Why do atheists become atheists?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2015, 11:17 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 11:21 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:08 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 10:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is not true at all.. that's EXACTLY what I have been talking about the entire time. And we are not talking about a positive claim of a supernatural entity, because nobody is making a positive claim of a supernatural entity.

You seem to not understand WHAT is being argued at all.

Let me demonstrate something to you about Stevil's assertion. I will quote it below:

(22-01-2015 07:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's not just possible that there is something we don't know. It is a fact that there is something we don't know. Actually we know very little with regards to the consideration of the possibility of the existence of gods. There is not enough information for us to even consider possibilities (be it for or against).
Lack of information, lack of knowledge = "I don't know"

Take your time and read what I am saying below thoroughly.

In Stevil's post above it is very clear that his position on whether or not a supernatural god could possibly exist is based upon a lack of knowledge.

This absolutely necessarily implies that the knowledge he asserts that he is lacking must necessarily have the possibility of existing.

But does it? He proposes the concept that there is knowledge he is lacking, but fails to connect that concept to the proposed knowledge (the observable and demonstrably true reality) because he cannot demonstrate that the proposed knowledge he claims he is lacking even has the possibility of existing.

I gave him the following statement:

"From what I can ascertain you and others here are saying that it is possible that there is something you do not know in regards to the existence or non existence of a supernatural god."

He replied directly to that statement with:

"It's not just possible that there is something we don't know. It is a fact that there is something we don't know. Actually we know very little with regards to the consideration of the possibility of the existence of gods. There is not enough information for us to even consider possibilities (be it for or against).
Lack of information, lack of knowledge = 'I don't know.'"

I underlined and placed in bold the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods" to demonstrate to you that that is what he is in fact talking about. He responded directly to my query regarding teh existence of gods with the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods."

So what the fuck are you trying to say when you assert that this is not about supernatural gods? This entire conversation has always been all about whether or not supernatural gods have a possibility of existing and/or if it can be demonstrated that they do not exist.

It isn't me who has no fucking clue about what is being talked about here, that's for fucking sure.

Quote:And I would answer, I DON'T KNOW if the rock exists or not.

You would say "I don't know" because 1 person out of 100 says it doesn't? Now I am really zeroing in on where your head actually is. That's all I need to see.


Again, talk to true scotsman, if he will even talk to you. I have no time for this bullshit.

FREE! We aren't limiting this ENTIRE thread and discussions of it to what STEVIL was claiming.. I'm still talking about the arguments that have existed here from the beginning of this forming. Why are you so limiting in your perception of what is going on? From a long time gone I was bringing up how your supernatural case wasn't all fitting for the discussion.. you just kept ignoring and assuming things of the discussion so you're not getting that until now.

Yes. I would say I don't know because I don't know if I know it's a rock. You seem to not understand what intellectually honesty and where burden of proof lies. It lies with knowledge claims because in a default state, we know nothing. If you proclaim definitive knowledge you have to have burden of proof for whatever it is you claim to know.

"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
24-01-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:17 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:08 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me demonstrate something to you about Stevil's assertion. I will quote it below:


Take your time and read what I am saying below thoroughly.

In Stevil's post above it is very clear that his position on whether or not a supernatural god could possibly exist is based upon a lack of knowledge.

This absolutely necessarily implies that the knowledge he asserts that he is lacking must necessarily have the possibility of existing.

But does it? He proposes the concept that there is knowledge he is lacking, but fails to connect that concept to the proposed knowledge (the observable and demonstrably true reality) because he cannot demonstrate that the proposed knowledge he claims he is lacking even has the possibility of existing.

I gave him the following statement:

"From what I can ascertain you and others here are saying that it is possible that there is something you do not know in regards to the existence or non existence of a supernatural god."

He replied directly to that statement with:

"It's not just possible that there is something we don't know. It is a fact that there is something we don't know. Actually we know very little with regards to the consideration of the possibility of the existence of gods. There is not enough information for us to even consider possibilities (be it for or against).
Lack of information, lack of knowledge = 'I don't know.'"

I underlined and placed in bold the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods" to demonstrate to you that that is what he is in fact talking about. He responded directly to my query regarding teh existence of gods with the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods."

So what the fuck are you trying to say when you assert that this is not about supernatural gods? This entire conversation has always been all about whether or not supernatural gods have a possibility of existing and/or if it can be demonstrated that they do not exist.

It isn't me who has no fucking clue about what is being talked about here, that's for fucking sure.


You would say "I don't know" because 1 person out of 100 says it doesn't? Now I am really zeroing in on where your head actually is. That's all I need to see.


Again, talk to true scotsman, if he will even talk to you. I have no time for this bullshit.

FREE! We aren't limiting this ENTIRE thread and discussions of it to what STEVIL was claiming.. I'm still talking about the arguments that have existed here from the beginning of this forming. Why are you so limiting in your scope of understanding?

Yes. I would say I don't know because I don't know if I know it's a rock. You seem to not understand what intellectually honesty and where burden of proof lies. It lies with knowledge claims because in a default state, we know nothing. If you proclaim definitive knowledge you have to have burden of proof for whatever it is you claim to know.

I understand what intellectual honesty is and you are not demonstrating it.

I cannot change the way your mind works. Only you can do that.

Again, talk to true scotsman.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 11:22 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:20 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:17 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  FREE! We aren't limiting this ENTIRE thread and discussions of it to what STEVIL was claiming.. I'm still talking about the arguments that have existed here from the beginning of this forming. Why are you so limiting in your scope of understanding?

Yes. I would say I don't know because I don't know if I know it's a rock. You seem to not understand what intellectually honesty and where burden of proof lies. It lies with knowledge claims because in a default state, we know nothing. If you proclaim definitive knowledge you have to have burden of proof for whatever it is you claim to know.

I understand what intellectual honesty is and you are not demonstrating it.

I cannot change the way your mind works. Only you can do that.

Again, talk to true scotsman.

I have no problem talking to him. The best way to actually get through to ideas is questioning and questioning opposed to being certain.

Ignoring positions that were discussed and not answering questions makes you less honest though Free..

My position has been the same all thread, but you have assumed it was other things. Do you not understand this was a flaw? Also why did you think this point of discussion was somehow limited to what Stevil's point was?

"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
24-01-2015, 11:28 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:22 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:20 AM)Free Wrote:  I understand what intellectual honesty is and you are not demonstrating it.

I cannot change the way your mind works. Only you can do that.

Again, talk to true scotsman.

I have no problem talking to him. The best way to actually get through to ideas is questioning and questioning opposed to being certain.

Ignoring positions that were discussed and not answering questions makes you less honest though Free..

My position has been the same all thread, but you have assumed it was other things. Do you not understand this was a flaw? Also why did you think this point of discussion was somehow limited to what Stevil's point was?

I am not ignoring you. I am actually answering your questions. The problem is that you either do not understand the answers, or are ignoring the answers.

To demonstrate this, ask 1 question that you think I am not answering and I will answer it again.

Just one.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 11:44 AM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 09:32 AM)Free Wrote:  As suspected, you would assert something with no proof at all to support the assertion.

Big Grin

Now you are simply being ignorant.

(24-01-2015 09:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 08:43 AM)Free Wrote:  Proof and evidence are the same thing.

Evidence of absence is proof.

Prove it isn't.

Simple enough?

Now I see the problem. They are not the same - you are flat out wrong.

You are conflating preponderance of evidence with logical proof.



And what part of the following do you so desperately fail to understand?

Here is the definition of the word "evidence":

Evidence:

"That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

And here is the definition of "proof":

Proof

"Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 11:45 AM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:28 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:22 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I have no problem talking to him. The best way to actually get through to ideas is questioning and questioning opposed to being certain.

Ignoring positions that were discussed and not answering questions makes you less honest though Free..

My position has been the same all thread, but you have assumed it was other things. Do you not understand this was a flaw? Also why did you think this point of discussion was somehow limited to what Stevil's point was?

I am not ignoring you. I am actually answering your questions. The problem is that you either do not understand the answers, or are ignoring the answers.

To demonstrate this, ask 1 question that you think I am not answering and I will answer it again.

Just one.

Again.. I'm not limiting this to just now. I'm talking about your pattern this entire thread. Stop boxing in thinking that posts 198 or random number 444 is different here. They are not. Lately you have been actually answering some. And you a literally not answering the questions in the thread you are responding to by asking this other question... that's just foolish on it's own.

I know you asked for 1 and I am not complying!!! but I don't really care if you do answer 1 or none at this point. It's a matter of showing a deliberate actual pattern. And these are actual questions with question marks, some questions don't even have them:

And what's relevant to this first point I made. I asked you why are you limiting your scope of understanding? Meaning why are you focused on current things and not the entire thread as a hole? I also recently asked you if you get the difference between belief and knowledge I'm talking about when discussing the rock scenario.

In the past I asked you about personality tests if you found any merit to them, or what actual position you would be on them. The Myers-Briggs type tests and I gave a link to it. Because if they have an acceptance most of the people here come from a thinking perspective in their dominant functions and that may alter a way people desire to perceive this. Since only 2 of you seem to be on the case I thought maybe there could be a connection. Most people here are a rare type in the real world of intj which may be a reflection of those with skeptical atheistic approaches. I thought perhaps you could view things different based on these ideas.

