Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[articulett]

Good post Art.
--------------------
On another note though....
Being a skeptic for all these years has been rewarding, however, there seems to be that little something missing. So, in the interest of becoming a more "fair and balanced", well rounded individual, I've begun some research into the finer aspects of Ozark culture.

Specifically, I've narrowed my interest to "Holy Rollers."

With a safe and encouraging environment I may soon be rolling on the floor speaking in tongues, drinking strychnine, and whipping Black Mamba's around the room by the tail.

Overall, do you think this would be a good gig for me?

-H "need some Tom Cruise life advice" S.

Well I hear that speaking in tongues is a true sign of the holy spirit... what else could it be? Surely all those people couldn't be delusional? And the bible says something about taking up serpents. So, yeah... I think you should be open minded to everything... after all, how are you going to get an "inner knowingness" of the really true truth unless you sample them all? There's no other evidence for these sorts of things, so... unless you want to miss out on divine secrets... I suggest you sample all beliefs until you find what's "true for you" via your "inner knowingness" and the wisdom of those fantastically spiritual others who are clearly experiencing something "unexplainable" or deep. Surely you are drawn to the snake handling Pentecoastals for a reason, right? What is that if not a divine sign??

If you live through the snake thing, maybe others will be convinced too. I mean what other explanation could there be than the fact that you have the really true truth? Yeah, Beth's truth is too wishy washy... and I can't tell what the heck the others really believe, but I'm not getting any "signs" that they've tapped into the mysteries of the universe. But surviving after handling poisonous snakes might convince me of something or other. Yeah, if faith is good, you may as well go for the gusto... --and what more gusto could there be than snake handling and drinking poison?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Either you hold a belief in something you define as god or you don’t. I could say I hold a belief in Spinoza’s god, but that would still make me an atheist in the pragmatic sense because: Deus, sive Natura – there’s no belief in anything supernatural.

So, do you currently hold a belief in something that could be considered supernatural?

It's funny you mention Spinoza...I was just reading through some Philip Dick essays where he mentions him... In any case... I would agree with you. The Spinoza interpretation is interesting, and basically what I have been saying this whole time. I don't believe in anything supernatural. If something is considered supernatural, and then is verified, it becomes natural so to speak...perhaps...So, to the idea that god is not distinguishable from nature, I would say yes...if I were to accept anything it would be that. However saying that is the same as atheism is a little far in my opinion. You are still believing in some invisible intelligence that exists within nature, and are calling it god...but who knows, maybe that is what it is...??

"If God is all things, then appearances are certainly deceptive; and, though observation of the kosmos may yield generalizations and speculations about God's plans, true knowledge of them could only be had by a direct contact with God's mind." (I am quoting Edward Hussey in his marvelous book The Pre-Socratics, p. 35.) And he goes on to give two fragments of Heraclitus: "The nature of things is in the habit of concealing itself." (Fragment 123) "Latent structure is master of obvious structure."........

.........If you assume (and you'd be correct to do so) that our minds are energy fields of some kind anyhow, and that we are fundamentally interacting fields, rather than discrete particles, then there is no theoretical problem in grasping this interaction between the billions of brain-prints emanating and forming and reforming into the patterns of the no�sphere. However, if you still hold to the nineteenth century view of yourself as a brittle organism, much like a machine, made up of parts -- well, you see, then how can you merge with the noosphere? You are a unique concrete thing. And thing-ness is what we must get away from, in regarding ourselves and in considering life. By more modern views we are overlapping fields, all of us, animals included, plants included. This is the ecosphere and we are all in it. But what we don't realize is that the billions of discrete and entirely ego-oriented left hemisphere brains have far less to say about the ultimate disposition of this world than does the collective no�spheric Mind which comprises all our right brains, and in which each of us shares. It will decide, and I do not think it impossible tohat this vast plasmic noosphere, considering that it covers our entire planet in a veil or layer, may interact outwards into solar-energy fields and from there into cosmic fields. Each of us, then, partakes of the cosmos -- if he is willing to listen to his dreams. And it is his dreams which will transform him from a mere machine into an authentic human. Philip K. Dick- Man, Android, and Machine

