language when presenting a topic that has deep science behind it, doesn't necessarily invalidate that presentation, unless the colloquial language involved is actively misleading. Your example fails because the term "sunrise" possesses a basis in observation, namely that at daybreak, the Sun appears to rise upwards from the horizon. That there are intricate celestial mechanics involved in the actual process resulting in that observation, is of course a detail that is taught in basic physics classes throughout the developed world, and as a corollary, no misunderstanding need arise among those thus educated, who recognise "sunrise" as a shorthand for the requisite motions. Astute students in said classes will recognise in addition, that said mechanics were used in the calculation of the time of first appearance of the Sun over the horizon. There is no act of deception involved in your example, merely a recourse to shorthand understood as such by many.

Plus, I also understand that there's an issue involved with respect to the geometry of spherical objects, which complicates the actual calculations. You might find it instructive to determine this issue for yourself.

Issue Four. No, I'm not saying at all that the actual humans responsible for writing that mythology, should have anticipated a body of knowledge 26 centuries before the appearance thereof. Instead, I'm stating that any genuine "creator" of the universe, as asserted to exist in that mythology, should have had access to that knowledge (and more), and found a way of disseminating this to the requisite humans, so that discoverable errors did not appear in any text attributed to that entity. If you were trying to disseminate a message to other people, would you want errors appearing in the text version thereof?

Issue Five. I'm not using the same reasoning as fundamentalists at all, I'm destroying their so-called "reasoning", by pointing out that their assertions of purported scientific compatibility of their mythology are plain, flat, wrong. I'm taking their assertions at face value, and demonstrating why those assertions are woefully incompetent when treated thus. That you appear not to have deduced this yourself, is slightly worrying.

Furthermore, the various individuals reponsible for the requisite text, did not "know" whether or not the universe had a beginning, they merely asserted this. They did not have actual knowledge of the origins of the observable universe and its contents, and demonstrated this amply by littering the requisite text with assertions that are not merely wrong in the light of modern scientific knowledge, but farcical and absurd in that light. This isn't just the case for physics, but for biology too. Furthermore, if you check the actual output of relevant researchers in cosmological physics, they are very careful with respect to their postulates on the matter, not merely in the interests of scientific rigour, but because some of them have seen their work subject to duplicitous misrepresentation by the usual suspects among pedlars of apologetics.

Indeed, every time I see the tiresome "atheists think the universe came from nothing" lie that so many of them love to post on Facebook and elsewhere, I'm reminded of two salient facts flushing this garbage down the toilet where it belongs, namely [1] the question of the origin of the universe doesn't arise from "atheism", but from research in cosmological physics, to which I and others pay attention, and [2] that the universe "came from nothing" is actually the very assertion contained in their mythology, and it is supernaturalists who think the universe came from nothing, via a conjuring trick from their magic man.

In the meantime, I've devoted space elsewhere on this forum to an exposition of two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which the implication, explicitly, is that the observable universe in its current form had a "beginning", but that what existed before was eternal. Their proposed mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe, incidentally, possesses several merits - one, it eliminates the singularity problem from Big Bang cosmology, and two, it generates an observable product we can look for here and now in the observable universe, in the form of a precisely defined power spectrum for primordial gravitational waves. If future gravitational wave detectors return data to the effect that said power spectrum is actually observed to be present, Steinhardt & Turok pick up a Nobel Prize.

Understanding the details of their work, incidentally, not only involves you heavily with tensors, but the intimidating mathematics of the Ricci Calculus, and I don't propose to give a masterclass on that any time soon, because you need about five years' worth of graduate mathematics behind you before you can even begin working with it, let alone pressing it into service in a research paper.

Issue Six. You are committing a fundamental error, by conflating persistence with correctness. Plenty of bad and wrong ideas have been persistent over time among humans, but by definition, those ideas did not survive because of correctness. Bad and wrong ideas have been persistent for several reasons, viz:

[1] The ideas in question enjoy at least some accord with superficial intuition, whilst being wrong when subject to proper analysis (I point you at your own "sunrise" example here);

[2] The ideas in question enjoy support from a politically powerful and motivated lobby (but only persist as long as that lobby persists)

[3] The ideas in question exert a powerful emotional appeal.

