In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Ah, but you would think that, Yazata, as you're without God.
Wow! You got me!
Didn't see that one coming.
Changing the subject. Why does it matter how long a thread is, or if it ever reaches a general conclusion. Won't it just stop like all other threads?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Proof by repeated assertion is a logical fallacy. i.e. not a valid argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
But I think you knew that. I give you more credit than you give yourself.
Yep.
And since you also assert that existence is objective (i.e the same for everyone):
That means that God does not exist objectively - for everyone.
To be perfectly clear, that's not my perspective or my words. Those are your words.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And it seems we shall never find out Jan given that you will not, from what all must presume actually means can not, produce any evidence.
Why don't you stop saying I won't except anything and present something.
Part of the issue Jan is you can't make something a fact because you say so and the claim you make does not hold water...
Present some evidence and see how things go.
Me unreasonable do you really think that ... Honestly Jan I know you don't mean that, you can't mean that...you either are playing games or unrealistic perhaps both.
I will bet if you asked every person here, in fact every person who has had anything to do with me, if there is one thing all will tell you is that I am the most reasonable human they have ever met.
That is a fact.
I absolutely reject your statement for it is wrong and I suspect even you must feel foolish attempting such a transparent ploy.
I have no need to make you look angry or emotional.
Are you being provocative Jan.
I show concern because you clearly exhibit that you are upset and then use my softness against me.
Sure looks that way.
I could play along but that would be dishonest because I am onto your tactic.
Well let's look at things from your perspective Jan.
Do you read my posts Jan?
You seem not to comprehend everything , well most things that I say.
God is does not work for me.
Do you use God is simply to stir folk up.
It is a nonsence so use it to frustrate discussion.
Criticism as to my social style or style of argument does not change a thing Jan.
You fail to deliver the goods.
I don't know why you are getting angry other than I try to find out what you really want to talk about.
No you don't and within this thread there are many examples.
And even after seeming to make a concession you will take it back later.
You seem to have run out of bullets.
God is in your head Jan but it does not exist live with it.
You do well given your lack of material but all your games as you know will not turn make believe into existence.
You can protest get angry blame others for whatever but you fail to deliver Jan in much the same way your mythical God fails to deliver.
There is no substance to your claims and you become angry when folk work out your trickery.
I was sincere, I was reasonsble, I was curious I was on your side and you throw it in my face in my view.
And know this I am on a higher level of enlightenment so I have no need to win.
Control your anger, present rational argument and give up on manipulation if you wish to be treated with respect...play games and folk will use you as the ball.
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Let me quote the rest of the Proof by Repeated Assertion fallacy:
"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted"
In other words, your best arguments have been refuted (as above, where you contradicted yourself). Repeating the same assertion over and over, despite it being refuted is a form of derailing a thread - an attempt to stop its progress.
I mean, that's OK for it to come to an end. I'm the first to say you've been eloquent, civil and thoughtful, and - despite my best efforts - you haven't thrown in the towel. That's really rare - especially for this forum.
But it has been fully and fairly won:
The concept God does not stand up to objective analysis. (That doesn't mean God's dead; it simply means it's a matter of faith, i.e.: one can still be certain it's true, despite a lack of objectively presentable evidence).
Unless, that is, you have some new argument or evidence to provide.
To at least get something from the loosely named ' discussion '
Just don't kick to hard
I'm asserting a fact. Atheists are without God, because for them God does not exist.
Please feel free to show otherwise.
While that may be the aim, Objective does not mean the same for everyone. So you don't know what you're talking about.
Objective - of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So while existence is objective, as in we all know things exist, including ourselves, God does not exist in the same way that things exist. That is why 'God Is' is a better description.
You're right God does not exist objectively for everyone.
But it doesn't mean God doesn't exist in the way that He exists. It means that those for whom God does not exist, cannot comprehend how god could exist, hence God doesn't exist as far as they are aware.
Jan.
Aren't you telling God what to do in a way, or prove you really know the mind of God.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan reminds me of so many ladies I have witnessed sitting at the bar or table determinded to be the center of attention.
Usually very attractive to the group of men gathered around, each thinking they have a chance and of course they don't.
She justs enjoys the attention and her art of tantalising the assembled group.
They will make an advance and at first in an effort to draw them in she will offer encouragement and have them believe she thinks they are more special than the others and then cuts them off so they must step back and try again and in that pause another throws himself into the ring.
She does not even attempt to play one against the other for to do so would dilute the attention she craves.
But at the end of the evening all assembled go home alone.
The men thinking they made an impression the lady satisfied she has made fools of them all.
And if there is meaningful argument the lady will never think she has lost but only that she has failed to make her point quiet clear because she knows if these guys understood what she was saying they could only agree.
I think it is my memories of sitting back and watching such games that often has me wondering if Jan is a lady because I detect a similar style somehow.
Anyways I enjoy the opportunity to forget my reality and appreciate that someone else has time to chat.
Its all good.
If Jan enjoys attention I see no problem in giving it for in my case my payoff is I don't have to channel surf, think about my legs or the prospect of doing anything that will only be painful.
Alex
Would this kinda' stuff work on a dating website, you think?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I do not know I have never visited one my dating days are long past.
When I was 17 I fell victim to the situation I describe, 4 guys one girl, I was doing better than the others because she let me buy her drinks, but at the end of the night she went home with her boyfriend who was sitting at the very next table with his mates.
But once bitten never again.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
The dictionary may hold the answer.
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. I totally agree with that assertion.
And since - as you have stated - existence is objective, that means God objectively doesn't exist - i.e. for anyone, despite any theist belief.
Your words.
For anyone. That's what objective means.
fact
\ˈfakt\
noun
\əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\
adjective
\ig-ˈzist\
Congratulations Sciforum
The only place on the web which has drawn together
NON EXISTENCE which is like
EXISTENCE but not same way as
REAL EXISTENCE and because you are without NON EXISTENCE you
NON EXISTENCE does not EXIST for you
Makes my two overworked neurone brain wonder just
WHO does this NON EXISTENCE actually
EXIST for?
Anyone?
\ˈfakt\
noun
- : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
- : a true piece of information
\əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\
adjective
- : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
- philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world
- grammar : relating to nouns, nounphrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions
\ig-ˈzist\
- : to have actual being : to be real
- : to continue to be or to live
Congratulations Sciforum
The only place on the web which has drawn together
- Alternative FACTS which do not exist because they are different from FACTS which
- Alternatively OBJECTIVELY are not OBJECTIVELY in existence because they
- Alternatively EXIST not like actually EXIST
NON EXISTENCE which is like
EXISTENCE but not same way as
REAL EXISTENCE and because you are without NON EXISTENCE you
NON EXISTENCE does not EXIST for you
Makes my two overworked neurone brain wonder just
WHO does this NON EXISTENCE actually
EXIST for?
Anyone?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah. So this is progress - of a sort. In the sense that you are resorting to ever more bad faith weasel words.
Equivocation – Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.
You have resorted to inventing a new definition for an existing term. A term you have used about a thousand times now.
"When I used the word exist - lo, those thousand or so times I used it - I didn't mean it in the way the rest of the world means it. My meaning of 'exist' is special! Did I forget to mention that, back when the post count was a mere three digits? My bad."
Sorry. Invalid argument.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I find it difficult to consider having a meaningful discussion if you are going to use a dictionary to define the meaning of words how can we seek truth when you present an expectation that we be tied in that way?
A word should mean what I expect it to mean I accuse you of being dissmoginistict.
Alex
Guys, no one brings logic to a psychoanalytic session. The patient doesn't even understand their own words - they're repressing bad thoughts, not daring them into consciousness.
Treat words like a symptom of neurosis.
:EDIT:
It still doesn't mean you can't find God.
Treat words like a symptom of neurosis.
:EDIT:
It still doesn't mean you can't find God.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I wonder how a thread on "Talking in Tongues" would go...could we get anyone to share their personal experience of doing it.
Alex
Terry Pratchettist
Right on.