…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The bot stops when it encounters something solid if you want it to stop simply answer the question.
Or you could drop the atheist propaganda and move on to talk about something interesting
peace
1) That was in another thread with another topic in response to a request from you as to what an argument would look like.
2) The truth of the syllogism is self evident and contained in the premise.
If you disagree tell me how you know.
peace
Notice the bullshit from this repetitious troll.
No, dipshit, I treated your particular presuppositions as premises and claims. They are, in this context.
Fuckwit, yours are, and I wasn’t discussing anything but yours.
It’s your denial of making claims with your presuppositions that you attempt to use to fuck up the conversation, including your appalling dissimulation about what your presuppositions amount to in this context. But you flail away, not caring how dishonest you are to people in the discussion, while you remain true to the nonsense reigning your worldview.
I suggest that you learn to be honest in the details, and then you might learn how to be honest at the larger scale. Until then, you’ll just make false claims to bolster your dishonest viewpoint without respite or end.
Glen Davidson
How would you know if you encountered anything solid?
You have no solid grasp on knowledge and its status, that’s for sure.
Oh, another lie thrown out there in your utter disregard for anyone but yourself and your insipid lies. I have not been producing any sort of atheist propaganda (your mendacious re-definitions don’t count), and I’d be happy for you to quit your baseless and mindless trolling.
You couldn’t move onto anything else, not on this forum at least.
Glen Davidson
It would be something capable of providing justified true belief. Something about which you could not be mistaken
ultimately I would know it the same way I know anything by revelation
peace
Not sure how you came to that conclusion
check it out
peace
How do you know that?
Please be specific and use good evidence.
Glen Davidson
Prove it.
I look up, and see a bird. I credit that to vision.
FMM looks up and sees a bird. He credits that to revelation from God.
He seems to have a pantheistic conception of god. That is to say, god is everywhere and in everything. He cannot give you evidence of god, because there is too much of it. From his perspective, the evidence is everywhere and there is something wrong with you for not noticing it.
That’s the nature of the miscommunication. Your demands for evidence just miss the point.
Personally, I don’t accept his conception of god. But he is entitled to that conception for himself. But he really should stop his repetitive apologetics. If FMM is entitled to his way of looking at the world, then we are entitled to ours. And FMM should respect that.
fifthmonarchyman,
Another textbook attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Does anyone reading this still wonder why I characterize fifthmonarchyman’s behavior as dishonest?
Support your claim or admit that you cannot.
Oh God, you’re taking my statement to be absolute and without exception.
By any adult, thoughtful standard, you haven’t moved on at all, despite claims that you would. By your puerile absolutism, a small exception voids the meaning of a general statement.
You need to grow up intellectually, so that you can understand meaning in context.
Glen Davidson
Why should I use evidence? Is there some reason for this?
As for being specific do you believe that an omnipotent omniscient God could reveal to me what the solid basis for knowledge is?
peace
I already did. You refused to prove it because you know you can’t. And now you’re trying to hide behind this by just turning it around on me. And you know it. So I have in fact proven it, even to your own satisfaction. And now you just want to play games instead, because some kind of personal pride is overruling your ability to be rational about this.
If there were more threads here that were not atheist propaganda or lame excuses to call Christians poopy heads I would not be so inclined to ask that you all support you unsupported claims.
peace
Neil Rickert,
I know that. I grew up in an area with a large number of evangelical and fundamentalist churches. I was exposed to fifthmonarchyman’s brand of nonsense at an early age.
I disagree. What misses the point is his insistence that assuming his conclusions is a valid argument. The fact that he cannot support his claims demonstrates how vacuous they are.
It is not possible to have a rational discussion with someone who refuses to shoulder the burden of proof for their claims. Obviously he can believe whatever he wants. If he wants other people to take those beliefs seriously, he needs to support them.
If he simply said “I believe it but I can’t provide any evidence or rational argument for my beliefs.” and left it at that, there wouldn’t be an issue. When he constantly injects his beliefs into what should be rational discussions, though, it’s not unreasonable to require him to support them.
Outside of this forum the problem with people who share his beliefs is that they vote. For that reason it’s important to challenge this dangerous nonsense whenever it rears its irrational head.
I would appear that you think that neither I nor fifth post here in good faith. Yet you continue to engage with us instead of using the ignore function. Would it be fair to say that when you do so you are likewise not posting in good faith?
My advice to you then would be to stop saying you have some knowledge or understanding that the rest of us lack but that you just can’t share it. Just respond to fifth with “I don’t know.” Problem solved.
Merry Christmas Glen. No one is going to get my goat today, on such a joyous occasion. 🙂
Peace all
Then those particular christians you speak about are functionally insane. If it is not reasonably agreeable that it is POSSIBLE that the christian god does not exist, then christians have made it impossible to argue with them about the existence of god. Obviously out of fear that it might end up being reasonably agreeable that the christian god doesn’t actually exist.
Luckily, I know many christians who do not share your vacuous faith that it isn’t even possible that god does not exist. Christians with whom it is possible to debate the existence of god, because it hasn’t made them lose their minds and ability to reason, that they believe Jesus Christ is LORD. So while they do believe god exists, they’re also rationally open minded enough to consider it possible they might be wrong. In that way, they’re like me, who also considers it at least possible that the christian god exists.
This is the difference between you and me. I’m open to the idea of being wrong, you’re not.
Yes, you demand evidence from others.
So quit your dishonesty and either supply evidence or just admit that you’re a troll who believes fictions that appeal to you.
Fail, ignorant jerk.
I didn’t ask about a hypothetical situation, did I? And why would I?
How do you figure that your strawmen are appropriate to a discussion?
Glen Davidson
I don’t think he’s dishonest. This post will be guano’d, but I think he’s mentally ill. It is obvious the way in which FMM belives is different from the other theists around here. It is impossible to even have a discussion with him. He cannot even consider the possibility that god might not exist. That is the hallmark of a damaged mind.
I see things too, but I don’t credit them to visions.
If it is necessary for god to reveal knowledge, one wonders why he bothered giving us senses in the first place. What purpose does the eye serve if we still have to posit god is intervening to make that which you see, something you can trust you are in fact seeing?
Then the eye being there is superfluous, and god could just elect to “reveal” the surrounding world to you as if you was seeing it with eyes, instead of it having anything to do with cells gathering electromagnetic radiation. The whole thing about having eyes there is just a needless complication.
The idea that god is a necessary precondition for knowledge is utterly nonsensical.
No.
Are you that stupid?
Yes, you would like to believe something that false, wouldn’t you?
Gee, I didn’t realize that years of higher ed were so pointless, and that it all could have been explained in one or a few blog posts.
Yes, why don’t I just lie about it?
Btw, I have explained how we know things in the past, although clearly not comprehensively. That neither you nor FMM cared in the least provides no confidence in either of you.
I’m not repeating it to jerks who don’t care about knowledge, nor am I going to produce the lie that you want. For one thing, this really should be about FMM’s claims, since they are the ones that have no support–and most theists don’t subscribe to such tripe either.
Suck off and learn how to be honest if you possibly can. You’re the prick who said I should explain complex matters on this forum to ignoramuses who would just repeat their simple-minded tripe anyhow, so fuck your attempt to shift this onto me. I’m just responding to people who want to do anything but discuss these matters in good faith.
Glen Davidson
I can’t argue with that logic!
I wonder if that’s what fifth thinks about you folks. 🙂
Seems that cuts both ways, right?
Patrick, I’ve been reluctant to agree with your critics that you’re little more than a dense, biased, dipshit, but this post of insulting right-wing drivel has convinced me that you belong on ignore, right along with the other fuckwits (like gregory) that I’ve got on there now. No doubt others will see it similarly. (BTW, people who believe in democracy don’t think others should have to do things because THEY think so. I get that stuff like that is a bit too complicated for you to grasp though, so I’ll go back to stuff you might be able to get.)
In this holy season, patrick, may your xmas dreams of you and Ayn Rand (another nitwit) as the sole survivors of a nuclear holocaust (caused by evil bureaucrats sucking on the teats of honest tortured entrepeneurs like you two) all come true!
Adieu.
Patrick:
walto,
No one who has asserted that government force should be used against people who are not harming others, purely to achieve some goal that person thinks desirable, has any moral standing to criticize those of us who value honesty, integrity, and honor.
This is Noyau.