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are genuinely trying to claim middle ground, I have some bad news for you - you're probably an atheist. If you say about yourself, "I don't believe in god," then you're an atheist. It doesn't matter what you tack on after that. You can say, "But I don't not believe in god either." Well, great for you - but that's nonsense. It's a logical contradiction, you're saying, "~p and ~~p", and as much as you might think it makes you sound 'deep' or 'intellectual', it's actually no more than a nonsense statement

I would say my belief or lack of lies exactly in the middle ground, despite your impressive rhetoric. I don't have to subscribe to your preferred interpretation just because you can only think about this in those two terms.

Boiling it down to those two things only limits the variety of experience to either belief or disbelief. There are times when I could absolutely say with certainty that I do not believe, and there are times that I would consider myself a total believer(in some sense)...I guess it depends on the context. Most of the time I am wishy washy. I don't mind, and I don't know why some one other than myself would be so concerned with it to the point that they feel they have to prove to me that I am wrong and am actually: (Insert preferred term). It simply doesn't matter.

What does matter to me is how I think about it, and you reminding me whats epistemological and whats ontological isn't really going to change my mind about anything.

I hope that was deep and intellectual enough to suit you...

 

[thesyntaxera]

But Beth and Thesyntaxera aren't just saying "they don't know"... they are saying that perhaps some religious person does... or some guru... They are taking a lack of knowledge about something and inserting a "sort of answer" that has to do with a "supreme intelligence" or "purpose giver" etc.

Where EXACTLY did we say that? All you have proven so far is that you can read what people have written, and interpret those words through a heavy blanket of assumptions because you want us to fit in the the pigeon hole you have carved out in your mind for "believers".

 

[articulett]

Does your belief in demons lie directly in the middle ground? Belief in Thetans? How about belief in reincarnation? Belief in angels? What about belief in ESP? I'm trying to understand what you mean by middle ground. How is your god belief different or are you equally open minded to all these hypotheticals and explanations since, you know, science doesn't know everything and so forth. And what aren't you middle of the road about when it comes to belief in invisible, immeasurable forces or entitities? Or are they all up for grabs in that middle grand where anything that sounds like a good explanation for something to you counts as being "possible" and "on the fence" about? Are you claiming that some god is just as likely as no god in your head? So then some demons are just as likely as no demons in your head too? And an immortal soul is as likely as consciousness being a product of a living brain? Angels are as likely as not? How about hobgoblins? Thetans? What criteria are you using to determine which invisible immeasurable "explanations" or "divine things" are likely and which are just delusions or fanciful or mythical?

I don't think you are on the fence at all. I think you are protecting some sort of belief or delusion but don't want to open it up for scrutiny. You believe in some woo and feel superior for believing in it, but you know that in regards to evidence it's as wooish as all the other woo you don't believe... but instead of admitting that, you want to make those who don't believe in it into bad guys so you can pretend you are "open minded" and "diplomatic" and holier than thou without having to show any actual evidence of any of it.

It's not a matter of "deep and intellectual"... it's a matter of you using words to not really say anything at all and to avoid the real issues while inferring insulting things about those who are more comprehensible and honest than you.

 

[articulett]

Where EXACTLY did we say that? All you have proven so far is that you can read what people have written, and interpret those words through a heavy blanket of assumptions because you want us to fit in the the pigeon hole you have carved out in your mind for "believers".

Excuse me? You are the one claiming to have "personal truths"... I presume you got them from some source.... somewhere... I'm sure you didn't just make up whatever god you imagine there is a possibility for... the one that supposedly answers the questions that science hasn't answered or whatever nothingness you've inferred about this supposed open mindedness of yours. I think you have been doing the pigeon holing and self congratulating while attributing motives to others. All you apologists pretend that atheists think they "know" the answers... when they never say that... they say that they see no evidence that there are divine answers.... that anyone knows them... but you apparently think there can be divine answers and are looking around for them or keeping your mind open to them as though someone could know them! Right? How am I wrong? And you pretend it's good to be this way--logical even... as though whatever god you imagine is just as likely to exist as not exist... but that is not anymore true than it is for demons or Xenu or any other invisible "entity" that people imagine.... at least there is no more evidence for such. And you aren't on the fence about those things are you? But you imagine yourself good and open minded for being on the fence about some god-- you think that those who lack a belief are dogmatic or arrogant or claiming knowledge they never claimed while building up your own self important ego because you think there's something good about having faith or being "open minded" to whatever nebulous mystical delusion you've spun from your culture induced stories. It's no more open minded to be on the fence about "god" then it is about "demons" or "reincarnation" or body thetans. They are all cut from the same semantics-- with nothing to show for them in any way. They are all fake explanations for phenomena humans don't understand yet. But if humans don't understand it... then what the hell are you keeping your mind open to... apparently you imagine some human does or will and you don't seem to think it's scientists or rational smart people. You seem to have a bias as to whom those people might be--even inferring that you believe you are getting such communications, but you don't say it, because you know it's woo and you don't want your beliefs examined the way you examine the stuff you call woo.

To me... being on the fence about your delusions or god or magic or whatever is the same as being on the fence about Scientology or demon possession or reincarnation or conspiracy theories. You "believe in belief". You think it's good to be open to and believe in certain absolutely unprovable things that people are known to have delusions about... but you can't say why... or what differentiates your "middle of the road" theism... with middle of the road belief in psychics. You use words to say nothing and then accuse people of not listening while people repeatedly tell you that YOU are the one not following the conversation and putting words in peoples mouths. But what does evidence matter, eh?-- You just "believe" you're right because it's "true for you".

I'm interested in the truth that is the same for everyone. What's true to you is about as compelling to me as what is true for Tom Cruise or Radrook or Sylvia Browne or Conspiracy theorists. If you don't like that, try to offer something more than them in the way of logic or evidence for what you are "open minded" to or see yourself as special for believing in .

See, you never did answer the OP. So why are you on the fence about whatever it is you are on the fence about and not other such beliefs about mysterious things scientists haven't explained to your satisfaction?

 

[articulett]

Here's the post where your hypocrisy is laid out in full. You attribute thought to atheists they do not have... you imply that god is the answer for why things are here in the universe... so you definitely assume a god that has a "why"... I think that having a "why" requires a brain ... and a plan...

Moreover you repeatedly refer to yourself as open minded and able to comprehend special things that make no more sense than Tom Cruise's special things that only he comprehends. You congratulate yourself and insult those who don't speculate "god" whatever that means as though it is good to imagine an invisible creator or giver of reasons or whatever it is god means to you... and wrong to treat speculations like all similar woo speculations... because there is no difference. The diplomacy and open mindedness you imagine of yourself is what you would call woo if it was attached to nebulous beliefs you did not have. You would find yourself thinking the way I think of you if you were hearing your arguments trying to support being in the middle of the road about demon possession or astrology.

And you know that... but it's hard to admit... so instead you vilify those who drive that point home or attempt to get clarification. You project those features on to others because you have no answers about why your wishy washy belief in "god" is more respect worthy than wishy washy belief in demons or psychics or other woo things. You imply that you think this makes you a better person or that this is good somehow... and that it's bad not to be that way-- but you never ever have evidence to support such implications. Just semantic spin. Just like Beth and Radrook and every other woo or woo apologist. If you think it's worth more respect than that-- find something respect worthy about it or quit self congratulating yourself here and putting down others who think it's total BS. If your god or faith is good or true it should stand on it's own merits-- it wouldn't need your spin.

We're not trying to prove you wrong. We don't care what you believe any more than you care what we believe. We're just trying to see if there is any good reason for someone to believe in some god version or other more than another god version or invisible entity and so forth. So far, I don't see any reason.

So read your words as though it's an "agnostic" Moonie tsk tsking you for not speculating the validity of their reality that's "true for them". You sound the same to me. And there is a big difference between people that don't claim that there is divine knowledge and those who claim to have such... the fact that you see the two as similar says more about your intelligence, education, and biases than it does about the similarities. Like Dawkins, I may share their passion, but not faith. A skeptic just needs good evidence to change their mind. But what changes the mind of a person who thinks that faith is the ultimate virtue? Nothing. And who is to say which faith is more true than any others? An atheist would say "no-one"-- but every believer seems to think they have the divine truth. To me, you ALL have the same exact nothing. You have various degrees of faith in some delusion or other that makes you feel good or something... just like all other believers of "mystical truths" and the like.

Your predisposed to think that all people who think there is a potential for something akin to god(whatever that is or isn't) use the same old 'spin'. It's assumptive to think that by the way. I have not as yet declared that I believed for certain that there was or wasn't anything else out there.



You assume as fact that there is not anything of greater intelligence that humans might consider mystical. There is no proof of this. There can probably be no proof of this, and as a result you conclude without evidence that the notion is false. You have no idea 'why' things are here or anywhere in the universe...just an inkling of the how. It's a question that doesn't mix well with purely left brain analytical thinking because it forces you to engage the undernourished right side of your brain for a minute. I understand why it makes you feel uncomfortable, I just don't understand what you have against speculating on such things.




No one is necessarily invoking magic to explain anything. Your just being presumptuous again. The problem is that you can't conceive of anything being beyond human understanding.




I chose to believe in a possibility. I don't assume my point of view to be fact.



Why not leave the regurgitated arguments aside for a moment. I haven't claimed to know the why or how. I have speculated that there could be a reason why, and that possibly it is beyond a humans ability to understand, something you deny, and yet in this very thread it has been mentioned that humans "... are horrible at distinguishing between related and unrelated patterns." What you fail to notice is that your simply filling the gaps with your own brand of magic.



Do you have any fact based evidence to attach to your claim that I believe a supernatural answer is THE answer? Or are you just maintaining that ever present condescending vibe that always seems to emanate from the atheist corner of this debate? What I am proposing is simply the idea that the things you consider supernatural may actually just have been natural all along, and beyond the limits of our perception.



I couldn't agree more. This thread and it's title are a joke. Any thinking person who is open to the possibility that there is more to reality out there than the all important self would probably agree that there can be no evidence to prove anything at the level we are discussing here. If that is true, then this entire thread is an exercise in futility, where self described atheists get to embolden their beliefs(that have no real basis either) about the world and universe in which they reside. Why do you need to attack what other people exercising their individual right to cognitive liberty find value in?

I'm sure there is a litany of answers that could be run through involving all the typical points(please don't bother to recite them) atheists such as yourselves have brought up on countless occasions. It appears that even more than "believers", you have an intense desire for self validation, and seek it in the realm of atheism rather than by questioning your self and deciding what YOU think about things. Have fun hiding behind a banner, not unlike many of the "believers" out there who do the same thing and call is christianity, or islam, or scientology, or whatever...do whatever makes you feel comfortable and safe in your absolutist non-theological version of religion.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Well I hear that speaking in tongues is a true sign of the holy spirit... what else could it be? Surely all those people couldn't be delusional? And the bible says something about taking up serpents. So, yeah... I think you should be open minded to everything... after all, how are you going to get an "inner knowingness" of the really true truth unless you sample them all? There's no other evidence for these sorts of things, so... unless you want to miss out on divine secrets... I suggest you sample all beliefs until you find what's "true for you" via your "inner knowingness" and the wisdom of those fantastically spiritual others who are clearly experiencing something "unexplainable" or deep. Surely you are drawn to the snake handling Pentecoastals for a reason, right? What is that if not a divine sign??

If you live through the snake thing, maybe others will be convinced too. I mean what other explanation could there be than the fact that you have the really true truth? Yeah, Beth's truth is too wishy washy... and I can't tell what the heck the others really believe, but I'm not getting any "signs" that they've tapped into the mysteries of the universe. But surviving after handling poisonous snakes might convince me of something or other. Yeah, if faith is good, you may as well go for the gusto... --and what more gusto could there be than snake handling and drinking poison?

Indeed. All good points.

I must admit, I often check back and do read some of the woo, just as an exercise of how the human mind can be so efficient at suspending reason in specific areas.

Sort of a free psychological study (and significantly cheaper than other forms of entertainment...I mean those Hanson...er...rather Hannah Montana tickets are getting pricey).

 

[HghrSymmetry]

The last sentence is a short circuit. If it's beyond human understanding, then by definition, it can't be conceived.

Originally Posted by thesyntaxera
No one is necessarily invoking magic to explain anything. Your just being presumptuous again. The problem is that you can't conceive of anything being beyond human understanding.

P.S. "Your" ?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The last sentence is a short circuit. If it's beyond human understanding, then by definition, it can't be conceived.

I am pretty sure that does not follow.

I have the conception that the maths done at the frontier of mathematical research is completely beyond my understanding. Hand me a research paper and I wouldn't be able to make head or tail of it. Yet I nonetheless have the conception that mathematical research is a real enterprise conducted by real people.

By analogy it's conceivable that there are beings running around the universe, or in other dimensions, or whatever you want, that are real but which are beyond our understanding.

Lacking any decent evidence for such beings I do not believe they exist any more than I believe in leprechauns but there is no built-in contradiction or incoherence in the idea of such beings.

 

[articulett]

Indeed. All good points.

I must admit, I often check back and do read some of the woo, just as an exercise of how the human mind can be so efficient at suspending reason in specific areas.

Sort of a free psychological study (and significantly cheaper than other forms of entertainment...I mean those Hanson...er...rather Hannah Montana tickets are getting pricey).

Yep... I'm getting good at diagramming the tactics to vilify non believers while building up whatever it is they've determined they are "open minded" about.

The number one tactic is to accuse you of believing things or asserting things you never said and then attacking that (typical straw man)... then there are the inference where they put you down for not being as "right brained" as them or some other nuttiness while building themselves up "they are open to possibilities" then they do the tap dance where they equate faith with dogma and whether it's saying that an atheist has "faith" too or that an atheist is filling gaps with magic or their attempts to assert this idea that there can be something "fundamentalist" about non belief. They hear you say things you don't say so that they can feel superior by putting you down... they have to do that... because otherwise, they'd have to examine the belief they are protecting but not really mentioning. Instead they toss out tangents and ad homs and derails and strawmen and semantic nothingness while avoiding the question and spinning whatever it is they aren't mentioning but feeling proud about being "on the fence" about.

Is being "on the fence about god belief" any more respectable than being on the fence about miracles or ESP or reincarnation? Does it even mean anything. Is there more of a reason to be "agnostic" about one than the others. If so, I never ever hear a good reason among all the smoke and mirror and words of defensiveness... and yet there's the underlying theme that the "apologists" think we should treat these beliefs differently.

But to me, it's just a same old version of "my woo is true" and the arguments are ALL the same. That's why they are getting so damn easy to diagram. Sure, some are nicer or smarter than others... but the tactics are the same aren't they. You're right... this is cheaper than concerts, religion, and tuition-- but just as good for learning!

 

[articulett]

I am pretty sure that does not follow.

I have the conception that the maths done at the frontier of mathematical research is completely beyond my understanding. Hand me a research paper and I wouldn't be able to make head or tail of it. Yet I nonetheless have the conception that mathematical research is a real enterprise conducted by real people.

By analogy it's conceivable that there are beings running around the universe, or in other dimensions, or whatever you want, that are real but which are beyond our understanding.

Lacking any decent evidence for such beings I do not believe they exist any more than I believe in leprechauns but there is no built-in contradiction or incoherence in the idea of such beings.

Yes, but in the math example, you expect that the people writing about it, are writing about something they understand. While all the invisible entities that people believe in are things that are beyond all human understanding so any humans writing about them would not be speaking about something they understood. How does a human get understanding to teach about things beyond human understanding? There would be no reason to think that a forum member had such understanding than to think that the Pope did or the Mormon Prophet did or that a schizophrenic did or that Tom Cruise did, right?

I can conceive of things being beyond human understanding. But I wouldn't expect any human to be able to inform me of something that was beyond human understanding because they are human and thus cannot know things that are beyond human understanding! Thesyntaxera asserted that I didn't believe that things could be beyond human understanding. I asserted that I believed that things could be beyond human understanding but I didn't expect that thesyntaxera (or any other human) could tell me about them. Thesyntaxera then suggest that he/she could or something. Just the usual woo stuff.