I thought of another I would actually like most answered. You asked me if I was religious at a point.. I actually saw your post, then saw you edit it in before I answered my post. I answered as no I never was. Since even though I was raised occasionally going to church until highschool but never had any believe and always rationalized how foolish it all was. Later I asked you why did you ask me that question? That I found rather despicable that you think it was indicative of anything enough to be asked. So if I had to have 1 answer questioned you avoided it would be that one because I don't know where you were even going to go with that if I said yes. I admit I'm assuming you were going somewhere with it, since you ignored it when I said no.

"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
24-01-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:08 AM)Free Wrote:  He replied directly to that statement with:

"Actually we know very little with regards to the consideration of the possibility of the existence of gods. There is not enough information for us to even consider possibilities (be it for or against).
Lack of information, lack of knowledge = 'I don't know.'"

I underlined and placed in bold the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods" to demonstrate to you that that is what he is in fact talking about. He responded directly to my query regarding teh existence of gods with the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods."
Honestly Free, you are a dumb fuck. Probably the dumbest person I have spoken to on TTA in three years of being a member. Your comprehension and logic are appalling.

Take note of the first bit "We know very little with regards to the consideration of..."
At what point have I said that we know of the possibilities...


Fuck your dumb!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 08:46 AM)Free Wrote:  Dude you don't even understand what you are saying. When you say, "There is SOMETHING I don't know," how the fuck do you not understand that you are are saying that there is something in existence that you do not know?

What a dumb fuck you are.

When I say there is something I don't know and back that up by saying I don't know god's height.

I am not saying that god has a height. I am not saying that god exists.

I am saying that I don't know god's height.

Dumbest fuck I have ever met.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 11:45 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:28 AM)Free Wrote:  I am not ignoring you. I am actually answering your questions. The problem is that you either do not understand the answers, or are ignoring the answers.

To demonstrate this, ask 1 question that you think I am not answering and I will answer it again.

Just one.

And you a literally not answering the questions in the thread you are responding to by asking this other question... that's just foolish on it's own.

Some questions you ask required questions to get to the point of the question itself.

Quote:And what's relevant to this first point I made. I asked you why are you limiting your scope of understanding? Meaning why are you focused on current things and not the entire thread as a hole?

Because the current things are where my interests lie, and what I am focused upon.

Quote: I also recently asked you if you get the difference between belief and knowledge I'm talking about when discussing the rock scenario.

Yes. Knowledge is demonstrable. Beliefs are not, for they are faith based.

Quote:In the past I asked you about personality tests if you found any merit to them, or what actual position you would be on them.

I have no idea. I have never taken any.

Quote:The Myers-Briggs type tests and I gave a link to it. Because if they have an acceptance most of the people here come from a thinking perspective in their dominant functions and that may alter a way people desire to perceive this. Since only 2 of you seem to be on the case I thought maybe there could be a connection. Most people here are a rare type in the real world of intj which may be a reflection of those with skeptical atheistic approaches. I thought perhaps you could view things different based on these ideas.

I am moderate in all areas of the INTJ. (I just took it.)

Quote:I thought of another I would actually like most answered. You asked me if I was religious at a point.. I actually saw your post, then saw you edit it in before I answered my post. I answered as no I never was. Since even though I was raised occasionally going to church until highschool but never had any believe and always rationalized how foolish it all was. Later I asked you why did you ask me that question? That I found rather despicable that you think it was indicative of anything enough to be asked. So if I had to have 1 answer questioned you avoided it would be that one because I don't know where you were even going to go with that if I said yes. I admit I'm assuming you were going somewhere with it, since you ignored it when I said no.

It will tell me whether or not theistic influences alone could account for your reliance on conceptualizations for perception as opposed to the logical reality that me and true scotsman advocate.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
24-01-2015, 12:24 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 12:40 PM by Free.)
RE: Why do atheists become atheists?
(24-01-2015 12:16 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 11:08 AM)Free Wrote:  He replied directly to that statement with:

"Actually we know very little with regards to the consideration of the possibility of the existence of gods. There is not enough information for us to even consider possibilities (be it for or against).
Lack of information, lack of knowledge = 'I don't know.'"

I underlined and placed in bold the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods" to demonstrate to you that that is what he is in fact talking about. He responded directly to my query regarding teh existence of gods with the words of "the possibility of the existence of gods."
Honestly Free, you are a dumb fuck. Probably the dumbest person I have spoken to on TTA in three years of being a member. Your comprehension and logic are appalling.

Take note of the first bit "We know very little with regards to the consideration of..."
At what point have I said that we know of the possibilities...


Fuck your dumb!

Define those possibilities.

Now let's see who the dumb fuck is. Advocating existence where there is none.

Do you even understand that when you suggest there are possibilities that you are required to prove and define exactly what the possibility is, and whether or not the possibility exists?

You conceptualize a possibility, but miserably fail to connect it to anything real. That makes your entire argument invalid because it is not grounded in reality.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: