Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[JoeMorgue]

And again we get back to the core point.

What's the difference between a dragon in my garage that I've defined as being literally incapable BY DEFINITION of never been proven or disproven and no dragon at all?

None. A dragon that doesn't exist and a dragon that effects and interacts with nothing are the same thing.

Same with god. If god is this undetectable, undefined, vague vague vaguey vagueness he doesn't exist.

Even god has to be faslefiable in order to mean anything.

If the best you can come up with is a vague vaguey god that might maybe exist because we'll never no because you've defined away every way to prove or disprove his existence with special pleading, or that's the only god you're intellectually brave enough to argue for, you're as much of an atheist as I am.

 

[bruto]

It isn't.

The issue isn't really that they have different definitions of gods - that's just a by-the-way sort of comment and its more directed at those that try to do the motte-and-bailey dance with regards to the what god means in the real world. The issue is given how they define their gods we can say we know their gods don't exist. Because those defintions contradict or are otherwise are not compatible with what we know. So there is no "scepticism fail", no belief involved, no uncertainty, no can't-prove-a-negatove preventing us saying those gods do not exist.

Yes, but that's not the trick question I'm referring to. It's simply whether all versions of the so-called Abrahamic God are referring to the same god or, as some suggest, different gods. I think the answer to that particular question depends on whether you start from the premise that there is a god or not, and thus has no useful answer alone.

 

[wareyin]

The Abrahamic religions all believe in the God that created the universe. Your attempts to construct a bunch of d-gods is a massive fail.

If being a god that created the universe means it's the same god, apparently Elohim, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, and Jesus are also Aten, Waheguru, Hayyi Rabbi, The Baháʼí God, Vishnu, Mbombo, Unkulunkulu, Nanabozho, Cōātlīcue, Chiminigagua (and/or Bague), Viracocha, Raven, Atun, Ptah, Neith, and many, many more.

 

[Thermal]

I'll take your word for it, as this is the first time you and I have participated together in one of these conversations.

Yet there you were, making **** up and putting words in my mouth and radically altering my argument, which by your own admission, you have not the foggiest ******* idea what it has been or if it had changed. That's not ok to do on this thread, that thread, or any ******* thread anywhere at any time.

You aren't changing your god definition on the fly, then, you're just defining god in such a nebulous, wishy washy way that it cannot be disproven, but it's also as useful as the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" navel gazing exercise.

No, it's being honest. You (and others) want a god described like a beer can. Simple, comprehensible, and measurable in the fridge or garage. Ok. I'm sure that would be argumentatively convenient. I find it ridiculous.

To repeat, no we haven't had this discussion before, and I am not a participant in the other thread. And rather than accuse you of lying or making **** up, I'm just going to point out that you made a mistake.

To repeat, you made claims about my argumentation that were wholly imaginary, by your own admittance. You made them up out of thin air and claimed they were mine. There is only one word for that, whether you like that word or not.

An incomprehensible,undetectable, unobservable, being that's possibly out there is the same thing as the invisible dragon, though. It appears that the only actual sticking point is whether it's in your garage or somewhere out there in the vastness of the cosmos, which makes no difference if it's unobservable, incomprehensible, and undetectable and has no effect on this universe.

Jesus Christ, you're doing it again. Putting words in my mouth after you just acknowledged that you have not the foggiest idea what my position is or has been. Just stunning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just like "strong" atheism (I believe gods can't exist) differs from "weak" atheism (I don't believe gods exist), I distinguish strong agnosticism (we cannot know) from weak agnosticism (I don't know).

I think weak agnosticism is a wishy-washy excuse to avoid answering a question, so I don't subscribe to it. I like my philosophy to be strong!

If one asks the question, "can gods exist or do they exist somewhere" and there is no evidence they exist one is stuck with a "can't prove the negative" answer. It's because one asked the wrong question.

If instead one looks at the evidence and asks "what best explains god beliefs" one gets an evidence supported answer: "Human fiction explains god beliefs, not any interaction with real gods." People made up their beliefs in gods.

