For example, if you were never taught that the Eifel Tower was in Paris, France, would it still be in Paris France? — IvoryBlackBishop
one couldn't immediately dismiss the legitimacy of a belief simply because it was taught — IvoryBlackBishop
DingoJones
1.4k
Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion.
— Frank Apisa
I don’t care. Keep these little self important diatribes to yourself....like its my fault I have to talk to you like a child because your too dense to understand things at a higher level.
Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right."
— Frank Apisa
Holy shit. I explained I had to ask questions to make my point, then you said go ahead and make your point but im not answering any more questions. You are not paying attention, you are just waiting to continue soapboxing.
I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension.
— Frank Apisa
A very dim witted suspicion. I was trying to clarify your use of “need”, so that I could answer your irrelevant question in an attempt at communicating with you despite the giant chip on your shoulder and obtuse, deaf and ranting disposition.
Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted.
— Frank Apisa
The respect of a moron who cannot track more than one thing at a time is not required for discussion. The discussion is on track when both parties act in good faith (which you aren't) and when both parties are paying attention to what the other is trying to say. (Which you are also not doing, unless you are being dishonest and/or some kind of idiot).
Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used.
— Frank Apisa
No you goofy prick, YOU are not the one who decides if I need clarification. How can you not understand such simplicity?!
Clarification is for the person trying to understand, me in this case. The best person to determine if I understand your question is me, not you.
Now, you are an atheist whether you like it or not, you are just too stupid on too many levels and in too many ways to comprehend how utterly void of merit your protests that you are not an atheist really are.
Like your comprehension levels, your little tantrums are childish And are an obstacle to having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.
You need to get your head out of your ass, as you are not nearly the intellect you think you are, nor is your position anywhere near as strong as you think it is. Removing your head from your ass will help with that. Then, you need to clean the shit from your ears (a result of having your head up your ass, no doubt) and fucking listen to whats being said to you. Pay attention, some people are actually interested in discourse, back and forth, learning...instead of just blathering the same witless garbage and ignoring anything that stands in the way of repeating the same, defenceless, vacant drivel the way you do.
I suggest you shut the fuck up and save whatever pathetic response you cook up, because while Im tired of trying to use reason and logic to get through that thick fucking skull of yours but I feel positively invigorated to continue pointing out the ways in which you have completely, epically failed to make your case or even understand the simplest concept...you will get more of the same from me going forward. I mean, I know your inflated, toddler ego will not let you and it will be irresistible for you but try...just try, to shut your stupid mouth Long enough to notice or learn something. — DingoJones
↪Frank Apisa I'm not having this conversation again, it's dumb and you're just factually wrong.
There is "weak", "soft", or "implicit" atheism which is lack of belief in God.
There is "strong", "hard", or "explicit" atheism which is belief in the lack of God.
The former is just anyone who is not a theist. The latter are a subset of the former. Typical (but not all) agnostics fall within the former but not the latter. You're one of them I take it. I don't care what you identify as, that's what words mean.
I expect this has already been explained to you upthread, which is why I haven't been reading this thread until now. This argument is old and stupid and pointless because people like you aren't interested in productive conversation. — Pfhorrest
In any case...I am no more an atheist because I lack a "belief" that gods exist... — Frank Apisa
...than I am a theist because I lack a "belief" that gods do not exist. — Frank Apisa
Pfhorrest
1.1k
↪IvoryBlackBishop I wasn't arguing against "indoctrination". I didn't even use that word.
I was explaining how it can both be the case that babies are born atheists, and atheism is something people outgrow. If a false believe is instilled at an impressionable young age, someone will hopefully grow out of it as they mature and investigate their beliefs critically. Nobody is born with any beliefs though, so in that case the babies are born lacking the belief, get it instilled at a young age, and then grow out of it.
If the beliefs instilled at a young age are not false, then they are not so likely to be grown out of, and that's fine. — Pfhorrest
Babies are not born atheists... — Frank Apisa
everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist — Frank Apisa
Pfhorrest
1.1k
In any case...I am no more an atheist because I lack a "belief" that gods exist...
— Frank Apisa
Yes you are. — Pfhorrest
That's what words mean.
You can also be an agnostic. They're not mutually exclusive.
...than I am a theist because I lack a "belief" that gods do not exist.
— Frank Apisa
That's because that's not what "theism" means.
You're either a theist or not. Not-theists are atheists.
Pfhorrest
1.1k
Babies are not born atheists...
— Frank Apisa
Yes they are. — Pfhorrest
everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist
— Frank Apisa
That's what words mean.
We are all agnostics. — Frank Apisa
What does "theism" mean, Pf? — Frank Apisa
Oh, is that the dichotomy you think exists.
Well I do not. — Frank Apisa
What about...either you are a theist...or you are not a theist — Frank Apisa
Some of the people who are not theists use the descriptor atheist...and some use the descriptor agnostic? — Frank Apisa
everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist
— Frank Apisa
No...some of us are agnostics. I wouldn't be an atheist on a bet. — Frank Apisa
You ought really to learn how to write that sentence coherently. — Frank Apisa
Agreed.I feel that you and I have very different writing styles...so if neither of us are making any headway (and DingoJones has put in some serious effort as well), I am not sure this will go anywhere. I sometimes get bored of these arguments... — ZhouBoTong
:up:I agree with your position 4.
I bel[ie]ve that the existence of god [ ... ] any attribution to that is mere fantasy, or else a lie. Heck we don't know anything about him, and nothing of his attributes. Event his attribute of existence is hidden from us. — god must be atheist
So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this. — Frank Apisa
So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question. — Frank Apisa
Okay...I didn't think you would. — Frank Apisa
I'm trying to understand what you're getting at, so I went back through some of your posts. This one seems relevant:EDIT: Ok, how about this: by "belief" I mean assent, without warrant (i.e. falsified OR unfalsifiable) and by "knowledge" assent, with warrant (i.e. test but not (yet) falsified) -- clearer? :smile: — 180 Proof
I almost agree with this, except for one caveat: you can't falsify personal experience. If someone believes Jesus Christ is talking to them, and that he is affirming their beliefs, you cannot defeat that person's belief. Setting that aside, I completely agree that belief in a god of religion cannot be (otherwise) warranted....but...theistic claims about, or predicates ascribed to, g/G, according to scripture, creed, or dogmatic theology, are easily - like shooting fish in a barrel - falsified. — 180 Proof
In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists — David Mo
The mess has been made by certain associations of atheists who claim that they have no beliefs and therefore should not justify their position. This is absurd. Believe it or not, affirm it or not, in a rational debate your position must be reasoned. — David Mo
DingoJones
1.4k
So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this.
— Frank Apisa
No dipshit, I didnt say anything about polite. You have very poor reading comprehension levels.
So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question.
— Frank Apisa
Correct, your dishonesty overshadows my desire to do so. You are acting in bad faith here, your true interest is running your stupid mouth. So no.
Okay...I didn't think you would.
— Frank Apisa
Yes, not thinking. Your specialty. — DingoJones
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.