In this case fifthmonarchyman is behaving dishonestly and I’ve provided evidence to support that claim.Now I know, someone who has spent most of their life sucking off the public teat can’t really be expected to look too closely at moral issues lest they have to avoid mirrors for the rest of their life, but the least you can do is not criticize the values some of the rest of us hold.Normally I’d invite you to print out the comments you find most offensive, roll them up tightly, and insert them into your tightest orifice.Since we’re suggesting New Year’s resolutions, though, I encourage you to spend a considerable amount of time thinking about the productive members of society you have leeched from over the course of your life.When you can feel some shame for that, we might have the basis for a discussion of morality.
Right, we can discuss all of the differences, and you just turn around and equate them regardless of the issues discussed.
That’s the ID gambit right there.
Glen Davidson
fifthmonarchyman,
Untrue. I just looked back through that thread. I asked you this:
You replied:
You’ve repeatedly made a claim about the existence of a god. Your own words show that you know you’ve made such a claim, despite wanting to call it something else. Support your claim or admit you cannot.
walto,
Do feel free to take advantage of the ignore functionality. I’m sure you’ll find it far easier than looking at your own reasons for not valuing honesty, integrity, and honor. It will probably also make it easier for you to continue to sanctimoniously lecture others while ignoring your own moral failings.
Enjoy.
I do respect that.
There are several folks here that do not constantly beat the God is imaginary and mean drum. If the atheist mafia were more like you the bot would be retired
peace
He has been clear that he is a presuppositionist. He does not claim to have evidence for his presuppositions. He only claims that he presupposes them.
As I see it, his problem is not one of evidence. His problem is his insistence on repeating his presuppositionist arguments to people who do not share his presuppositions.
Think about that for a minute
Christians that believe that God is not a necessary being. Yet at the same time claim that he is worthy of worship.
Talk about confused
peace
I only ask for evidence for the claim that evidence is how we know things
peace
It’s not hypothetical, God reveals stuff that is how I know
peace
perhaps because that is the way he generally reveals stuff to us.
If that is your claim support it
Tell me how you know stuff
peace
Look, jerk, you provided nothing when I asked how you knew something.
And you think your stupid little program is evidence for something, however pathetic it turns out. I’m betting that it isn’t evidence for anything, in fact. I do remember you arguing evidence about Jesus’ purported resurrection, btw, quite poorly, so it’s clear that you believe that it matters, however disingenuous you are about it when we ask for it from you.
So just quit lying, it’s more than a little disgusting.
Glen Davidson
No he doesn’t. He told me so.
In addition:
If God gave you knowledge you wouldn’t be resorting to pathetic presuppositions, strawmen, and lies, would you?
I suppose you could be faking your incompetence in these matters, but that just gets back to the fact that we have no reason to trust you in the first place, so what of that?
Why should we believe anyone who posts as disingenuously as do you?
Glen Davidson
Neil Rickert,
If that were the case I’d have no objection. He is not just claiming that he presupposes his beliefs, he is claiming that those beliefs reflect reality. He is claiming that a god really does exist. That claim requires support.
wait a minute, didn’t you just chastise me for daring to assume that you think you know anything?
It’s not a claim it’s a definitional proclamation.
Quote:
“With God are wisdom and might; he has counsel and understanding.
(Job 12:13)
and
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
(Pro 1:7)
etc etc etc
end quote:
I’ve been making the same proclamation here for quite a while it’s possible that I might have worded it differently or unclearly from time to time but I assure you that was never my intention
now as far as supporting what I say I will be happy to if you will just tell me how you can know if I’m correct or not?
peace
How can an imaginary being tell you stuff?
How do you know this?
peace
Oh come on, he’s all over the place on that. It’s a presupposition, then it’s that everyone knows that God exists because of revelation, then it’s the Bible (he repeated ‘the fool says in his heart there is no God’ just today), then it’s that God exists because without God we wouldn’t know anything, then it’s that God has revealed his existence to him.
There’s no consistency (some of those are compatible, but only one would be necessary if demonstrably true), suggesting that he doesn’t have a lot of real faith in any of his claims. They proliferate to cover whatever comes up, almost as if they were made up (hm).
If he left it at “I presuppose God” that would be all. However, he proceeds to tell us that we don’t have any basis for knowing in our “worldview” because we don’t share in his drivel, and all explanations of how we do know are waved away because they don’t fit his presuppositions (he doesn’t use that word at that point, presumably because he knows that “presupposition” would give away the ruse (which he may not know is a ruse)).
His problem is his insistence that he knows better than any atheist because of his mindless drivel. And yet it remains mindless drivel.
Glen Davidson
You tell me.
Learning unaffected by your type of bullshit.
Glen Davidson
fifthmonarchyman,
It’s a clear claim about reality, as you have previously acknowledged. This is yet more evidence of your dishonesty. Doesn’t your holy book have something to say about that? As I remember, it was against it.
How do you determine what qualifies as evidence? What evidence do you use to make this determination?
FYI if Omagain is successful your own contributions will determine the utility of the tool and we all will be able to evaluate how you do and the sincerity of your efforts for ourselves.
that will be the fun part
peace
Do you know anything about language and meaning?
What evidence would your program provide, and how do you make this determination?
Seems that the point was your claims about “evidence” which you denied, and now are trying to bullshit away with your diversions.
So, I guess it’s true, you do care about evidence and were just lying about the matter a few comments up.
Good to get that established.
The stupid part will be you claiming superior knowledge based on your worthless presuppositions.
Glen Davidson
Rumraket,
This is Noyau, so nothing will get moved to Guano.
It’s interesting that you’ve opened the Overton Window on this further than I have. I find his failure to engage honestly in rational discussion to be contrary to the goals of this site, but I wouldn’t go so far as to infer mental illness. I do think the people who fed him this nonsense, no doubt before he was old enough to resist their indoctrination, seriously damaged him and deserve a good kick in the arse.
What I see him doing is shoring up the defenses that insulate him from cognitive dissonance. The fact that he’s capable of suffering from it suggests that he has the potential to break out of the structure. I hope he does.
And that wraps up my Dr. Phil impersonation for the night. I’m going to enjoy dinner with my family, partake of some Christmas cheer, and avoid posting on the Internet while under the influence.
God’s existence is not a claim about reality it’s the condition on which reality rests. If I have ever given you reason to believe otherwise I apologize it was never my intent.
Indeed it does. So again if I have unintentionally mislead you I apologize.
It was never my intention to blaspheme God by treating his existence as a mere claim about reality or to imply that such a thing was a matter of debate.
peace
Of course I care about evidence I never said I did not.
I do so because God exists and is trustworthy and uses evidence to reveal stuff.
On the other hand you have not explained why evidence matters at all if your worldview is correct
peace
Yes, it’s like supposing that William Lane Craig is mentally ill because he says something like this, although with more intelligence and learning.
It can be seductive, especially when you’re convinced that the other side can’t really rely on anything for “certain.”
That he’s on the repressive side of the psyche likely enough since he seems to crave certainty and insist that he has it. But something a little less repressive was sort of standard philosophy until a few hundred years ago, so I wouldn’t want to do more than tentatively suggest a likely rigid, authoritarian, and repressive personality.
But, of course, that we even suggest mental issues (not likely mental disease, in my view) as the reason gets to the fact that we quite naturally cannot be certain of our own minds, as various mental conditions indicate. Schizophrenics are often difficult to get to take medication for their condition (it only works for some, to be sure), because they typically do not see that themselves as having a problem.
Finally, I agree, I’m out of here, unless something posted while I was writing this makes me wish to respond, in which case I will be out of here after a comment or two. Why waste much of Christmas on this drivel, even if it’s fun for a while?
Glen Davidson
I have, but I say screw doing that again for someone so unaware as yourself.
You haven’t explained why you care about evidence, however, not in a useful manner. But if it’s good for you, why should I care that you don’t begin to make a case for your drivel?
So, bye for the time being, and enjoy the rest of Christmas.
Glen Davidson
Incredible. This is not a claim about reality, it’s a claim about reality! And the claim that invisible fairies make the flowers bloom isn’t a claim about flowers, it’s a claim about flowers.
Both can be said to be claims which allow the deluded to deny reality. Above, FMM demands evidence that the very concept of evidence means anything! And if evidence is provided, this is useless because of lack of evidence!
The nature of this argument never changes – “evidence” is whatever blather supports the delusion, even if it must be made up. Nothing else counts as evidence. Now, provide evidence I’m wrong. Go ahead.
If this were genuine mental illness, he’d have no need to look both ways before crossing the street. The fact that it’s narrowly constrained to the faith compartment is the surefire sign of fundamental dishonesty.
How did you determine that explanations need to be useful in order to be valid? What criteria do you use to determine if a particular explanation is useful?
Did you subject that criteria to your little “is it useful?” test?
peace