I am not doing blind guessing...except where I am actually acknowledging that I am. Tell ya what...why don't you indicate one (the most egregious) factoid that YOU have offered...with which I disagree. MY BET: You cannot offer a fact that you have posted...with which I disagreed. I would not be surprised if you do not even try. You too, Buddy.
Truckloads of eyewitnesses saw JC strutting his stuff including badmouthing the snooty priests and rescuing naughty girls from the mob, so I kinda like him, and I can't imagine myself suddenly NOT liking him further down the line as you seem to have done mate.. Same with Elvis, I've always like him, so I can't envisage me suddenly waking up one morning NOT liking him, right Elv? "Uh-huh"
He is asserting it is more likely that there are NO GODS...than that there is at least one, Tecoyah. It is a guess...a totally blind guess. Absolutely nothing wrong with making the guess...but to deny it is a guess is a non-starter.
Now frank there's no need to lie. Here, maybe you'll get around to answering this time. Based on the evidence to date, is more likely or less likely the Easter be my doesn't exist?
What evidence? Do we have an Easter Bunny test? Where is the data? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, because the answer is that we have no data to support or falsify the Easter Bunny hypothesis. So there is no evidence either way. I'm not arguing about an opinion here. This is how logic and science works. You can choose to learn or not.
You aren't answering the question. You are avoiding it. I'm not asking you to prove it false or true. Only to admit the likelihood based on all the available evidence to date. This isn't hard.
We agree there. So I don't...and haven't. Answering what? If you want to ask questions about the Easter Bunny, ask a fellow atheist...or a toddler. Atheists and toddlers seem fascinated by the Easter Bunny.
You are still speaking from a philosophical materialist perspective. And apparently do not comprehend this. I cannot help you in comprehension. And you are not aware of the assumption that underlies the materialistic perspective. You are acting as if the assumption does not exist. When in fact, you learn that in philosophy 101, or at least they used to teach it 50 years ago. That is fine, but your arrogance here, coming from ignorance, is what needs addressing. When the Borg analogy comes out, your cluelessness became apparent. For the Borg did not manifest the physical universe from infinite potentialities. They seemed to share a consciousness, particular to the Borgs. Like an insect colony. Here is the fact of the matter. You, nor I, nor anyone knows with absolute certainty whether consciousness is the fundamental of reality, or if matter is. For the answer is outside of science, science is powerless to answer this question. So, you have an opinion, an assumption. So, the only question is, can your brain see this fact, or not? It appears you cannot see it, which is the problem. And no way I can see it for you. Yet I see it, as well as any sufficiently educated person. Broaden you educational horizon is the right path.
It is a problem created by an ego, that find it unacceptable to be wrong. He is guessing, but cannot admit it. Egos trump rational thought out of habit. Agnostics always have trouble with people who claim with certainly that god exists or he does not exist. For the truth is, we have found no way to know with certainty. So, I, being honest have to say, that I simply do not know. For I do not know. How can I know? I can only claim to know, but that is basically an outright lie. With these claims of certainty, comes arrogance, or perhaps arrogance creates the claims of certainty. These people get caught in a mental loop, and travel round and round in a vicious circle, and become mentally trapped in it. If people could just be honest, they would have to say that they simply do not know. Only agnostics exhibit intellectual honesty here. As well as having some humility. Not knowing, recognizing this, give one some humility. It helps to temper arrogance. Which makes for a better, more pleasant dinner guest.
Often, in discussions and debates concerning the "God" concept do theists resort to symantecs as a tool of defense and a means of derailing or redirecting the conversation away from being forced into areas they cannot defend. While I accept what you have stated that you are not religious it does seem you are using this tool and avoiding the actual discussion: Is it your "Guess" that there is a God, and which one?
Just off the top of my head you disagreed with the fact that religions are fear based. Now that we have set the record straight let's expose some more of your "blind guesses" for what they really are. Why are the planets named for stone age gods like Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc? Stone age man was able to understand his own environment and survive because he could figure out how it worked. He could observe how predators stalked their prey. This was his reality. He could also see the planets, stars and comets in the night sky even though he didn't know the difference between a star and a planet. All he could do was observe their behavior just as he observed the behavior of animals. The stars were always in the same groupings but the planets seemed to be able to move backwards and forwards amongst the other stars. So with anthropomorphism being what it is stone age man used that observable behavior as the basis for calling them gods. Comets were signs of bad things to come. All of this superstition was the "evidence" that stone age man used to formulate his fear based religions and gods. It was something that his priests could point to in the sky and threaten people with to make them compliant. And while those stone age people were most definitely guessing about the nature of their "gods" they were basing them upon the actual evidence of their own observations. That they drew erroneous conclusions was entirely because they lacked the scientific knowledge to understand their observations. Then we get to the fallacy of the "omnipotent creator of the universe" as described in Genesis. The term "in the beginning" is a farcical assumption that there must be a "beginning" and it is not based upon any actual evidence that there was a "beginning". In fact it actually creates a paradox because it stipulates that the "omnipotent creator of the universe" existed before the "beginning" but does not explain how the "omnipotent creator of the universe" came into existence itself. Obviously this is nothing more than blind guesswork that you are acknowledging. Unlike the stone age religions that based their deities upon observable planets the "omnipotent creator of the universe" is based upon nothing whatsoever which makes it nothing more than a complete and utter blind guess. Since that time scientific knowledge has increased vastly to the point were we not only know the difference between planets and stars but we know about matter/energy and how it interacts. Since the fallacies of the "omnipotent creator of the universe" and "in the beginning" superstition are baseless it does not require any "blind guess" to dismiss them for what they are, stone age superstitions based upon a dearth of actual knowledge. It is perfectly rational and logical to weigh the existing evidence and come to a sound reasonable conclusion that the probability of an "omnipotent creator of the universe" is as close to zero as makes no difference whatsoever. Feel free to respond with your usual "blind guesses" but the scientific facts, logic and reason outweigh your "blind guesses" each and every time.
Do you cease to exist just because I am rendered unconscious for a period of time? Does the universe cease to exist just because I am rendered unconscious for a period of time? Do you and the universe suddenly leap back into existence the moment I regain conscience? The absurdity of the "consciousness reality" is little more than a sophomoric mind game that most adults mature out of as soon as they have to deal with reality. Science is capable of measuring and recording consciousness therefore it not "outside of science" as you fallaciously allege. Yes, you have very right to embrace this belief but it is not a substitute for reality.
BINGO! Thank you for that. But it is an interesting discussion...and I have been involved with two discussions where the individuals with whom I interacted did finally...ummm, awaken, for want of a better word...and who actually agreed that what they were doing was to guess. Once again...absolutely nothing wrong with guessing. I guess on things often. But the theistic and atheistic pretense is something worthy of discussion.
I've posted this so many times, you surely have read it, Techoyah: I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST; I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that they are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... ...so I don't. I just do not make a guess in either direction. It would be a blind guess...and a totally MEANINGLESS guess. I could...if just for fun. In fact to show you I can, I will...just for fun. (I swear to you that I am doing what I say now) I am flipping the coin. Heads...I will guess there is a god of some sort. Tails...I will guess there are no gods. It came up heads: I blindly and meaninglessly guess there is a god of some sort. As for "which one"...I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you are now asking me to blindly and meaninglessly guess about the possible attributes of any god that happens to exist, I can think of no way to put it to a coin flip.
I have no idea of where you got the idea of me disagreeing with that. Most of the extant religions appear to be fear based. Very much so! The religions based on the Abrahamic god most assuredly are. So I doubt I would have responded in the way you are suggesting. Most of the no-longer-active religions seemed less fear based than "longing for answers" fluffy based. That ought to be fun! Stone Age???? Look up Stone Age...and then look up when gods like Venus, Mars, and Jupiter were invented. C'mon. If you are going to play "the intellectual"...try to do a better job. Stone Age??? The "omnipotent creator" described in the Bible is an absurd, cartoon god. If what you are saying is that you GUESS that god to be a fiction of superstitious minds...I AGREE. What does that have to do with the question of whether or not gods exist in REALITY? We can reasonably guess the god of the Bible is the creation of superstitious minds. But anyone who fancies himself an intellectual would not call that god Stone Age person. In fact, any one fancying himself to be an intellectual would capitalize Stone Age. Derideo...this tome of yours was one of the worst defenses of atheism I've ever read. My GUESS is there are atheists reading it hoping you switch to the other side.
The typical disingenuous strawman evasion of setting up fallacies so that you can knock them down. Thanks for proving my point that your puerile "blind guessing game" is nothing more an inane version of whack-a-mole!
Your essay was an abomination. It started with a completely incorrect assumption about what I said or did not say about religion. The essay contained so little logic it was laughable as well. (Not bad! A laughable abomination.) If you want to pretend you are going to do something intellectual...either do it...or do not make the pretense. Now, if you want to discuss something respectfully...let me know and we can start. Or...just go and make your blind guesses about whether gods exist or not...and save all the words. They made no sense under any circumstances.
How ironic after all of your disrespectful ad homs that you suddenly want to change the tone! Your inane strawmen were, quite literally, the last straw as far as I am concerned. Your silly "blind guessing games" was a facile attempt to hide your agenda to launch baseless attacks against atheists has been completely and utterly exposed. I know you won't admit as much but that doesn't matter. You were given more than enough rope and having tied yourself in knots my work here is done. Have a nice day!
If you want to discuss the size of the universe...or what it does or doesn't contain...I am willing to listen to your blind guesses...and laugh at the notion that they are less than blind guesses. I'm also willing to discuss those things if you decide to get serious. You are the one creating a straw man. You claimed I disagreed with the notion that religions are fear based...then purported to show me how silly that is. But you invented me disagreeing. I never did. In fact, I have stressed that the Abrahamic god is one of reward and punishment...and mostly punishment. A thoroughly despicable god. The only thing you have "exposed" is that you are in way over your head. You'll be back. You threaten to leave constantly...and give that "have a good day" farewell...but you will be back. And I will laugh at you when you come back. You too, my friend. Until we talk again later!
Like I supposed, here you are again...and as usual without anything of value to say. This thing we humans call "the universe" is HUGE...probably a lot larger than we can actually imagine. This thing we humans call "the universe" may be all there is...and it may be a tiny part of a much larger...something. (Megaverse.) This thing we humans call "the universe" may always have existed in some form...or may have come into being as the result of "creation." If it is the result of "creation"...gods may have created it. There is absolutely NO necessity for any gods; there is nothing that we know of that NEEDS a god to explain it. There also is no reason to suppose gods or a created universe...is impossible. Gods may exist. Anyone suggesting there are no gods...absolutely is just making a blind guess...and anyone making that blind guess who supposes the blind guess is not a blind guess, but rather the result of logic, reason, science, or math...IS KIDDING him/herself. Now those are things I've actually said, Derideo. Try dealing with one of those...instead of making up stuff and dealing with what you invent.
