Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2015, 01:49 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(29-08-2015 06:20 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Rational people have the nearly impossible task of dissuading those that hold on to such beliefs that they are not grounded in reality.
It seems like it would be something very easy to do. But I've never managed to convince someone that their religious belief is only imaginary.

The religions have been working on their story and delivery for thousands of years.
Its a form of brainwashing and they are very good at it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
29-08-2015, 02:04 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(29-08-2015 01:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It seems like it would be something very easy to do. But I've never managed to convince someone that their religious belief is only imaginary.

Rationality, sadly, only matters to the rational.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
29-08-2015, 03:01 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(29-08-2015 02:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 01:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It seems like it would be something very easy to do. But I've never managed to convince someone that their religious belief is only imaginary.

Rationality, sadly, only matters to the rational.

At least we can agree on something! lol Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
29-08-2015, 04:08 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(29-08-2015 06:53 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 09:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no coherent definition of any gods.

Some gods with somewhat well-defined attributes can be proven to not exist, e.g. omniĀ³ ones, since the definition leads to contradiction. But it is not possible to prove the non-existence of the undefined.

The supposed God or gods we are speaking about is of supernatural origin, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and is the same God or gods worshipped by the Abrahamic religions which comprise of an estimated 4.5 + billion believers.

Any other god that does not reflect the aforementioned attributes in whole or in part is not who we are speaking about.

Who is the we? You've done this in other threads before and it's not consistent with conversation going on in the thread with other people. The actual communication dictates the ideas being talked about. It doesn't mean that's the grounds of everyones discussion because you retroactively proclaim it is. It is more about the gods, your view to limit that, now we are talking about X god isn't consistent to everyone. it's what you want to speak of. There isn't only defining "deities/gods" in supernatural realms or with supernatural powers. That's not purely the way one can anoint them. I don't subject my own definition and proclaim it is this only, on other peoples concepts.

Nowhere is this limited to the idea of the Dawkins Scale, his defined means, or anything of the sort. It's still a topic oh it's own ideas. And whether you want to call 7 a weaker position than others call it. It doesn't change the arguments against "certain" knowledge or "absolute" knowledge even if that's not what 7 is. That's still more of the direction within the topic labels or not. The labels themselves are meaningless, it's about the concept.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
29-08-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(29-08-2015 04:08 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 06:53 AM)Free Wrote:  The supposed God or gods we are speaking about is of supernatural origin, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and is the same God or gods worshipped by the Abrahamic religions which comprise of an estimated 4.5 + billion believers.

Any other god that does not reflect the aforementioned attributes in whole or in part is not who we are speaking about.

Who is the we? You've done this in other threads before and it's not consistent with conversation going on in the thread with other people. The actual communication dictates the ideas being talked about. It doesn't mean that's the grounds of everyones discussion because you retroactively proclaim it is. It is more about the gods, your view to limit that, now we are talking about X god isn't consistent to everyone. it's what you want to speak of. There isn't only defining "deities/gods" in supernatural realms or with supernatural powers. That's not purely the way one can anoint them. I don't subject my own definition and proclaim it is this only, on other peoples concepts.

Nowhere is this limited to the idea of the Dawkins Scale, his defined means, or anything of the sort. It's still a topic oh it's own ideas. And whether you want to call 7 a weaker position than others call it. It doesn't change the arguments against "certain" knowledge or "absolute" knowledge even if that's not what 7 is. That's still more of the direction within the topic labels or not. The labels themselves are meaningless, it's about the concept.

Since we are talking about the Dawkins scale, and since we are talking about the validation of the 7.0 position on the Dawkins scale, and since we know that Richard Dawkins bases his scale upon the Abrahamic god, then what are you talking about?

We are not discussing anything you are talking about, so therefore you are ...

Offtopic

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(29-08-2015 04:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 04:08 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Who is the we? You've done this in other threads before and it's not consistent with conversation going on in the thread with other people. The actual communication dictates the ideas being talked about. It doesn't mean that's the grounds of everyones discussion because you retroactively proclaim it is. It is more about the gods, your view to limit that, now we are talking about X god isn't consistent to everyone. it's what you want to speak of. There isn't only defining "deities/gods" in supernatural realms or with supernatural powers. That's not purely the way one can anoint them. I don't subject my own definition and proclaim it is this only, on other peoples concepts.

Nowhere is this limited to the idea of the Dawkins Scale, his defined means, or anything of the sort. It's still a topic oh it's own ideas. And whether you want to call 7 a weaker position than others call it. It doesn't change the arguments against "certain" knowledge or "absolute" knowledge even if that's not what 7 is. That's still more of the direction within the topic labels or not. The labels themselves are meaningless, it's about the concept.

Since we are talking about the Dawkins scale, and since we are talking about the validation of the 7.0 position on the Dawkins scale, and since we know that Richard Dawkins bases his scale upon the Abrahamic god, then what are you talking about?

We are not discussing anything you are talking about, so therefore you are ...

Offtopic

Just go and see, Look back within the topics it has never been purely one thing being talked about in that regard.

It's more about ideas and concepts than the label of the Dawkins terms. And his terms don't define a concept afterwards, it becomes a thing in communication that can mean other things. Yes there was a point of more focus on the scale and some posters not talking about the scale. Communication is fluid as in definitions, things are not rigid.

And there isn't a consistently well defined term of Gods/deities out there. We aren't limited to one in discussion of it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 04:33 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 05:07 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(29-08-2015 04:26 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 04:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Since we are talking about the Dawkins scale, and since we are talking about the validation of the 7.0 position on the Dawkins scale, and since we know that Richard Dawkins bases his scale upon the Abrahamic god, then what are you talking about?

We are not discussing anything you are talking about, so therefore you are ...

Offtopic

Just go and see, Look back within the topics it has never been purely one thing being talked about in that regard.

It's more about ideas and concepts than the label of the Dawkins terms. And his terms don't define a concept afterwards, it becomes a thing in communication that can mean other things. Yes there was a point of more focus on the scale and some posters not talking about the scale. Communication is fluid as in definitions, things are not rigid.

And there isn't a consistently well defined term of Gods/deities out there. We aren't limited to one in discussion of it.

In regards to the Dawkins scale we are limited to one; the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Dawkins himself makes this abundantly clear, and specifically names this god as the god of the bible; the Abrahamic god.

In regards to any other non-Abrahamic gods that fit the description in that post of mine you have issue with, they too all fall victim to the Evidence of Absence & Proof of Impossibility, and are likewise eliminated from any possibility of existing.

Any and all supposed gods described as being supernatural are eliminated. 6 of 1, half dozen the other, makes no difference.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: