Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2016, 10:59 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 10:52 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Ag-Shane.

I think you are asking a sort of question which was answered along the lines of one of the former... um... American Vice Presidents?

Along the lines of,

"Things we know. Things we don't know. Things we know we don't know and things we don't know we know."

Now, while said person was ridiculed and lampooned for such an answer. .... (Not that I may have quoted it correctly) it's quite a good and profound sort of answer.

That you are happy to be vague is your problem.

Untill you wish to become concise then all you'll tend to get is obscure replies.
Is this an opinion?
Is it my problem or yours? If it is my problem when did it become a problem for me and how did I indicate it was a problem?
I have no issues with being vague or getting vague responses.
Have you tried answering my questions without assumptions yet?
Have you tried answering my question with a question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 11:06 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2016 11:16 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 10:35 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Sweet holy fuck...

Things that don't exist simply do not exist. Fucking ground breaking concept, I know.


Concepts that lack sufficient evidence to substantiate their existence should be treated as non-existent. In fact, you already do this all of the time. I doubt you spend your days worrying about the army of Demon Vampire Witches of Saturn™ and their plans for world domination, because until their existences is demonstrable with evidence, they effectively do not exist: even if you want to wax rhapsodic about how we cannot possibly be sure they cannot exist short of omniscience. We can be reasonably sure they don't exist, because there is no evidence to support their existence; and we all go about our lives not giving a single fuck about the plans for the Demonic Vampire Witches of Saturn™; and anybody that did worry about their plans would rightly be at the receiving end of a torrent of uncontrollable laughter.


So stop this one man mental masturbation session already. It is embarrassing.
These are only questions my friend.


Sweet holy fuck.


Just asking questions @ RationalWiki

Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.

The purpose of this argument method is to keep asking leading questions to attempt to influence spectators' views, regardless of whatever answers are given. The term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.

In some cases, it also helps hide the nebulousness or absurdity of the questioner's own views. For example, a 9/11 truther may ask questions about perceived irregularities in the collapse, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it," and the plane that hit the Pentagon. If turned back around on the truther, the implication is that they think that the plot involved numerous bizarre complications (rigging three buildings with explosives, making an on-the-spot decision to instruct the FDNY to detonate one of them, replacing a plane with a missile and later littering the Pentagon with plane wreckage). By not having to propose their own hypothesis, they can come across as smoothly winning a debate, since the other person is unable to answer a "just being asked" question. In fact, it can be very useful to "just ask questions" of woos, inasmuch as getting woos to put a hypothesis forward (or even just admitting to believing something crazy) can be a worthy accomplishment.

The questioner may claim they are playing devil's advocate. This is frequently to advance an odious position with no shortage of existing advocates.




You're a troll. Fuck off.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am making no assertions.


See above.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Am I supposed to believe something does not exist simply because you said so?


No you dumbass, you're not supposed to believe in it's existence because it has utterly failed to meet the evident burden of proof required for existence. Possibility of existence is not the same as probability of existence, and the fact that you never can seem to separate the two even after multiple attempts of having it clearly spelled out for you only makes your JAQ'ing off further reek of insincere bullshit.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not saying that things do not exist. I am simply asking how do you know something does not exist?


Until it meets it's burden of proof, for all intents and purposes it does not exist. There is no evidence that the Demonic Vampire Witches of Saturn™ exist, therefore we don't worry about their plans for world domination. A god could exist, but if it never interacts with us in any demonstrable fashion, it's effectively identical to a non-existent god; and therefor we shouldn't worry about it.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you know if my black German Sheperd dog exists? How can I prove that it doesn't exist?


I know German Shepards exist, and I am reasonably certain they come in black. Therefore there is nothing out of the ordinary to the claim that you would own one. That claim requires no leaps in logic and doesn't break the laws that govern existence as we currently understand them. Merely saying that you own one would be sufficient evidence for most people to take you at face value and believe that you do in fact own a black German Shepard.

However if you said your German Shepard was a professional international chess player, that would require a hell of a lot more evidence.

Now on the other hand if you never claimed to own one, and if when we searched your house we didn't find a German Shepard or any evidence that you had ever owned one (such as dog food or chew toys)? Then we would be safe to assume that you did not own a German Shepard, even if you claimed otherwise. And you might indeed own one (keeping it at your parent's home and not your own), but without evidence to that fact, after seeing a dog-free house it would be more than reasonable to believe that your German Shepard was nonexistent.

Plus, people lie online all the time. I doubt you are an exception.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How does one go about proving that something does not exist. Is this a hard question?


It's not, as evidenced by how often and easily it has been explained to you. Either you're an idiot or a troll, and I'm leaning towards troll.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Does my lack of belief in something prove that it doesn't exist?


That's so fucking dumb, it's not even wrong. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-03-2016, 11:19 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2016 11:28 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 11:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  These are only questions my friend.


Sweet holy fuck.


Just asking questions @ RationalWiki

Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.

The purpose of this argument method is to keep asking leading questions to attempt to influence spectators' views, regardless of whatever answers are given. The term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.

In some cases, it also helps hide the nebulousness or absurdity of the questioner's own views. For example, a 9/11 truther may ask questions about perceived irregularities in the collapse, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it," and the plane that hit the Pentagon. If turned back around on the truther, the implication is that they think that the plot involved numerous bizarre complications (rigging three buildings with explosives, making an on-the-spot decision to instruct the FDNY to detonate one of them, replacing a plane with a missile and later littering the Pentagon with plane wreckage). By not having to propose their own hypothesis, they can come across as smoothly winning a debate, since the other person is unable to answer a "just being asked" question. In fact, it can be very useful to "just ask questions" of woos, inasmuch as getting woos to put a hypothesis forward (or even just admitting to believing something crazy) can be a worthy accomplishment.

The questioner may claim they are playing devil's advocate. This is frequently to advance an odious position with no shortage of existing advocates.




You're a troll. Fuck off.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am making no assertions.


See above.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Am I supposed to believe something does not exist simply because you said so?


No you dumbass, you're not supposed to believe in it's existence because it has utterly failed to meet the evident burden of proof required for existence. Possibility of existence is not the same as probability of existence, and the fact that you never can seem to separate the two even after multiple attempts of having clearly spelled out for you only makes your JAQ'ing off further reek of insincere bullshit.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not saying that things do not exist. I am simply asking how do you know something does not exist?


Until it meets it's burden of proof, for all intents and purposes it does not exist. There is no evidence that the Demonic Vampire Witches of Saturn™ exist, therefore we don't worry about their plans for world domination. A god could exist, but if it never interacts with us in any demonstrable fashion, it's effectively identical to a non-existent god; and therefor we shouldn't worry about it.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you know if my black German Sheperd dog exists? How can I prove that it doesn't exist?


I know German Shepards exist, and I am reasonably certain they come in black. Therefore there is nothing out of the ordinary to the claim that you would own one. That claim requires no leaps in logic and doesn't breaks the laws that govern existence as we currently understand them. Merely saying that you own one would be sufficient evidence for most people to take you at face value and believe that you do in fact own a black German Shepard.

However if you said your German Shepard was a professional international chess player, that would require a hell of a lot more evidence.

Now on the other hand if you never claimed to own one, and if we searched your house we didn't find a German Shepard or any evidence that you had ever owned one (such as dog food or chew toys)? Then we would be safe to assume that you did not own a German Shepard, even if you claimed otherwise. And you might indeed own one (keeping it at your parent's home and not your own), but without evidence to that fact, after seeing a dog-free house it would be more than reasonable to believe that your German Shepard was nonexistent.

Plus, people lie online all the time. I doubt you are an exception.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How does one go about proving that something does not exist. Is this a hard question?


It's not, as evidenced to how often and easily it has been explained to you. Either you're an idiot or a troll, and I'm leaning towards troll.



(19-03-2016 10:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Does my lack of belief in something prove that it doesn't exist?


That's so fucking dumb, it's not even wrong. Facepalm
You may have misunderstood the question.
I did not ask if black German shepherds exist.
I asked if you know that "my" black German Sheperd exists. If I, you or anyone else said that it does not exist, how can any of us prove to the other that it does not exist without first proving we are omniscient and always honest?
Would it not be much easier to prove something does exist than to prove that it doesn't?

Has it not already established that we do not always need emperical evidence to believe in the existence of something? Eg. pyramids

Why is emperical evidence not needed to believe in the existence of the Pyramids but it it required to believe in God?
Would it not be more rational and consistent to not believe in the Pyramid's esistence by that logic?

I am only following the logic others are presenting. Please feel free to correct it or show me where I have misinterpreted it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 11:19 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You may have misunderstood the question.
I did not ask if black German shepherds exist.
I asked if you know that "my" black German Sheperd exists. If I, you or anyone else said that it does not exist, how can any of us prove to the other that it does not exist without first proving we are omniscient and always honest?
Would it not be much easier to prove something does exist than to prove that it doesn't?

