Controversial Does God Exist?

[Hux]

professing absolute certainty on a matter in which there cannot be any certainty whatsoever, because there's literally no hard evidence on either side. Absence of evidence constitutes neither proof nor disproof, it simply denotes absence of evidence.

By that logic, there's no hard evidence that there isn't an invisible, non-corporeal midget that lives up your arse, secretly controlling the universe.

The idea that I should give credence to that idiocy or should view it as no better or worse than the belief that there isn't an invisible midget up your arse simply because I can't disprove it... is frankly dumb. And wrong.

The burden of proof is on those making the claim (there is a god); not those who dismiss it.

 

[chainsaw_metal1]

That is not to say that there will never be any, but so far there simply is none.

But what about a rainbow, or a beautiful sunrise, or the laughter of a child, or that which gives an addict the strength to change, or...shit, I'm running out of the stock answers fundamentalists always give me.

 

[ant-mac]

But what about a rainbow,

A meteorological phenomenon.

or a beautiful sunrise,

An astronomical phenomenon.

or the laughter of a child,

A psychological and / or physiological phenomenon.

or that which gives an addict the strength to change,

A chemical phenomenon.

or...shit,

A metabolic waste phenomenon.

I'm running out of the stock answers fundamentalists always give me.

A predictable phenomenon.

 

[Amyghost]

By that logic, there's no hard evidence that there isn't an invisible, non-corporeal midget that lives up your arse, secretly controlling the universe.

The idea that I should give credence to that idiocy or should view it as no better or worse than the belief that there isn't an invisible midget up your arse simply because I can't disprove it... is frankly dumb. And wrong.

The burden of proof is on those making the claim (there is a god); not those who dismiss it.

That wasn't the point. I said clearly that absence of evidence doesn't make for proof or disproof. Because I don't believe in the religionists concept of 'god' , it doesn't follow that I must therefore believe in your arse-dwelling imp, nor in any other construct for that matter. Nor do I feel either belief is 'better' or 'worse', because I'm not predicating either on any necessity of belief, so a qualitative criteria doesn't apply. Nor am I proselytizing for my viewpoint, so I'm not asking or requiring of you to give credence to it or anything else.

As I said above, I'm okay in living with uncertainty. In fact, I in some ways prefer it because I'm not tied to the notion of having to take a hard-line adherence to any of it; actually your response kind of points up what I've tended to notice as a common thread between religionists and atheists of the 'hard-line' stamp: to wit, both will get very angry indeed at the person who doesn't simply accept their viewpoint, and who is willing to humbly concede that he/she feels there can be no final and ultimate answer to this question.

Que sera, sera. If there's anything beyond this life, I'll know when I get there. And if there's oblivion I'll have no sensory apparatus to know it with, no consciousness, and there'd be literally nothing to know anyway. And that thought scares the bejaysus out of a lot of people, hence the need to have absolutes on one side or the other.

 

[Hux]

to wit, both will get very angry indeed at the person who doesn't simply accept their viewpoint, and who is willing to humbly concede that he/she feels there can be no final and ultimate answer to this question.

Except dismissing the arse goblin as utter gibberish is not a hard line.

It's a... having a functioning brain... line.

Insinuating (as you patently are) that being open minded involves accepting all possibilities is one of the most moronic arguments ever laughably churned up by flim-flam spiritualists. I don't accept the theory of gravity that says there's a magic dragon at the centre of the earth sucking everything down. Not because I have closed my mind; but because I possess one.

 

[Amyghost]

Except dismissing the arse goblin as utter gibberish is not a hard line.

It's a... having a functioning brain... line.

Insinuating (as you patently are) that being open minded involves accepting all possibilities is one of the most moronic arguments ever laughably churned up by flim-flam spiritualists. I don't accept the theory of gravity that says there's a magic dragon at the centre of the earth sucking everything down. Not because I have closed my mind; but because I possess one.

No, my dear Hux--you've insinuated that I'm taking the open mind line, which provides you an easy out for slinging the ad hominem insults. I've stated my position, twice, clearly and unmistakably. I have no responsibilities to you if you choose to twist that to fit your boilerplate. Read back over those remarks and quote me exactly where I've said I accept any and all possibilities. I don't 'accept' anything. I have no stake in the matter beyond the simple admission of the fact (and it is indeed a fact, whether you care to accept it as such or no) that I think, personally, this is a topic on which there can be no final hard answer. You either don't possess the sort of mind that enables you to deal with any viewpoint that differs from your own unless you re-arrange it in a manner suitable to squash it into your particular mindset on this question, which is hardly the hallmark of reasoned thought; or else you haven't trained that functioning mind to function in a manner that allows the intake of opinion in a way that allows for the reception of response without deforming it to fit to your particular brand of confirmation bias. (Admittedly, the two come down to pretty much one and the same thing.)

It occurs to me that you've been given a gentle warning by at least one of the site mods previously for engaging in insult and ad hominem attack as opposed to the simple give-and-take of rational debate. I don't have any intention of reporting you, but it doesn't say much for your self-implied clear-headed powers of reasoning that you keep making retorts such as this your default fall-back option as opposed to a little less of the 'heavy-weather' comeback style of rejoinder.

 

[Hux]

No, my dear Hux--you've insinuated that I'm taking the open mind line, which provides you an easy out for slinging the ad hominem insults. I've stated my position, twice, clearly and unmistakably. I have no responsibilities to you if you choose to twist that to fit your boilerplate. Read back over those remarks and quote me exactly where I've said I accept any and all possibilities. I don't 'accept' anything. I have no stake in the matter beyond the simple admission of the fact (and it is indeed a fact, whether you care to accept it as such or no) that I think, personally, this is a topic on which there can be no final hard answer. You either don't possess the sort of mind that enables you to deal with any viewpoint that differs from your own unless you re-arrange it in a manner suitable to squash it into your particular boilerplate on this question, which is hardly the hallmark of reasoned thought; or else you haven't trained that functioning mind to function in a manner that allows the intake of opinion in a way that allows for the reception of response without deforming it to fit to your particular brand of confirmation bias.

It occurs to me that you've been given a gentle warning by at least one of the site mods previously for engaging in insult and ad hominem attack as opposed to the simple give-and-take of rational debate. I don't have any intention of reporting you, but it doesn't say much for your self-implied clear-headed powers of reasoning that you keep making retorts such as this your default fall-back option as opposed to a little less of the 'heavy-weather' comeback style of rejoinder.

More gibberish. Where are the ad hominem insults? I'm ridiculing the idea that both positions are equally valid based on a lack of evidence. They are not.

That you're so upset by my ridiculing the fools who claim such an idiotic equivalence demonstrates your obvious sympathy for that position.

People who believe, encourage or even insinuate that the arse goblin theory is just as worthy of consideration as the no arse goblin theory, based on the misguided notion that they are somehow being opened minded are... utter fools.

Why would me pointing that out upset you? Unless you are one.

Also, your appeal to authority at the end there was hilarious. Well done.

 

[Amyghost]

More gibberish. Where are the ad hominem insults? I'm ridiculing the idea that both positions are equally valid based on a lack of evidence. They are not.

That you're so upset by my ridiculing the fools who claim such an idiotic equivalence demonstrates your obvious sympathy for that position.

People who believe, encourage or even insinuate that the arse goblin theory is just as worthy of consideration as the no arse goblin theory, based on the misguided notion that they are somehow being opened minded are... utter fools.

Why would me pointing that out upset you? Unless you are one.

Also, your appeal to authority at the end there was hilarious. Well done.

Hux, I'll be glad to engage in a debate with you on this the moment you cease re-writing my extremely clear and understandable words for me. The only one who seems to be getting 'upset' by this discussion is yourself. If you want to ridicule charlatans, be my guest--I do a fair amount of that myself. If you want to take my words and rearrange them to best fit your definition of a charlatan, be my guest as well, but remember that the onus is on you to make that claim hold water. I leave my remarks to stand for all who read them to interpret them as they will. So far, others seem to be getting the point, only you appear to keep missing the boat.

Perhaps if you'd stop fogging up the monitor with your heavy breathing, you might go back and read that my 'appeal to authority' (what authority? The FBI? The local constabulary? My congressman? Allah?) was exactly not that, insofar as I said plainly that I had no intention of reporting you; no need, as you've already brought down the eye of 'authority' on yourself by continuing along the ad hominem route after, some weeks previously, at least one moderator has suggested you might want to desist from it (BTW, the interchange so noted was not between you and me). Though I wouldn't do so anyway, but it kind of makes me chuckle to see that your hackles can apparently be raised so easily.

 

[Hux]

Hux, I'll be glad to engage in a debate with you on this the moment you cease re-writing my extremely clear and understandable words for me. The only one who seems to be getting 'upset' by this discussion is yourself. If you want to ridicule charlatans, be my guest--I do a fair amount of that myself. If you want to take my words and rearrange them to best fit your definition of a charlatan, be my guest as well, but remember that the onus is on you to make that claim hold water. I leave my remarks to stand for all who read them to interpret them as they will. So far, others seem to be getting the point, only you appear to keep missing the boat.

Perhaps if you'd stop fogging up the monitor with your heavy breathing, you might go back and read that my 'appeal to authority' (what authority? The FBI? The local constabulary? My congressman? Allah?) was exactly not that, insofar as I said plainly that I had no intention of reporting you; no need, as you've already brought down the eye of 'authority' on yourself by continuing along the ad hominem route after, some weeks previously, at least one moderator has suggested you might want to desist from it (BTW, the interchange so noted was not between you and me). Though I wouldn't do so anyway, but it kind of makes me chuckle to see that your hackles can apparently be raised so easily.

None of that was response to any of my points. It was yet another appeal to authority, layered with redundant language designed to mask the fact that none of it was a response to any of my points. That you repeatedly bring up previous encounters, not reporting me and other mildly laughable obfuscations whilst claiming not to be upset is also somewhat precious but neither here nor there.

You have made the claim. It is the claim that belief is a hard line while rejection of that belief is also a hard line. This is simply moronic. That you fail to grasp that is not my business but if you don't wished to be called on it then perhaps refrain from making such manifestly ludicrous claims in future.

Your claim was very silly. Based on a misguided and self indulgent belief that open mindedness justifies stupidity. It doesn't.

And I'm still waiting for your evidence of ad hominem insults, though I whole heartedly acknowledge that evidence is not something you care too much for.

 

[Amyghost]

Hux, enough; I said that I'm happy to debate this with you in future, once you calm down a bit. I can repeat to you that I've nowhere stated anything about 'open-mindedness=equals validation of error', and you're not going to see it because you've intractably set your mental course against it. Continued re-iteration of previously plainly stated points bores the hell out of me and I've got a short attention span for it; and so far your retorts haven't done anything to lengthen it.

When you can make a statement for your case that involves something just a tad more involved than simply re-framing my remarks into the context you've decided to give them, give me a holler. Until then, sorry, but I just get no kick out of watching water swirl around a drain endlessly. Which I guess means I'm not a Zen Buddhist either.

 

[Hux]

It's pretty clear that I am calm. That you keep attempting to suggest otherwise is rather telling.

As for your claims which I am apparently taking out of context. you said....

professing absolute certainty on a matter in which there cannot be any certainty whatsoever, because there's literally no hard evidence on either side. Absence of evidence constitutes neither proof nor disproof, it simply denotes absence of evidence.

You are patently insinuating that certainty in an absurdity is the equivalent to certainty in the lack of said absurdity. Like many apologists you assume that professing a certainty that there is no God demonstrates small minded hard line. This assumption is based on an inability to concretely assert that a non present being cannot be conclusively shown to not exist.

But when we apply this logic to invisible arse goblins, it's ludicrousness become apparent. If I cannot be certain there is no God based on my inability to disprove it then it stands to reason I cannot be certain there is no rosy cheeked arse elf making a lovely bowl of salty porridge deep in the recesses of your colon.

Except, I can be certain.

Because it's fucking moronic.

That certainty is not a hard line. It is the consequence of a functioning brain.

 

[Amyghost]

Lordy, you are the dog with the bone on this one.

I'm going to refute you on the basis of this particular sentence from your earlier post:
"You have made the claim. It is the claim that belief is a hard line while rejection of that belief is also a hard line."

Nowhere have I stated anything about taking a 'hard line' as to belief or lack of same. My point was precisely against such absolutist, or 'hard-line' doctrinaire thinking. You're ascribing to me a claim I never made, ergo all arguments that you make predicated upon it are fundamentally in error. When you can give my words a more clear-headed reading and interpretation (and I suspect that my initial conflating of fundies and hardcore atheists, as per their similarities of response to having their 'hard-line' opinions debated with is quite probably what set you off in the first place: these are two camps who definitely don't like to have their points of similarity brought up to them) I'll be open for debate. But until then, this argument is a rapid devolve into the head against a brick wall meme, and frankly I find that pretty effin' moronic.

 

[ant-mac]

It's pretty clear that I am calm. That you keep attempting to suggest otherwise is rather telling.

As for your claims which I am apparently taking out of context. you said....

You are patently insinuating that certainty in an absurdity is the equivalent to certainty in the lack of said absurdity. Like many apologists you assume that professing a certainty that there is no God demonstrates small minded hard line. This assumption is based on an inability to concretely assert that a non present being cannot be conclusively shown to not exist.

But when we apply this logic to invisible arse goblins, it's ludicrousness become apparent. If I cannot be certain there is no God based on my inability to disprove it then it stands to reason I cannot be certain there is no rosy cheeked arse elf making a lovely bowl of salty porridge deep in the recesses of your colon.

Except, I can be certain.

Because it's fucking moronic.

That certainty is not a hard line. It is the consequence of a functioning brain.

Enough, Hux.

For the record, ad hominem is short for argumentum ad hominem. It is now generally understood to be a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, the motive, or some other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

More gibberish. Where are the ad hominem insults?

You answered your own question here, Hux, before you even asked it.

You are implying in an apparently insulting manner that another poster is using language that is nonsense, or that appears to be nonsense in their discussion with you. That is clearly not the case.

Insinuating (as you patently are) that being open minded involves accepting all possibilities is one of the most moronic arguments ever laughably churned up by flim-flam spiritualists.

You are also implying - whether you realize it or not - that another poster is acting in a moronic manner through their use of certain arguments in this discussion. That is also clearly not the case.

In general terms, your behaviour has been antagonistic, dismissive and insulting, Hux.

You are in violation of rule two and rule three.

02. Please conduct yourself in a civilized and reasonable manner on this forum and abide by the decisions of all staff members at all times. Please treat all other members in a civilized and respectful manner. All members should promote harmony on this forum. Do not disrupt the normal and orderly operation of this forum in any way. Doing so may result in temporary suspension or permanent expulsion.

03. Do not post abusive and / or insulting messages on this forum. Foul language is permitted on this forum, provided it is not directed towards another member in the form of a personal attack. Do not bully and / or troll other members of this forum. Doing so may result in temporary suspension or permanent expulsion.

Please stop this behaviour now, Hux, to avoid any future negative consequences.

Also, please familiarize yourself with the CODE OF CONDUCT.

If you wish to discuss this matter further for any reason, please contact a staff member via the conversation function.

 

[Hux]

Lordy, you are the dog with the bone on this one.

I'm going to refute you on the basis of this particular sentence from your earlier post:
"You have made the claim. It is the claim that belief is a hard line while rejection of that belief is also a hard line."

Nowhere have I stated anything about taking a 'hard line' as to belief or lack of same. My point was precisely against such absolutist, or 'hard-line' doctrinaire thinking. You're ascribing to me a claim I never made, ergo all arguments that you make predicated upon it are fundamentally in error. When you can give my words a more clear-headed reading and interpretation (and I suspect that my initial conflating of fundies and hardcore atheists, as per their similarities of response to having their 'hard-line' opinions debated with is quite probably what set you off in the first place: these are two camps who definitely don't like to have their points of similarity brought up to them) I'll be open for debate. But until then, this argument is a rapid devolve into the head against a brick wall meme, and frankly I find that pretty effin' moronic.

You've again responded to none of my points.

And you are now claiming that you did not state that the hard line of both sides are as bad as each other. Yes, you have and no they are not. You said:

For what it's worth, my feelings are that Xtian fundies and hard-core atheists both fall into the trap of making the same mistake: professing absolute certainty on a matter in which there cannot be any certainty whatsoever

So professing absolute certainty that there isn't a sanguine faced goblin making his breakfast in your anus is a mistake? Really?

That's your position? You then said:

the irritant of contemporary atheism that it pretends to speak with a voice of authority that in many ways is just as assumed and bogus as the religionists'.

There's that equivalency again. And again, it is utter gibberish. The certainty that the arse goblin doesn't exist IS NOT just as assumed and bogus as the certainty that he does. That would be nonsense.

You then said:

I'm not tied to the notion of having to take a hard-line adherence to any of it..

So you're not willing to adhere to the hard line stance that Jeffrey (I've named him) the happy goblin doesn't live within the darkest, most crusty corners of your back passage? You're open to the possibility that he might?

See what happens when you swap God (the thing you have a sympathetic relationship with) with Jeffrey the happy goblin that lives in your arse (the thing that is manifestly absurd to you).

Interesting, isn't it?

 

[ant-mac]

@Hux - You are free to think what you like about my previous post, but you are still required to follow the CODE OF CONDUCT.

01. Please abide by the code of conduct at all times on this forum, as non-compliance may result in temporary suspension or permanent expulsion.

 

[Amyghost]

You've again responded to none of my points.

And you are now claiming that you did not state that the hard line of both sides are as bad as each other. Yes, you have and no they are not. You said:



So professing absolute certainty that there isn't a sanguine faced goblin making his breakfast in your anus is a mistake? Really?

That's your position? You then said:



There's that equivalency again. And again, it is utter gibberish. The certainty that the arse goblin doesn't exist IS NOT just as assumed and bogus as the certainty that he does. That would be nonsense.

You then said:



So you're not willing to adhere to the hard line stance that Jeffrey (I've named him) the happy goblin doesn't live within the darkest, most crusty corners of your back passage? You're open to the possibility that he might?

See what happens when you swap God (the thing you have a sympathetic relationship with) with Jeffrey the happy goblin that lives in your arse (the thing that is manifestly absurd to you).

Interesting, isn't it?

Hux, at this point the only 'interesting' thing here is observing someone who's become so caught up in their own logical fallacies that they've made themselves impervious to any type of reasonable response. I can't help but wonder if that dweller in the fundaments may be controlling your own thought processes right now. If the gnome isn't real at least he/she/it seems to have chosen a very real mouthpiece for itself.

At this point I think ant-mac has pretty much nailed it. There's no real reason for myself or anyone else here to make answer to your arguments, because you already are doing a fine job of answering them on your own, via the words you continue to insist on placing in others' mouths.

I can only add that it is funny to witness you ranting about others being so 'open-minded' as to be in danger of their brains falling out, and then follow up that charge with a vote of 'narrowmindedness' to ant-mac's post. But then again, I've never noticed that consistency-fail much troubles those who tend to try to bull their way through any debate by cherry-picking a few points in their opponent's statements to belabor as 'proof' of the correctness of their own arguments.

 

[Hux]

Still no response to my points. More gibberish.

Please refer to my last post where I quoted you extensively and accurately (you have not been taken out of context) and respond with something other than further examples of obfuscation and an inability to recognise that you simply posted a truly ludicrous argument.

One by one if you could. Thanks.

 

[Amyghost]

Read my first several damn posts, Hux. I covered your points in them, it's you who keeps insisting that I haven't by taking those words and turning them into an argument that they never contained. It's you who insists I'm 'god-sympathetic'. It's you who keeps farcically bearing down on the notion that, because I made the statement, applicable only to myself, that I believe there can be no final answer to the question of god's existence or lack of same, I must de facto be a believer in unicorns, fairies, snake oil and the reality of Donald Trump's hair, even though you hardly know me well enough, or at all, to know what my belief systems are, or if I harbor any.

The fundies believe what they choose, the hardliners do likewise, and 'insert-phantasmal-overlord-of-your-choice-here' help anyone who's foolhardy enough to so much as breathe the notion in their presence that perhaps this is not a subject on which final--indeed, dare I say Godlike?--absolute certainty can ever be had. I will say, though, you've pretty much single-handedly given a vivid demonstration of that exact sticking-point in my earlier posts in which I opined that hell hath no fury like a True Believer who finds he's not as successful at foisting off his True Beliefs (whatever they may be) to all and sundry as he might wish.

 

[Hux]

Read my first several damn posts, Hux. I covered your points in them, it's you who keeps insisting that I haven't by taking those words and turning them into an argument that they never contained. It's you who insists I'm 'god-sympathetic'. It's you who keeps farcically bearing down on the notion that, because I made the statement, applicable only to myself, that I believe there can be no final answer to the question of god's existence or lack of same, I must de facto be a believer in unicorns, fairies, snake oil and the reality of Donald Trump's hair, even though you hardly know me well enough, or at all, to know what my belief systems are, or if I harbor any.

The fundies believe what they choose, the hardliners do likewise, and 'insert-phantasmal-overlord-of-your-choice-here' help anyone who's foolhardy enough to so much as breathe the notion in their presence that perhaps this is not a subject on which final--indeed, dare I say Godlike?--absolute certainty can ever be had. I will say, though, you've pretty much single-handedly given a vivid demonstration of that exact sticking-point in my earlier posts in which I opined that hell hath no fury like a True Believer who finds he's not as successful at foisting off his True Beliefs (whatever they may be) to all and sundry as he might wish.

Interesting. So you're saying that my total rejection of the absurd and non-existent and certainty that they do not exist is an example of... true belief?

So exactly what I have been accusing you of from the start.

You were indeed accurately quoted.

 

[Amyghost]

Interesting. So you're saying that my total rejection of the absurd and non-existent and certainty that they do not exist is an example of... true belief?

So exactly what I have been accusing you of from the start.

You were indeed accurately quoted.

>sigh<... once again, you take my words, put them into the patented Ronco TM Word-Salad-Spinner, and out pops--voila!--freshly chopped word salad. As soon as I make sense of that last pithy statement, which I suspect you launched with the idea that it was a killer salvo, I'll get back to you. Unfortunately, for words to kill, they have first off, to be intelligible. Extrapolating over and over from the statement " I believe there can be no ultimate final answer as to whether or no a deity exists" the notion that I believe in dragons, buy quack cures for cancer and expend most of my hard-earned gelt on psychic hotlines partakes handily of the gibberish-like as well as ducking the crux of my statement, but since you believe it's a truly unbeatable argument, I happily leave you to it.