In the case of the mythology in question, [2] and [3] above are manifestly at work. First of all, as I've stated elsewhere, the one feature that the Abrahamic religions brought to the landscape of human discourse, was ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine, without which, the mythologies in question would have fallen into the same disuse as Greek or Egyptian mythology a long time ago. The ideas contained in those mythologies did not survive because they withstood the tests of proper discourse, rather, they survived because ruthless enforcers of conformity to doctrine (frequently material beneficiaries of the requisite pursuit) placed the arena of discourse in chains for 1500 years. Those ideas are now under diligent scrutiny to an extent that would have terrified the Inquisitors of old, because the arena of discourse has at last been liberated from religious shackles, and the success of science has played a large part in that liberation. The remaining strongholds of those ideas only remain so, due to a willingness on the part of adherents to exhibit discoursive duplicity on a grand scale, combined with the manner in which the simplistic notions arising from those mythologies are emotionally comforting to the gullible and uneducated.

Indeed, one idea I've been warming to, is the idea that genuine intellectual maturity only arrives, when one jettisons these comforting lies, and faces uncomfortable reality with fortitude. Only when one has stared hard at one's own terrifying insignificance on the cosmic scale, and emerged not afraid of it, but rejoicing in the new understanding it bestows, can one truly call oneself a mature adult.

I shall now take another break.

Delaware's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

Issue 1 YOU said "the authors of Genesis merely fabricated a cosmology in order to impose an ethic." The cosmology in Gen 1 was not a fabrication. Gen 1 did not break any new scientific ground or present new information about science to the original audience. It is just using their knowledge of science to, as you say, teach an ethic?
Another statement you made "If one's ethical project depends upon a particular cosmology being correct, that project dies a death the moment said cosmology is found to be wrong." You are the one saying the cosmology in Gen 1 must be in accordance with current scientific knowledge. You are ignoring many key points, such as the original audience, the type of literature, the method of transmission, and the fundamental purpose of the text. It is a treatise on God's purpose and not on astrophysics, biology, geology, and astronomy. That is the straw man argument you are creating about Gen 1.

Your original question went something like this:
"Any genuine "creator" of the universe, as asserted to exist in that mythology, should have had access to that knowledge (and more), and found a way of disseminating this to the requisite humans, so that discoverable errors did not appear in any text attributed to that entity. If you were trying to disseminate a message to other people, would you want errors appearing in the text version thereof?
Here are some answers to the original question you asked:
You are misunderstanding the primary purpose and message of the text.
You are putting requirements on the text that place it in an untenable position.
You are saying that if God had written Gen1, he would have done it differently.
You are saying that for Gen 1 to be reliable it must align with current scientific knowledge.
You are overlooking the fact that its original message and purpose has survived intact, for those who are seeking it.

The last statement you made was very interesting to me. It sounds like a religious text. You should call it Calilasseia's Credo.
"Indeed, one idea I've been warming to, is the idea that genuine intellectual maturity only arrives, when one jettisons these comforting lies, and faces uncomfortable reality with fortitude. Only when one has stared hard at one's own terrifying insignificance on the cosmic scale, and emerged not afraid of it, but rejoicing in the new understanding it bestows, can one truly call oneself a mature adult."
I think that Nietzsche would agree with you. It sounds a lot like the Ubermensch to me.
This "Credo" is based on the assumption that there is no God.

I disagree wholeheartedly that we are terrifyingly insignificant on any scale. I think all people have immeasurable worth, and no life is meaningless or futile. That ultimately there is justice, goodness, and purpose. Of course, all that is based on the assumption that there is a God.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I disagree wholeheartedly that we are terrifyingly insignificant on any scale. I think all people have immeasurable worth, and no life is meaningless or futile. That ultimately there is justice, goodness, and purpose. Of course, all that is based on the assumption that there is a God.

Why are your conclusions (shall we say baseless, unevidenced, assertions) predicated on there being not just 'a' god but a specifically christian god?

Produce evidence for any god and you will convert most of the posters on these pages...but what is the evidence for your christian god?

I have already pointed out there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for the existence of the Jesus godling you prefer, so how about evidence for the rather nasty YHWH?

Delaware's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

Do I have your claim right? If the Jesus of the Bible had existed, contemporary historians would have wrote about him. We don't know of any that did, therefore he did not exist.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Please read my posts about early christian history directed to you again, or maybe for the first time.

I addressed this subject and expressed my opinion on the existence of a jesus figure as described in the gospels: If you remember I said a "magic/divine" Jesus was Improbable.
I gave several reasons for this conclusion, not least of which is the total lack of contemporary corroboration of the much later gospel stories.
That a human jesus figure or amalgam of figures may have existed on which some of the less fanciful/plagiarised NT stories were based is "not proven", it is possible, but then it will be nothing like the divine figure you imagine and have based your faith upon..

So, once again you have my argument wrong.

However my question still stands:

On what basis do you say that justice and so on are predicated on being a specific christian god? You have no evidence for the existence of the Jesus godling, so what evidence do you wish to exhibit for the existence of the nasty YHWH character?

It would benefit you to actually read and research my posts about the 1st century for yourself, . It may pierce the veil of supposition/superstition you have cast over yourself.

Delaware's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

Your opinions about the historical Jesus are not the same as the majority of scholars in the field.
Did any of the writers in antiquity who apposed Christianity question the existence of Jesus?

How do you know that the NT is a "much later gospel stories." Isn't the NT the contemporaneous accounts our require?

Regardless, I think it is irrational to base your faith/believe/opinions on what evidence is available from contemporary corroboration (non Biblical) on the subject from 2,000 years ago.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I already replied in depth in our last conversations. You are in error.

Your opinions about the historical Jesus are not the same as the majority of scholars in the field.

Wrong. Do some research. Dont seek theologians opinions but seek rather historians and historiographers. They tend to look at facts not seek to confirm their supposition.

How do you know that the NT is a "much later gospel stories." Isn't the NT the contemporaneous accounts our require?

No the gospels are written some 50 years after the events they allegedly describe. Later in the case of John. In fact the earliest writings are of "paul" (anonymous in truth) and he does not describe any of the magical events in the gospels...you should learn this stuff if you call yourself a christian.

Regardless, I think it is irrational to base your faith/believe/opinions on what evidence is available from contemporary corroboration (non Biblical) on the subject from 2,000 years ago.

The irony apparent in this paragraph has me reeling in laughter. You have no evidence at all for your jesus figure but my opinion is wrong? LOL....

Still waiting for your evidence of the existence of YHWH...you seem to want to avoid the question.

Delaware's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

Here is some research on the historical Jesus:
"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 285

Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X p. 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Something written 50 years after the events is not contemporary enough? Some eyewitnesses would have still been around and could have been consulted. There may have been accounts and testimonials that could be resourced. If something was written that was inaccurate there would have been those that could have refuted or corrected the text. Here is what Luke said and it sure sounds like an historical account with eyewitness testimony.
Luke 1:1 "Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."

I am going to go with what the experts say and what the text says, instead of what you say.

Not avoiding YHWH, just don't have the time right now.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

And you conveniently only quote those words you think agree with you.

Ehrmann is writing about the probability of a HUMAN jesus figure, if you read his books , he is a historiographer (one who studies texts).
Many specific points by Ehrman concentrate on what may be regarded as the 'embarrassments' and 'failures' of the various depictions of Jesus Christ found in the gospels and the works of Paul which point to an account based on a real person that got embellished rather than a completely made up figure.(Wiki)

Ehrmann also made the point that there is no corroborating evidence for the Jesus described in the gospels, NONE.

Once again you should read his books they may open your eyes and stop you looking such a complete fool.

Similarly with Price, you have merely reworded a small portion Here is what Price actually wrote about In The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011), Price maintains that the Christ myth theory is the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity, giving another overview of arguments:[24] (Wiki)

"almost every story in the Gospels (and Acts) can be plausibly argued to be borrowed from the Greek Old Testament, Homer, or Euripides."
"every detail of the narrated life of Jesus fits the outlines of the Mythic Hero archetype present in all cultures"
"the epistles, regardless of their dates as earlier or later than the gospels, seem to enshrine a different vein of early Christian faith which lacked an earthly Jesus, a Christianity that understood "Jesus" as an honorific throne-name bestowed on a spiritual savior who had been ambushed and killed by the Archons who rule the universe before he rose triumphant over them [...] Christianity eventually rewrote Jesus into an historical incarnation who suffered at the hands of earthly institutions of religion and government."

So you can see both Ehrmann and Price , I agree with. Both those historians (one an ex minister) hold the probability of a Jesus figure as described in the gospels as Ehrmanns case: IMPROBABLE, and in Price's argument NO EXISTENCE

Finally Michael Grant...really? You quoted him? You should read some more....

A quick read of an apologetics website and a google of Wiki does not study make. Look up the meaning of "Contemporary" sometime. You will see why I accurately use that term.

I am going to go with what the experts say and what the text says, instead of what you say.

Obviously not....as you don't know what they say, and that is their writings agree with my studies and verdict.

Do you want to reload and shoot yourself in your other foot? "Living in truth" you certainly ain't!

(Edit, missing words in sentence 1)

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Isn't the NT the

Jo - Isn't the NT the contemporaneous accounts our require?

As Old man shouts has pointed out; there are no (known) contemporary sources for the character Jesus, including the Bible. This is a very common false claim presented on this forum by Christians, perhaps the most common.

/e I said no "known" sources because who knows; someone might dig one up someday.

Delaware's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Why is the NT not a contemporary source?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Why is the NT not a

Jo - Why is the NT not a contemporary source?

As far as I can tell, no NT author met Jesus (if we exclude "supernatural meetings", like Paul's vision).

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Jo - "Why is the NT not a

Re: Jo - "Why is the NT not a contemporary source?"

Awww... He no wissen so well, do he?

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sheldon's picture
If atheists who are neo-

If atheists who are neo- pagan or New age are supernaturalists. Are the rest naturalists?

What?

"When an adult teaches a young child about complicated things, the child may have difficulty grasping the lesson if the emphasis in on scientific accuracy. So the adult is right to speak to the child at there level of understanding."

Oh no, not this tired old canard. Are adult humans omniscient, are they omnipotent? This is surely one of the most asinine analogies in all of religious apologetics, and that really is saying something. Right up there with a deity that possesses limitless power and knowledge only being able to accurately communicate in Arabic.

Science btw is underpinned by objective evidence, religious claims are not, so these analogies are clearly the most desperate type of rationalisation to avoid confronting the fact that what religions claim is an infallible message from an infallible deity has been exposed as laughably wrong in such a short amount of scientific scrutiny.

Delaware's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

"But, my essential point remains intact. Namely, that a genuinely existing fantastically gifted entity, one capable of fabricating an entire universe and its contents, would surely possess the power to ensure that any "message" it sought to disseminate to us, would not contain manifest and discoverable errors?"

I have tried to show that you are making the same errors as that some fundamentalists make.
They try to make the Bible fit with science, and than use that as a basis for it's reliability (or risibility in your case).
Both are straw man arguments that miss the point.

Or as another supernaturalists put it regarding certain passages of Scripture “were set down by the
sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities of the common people, who are rude and
unlearned.” Galileo

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"They try to make the Bible fit with science, and than use that as a basis for it's reliability"

Science is the most effective and accurate method in discovering the truth. So it stands at the top of the list as a method in determining the reliability of the bible. That fact that science has exposed multiple fallacies and inaccuracies in the bible is not that science is wrong, but hat this bible is one inaccurate and fallible book.

We can't use the bible to verify it's reliability, that is as circular as one can get. And throwing darts at a multiple choice dartboard is not valid, nor is a Ouija board.

And to admit the bible is imperfect and behind the times is admitting one's god is incompetent and behind the times.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

"Science is the most effective and accurate method in discovering the truth."
That is the definition of scientism.
Is science your God or your religion?
You said "the truth". Categorical and comprehensive.
Very similiar to what some fundamentalists say about the Bible.
Science is the best method for discovering the truth about the natural world. But not "the truth".