Has it not already established that we do not always need emperical evidence to believe in the existence of something? Eg. pyramids

Why is emperical evidence not needed to believe in the existence of the Pyramids but it it required to believe in God?
Would it not be more rational and consistent to not believe in the Pyramid's esistence by that logic?

I am only following the logic others are presenting. Please feel free to correct it or show me where I have misinterpreted it.


I did not misunderstand the question, but I can tell when a troll is being a troll.

I'm not going to waste my time answer the same questions yet again, merely being re-worded slightly differently because you're either a complete fucking idiot or you enjoy public acts of mental masturbation.

[Image: kindly-fuck-off.gif]

Now, would you kindly, go fuck yourself?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 11:47 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 11:34 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 11:19 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You may have misunderstood the question.
I did not ask if black German shepherds exist.
I asked if you know that "my" black German Sheperd exists. If I, you or anyone else said that it does not exist, how can any of us prove to the other that it does not exist without first proving we are omniscient and always honest?
Would it not be much easier to prove something does exist than to prove that it doesn't?

Has it not already established that we do not always need emperical evidence to believe in the existence of something? Eg. pyramids

Why is emperical evidence not needed to believe in the existence of the Pyramids but it it required to believe in God?
Would it not be more rational and consistent to not believe in the Pyramid's esistence by that logic?

I am only following the logic others are presenting. Please feel free to correct it or show me where I have misinterpreted it.


I did not misunderstand the question, but I can tell when a troll is being a troll.

I'm not going to waste my time answer the same questions yet again, merely being re-worded slightly differently because you're either a complete fucking idiot or you enjoy public acts of mental masturbation.

[Image: kindly-fuck-off.gif]

Now, would you kindly, go fuck yourself?
Duly noted. You may have to forgive me if I do not wish to comply with your request, considering it was you that tried to answer my questions & you have now decided to leave our informative discussion. Are you easily offended by people that question your logic?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 11:50 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
At work.

(19-03-2016 11:19 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Eg. pyramids

Why is emperical evidence not needed to believe in the existence of the Pyramids but it it required to believe in God?
Would it not be more rational and consistent to not believe in the Pyramid's esistence by that logic?

I am only following the logic others are presenting. Please feel free to correct it or show me where I have misinterpreted it.

You may have missed my point about the "Knowing what we don't know." quote.

So...... we know pyramids exist by the extension of mathematics that is geometry.

If you post a question about "But how do we know about mathematics?" I shall be most vexed.

Ergo, the follow on from that is then 'Yes' we know the Pyramids exist.

Do you follow that logic?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 11:54 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 09:51 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Greetings all,

My question is for the atheists out there. This is a serious question and I'd like serious answers. Let's try to keep the bullshit to a minimum, shall we?

Now, as we all know, when you ask atheists about their lack of belief in God, they will say things like "I don't believe in God, just like I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy" (insert as many make-believe characters you'd like).

That being said, I am a Christian Theist, so I can only look through the lens of Christianity (Judeo-Christianity)..so..

pid='964394'
My question is; Do you really believe that the Christian's belief in God is synonymous to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?? Because to me, if there was an adult that seriously and earnestly believed in Santa Claus/Tooth Fairy, I would probably think that something is wrong with him/her. I would think "I don't understand how rational human being (adult) could ever believe in such a thing".

Is that how you atheists view Christians? Do you really believe that our belief in God is similar to belief in Santa Claus..or is that just something you say to be facetious??

Is it to the extent where you pass by a Church on Sunday, and you see all of the Church attendees in the parking lot greeting each other...and you say to yourself "What a bunch of idiots..."

Is that what you think? I am just curious, as I am trying to figure out how far to the left some of you are on the "belief" line Laugh out load

Quote:My question is; Do you really believe that the Christian's belief in God is synonymous to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?? Because to me, if there was an adult that seriously and earnestly believed in Santa Claus/Tooth Fairy, I would probably think that something is wrong with him/her. I would think "I don't understand how rational human being (adult) could ever believe in such a thing".

Is that how you atheists view Christians? Do you really believe that our belief in God is similar to belief in Santa Claus.

Yes.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
19-03-2016, 11:54 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 11:50 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(19-03-2016 11:19 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Eg. pyramids

Why is emperical evidence not needed to believe in the existence of the Pyramids but it it required to believe in God?
Would it not be more rational and consistent to not believe in the Pyramid's esistence by that logic?

I am only following the logic others are presenting. Please feel free to correct it or show me where I have misinterpreted it.

You may have missed my point about the "Knowing what we don't know." quote.

So...... we know pyramids exist by the extension of mathematics that is geometry.

If you post a question about "But how do we know about mathematics?" I shall be most vexed.

Ergo, the follow on from that is then 'Yes' we know the Pyramids exist.

Do you follow that logic?
My apologies. It was stated a few posts back we were speaking about the popular great Pyramids of Egypt. I assumed you had already read that so I didn't bother to add the details.
Would your response remain the same?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 11:57 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
At work.

Yes.
.
Since we know/agree that pyramids exist we can, by extension, agree/infer that great pyramids exist and that, indeed, The Great Pyramids exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 12:13 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 12:47 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(19-03-2016 09:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 09:28 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I can feel it's pull. I perceive it every time I walk, lift a bag of groceries, jump to reach a high shelf or crash on my mountain bike.

No I'm not saying that perception is the only way to determine that something exists. I've already said that we are not limited to the perceptual level of consciousness. We also have reason. And yes I do believe the pyramids exist.
I am not trying to make any assertions here. Only trying to understand your logic.
I am assuming based on your last response that you also believe in things, in some cases, without actual sensual perception, such as the pyramids. Am I correct?
How are you able to prove that the Pyramids exist?
Is it safe to use this same logic if I try to prove that god exists?

It's not at all clear to me why it would be necessary to prove the existence of the pyramids but I would do it the same way that I would prove the existence of Mt. Everest, the Grand Canyon, pizza pie, a hammer and whales, by pointing to them and saying there it is. You seem to be operating under a misapprehension. You seem to think that either something is proved or it is accepted on faith, but this is not the case. We can also know things by direct perception. If I perceive a tree, there's no evidence of the tree"s existence other than the fact that I am perceiving it. I see the tree and I identify it by means of reason. Because I've seen many trees this is easy. I've already formed the concept tree from direct sensory input and so I can integrate this new tree into the concept tree without difficulty even if the tree is different from all the other trees I've seen such as say an exotic tree from a land I've never visited. Likely Neither of us has ever seen the same tree but when you tell me that there is a tree in your front yard, I know instantly what you are talking about. This is the power of concepts. With them we can go far, far beyond the range of our senses. I can perceive just a few men but I can know a great deal about all men, even men who lived a long time ago or men who have yet to be born. That's why we are so different from all the other animals. That's why we have computers, hospitals, internal combustion engines, telephones, spinning wheels, and coffee mugs and foxes just have holes in the ground. The difference is our ability to form concepts and to communicate them. You see this is where a really good objective theory of concepts comes in handy.

Now what about God. I can't perceive God so I can't form a concept of God from direct perception. In fact I can not form the concept "God" at all because a concept is an abstraction or integration of two or more similar things. God is supposed to be sui generis, one of a kind, so there is no concept called "God". God is a name not a concept. Can I infer God? No I can't because there is no logical step that can lead from the natural, finite, corruptible and imperfect that I see everywhere I look to the supernatural, infinite, incorruptible and perfect. From an A you can not infer a non A or something which contradicts A. Similarly, I can not prove God using deduction because deduction rests exclusively on the axioms and the primacy of existence principle and God contradicts the primacy of existence principle. The only way I can contemplate God is by imagining it, but imaginary things exist only in the mind, not in reality. This is why when someone tells me about their God I can't immediately integrate what they are saying like I could with a tree that someone has in their front yard but that I've never seen, because everyone imagines God a little different. I'd have to ask what they mean by God and then form an image of their God in my own imagination. Here's another interesting thing. You can't imagine an abstraction. If you try to imagine a tree, you will have to imagine a specific tree with specific measurements such as girth, height, leaf shape, bark color and texture, Color of leaves, and other specific details. That's because the faculty of imagination works by rearranging percepts into new combinations and we can not perceive abstractions. We can only perceive concretes. You also can not imagine something for which you have no perceptual data. Just try it and you'll see. No matter how hard you try what you imagine will be some combination of things you have perceived. Try to imagine a creature that you have never seen and it will be some combination of traits of creatures you have seen. Try it and you'll see. Just an interesting side note.

Now back to proving God. You can not use logic to prove the existence of God because you can not use logic to prove a contradiction. contradictions can't exist. You do understand that knowledge is hierarchical right and that a breach in the hierarchy of knowledge represents a fallacy. If I told you that geometry was valid but that basic arithmetic is not would you accept this. It's the same way with the notion of God. If I tried to use logic to prove God it would be the same as saying that geometry is valid but basic math is not. It would represent a breach of the conceptual hierarchy. You should really read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. In it you will find the objective theory of concepts laid out and validated systematically. It will help you greatly to understand these issues.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: