180 Proof
833
↪Frank Apisa Stop trolling. — 180 Proof

I do not troll.

I sometimes give pests a taste of their own medicine.

You seem to be shuddering. Must not taste good...

...right?:wink:

180 Proof
833
You have evidence for the nonexistence of god! I got to see this.
— SonOfAGun
But will you understand? (Frankie surely doesn't.) :sweat: — 180 Proof

I seem to be getting under your skin.

Usually not this easy to do.

Are you new to Internet discussions?

:wink:

Well, that doesn't mean bad news lacks appeal in socialist societies. As I said the problem isn't with the media but with the people and whether you're a socialist or a capitalist or any other "ist", you are "people". — TheMadFool

My point was that in some societies...GOOD NEWS is more abundant than BAD NEWS. In most capitalistic societies (freer societies) more bad news abound than good...because bad news does sell newspapers...and increase viewership.

If you think not...fine with me.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
1k
Frank Apisa
— Frank Apisa

What a dummy you are. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No...I am not a dummy.

You made an assertion...I've asked you to back it up...and you have declined.

I understand why you declined...which is because you were merely shooting off your mouth.

You have absolutely no evidence whatever that the first few popes were decadent and immoral.

Interesting how you squirm!

180 Proof
831
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." ~Christopher Hitchens

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."
— Frank Apisa
Another "blind guess" (i.e. assertion without corroborating evidence or sound argument), Frankie? :roll: — 180 Proof

No. A blind guess about whether or not there is a god...IS a blind guess.

Calling it a "blind guess" is not a blind guess. If it makes you feel better to consider it to be an informed guess...fine with me.

180 Proof
829
What do you mean by the word "wrong?"
— Frank Apisa
Nonsense (or in your crotchety parlance - "bullshit"!) Not. Even. False. — 180 Proof

So, now you are saying that what I am saying is nonsense.

Why didn't you use "nonsense" in the first place instead of "wrong?"

Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. They are objectively real. They are practically demonstrable. Yes you can believe in these things, but in our current highly technological environment, I don't know why you would need to. I have personally confirmed the existence of every item you have on your list there, including personally operated telescopes to confirm planets and stars, as well as, personally being able to comprehend the physics involved with telescopes. — SonOfAGun

PRECISELY!

That is part of the problem I have with the word "believe"...especially when used in the "believe in" form. It is used carelessly and inappropriately WAY TOO OFTEN.

I don't see how that is any different than what I said. — SonOfAGun

Okay.

I do not post only when I disagree...but sometimes call attention to comments of agreement.

Some people provide extensive arguments for their theistic or atheistic claims and beliefs. I'm not inclined to call that "guessing".

Is it only a guess of yours that they are guessing? What evidence can you provide for your claim?

I am however inclined to agree that many of those theistic and atheistic arguments involve speculation beyond the horizon of evidence. As a skeptical naturalist, I aim to train my power of belief or expectation away from such speculative claims. — Cabbage Farmer

I recognize that they provide bullshit rationalizations for their blind guesses that either "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist."

Some people have an allergy to "I do not know."

You wrote: "If you know of the first few popes, you will know how decadent and immoral those popes were. They make Rasputin look like a saint."

So I gave you a list of the FIRST 12 POPES (more than just the first few)...and asked you what made them decadent and immoral.

Now you are accusing them of atrocities that occurred CENTURIES AFTER THEY WERE DEAD.

Not a single person on that list (the first 12 popes) had ANYTHING to do with witch burning or inquisitions.

Man up!

Simply acknowledge that you were talking out of your ass when you made that accusation.

Or...continue the bullshit.

It's kinda cute.

If you know of the first few popes, you will know how decadent and immoral those popes were.

They make Rasputin look like a saint. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Really?

Hummm!

Here are the names of the first ten popes:
Peter
Linus
Anacletus
Clement
Evarestus
Alexander
Sixtus
Telesphorus
Hyginus
Pius
Anicetus
Sotor

Inform us, Excellency, as to why these men were so decadent and immoral they make Rasputin look like a saint.

Please.

In a capitalistic society...that mostly is true. In a capitalistic society, newspapers and media are attempting to gain readership and viewership in order to make (or help make) profits.

Bad news sells...so there is lots of motivation for it.

In socialistic societies...the need for readership and viewership (with a profit motivation) is greatly lessened...and they tend to get MUCH less bad news and MUCH more good news.

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."

The use of "I blindly guess..." seems to bother some people, so they use, "I believe..." instead.

180 Proof
827
What do you mean by "wrong?" Please define it.
— Frank Apisa
This is what's wrong with it. Read for comprehension, Frank, as many time as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: what is wrong is that you have not defined the gods - classes or particular ones - that you claim not know whether or not they exist; saying "all gods" says nothing definite.

For example, I'm agnostic about a class, or concept, of divinity termed 'pandeism' and another 'animism' which are conventionally defined; on the other hand, I believe - as you insist that I have a belief - that the 'negation of theism' (also defined) is true, which makes me an anti-theist and only by implication also an atheist.

I provide the above link again to a prior post where I argued that what is wrong with your alleged "agnosticism" is that it's incoherent because your use of "gods" is wholly undefined. — 180 Proof

What do you mean by the word "wrong?"

SonOfAGun
69
^^^Edit changed Latter to former I always mess up my latter and former^^^ — SonOfAGun

I cannot tell you how happy I am to see this edit (correction).

Some of the posts lately have got me wondering if some super brand of new pot is going around. When I read your post as originally written...I thought, maybe pot has nothing to do with it. Maybe I have gone bat-shit crazy.

But...here I have a reprieve...at least a temporary one.

Antidote
122
Okay, so the agnostics position ultimately had to end as it has. And I will tell you, using reason, why this is the case. I'm calling in the scientist again, because I'm just tired. So here it is, tell me if this is wrong, and remember, I'm as dump as a lump of wood so I need simple explanation, and not digressions, so we can keep straight.

So, we created an example of using reason to see if we could prove there was or wasn't a creator. That we did to its conclusion, we couldn't actually prove either, so we concluded both the Christian (believer) and Atheist (non believer) were actually on the same side because they were both on the side of "faith". It couldn't be proved, so each had to use "faith" to make the conclusion. Nice and simple.

Then the agnostic appeared. Now, our scientist had no idea about this, because he thought the "atheist" and the "Christian" were polar opposites (in relativity). But it turned out the question was really, "Faith" or "No Faith". And the Atheist had faith, as did the Christian. It was the Agnostic that had "no faith". Bear with me please.

Now, unknown to our agnostic, he wasn't using reason. In fact he didn't understand reason, but what he did understand was "logic". What we know about "logic" is this. Firstly, it was a system created by the Ancient Greeks (Plato and the like), the system was created because the Ancient Greeks did not have "faith", far from it. They actually attempted to destroy faith, for whatever reason. The weapon of choice for the Ancient Greeks was "logic".

Now, using the Law of Cause and Effect, we know a few things about Order. That is, a cause creates an effect, creates a cause, etc. The law states, ONE cause creates an effect, it is not possible for a cause to be more than one, because Cause and Effect works like a tree and branch and creates a hierarchy. The "faith" question is always one of "First Cause".

So we look to the beginning of "logic". It was created. In fact, it was created just before 0 AD, dates aren't important. The system of "logic" was created using "reason". We can now say, Reason came first, and gave birth to Logic. Logic therefore can never be the First Cause because it is already an "Effect". As "Logic" was created, it is bound by relativity. You cannot create a logical argument with only one side (I've been telling my wife this for years). Hence why an agnostic needs an "opposite" in order to create an argument. The principles presented were just twisted logic so he could move position as he needed to. Otherwise the agnostic has no position. It is all "logically" good, but as people kept noticing, it is not reasonable.

If you look at wiki, you will see, the starting point for anything in "logic" is "Argument". Those Greeks were clever, but fortunately they weren't clever enough to beat reason. But then they couldn't, because "Reason" gave birth to Logic. The "son" does not come before the "father" that just plain insanity if it did.

The agnostic's don't realise that "logic" is flawed against reason. Reason is always above logic. Plato - Republic is a classic example of this. Reason, like Growth, love etc are a potential attributes of a creator. So, like the soul, as Plato highlighted, it is unbeatable. The Ancient Greeks attempted to use the system of logic to debunk the faith. And this has worked for over 2000 years, to a degree because if you look at the statistics, its not "atheism" that has grown, its "faithlessness" that has grown. And the agnostic represents the "faithless". If the agnostic had a ground to stand on, they could tell us but they can't because the starting point in "logic" is 2 sides or more.

Logic has two aspects to it, it is relative, because it was created. It has "expression" that's the outside appearance of it, and it has "definition", that's the inside appearance of it. Plato, like the agnostic, plays a little game, using a single letter in the language (remember the Ancient Greeks invented the language we now use, albeit via Latin). The letter in question is "s". This is the difference between "singular" and "plural". Now our scientist couldn't understand why it was so important to keep re-stating "gods" not "god", even when our scientist had mentioned "God". But this is why.

If you mix "singular" expression with "plural" definition (or switch them), you have a mess because the expression and definition have to match otherwise it is illogical. Or disorder, or chaos or whatever, it doesn't matter what its called, what you don't have it order or logic. Now if there is a creator, one very obvious trait is "Order". Everything of the creator is in order.

What struck the scientist was that agnosticism mentions "Gods" in one breath, then describe "God" in another (splitting expression and definition). I don't think this twisted logic is limited to the agnostic. They only been around for a few hundred years, so everything that ascribes to the Ancient Greek logic, will incorporate the error or splitting that which cannot be split.

If there is a creator (it will be by division), the effect of this is "multiplication". In terms of a creator, the plural is always in the effect whereby the cause will always be singular.

So the logic system was framed without a first cause, that was it's intention (logic is faithless). So it is impossible for logic to answer the question of "is there a creator" because logic itself was obviously created. Reason however, has an opportunity to answer the question. That was why we were very careful to stick to reason, and not let logic get in the way and introduce the fundamental error.

I have created another thread "Ancient Greek, Logic and Reason" for those who are interested or have a view on that. Because the Ancient Greeks knew what they were doing, they switched around the positions of "reason" and "logic" in the education system they created.

However, the universal law of Cause and Effect shows us, Reason came first, Logic came after. As the switch is done right at the beginning, or hidden in a tiny letter (devil is always in the detail) most people never even notice it and incorporate it into their thinking / logic. However, our thinking is, and always has been based on Reason, then logic from 0 AD onwards.

Reason = Cause, Logic = Effect. If you have logic without reason, you are in the realms of insanity and the golden rule with that is "you cannot reason with insanity". You can bin them both off (Atheist) or you can have just "reason" Christian, but you cannot have just Logic because we already know, logic was created from reason, and that means its below reason in the causality chain.

The position of the Christian = There is a God (by faith).
The position of the Atheist = There is no God. (by faith).
The position of the Agnostic = I am God (faithlessness).

The agnostic position explains why the Ancient Greeks were very interested in Justice and guilt and the like, because they firmly believed they were God / Gods.

If anyone knows any really clever people (because I'm dumb as lump of wood) pass it on to them and ask them if it's right? Maybe its not, our scientist got it wrong (ish) last night. — Antidote

μαλακίες

Pinprick
49
↪Antidote ↪Frank Apisa

Which Dialogue are the two of you reenacting? :lol: — Pinprick

Cute.

I am Glaucon.

Antidote
121
The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god.
— Frank Apisa

Could you expand on this a little? — Antidote

At first, I thought of responding to this with:

Sure.

T h e n o t i o n o f j u s t G o d...m e a n s w o r k i n g w i t h j u s t o n e i d e a o f a g o d.

But I figured that was too corny.

So instead, I opt to go with:

I would rather not expand on it.

I prefer to discuss the topic at hand using "gods" rather than "God" (which implies a particular God) ...so if that is a game stopper, perhaps it would be better for you to discuss it with someone else.

I actually hope it is not.

Antidote
117
Yes maybe so I'm sure but i can be an asshole like everyone at times.

So are you ready to carry on ? — Antidote

Carry on?

I am willing to have a meaningful discussion with you if you knock off the bullshit.

Let me know that you intend to stop with the bullshit...and we can discuss a few things. (I'd prefer to discuss your apparent disagreement with something I have written.)

180 Proof
824
Not sure why that answer causes so much consternation with so many...but apparently it does.

[ ... ]

What on Earth does anyone see wrong or wrong-headed about that answer?
— Frank Apisa
This is what's wrong with it. Read dor comprehension, Frank, as many time as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: define the gods - classes or particular ones - at issue for you. :wink: — 180 Proof

What do you mean by "wrong?" Please define it.

Anti...I do not think you are dumb or stupid.

I think you are an asshole.

And I suspect you are unable (or perhaps, unwilling) to compose a coherent sentence.

Just want to be sure we are not misunderstanding any of that.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I do no know if gods exist
I do not know if gods don't exist

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist
I see no reason why gods could exist

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I see no reason that gods must exist
I see no reason why gods would exist
I see no reason that gods are needed to explain existence

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods exist
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods don't exist

...so I don't.
So I don't make form a view or opinion either way.

Please be patient with me, and please keep in mind I'm as dumb as a lump of wood so I get confused very easily. Can you please confirm where we have gone wrong on the above, so we can put it right, in the view of the agnostic so we understand better what the view point is. — Antidote

The part highlighted makes no sense, Anti...and does not follow from what I said.

Gotta go to work right now. Will be back in about 6 hours.

Is there any chance of re-writing these principles in singular form, for the sake of ease? If not, we'll work with what we have. — Antidote

Work with what you have. The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god.

I prefer to use "gods."

180 Proof
822
And don't mind me laughing at you.
— Frank Apisa
All you've got, Frankie, are vapid assertions absent supporting evidence or sound arguments. You're not laughing "at me" but with me at the forum trolls. Are you one of them? (Pardon the snark.) :smirk: — 180 Proof

No problem with the "snark" at all, 180. We all use it at times...and, no, I am not a troll.

I'm not even sure of what the point of disagreement is between us.

My position on the question of "Do any gods exist?" is fairly unambiguous: I do not know.

Not sure why that answer causes so much consternation with so many...but apparently it does.

My more complete answer is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods 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.

What on Earth does anyone see wrong or wrong-headed about that answer?

TheMadFool
5.1k
↪Frank Apisa

Three possibilities: Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism

1. X thinks god exists = theist (neither atheist nor agnostic)

2. X doesn't think god exists = not theist (either agnostic or atheist)

3. X thinks god doesn't exist = atheist (neither theist nor agnostic)

4. X thinks god may/may not exist = agnostic (not theist and not atheist)

5. X doesn't think god may/may not exist = not agnostic (either theist or atheist)

If X adopts position 1 then he is a theist. If X adopts position 2 (doesn't think god exists) then X is either an agnostic or an atheist and if X adopts position 3 (thinks god doesn't exist) then he's an atheist. The probable reason why I called it out as "word play" is because Pfhorrest lumps both 2 and 3 under the athetist banner when it actually includes agnostics too. — TheMadFool

I understand. But I disagree with Pforrest on much of what he asserts...and I certainly disagree with his (and many atheists) putting agnostics in the same category as atheists. Fact is, a better case can be made that atheists are more related to theists than agnostics, because both atheists and theists do "believing" (although in opposite directions)...and agnostics, for the most part do not.

180 Proof
821
I lack a "belief" in any gods. I also lack a "belief" that there are no gods...
The notion that the reason one uses atheist is because of the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT.
— Frank Apisa

Did you just assert that your position is firmly planted on BULLSHIT? — 180 Proof

No, I did not. Anyone who can read with comprehension would not even ask such a foolish question.

You did say (see quote, please) that the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT,

No, I did not. Anyone who can read with comprehension would not even ask such a foolish question.

My depiction of your answer is spot on. You said you are partly "there are no gods" and partly "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...and that is what I said. You ARE close to 100% there. (You said 28% and 59% which totals 87% which is close to 100%)

THAT is the reason you use "atheist" as a descriptor.

Antidote...you should find a thread about TV shows...and give your opinion on the ones you enjoy most.

If you think that the position "I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence" is fence-sitting...you are, as you claim, as dumb as a bag of wood.

180 Proof
821
So picking-up from where we left off ... :eyes:

Obviously to prove there are no gods...
— Frank Apisa
Obviously, since "gods" is undefined, this statement is nonsense.

one would have to be everywhere in the universe all at the same time....and detect no gods in order to prove there are none.
Only because your use of "gods" is undefined, that is, the search parameters for any one or classification of your purported "gods" are undefined, which implies having to search "everywhere" for no-defined-thing. :roll:

And that, Frankie, proves you're just blowing nonsense out of your ass. Just merely confused, pedestrian, unbelief ... obviously, not even (Huxleyan) agnosticism. — 180 Proof

Atheism is just a mirror image of theism. Both positions are just groups of people making blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Theists, to their credit are honest about it. The acknowledge that they are operating in "belief" and "faith."

Atheists, for the most part, lie about it...pretend they are not doing "belief" and "faith."

Enjoy your self-deceit, 180. And don't mind me laughing at you.

I don't see where your enthusiastic commitment to no possibility of knowledge comes from. What makes you to be so sure of no possibility of certainty? I am curious, more than I am challenging. Is there a foolproof proof that proves that? — god must be atheist

Great question.

No, there is no certainty...and I almost always use some tiny qualifier.

Obviously to prove there are no gods...one would have to be everywhere in the universe all at the same time....and detect no gods in order to prove there are none. But to do that...would be proving there is one...the being everywhere in the universe at the same time.

To prove there IS AT LEAST ONE GOD...would require the participation of the god. I am sure a god could provide evidence that it exists.

If it is selective, though (some religious people claim a personal revelation)...the person would have to prove he/she is not delusional.

Good luck doing that.

2k
Here is the matter upon which we need an estimate: What percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” are part of the group who “believe there are no gods” or “believe it is more likely that there are no gods…
— Frank Apisa

I'm 28 percent the former, and 59 percent the latter.

The rest of the missing percentages are due to rounding. — god must be atheist

Okay...so you are close to 100% one or the other.

I expect that EVERY person who uses atheist as his/her descriptor (or part of his/her descriptor) will be close to 100% also.

My point is that even if one uses the "an atheist is someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods"...the actual reason they use "atheist" as a descriptor...has to do with that close to 100%.

I lack a "belief" in any gods. I also lack a "belief" that there are no gods. I am not part of the group who "believes there are no gods or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods." My percentage is ZERO. I do NOT use atheist.

The notion that the reason one uses atheist is because of the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT.

Pinprick
43
My essential question of what the criteria is for beliefs remains unanswered as best I can tell. If a belief is “to think something is true,” then a belief cannot be “to think something is not true.” The definition of Atheism everyone seems to be pushing is a claim that something is not true (the EOG). Therefore, that claim cannot be a belief. — Pinprick

Why are atheists like this? Why do they buy into their own bullshit?

Okay…let us say it is not bullshit and that an atheist is someone who “simply does not ‘believe” that at least one god exists.”

But everyone should be able to agree that there are SOME PEOPLE who “believe” there are no gods…or who “believe” it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are none.

And, with not too much trouble, we should be able to agree that MOST of those people identify themselves as “atheists.”

Now the last step is not asking for agreement with a proposition, but rather, it involves making an estimate. And as with most estimates, it will almost certainly involve a range.

Here is the matter upon which we need an estimate: What percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” are part of the group who “believe there are no gods” or “believe it is more likely that there are no gods…

…and what percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” figure it is, at best, a 50/50 chance that at least one god exists versus no gods exist?

Any takers?

How about you, Pinprick?

Okay, that's an interesting one, if you are an agnostic, when we arrived at the "fact" which showed it was "not known", why didn't you agree? — Antidote

I don't know if you are just fucking with me or what...but it stops right here. I have said in no uncertain terms that I DO NOT KNOW if gods exist or not.

What the hell are you up to here?

Go back and read my posts.

Point out to me anywhere where I disagreed with anything about that.

Jesus H. Christ, man...get your act together.

Antidote
100
Yes for sure, we need to be very careful or will will jump to conclusions. Okay, so we have taken a backward step again, or i misunderstand you because it sounds like we are splitting hairs. Or prehaps you are not an athiest? — Antidote

Not only am I not an atheist...I would not be an atheist if you held a gun to my head.

I am an agnostic.

Read that statement of my agnosticism again. I've posted it three times already.

The only difference in my two statements is the word, "dont" — Anti

That is not even close to the only difference.

The difference between "people who don't believe in a creator" and "people who believe there is not creator"...is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon. In another forum right now, I have an ongoing argument with several atheists on just this topic.

We can discuss the considerable difference at length if you choose...but you should be able to see it.

Did the scientist in the example prove there was no creator?
Did the example leave enough doubt or room for a creator to exist in potential?
Do you consider yourself an athiest (no creator)? If not, then your are not an athiest. — Anti

No, Yes...and You goddam right I am not an atheist. How you have missed that point this far into our discussion is beyond me, Anti. Go back and read a few of my posts. Nothing points to atheism at all.

I say this because where we got stuck in a bit of a loop was in the transgression you made when you said, "... so i dont". Perhaps you could explain what you meant by this? — Anti

"I don't" refers to "I don't make a guess that a god exists...and I don't make a guess that no gods exist."

Anti, you are just not reading what I am writing...not paying attention.

I just explained that in the post up above...the one with the bolded text that you mentioned.

Here it is again:


The "I don't" applies to the "I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction"...not to anything else.

Since you seem unable to follow the continuity of the thought, I'll write it out as a continuous statement using shorter words:

Since I do not see any unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether at least one god exists...or if no gods exist...

...I do not make a guess either way.

Those people who believe in a creator do so by faith.
Those people who dont believe in a creator do so by faith. — Antidote

Gotta be careful of your wording, Anti.

I disagree with your second sentence...simply because of its wording.

I suspect you actually meant: Those people who "believe" there is no creator do so by faith. (Not the same thing as what you wrote.)

In any case, if you think I "have faith" that there is no creator...you are wrong.

I do not know if there is a creator...and I am not willing to guess that there is...just as I am not willing to guess that there isn't.

I'm willing to stick with "I do not know."

As far as kindness and caring is concerned, I see as much kindness and caring among agnostics and atheists...as I do in so-called religious people; AND I see as much hatred, anger, cruelty, and lack of concern in people devoted to a creator...as I do in agnostics and atheists. In fact, on that latter issue...I personally see more hatred, anger, cruelty, and lack of concern in so-called religious people than in agnostics and atheists.

Miguelandmartin
2
It is, that there is no God. — Miguelandmartin

What is?

What is the "it?"

The same objection stands, it's your last statement, "...so I don't. As in you don't believe creator exists". We established that "creator doesn't exist" wasn't true, or it was false. So your last statement makes you false, wrong. Whatever you want to call it. Forget the wording and your argument, because it is a work of fiction. We proved it time and time again.

Anti...read what I actually wrote.

The "I don't" applies to the "I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction"...not to anything else.

Since you seem unable to follow the continuity of the thought, I'll write it out as a continuous statement using shorter words:

Since I do not see any unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether at least one god exists...or if no gods exist...

...I do not make a guess either way.

Please, please tell me that you understand that not particularly complex thought,

By the way...if you insist that I ought to make a guess...

...I am willing to do so. Tell me you want me to do so, and I will flip the coin honestly and report it exactly as it resolves. Heads, I guess there is at least one god; tails, I guess there are no gods.

I stand by my comments regarding my take.

If you are unable to comprehend it...your problem, not mine.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods 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.

Piece by piece:

"I do not know if gods exist or not"

We seem to agree on that.


I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...or that they MUST EXIST.

Obviously if I did...IF is saw a reason to suspect the CANNOT EXIST...or that the MUST exist...

...that first bit about "I do not know" would be absurd.

If they CANNOT EXIST...they would NOT exist.

If they MUST EXIST...they would exist.




I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

What is there about that statement that you cannot or will not understand?

It is clear cut.

Is "must" affirmative or subjective? If I say to someone, "you can do this if you like", or say, "you must do this". Is it affirmative? The reason it is essential is because as soon as you remove it the "deck of cards" falls down. — Anti

You are either playing a game...or are not particularly bright.

I cannot figure out which it is...so I am trying to figure out how best to proceed without being sure.

Talk to someone else for a while...and I'll give it a bit more thought.

Antidote
94
...so I don't.
— Frank Apisa

Come on Frank, really. You not seeing this? Why you making me hit you with this all the time, I feel bad — Antidote

Stop playing this game!

I do not make a guess in either direction.

Nobody should.

Now just stop the bullshit.