A person can conceive that something is beyond human understanding... an atheist doesn't assert that nothing is... but when someone then claims to have a knowingness about a subject that is beyond human understanding or in believing in this "thing" beyond understanding, they've made either a nonsensical claim or an egotistical claim.

They are claiming not only that they believe IN divine truths... they are claiming to know of these "unknowable" things.

 

[Olowkow]

I just listened to some old shows by this guy: http://www.blowmeuptom.com/

Tom Leykis.
He makes a living with a radio program just about the fact that he is an atheist...that's it! The fundies call him up and try to put him down. It's pretty funny for a while, then kind of repetitive.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I am pretty sure that does not follow.

I have the conception that the maths done at the frontier of mathematical research is completely beyond my understanding. Hand me a research paper and I wouldn't be able to make head or tail of it. Yet I nonetheless have the conception that mathematical research is a real enterprise conducted by real people.

The statement was "beyond human understanding."
If only Edward Whitten, Kaku, and a few select physicists and mathematicians understand it, then it's obviously not beyond human understanding.

By analogy it's conceivable that there are beings running around the universe, or in other dimensions, or whatever you want, that are real but which are beyond our understanding.

inconceivable [inkənˈsiːvəbl] adjective

not able to be imagined or believed

In that definition "not able to be imagined" is a definition for inconceivable.

Lacking any decent evidence for such beings I do not believe they exist any more than I believe in leprechauns but there is no built-in contradiction or incoherence in the idea of such beings.

I don't think anyone was arguing that there was. If one is able to "imagine" something,...then it isn't inconceivable.

 

[Mobyseven]

Oh, for Pete's sake, we've been over this before.

A theist is a person who believes in god.

If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

I'm getting mighty sick of this idea that there is some kind of 'middle ground' between atheism and theism. The implication seems to be that there is some kind of mental effort involved in not believing in god, that in order to not believe in god one has to not believe in god with all their heart and all their soul (irony intended), that one has to live their life with this little voice in the back of their head constantly whispering, "There is no god. Remember that - there is no god. Devote your being to the non-existence of god."

This is not the case.

Atheism is not a belief system, and it takes no mental effort to maintain atheism. Indeed, it is no more difficult to not believe in god than it is to not believe in a billion (literally, probably, though it's hard to remember exactly how many when you don't believe in them) other entities and phenomenon. The effort it takes to not believe in god is exactly the same as the effort it takes to not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, and magical peppercorns, just to name three.

If you are genuinely trying to claim middle ground, I have some bad news for you - you're probably an atheist. If you say about yourself, "I don't believe in god," then you're an atheist. It doesn't matter what you tack on after that. You can say, "But I don't not believe in god either." Well, great for you - but that's nonsense. It's a logical contradiction, you're saying, "~p and ~~p", and as much as you might think it makes you sound 'deep' or 'intellectual', it's actually no more than a nonsense statement (cue the obvious postmodernism joke). You can say, "But I don't think we can know with certainty either way." Well, congratulations - you're agnostic. But that doesn't change the fact that you're also an atheist. As has already been noted, 'atheist' is an ontological position, and 'agnostic' is an epistemological position - two very different beasts. You might say, "And I like bacon and eggs for breakfast." I do too. Don't know why you'd say that, but it's certainly possible - my point is that so long as you lack a belief in god, you're an atheist. Period.

I certainly hope that this will put the atheist/agnostic silliness to rest finally, at least in this thread.

Should I take the silence regarding this post as a, "Yes, I understand now, gosh don't I feel silly!"? Or has another one gone the way of ignoring opposing viewpoints?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I can conceive of things being beyond human understanding. But I wouldn't expect any human to be able to inform me of something that was beyond human understanding because they are human and thus cannot know things that are beyond human understanding!
--------

A person can conceive that something is beyond human understanding... an atheist doesn't assert that nothing is... but when someone then claims to have a knowingness about a subject that is beyond human understanding or in believing in this "thing" beyond understanding, they've made either a nonsensical claim or an egotistical claim.

Ok I can agree with that explanation.
In my example I was using definition #4 below. That equates understanding with conception. Under that definition "beyond human understanding" becomes synonymous with "beyond human conception".
However, using definition #2 (to form or develop in the mind) then yes, able to form some type of conception in the mind isn't mutually exclusive with not being able to understand it.

From your dictionary.com:

con·ceive· (kən sēv′)

transitive verb

1. to become pregnant with; cause to begin life
2. to form or develop in the mind
3. to hold as one's conviction or opinion; think; imagine
4. to understand; apprehend
5. to put in words; couch; express

Yet, the woo's still attempt to describe their pet belief by giving it a name,
nebulous attributes, and other fuzzy properties. They imply they have some sort of knowledge about the subject, yet when you ask them how they know, you simply get nonsensical or dogmatic responses.
In other words, you get no answer at all.

P.S. Didn't mean to delve into semantic acrobats. I certainly didn't want to sound like "The one whose name shall be obliterated" from that other forum. :

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Should I take the silence regarding this post as a, "Yes, I understand now, gosh don't I feel silly!"? Or has another one gone the way of ignoring opposing viewpoints?

Probably the latter.

 

[Oroborus]

Heck the bible teaches you lost of great things. In the first few chapters you learn right away that snakes are bad and don't eat apples, they'll edjumacate you!

 

[thesyntaxera]

Probably the latter

Probably.

Should I take the silence regarding this post as a, "Yes, I understand now, gosh don't I feel silly!"? Or has another one gone the way of ignoring opposing viewpoints?

I already answered.

 

[thesyntaxera]

You are the one claiming to have "personal truths"... I presume you got them from some source.... somewhere...

Myself. Based on what feels right for me. They are personal truths, not universal ones. You know the difference, yes?

To me... being on the fence about your delusions or god or magic or whatever is the same as being on the fence about Scientology or demon possession or reincarnation or conspiracy theories.

I know. That appears to be why what you type has little to do with what you are responding to.

So read your words as though it's an "agnostic" Moonie tsk tsking you for not speculating the validity of their reality that's "true for them". You sound the same to me.

I know I do. It's because you want me to be like them. I am myself. Read what I write, and respond to that. That is what I am saying here. I can only speak for myself. So far all I have stated is that I am open to the possibility, that it's conflicting for me in a personal sense, and that we may never know for sure, so why argue about it.....give or take thats the gist...yet you inisist on putting me in some sort of frame work you laid out based on your own presumptions.

Please spare me your appeals to ridicule, as they are getting tiresome, and showing you to be closeminded.

P.S. "Your" ?

If you say so. There is a lot I don't understand.

 

[Mobyseven]

I already answered.

Certainly, you responded. But you haven't actually addressed any of the points. Your response was, essentially, that I was wrong and that I can't simply dismiss all the people who call themselves agnostic.

However, you haven't even taken basic steps to try and demonstrate why I'm wrong. Your blanket statements about my dismissing self-proclaimed agnostics as all being incorrect is not actually an argument against my position.

Indeed, the complete lack of content in your response was the reason I explained it all again, with the misguided faith that if I explained it to you a different way you'd actually understand.

Once again, and this time I'll do the short version:

Atheism is the negation of theism. If theism is p, atheism is ~p. There is no middle ground, because everybody who is not a theist is an atheist. It can be demonstrated that there is no middle ground, because to claim middle ground is to claim that one is neither a theist or an atheist. This can be represented as ~(p v ~p). As p v ~p is a tautology (it is always true), the negation of it is a contradiction (it can never be true). To claim such a middle ground is to claim one holds a position that is a logical contradiction, and is therefore nonsense.

This is not complicated philosophy. This is simple propositional logic, and the definition of the words 'theist' and 'atheist'. If you disagree with the conclusion, then you either need to demonstrate that I have not used the correct definition of 'atheist' or 'theist', or that my logic is somehow wrong.

Can you do that, or will you admit that you were incorrect? In the case that you can do that, I will admit that I was incorrect and apologise.