That is going by overwhelming evidence of what explains god beliefs.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Agnosticism is cowardly and anti-intellectual because if you actually were agnostic about god you'd be agnostic about nearly everything, and not in a "Oh well since you brought it up I guess I'll pretend I'm agnostic about everything to save face" way but honestly and organically in your day to day life.

If you're "agnostic" I want to see you waiting by the side of the road before crossing because you don't see any cars but you can't rule out magical invisible cars.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who said "identical"?

Even if the various religions have differing opinions on the nature of this God, they all worship the God that was first described in the Talmud.

So Jesus is a god and Jesus was a profit like Mohammad are really people worshipping the same god? That's a stretch.

Just to clarify because my post along with many others are off topic, it might be on topic to discuss evidence for or against certain gods. But maybe the debate about Abrahamic god or gods being one or many gods could be taken elsewhere?

Thanks.

 

[Leumas]

....
I have demonstrated over and over that the Abrahamic God has all of the properties of a god that I described (including creator of the universe)...

Excellent... great... now that you have defined "god"... do YOU believe it exists?

 

[Leumas]

Agnosticism is cowardly and anti-intellectual because if you actually were agnostic about god you'd be agnostic about nearly everything, and not in a "Oh well since you brought it up I guess I'll pretend I'm agnostic about everything to save face" way but honestly and organically in your day to day life.

If you're "agnostic" I want to see you waiting by the side of the road before crossing because you don't see any cars but you can't rule out magical invisible cars.

Agnosticism is cowardly and anti-intellectual...

And dishonest and self-righteously irrational.

 

[lobosrul5]

Agnosticism is cowardly and anti-intellectual because if you actually were agnostic about god you'd be agnostic about nearly everything, and not in a "Oh well since you brought it up I guess I'll pretend I'm agnostic about everything to save face" way but honestly and organically in your day to day life.

If you're "agnostic" I want to see you waiting by the side of the road before crossing because you don't see any cars but you can't rule out magical invisible cars.

I cannot disprove that magical invisible cars exist, but until I see proof that they do, I'll carry on as if they don't.

 

[Leumas]

... the God that was first described in the Talmud.

Why you choose this "god" and not Indra... he is not limited to three split personalities... he has hundreds... not just three-in-one rather hundreds-in-one... Indra has YHWH face down in the dust under his feet just by the sheer number of personalities he has.

Do you believe Indra exists?

 

[JoeMorgue]

This actually ties into something that Penn Jillette said that I don't agree with it 100%, but there is a truth in it.

He said (paraphrasing from memory, I'll have to find the actual video): "I actually get along better with evangelicals because they aren't afraid to actually tell me what they think. They look me in the eye and go 'I'm right and you're wrong' and I look them in the eye and go 'No I'm right and you're wrong' and we talk about it and that's how we get to the truth. The other way of doing it, that weak, passive 'Well everyone is right in our own way, there are many paths to truth, and so forth' that is how you talk to to a child. And I bristle at that."

 

[Leumas]

I wonder if we would find a difference between RCC followers and most of the protestant followers? A devout RCC would know if the correct spells are followed they are going to heaven whereas for most devout protestants will think they are going to be judged on their works, and over the course of a life I doubt there are many that haven't done religiously dubious acts.

Lutheranism and its offshoots as well as Calvinism and its offshoots believe in being predestined and PRE-elected for salvation no matter what... and it is not works but faith that they are judged for.

And these two are the origins and the majority of Protestantism... they go with Paul's claptrap about "it is not works but faith" that saves and some are pots made by the Sky Potter for pissing in and some are made to be for holding wine and it is all up to the Sky Potter which pot is which... even the wicked are made for the day of wickedness so that the Sky Potter can gloat and boast and brag about his POWER.

By Grace through Faith
Salvation cannot be earned. There's no behavior, no matter how holy or righteous, by which we can achieve salvation. Rather, it's the gift of a gracious God. By grace we mean God's extraordinary love for us. ....But God's love, or grace, is given without any regard for our goodness. It's unmerited, unconditional, and unending love.

...

This is the great theme of the Protestant Reformers, as well as John Wesley and the Methodists who followed: We're saved by grace alone through faith alone. We're made whole and reconciled by the love of God as we receive it and trust in it.

 

[Thermal]

You can be agnostic about anything you do not have enough data about to arrive at a meaningful conclusion, or where you have significant room for doubt. That does not mean you have to be agnostic about everything all the time to the point where you can't cross a street.

Is this goddamned place really required to revert to Romper Room reasoning at the slightest provocation?

 

[Thermal]

This actually ties into something that Penn Jillette said that I don't agree with it 100%, but there is a truth in it.

He said (paraphrasing from memory, I'll have to find the actual video): "I actually get along better with evangelicals because they aren't afraid to actually tell me what they think. They look me in the eye and go 'I'm right and you're wrong' and I look them in the eye and go 'No I'm right and you're wrong' and we talk about it and that's how we get to the truth. The other way of doing it, that weak, passive 'Well everyone is right in our own way, there are many paths to truth, and so forth' that is how you talk to to a child. And I bristle at that."

 

[Darat]

You can be agnostic about anything you do not have enough data about to arrive at a meaningful conclusion, or where you have significant room for doubt. That does not mean you have to be agnostic about everything all the time to the point where you can't cross a street.

Is this goddamned place really required to revert to Romper Room reasoning at the slightest provocation?

Agnostic does not mean don’t know.

 

[Leumas]

You can be agnostic about anything you do not have enough data about to arrive at a meaningful conclusion...

We have oodles and scads of data that gods do not exist... it is called REALITY.

Do you have data that makes you sure that Pixie Fairies do not exit? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed he had data that they did.... why are you not agnostic about Pixie Fairies... or are you?

Are you agnostic about Quetzalcoatl and Altjira and Unkulunkulu?? Did you even look for data about them one way or another???

If someone asked you if Leprechauns exist.... what would be your answer???

 

[acbytesla]

Agnosticism is cowardly and anti-intellectual because if you actually were agnostic about god you'd be agnostic about nearly everything, and not in a "Oh well since you brought it up I guess I'll pretend I'm agnostic about everything to save face" way but honestly and organically in your day to day life.

If you're "agnostic" I want to see you waiting by the side of the road before crossing because you don't see any cars but you can't rule out magical invisible cars.

"Agnostic" was coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869 to be cowardly. I kind of think (but not quite) that "deism" was also a dodgy idea. Religion has over the years successfully demonized non-believers to the point that makes it difficult for us to stand up and say that religion is full of crap. I know I described myself as an agnostic for most of my life just to avoid that.

Now I think I owe it to the world to say just how bizarre and stupid the religion idea is. Ridiculous ideas are deserving of ridicule.

 

[Thermal]

We have oodles and scads of data that gods do not exist... it is called REALITY.

Dead wrong, and comically so. Absence of evidence, yada yada yada. If your view was true,unsolved murders never happened.

Do you have data that makes you sure that Pixie Fairies do not exit? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed he had data that they did.... why are you not agnostic about Pixie Fairies... or are you?

Dunno. Dafuq is a pixie fairy? Your treatment of words that you ascribe random meanings to is legendary around here, so I'm not assuming anything.

Are you agnostic about Quetzalcoatl and Altjira and Unkulunkulu?? Did you even look for data about them one way or another???

If someone asked you if Leprechauns exist.... what would be your answer???

Addressed upthread. Repeatedly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dead wrong, and comically so. Absence of evidence, yada yada yada.

Stop hiding behind truisms you heard someone use before but obviously don't understand.

"Absence of evidence" was never meant to conclude that something can exist and never leave any evidence forever.

Again you keep being a perfect, almost strawman example of the kind of person who needs to read (read for comprehension) the Dragon Analogy again and again until you get it.

If there was a god he would leave evidence of his existence at some point. This can't be countered with a glib, misunderstood reference to "absence of evidence."

You are an encyclopedia of how to be wrong.

People who are pointing out that after thousands of years of theology and apologetics and religion there's still no evidence for god have a valid point.