Why do you keep juxtaposing science and God or the Bible?
What is your point?
Are you equating them?
We can only choose one?
They are in conflict?
One is the new and superior God?

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"That is the definition of scientism.
Is science your God or your religion?"

Once again, a false dichotomy where you present just two options.

Science is just a process, a tool.

Jo, I know you understand the differences, all you are now doing is attempting to reverse the burden of proof and be a troll.

Science is consistent, and thus it does come into conflict with the bible many times. Or to be more accurate, science proves that a lot of stuff in the bible is bullshit that is wrong.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

You are the one who keeps juxtaposing science and God, not me.
It is you who presented them as "twp options", not me.

It is becoming very popular to call someone a troll and accuse them of reversing the burden of proof.

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"You are the one who keeps juxtaposing science and God, not me."

Not possible, religion and science are at the opposite ends of the spectrum of rational thought. The simple fact is that science has done a very good job of disproving many religious claims and biblical crap.

'It is becoming very popular to call someone a troll and accuse them of reversing the burden of proof.'

Jo, in all my time in this forum that was the third time I used the "T" word. I do not casually throw it around, I use it only when there is no option but to call you what you are.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

What are the reason why you think I am a troll?

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"What are the reason why you think I am a troll?"

Jo, I credit you with being intelligent. And when an intelligent person is faced with the same question, yet continually attempts to redefine (great pushback by atheists each time) ESTABLISHED definitions and concepts, they are a troll.

Delaware's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

What ESTABLISHED definitions and concepts am I continually trying to redefine?
Atheism is a lack of faith in gods.
Those making a claim have the burden of proof.
Did I get it right?

How does one shine the bright light of skepticism on an accepted concept without being a troll?

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: NO JO! Atheism is a

@Jo: NO JO! Atheism is a lack of BELIEF in gods. We all know you just used the word "FAITH" to troll. Why don't you just STOP? I don't know about the rest of the atheists on the site but I can't think of a single thing I accept on "FAITH." I certainly try to have as little of it as possible in my life.

Please shine the bright light of skepticism on an "Accepted Concept." We could all learn a great deal if you actually had the ability to do that. Thus far, you have not demonstrated that ability. Let's try again. Please fill in the blanks.

Accepted Concept: ___________________________________________________________
The Bright Light of Skepticism Concerning the Concept, clearly written and defined above.
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

Love to hear all about it.. Your best friend, Cog.

Delaware's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

Yes, I should have just said lack of faith. Lack of belief in gods.

The accepted concept that Atheists do not make any claims.
They declare they have a God detector tool or method that can show there is no God. (Bear in cave)
They claim that Theist are delusional. (Mentally ill)
They claim to have special knowledge that over the last 10,000 years there has been no evidence for God.
They claim there belief that there God detector and knowledge of the last 10,000 years is evidence of absence.
Thereby committing the argument from ignorance fallacy.
They make claims like “With that said, evidence for the non-existence of God far outweighs any argument or evidence for the existence of God or gods.”
They proclaim “I am 99.999% certain that a God or gods does not exist.”
Sound familiar?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Who the blue fuck is 'they'?????

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: "Who the blue

@Old Man Re: "Who the blue fuck is 'they'?????"

Seriously??? How the blue fuck do you NOT know who they are? Hell, EVERYBODY knows who they are! Therefore, it should be quite obvious they know everybody, meaning they also know YOU. I suppose next you are going to say you don't know everybody... *rolling eyes*... Regardless, I would like to think you at least know somebody. After all, not only does everybody know who they are, but everybody also knows somebody. Which makes me wonder how you could possibly know somebody with knowing who they are.

Sometimes you really just don't make much sense, you know. Maybe you should try taking off that goofy helmet every now and then and let your brain breathe a little.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Tin Man

@ Tin Man

well I do know that THEY are buying all the toilet rolls in Australia.

Its ok, Cog doesn't use them....

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.