Your irreligion applies to God, and belief in God.
A religion can be God- less
Just like most religious people.
Jan.
Prove that I am not God
- Thread starter Capracus
- Start date
Your irreligion applies to God, and belief in God.
A religion can be God- less
Just like most religious people.
Jan.
This introduction of some new vocabulary into the same meaningless fog of deniable (being incoherent comes in handy) verbiage is characteristic. We've seen it several times here. It's called a Gish Gallop, and it's standard fundie tactics.
No reason for denying Capracus will appear, because reason is the target - the silly falsehood about the God of Scripture never claiming to be God was a slipup this guy probably won't make again.
When entertaining the dishonorable, dishonest, and by now thoroughly disreputable, in a forum like this, understand that one is simply giving them a platform for their attacks. And notice their successes: the term "atheist", for example, beaten into that weird fundie shape by sheer, stubborn, repetition.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Sure, but a religion is not a religion unless it is actively practised. I don't practice any religion or ritual display of worship. I am religionless.
However....., when I put my socks on, I religiously start with my left foot.
I never even knew I did this until it struck me that I have always put my socks on left foot first.
Does that make me religious?
Do I adhere to the religious sect known as the "revealed word of left foot first sock" religion?
No, just like most people. Most all people religiously practise some ritual which is not religious at all. That does not make them religious. The term "religiously" here has nothing to do with religion itself. It's a metaphor for human behavior, not belief.
Last edited:
Sure you do.
Your defending it right now., and do so whenever I, or other theists post.
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
LOL, you are a piece of work , I must admit. Logic and reason just bounce off you, and you don't even blush.....
But you just violated God’s prerogative to be goofy. Continued fail.
You of all people should know that’s not how the defense of God game is played. The hidden God, the monstrous God, and the imbecilic God can all be rationalized using the same logic, that such behavior is essential to God’s endgame regarding humanity.
The perceived opinion of an atheist is your criteria for justifying the existence of God?
Your implication that if I had done anything different exposes your ignorance, wilful or otherwise to the relevant aspects to the premise. How could you have done better? How could anyone have done it better?
Again, show how an adequate defense of God’s identity should be employed.
Where’s the beef! Show us this framework of yours.
LOL, you are a piece of work , I must admit. Logic and reason just bounce off you, and you don't even blush.....
Lost for words.
So you go to insult mode.
How did you know logic and reason were made of rubber?
Jan.
You just violated the perogative of treating a goof like a goof.
More evidence of your goof. I would ask you to try googling theodicy since it's obvious that, once again (as per the standard of illiterate atheism) you have no idea what you are talking about.
But then, the standard of goof is that one hasn't, can't and won't make the effort to read any thing to come to a more informed position. Illiterate atheism is, as illiterate atheism does.
Fixed that for you, since we are even talking about how you had to have access to the same resource material (even if it is only goof level). If you didn't, even attempting parody would not be possible.
>>Dig subject/object divide>> throw one's self in.
Already explained earlier but that is clearly something you would find immensely difficult to understand. You are stuck with your goof. If goof could understand their goof, they would not be goof.
Done already earlier.
You displayed not God, but goof. Hence you were treated as goof. Goof pretending to be God is still goof. Much like an online crank pretending to be the president is still an online crank.
Ditto.
Even now, despite repeared warnings about engineering subject/object divides, you continue to labour to dig such trenches just to throw yourself in.
Forget the subject of more cogent attempts to misrepresent God, you might actualy benefit from merely studying how a literate atheist problematizes the subject. Baby steps, and all that.
Last edited:
Much like Timothy McVeigh was a "sincerely" committed nationalistic person, who gave the ultimate sacrifice.
Try seeking public support to build a memorial for him at the national mall, and you might develop a clue how silly you sound.
Last edited:
Jan Ardena:
You wrote "No one here accepts that Capracus is God, because he has done nothing that shows he is God."
The implication is that God must do something to show he is God before you will accept him.
But then, when I ask you what God has done that shows you he is God, you come up blank again, and you say it doesn't matter to you.
Which part was the lie? The first part, where you said it was important that God shows he is God, or the second part, where you said it doesn't matter to you that God shows himself?
Just to add: positive evidence is often more persuasive than negative evidence. They say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but people tend be convinced by actual evidence of presence. There could be an invisible dragon in my garage. There's no evidence that there isn't one there. But then, there's no evidence that there is one, either. In that case we don't end up with a 50-50 probability that the dragon is there.
This must be a very strange kind of evidence, where one's prior beliefs about the conclusion actually make the proof of the conclusion invisible.
Is there any other example, apart from God, where belief affects the ability to discern the evidence, in this way?
I note, of course, that you keep alluding to the existence of evidence for God, yet you keep failing to actually present it, whether or not I can discern it. You could, for example, present it and other theists, who can discern it, could confirm to me that, yes, what Jan presented sure is evidence of God.
Why don't you do that?
There's nothing stopping you from presenting evidence, regardless of whether I can identify it.
If you have any, that is.
Quite apart from anything else, Craig's leap from "The universe had a cause" to "The cause is God" is completely unjustified. And that's ignoring his begging of the question.
So you agree that Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed, but you still support it in part? You agree that Craig's logic breaks down part way through his argument on that, but you think it's fine up to the point where it breaks.
Previously, you worte that you agree with everything Craig has written. Here we have a point of disagreement. Are you starting to see why it is important to present your own thinking, rather than to pretend to adopt somebody else's thinking willy-nilly?
That too would be an entity claiming to be something it is. But dogs can't talk. I can, and your God can, supposedly.
I don't know what you mean by that.
This is a new one. You're now excusing your inability to present the evidence for God (that you say exists) because I'm all about "designations"? How is that a problem for you, who is not bound by these designations that restrict me?
Okay. Hold it. Back up.
You wrote "No one here accepts that Capracus is God, because he has done nothing that shows he is God."
The implication is that God must do something to show he is God before you will accept him.
But then, when I ask you what God has done that shows you he is God, you come up blank again, and you say it doesn't matter to you.
Which part was the lie? The first part, where you said it was important that God shows he is God, or the second part, where you said it doesn't matter to you that God shows himself?
I already did, at some length, in a previous thread, in a direct response to you regarding exactly the same question. I really don't see the point of jumping through your hoop again. Go back and look at what I wrote there.
That's not evidence. That's just commentary.
Just to add: positive evidence is often more persuasive than negative evidence. They say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but people tend be convinced by actual evidence of presence. There could be an invisible dragon in my garage. There's no evidence that there isn't one there. But then, there's no evidence that there is one, either. In that case we don't end up with a 50-50 probability that the dragon is there.
How do you know Capracus isn't God, if God could appear to be Capracus? Oh, I know, because of the claim he made. And God isn't capable of making certain claims, even though he can appear to be Capracus. Why is that?
No you don't. How could you know for sure?
How can you possible know what Capracus does or doesn't know about himself?
Why does being an atheist make somebody incapable of discerning the evidence?
This must be a very strange kind of evidence, where one's prior beliefs about the conclusion actually make the proof of the conclusion invisible.
Is there any other example, apart from God, where belief affects the ability to discern the evidence, in this way?
I note, of course, that you keep alluding to the existence of evidence for God, yet you keep failing to actually present it, whether or not I can discern it. You could, for example, present it and other theists, who can discern it, could confirm to me that, yes, what Jan presented sure is evidence of God.
Why don't you do that?
No, that doesn't follow. See above. However, if there is no evidence, we are free to conclude, provisionally, that there is no God. Until something turns up.
Strange, this idea of evidence presenting itself. As I recall, I asked you to present the evidence. You keep saying you have some. Where is it?
The only wrong step in all that is your assertion that I would be unable to identify evidence of God. But let's assume you're right. You can still present the evidence, and other theists, who can identify the evidence, can confirm that your evidence is, indeed, evidence of God.
There's nothing stopping you from presenting evidence, regardless of whether I can identify it.
If you have any, that is.
No. You don't realise it, but this is the central question. This magical ability to just know that you keep trotting out: where does it come from? How does it work?
