It depends on what you describe "God" as

I wasn't talking about you, was I? After all, are you the sort of person who would cling to baseless, apocalyptic convictions in the face of ALL counter-evidence and good sense?

 

Clearly there was no personal pot shot in that statement.

Somehow YOU are he victim again?

Is this what atheists consider debate? Intellectualism? Insulting people and then claiming that hey weren;t actually insulting people? Because religious people, being horrifically stupid, cannot tell when someone insults them.

So, Inc, you were insulted.

 

You were responding to my comment.. so you were talking 'to me' about my statement that you quoted. Do a little track-back on the postings between you and me, and you will see where you were responding to my comments, and your response gave no indication of directing your response to anyone else or about anyone else.

 

So can we agree that a magical sky god doesn't exist?

 

Can you prove that a "magical sky god" does not exist? If not, then why should there be any agreement with you regarding something that has not been proven?

 

So we should all believe in the reasonable possibility of Santa Claus just because we can't "prove" he doesn't exist?

Why don't you "prove" ANYthing? This could all be a matrix and it's all just a simulation.

See how useless this gets? It's my whole point from before.

 

It is real simple... when someone brings a subject into discussion and either makes a direct claim or even an inference that something exists, then it is up to that person to support his/her claim or inference with supporting empirical evidence.

Is there anything that I need to prove? Define what a 'matrix' is other than the story line of the movie by the same name.

If you truly believe this is 'useless', then why do you continue discussing it? Seemingly, you have some vested interest in the subject matter, else it would be illogical for you to continue investing time and energy in these discussions.

 

Awesome, Ive yet to see you put forth any 'empirical evidence' in support of your 'god', even thou you claim this god exists.

Another fine example of do as I say, not as I do.

 

Nope.

Yep... as you have neither shown that one exists or demonstrated that such knowledge is accessible, there's no reason to entertain the possibility at all.

POOF! Zilch.

 

Ive yet to see you put forth any empirical evidence of ANYTHING. Opinions of others is NOT empirical evidence... it is merely opinion...

 

Patently vacuous.

 

I'm trying to get people to consider thinking practically instead of purely in terms of ideology, like you do.

You make it out like everything has to be exact and technical and rigorous to the extent of using up everyone's time. I use to think like that, but I woke up and smelled the coffee:

Practicality >>>>>>>>>>> ideology.

 

So, practicality would indicate actually making an arguement that delivers on said claim - without prejoratives.

So let see some of this practiciality? State your case.

 

My case for what? I've said a few things

 

Thinking on your part that I do not put forth any "practical" thinking is an error on your part.. in fact it would be a statement made from the position of ignorance of the subject matter... subject matter being me... I am a qualified electronics technician, which requires practical thinking.

So do a lot of other folks on this forum... with all of that LOGIC bs... a priori and all of that crap. So why don't you complain to them about their technical and rigorous demands?

Practicality infers that there are 'pragmatic absolutes' involved.. Are there any pragmatic absolutes when dealing with the manner in which people think?

 

Anything at this point.

You have certainly said a lot. But you ar eargueing about whether or not specificity is required. Who gives a rip?

Get on with whatever the hell you have to say.

 

Jesus H. Christ, do you ever just use intuition for anything? It WASTES everyone's TIME to be entirely rigorous on everything.

It all boils down, in this case, to no one being able to "disprove" a magical sky being. So what???!?!!?

You can't disprove leprechauns. Do you believe in them? Do you even have a strong suspicion that they exist? No, of course not. Why? Because you've never seen them nor any observable evidence of them. You've never seen any pots of gold under any rainbows, and even if you did it'd be way easier to believe it was a person doing it for whatever reason.

That's not a black and white disproof of leprechauns, but it's enough to make you not think they exist.

Lastly, Occam's Razor is kinda relevant.

What? Almost nothing is "absolute" when it comes to practicality. Real life is usually rough and fuzzy, not black and white.

 

If you haven't already then I think you'll get to realize soon enough that when a person goes into "semantics mode", ie. suddenly gets a need to ask people to define this or that as if it relates to a preceding or ongoing argument, then it's a last resort strategy. It's not really a request to explain something in more detail and be more rigorous

Good post.

 

No, that's not why.

The reason lies in a word you used very casually in the second sentence; namely when the absence of your own faith becomes your own worst nightmare. Or enemy.

 

I can see that you have lost contact with your own reality. In the quote you made from my writing, you allege that I used "a word" "very casually in the second sentence; namely when the absence of your own faith becomes your own worst nightmare. Or enemy."
For the sake of clarity, I am providing a copy of that language that you quoted:

"Originally Posted by Incorporeal View Post
That is just about as close as I have seen you come to hitting the nail on the head... A TRUE Christian will not give up the fight in the face of the enemy and will maintain his/her grasp on that 'faith' regardless of what the temporal world says is the required level of comprehension... Why? Because we comprehend something that has intentionally been refused by those others.... including those that were traitors ...."

Please point out exactly and specifically which "a word" that you were speaking about, and then explain your rationale.... in other words make another excuse.

 

What else is there to say. Believe in the superstitions of long dead primitive and ignorant societies, or accept reality. No real options there for me. Reality IS!

 

Why do you think that it usually comes down to "there is no evidence to support the existence of any god or gods, or to support the validity of any religious beliefs"????????

 

Because some think so and like to say so really much.

I'm not contesting that idea, I'm contesting the fact that you can't discuss anything else on this forum without having it turn into one of those discussions.

 

makes sense.

simply follow common sense; be honest with yourself, first!

then follow the 'lesson' shared of many old beliefs "no fricken lying,.......... idiot'

then its easy, " i be honest with myself, and i aint gonna mislead "


I think any (every) 'god' would be fair with that.......... no matter which da utter folk pick and choose.

I have always said, anyone can believe what ever they want, but no one has a right to lie.

 

i wonder how Einstein would view the focus on what is real, to being the pursuit of god.