I know the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't provide evidence.
Sure. If you ask somebody who isn't too hot on what a logical argument entails, they might be bamboozzled by the Kalam argument. But to someone who has spent a lot of time engaging in understanding and analysing that argument - like myself - it's very clear.
Quite apart from anything else, Craig's leap from "The universe had a cause" to "The cause is God" is completely unjustified. And that's ignoring his begging of the question.
You think a failed philosophical argument is decent evidence? Okay, well that explains a lot. You're just not very good at this evidence stuff. No wonder you spend so much of your time claiming that it doesn't matter.
Interesting.
So you agree that Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed, but you still support it in part? You agree that Craig's logic breaks down part way through his argument on that, but you think it's fine up to the point where it breaks.
Previously, you worte that you agree with everything Craig has written. Here we have a point of disagreement. Are you starting to see why it is important to present your own thinking, rather than to pretend to adopt somebody else's thinking willy-nilly?
Doesn't Craig explain that to your satisfaction?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, Timothy McVeigh was a "sincerely committed " person. He was also mentally unbalanced.
Have you gone completely off your rocker?
Since when does "sincere commitment" equate with "morality"?
I'm sure the Neo-Nazis (National Socialist Party) would have loved to erect a statue in McVeigh's honor. The Confederate Battle flag (symbolic of slavery) still flies in many areas of the nation. These people are "sincerely committed" to an idea. The idea they cling to is not moral.
As I understand it several Jihadist terrorist organizations pay the family of a suicide bomber $10,00.00 to take away the financial burdens caused by his/her permanent absence.
I call that building monuments to the heroes of the "cause". And hopelessly immoral.
Indeed.
The bad news is your argument is regressing.
The good news is it doesn't have far to go.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Hell no, I love debating you and Musika. And you keep coming back for more. You don't see me in Theist forums. Frankly, I am scared. Some very sincerely committed people on Theist sites.
These are the words of a knowledgeable Theist?
I love that gentle chide.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
In all deeds. Something like the Kami Kazi pilots, these were sincerely committed people, and in some circles are still revered. Samurai (hired gun) is an old historic profession in Japan.
Today we use bombs instead of swords. But morals remain mainly unchanged.
This was a moral response from prominent American Muslim organizations after 911 wiki;
.
This was directed towards people of their own faith, a condemnation of crimes against humanity. I respect that. I don't respect excuses condoning immoral behavior.
In almost all religions "murder" is a spiritually negotiable commodity......
Last edited:
Rumour has it he was also terrible at playing ping pong.Seen the latest news? 11 dead at Jewish synagogue....
Now there was a"sincerely committed" murderer. His entire life revolved around his twisted perspective on humanity. And he was not an atheist as far as I know.
But that's why it is called a "hate crime".
(Just throwing that information out there for the benefit of our informed viewers. It would be terrible to wake up one morning and find out that you accidently massacred a dozen people due to being an expert ping pong player, wouldn't it?)
Wait up .... what's that coming on my news feed? A prominent bygone celebrity with documented mental health issues has just converted to islam?
https://fox59.com/2018/10/27/sinead-oconnor-converts-to-islam-and-changes-name/amp/
(Meanwhile at illiterate atheist central ...)
Garcon! Come back here with the tissues! I just schadenfreuded all over myself again!
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I have been waiting for you to address the issue since the first post. But since that seems to be asking too much, I am keeping the thread open with tangently related observations.
I have made my position very clear and have yet to hear a coherent counter argument, other than ad hominem after ad hominem. It really does nothing to support transparently weak arguments wishing for a strong Father figure. Like; "my daddy told me, spare the rod spoil the child", when he used to beat me, and I aim to be just like my daddy".
You see, there are people who believe they are the earthly representative of God.
Most of them inhabit mental institutions....
..... But a lot of them don't.....
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Jan has faith.
But for some reason, he refuses to use that word. The likely reason is because he knows that faith is belief, dressed up pretty.
Tell me about itMost of them inhabit mental institutions....
The clever onesBut a lot of them don't.....
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That's what worries me the most....Tell me about it
The clever ones