• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Do Gods Exist?

 
 
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
You don't have data, you have a meaning that you have taken out of context, engaged in the fallacy of equivocation, and anyone who disagrees you gaslight.
Click to expand...

You have no real argument. The only way you can win the argument is if everyone on the forum is uninformed enough to make the same conclusion as you based upon a number of faulty premises I have laid out. Deny, defend, but never define.

Imagine having a forum on UFOs insisting that the only ones you could talk about are spaceships.

Unidentified.
 
RIS said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
You don't have data, you have a meaning that you have taken out of context, engaged in the fallacy of equivocation, and anyone who disagrees you gaslight.
Click to expand...

You have no real argument. The only way you can win the argument is if everyone on the forum is uninformed enough to make the same conclusion as you based upon a number of faulty premises I have laid out. Deny, defend, but never define.
Click to expand...
Faulty premises, from a guy who says the ruler of North Korea is “literally a god.” :rolleyes:

In your “meaning of the bible” thread Learner wondered if you are a Jehovah’s Witness. Are you?
 
RIS said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
You don't have data, you have a meaning that you have taken out of context, engaged in the fallacy of equivocation, and anyone who disagrees you gaslight.
Click to expand...

You have no real argument.
Click to expand...

Of course, I do. You have come into the forum using senses of the word god inconsistent with the implied context of the forum. You even gave ridiculous examples no one on the planet would consider to be gods in this context, like: "money." You cannot take the forum out of context in order to say "See? That was easy! What is it you idiots don't understand?!" That's just the fallacy of equivocation followed by some gaslighting.

RIS said:
The only way you can win the argument is if everyone on the forum is uninformed enough to make the same conclusion as you based upon a number of faulty premises I have laid out. Deny, defend, but never define.
Click to expand...

You are the one trying to define things and you did so using out of context senses of the word "god."

RIS said:
Imagine having a forum on UFOs insisting that the only ones you could talk about are spaceships.
Click to expand...

Imagine a SETI website that has a forum entitled "The Existence of Aliens" and someone like you comes along posting:
Thread title: "Do Aliens Exist?"
Post#1: "Yes. Piece of cake. Don't understand the confusion."
Post#5: "Melania Trump is an alien. She exists."
Post#7:
RIS said:
Oxford Dictionary definition of Alien:

1. an (intelligent) being not from the earth
2. a person who is not a citizen of the country in which they live or work
Click to expand...
 
pood said:
Imagine a SETI website that has a forum entitled "The Existence of Aliens" and someone like you comes along posting:
Thread title: "Do Aliens Exist?"
Post#1: "Yes. Piece of cake. Don't understand the confusion."
Post#5: "Melania Trump is an alien. She exists."
Click to expand...

Well, is that wrong? Imagine the definition of an axenophobe was one who doesn't believe or lacks belief in Melania or aliens.

RIS said:
Oxford Dictionary definition of Alien:
1. an (intelligent) being not from the earth
2. a person who is not a citizen of the country in which they live or work
Click to expand...

It's irresponsible for a scientist to withhold data. Why did you expurgate that?
 
RIS said:
pood said:
Imagine a SETI website that has a forum entitled "The Existence of Aliens" and someone like you comes along posting:
Thread title: "Do Aliens Exist?"
Post#1: "Yes. Piece of cake. Don't understand the confusion."
Post#5: "Melania Trump is an alien. She exists."
Click to expand...

Well, is that wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes it is wrong because a SETI website comes with a context of extra-terrestrial beings, i.e. SETI is an acronym an their content would be about such, not immigrants. So, sense#2 would be taking it out of context. If you don't get that, then we can all see the problem here. Also, you attributed the post to pood. This is getting very bizarre.
 
RIS said:
pood said:
:unsure: Imagine a SETI website that has a forum entitled "The Existence of Aliens" and someone like you comes along posting:
Thread title: "Do Aliens Exist?"
Post#1: "Yes. Piece of cake. Don't understand the confusion."
Post#5: "Melania Trump is an alien. She exists."
Click to expand...

Well, is that wrong? Imagine the definition of an axenophobe was one who doesn't believe or lacks belief in Melania or aliens.

RIS said:
Oxford Dictionary definition of Alien:
1. an (intelligent) being not from the earth
2. a person who is not a citizen of the country in which they live or work
Click to expand...

It's irresponsible for a scientist to withhold data. Why did you expurgate that?
Click to expand...

Why are you wrongly quoting me, and then responding to yourself?
 
pood said:
RIS said:
pood said:
:unsure: Imagine a SETI website that has a forum entitled "The Existence of Aliens" and someone like you comes along posting:
Thread title: "Do Aliens Exist?"
Post#1: "Yes. Piece of cake. Don't understand the confusion."
Post#5: "Melania Trump is an alien. She exists."
Click to expand...

Well, is that wrong? Imagine the definition of an axenophobe was one who doesn't believe or lacks belief in Melania or aliens.

RIS said:
Oxford Dictionary definition of Alien:
1. an (intelligent) being not from the earth
2. a person who is not a citizen of the country in which they live or work
Click to expand...

It's irresponsible for a scientist to withhold data. Why did you expurgate that?
Click to expand...

Why are you wrongly quoting me, and then responding to yourself?
Click to expand...

Typo. The quote was meant to apply to all manufacturers of dairy food products.

I mean @Don2 (Don1 Revised) I was responding to myself because there was a lag in the quality of the discourse. Normal service will resume as soon as possible.
 
RIS said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
You don't have data, you have a meaning that you have taken out of context, engaged in the fallacy of equivocation, and anyone who disagrees you gaslight.
Click to expand...

You have no real argument. The only way you can win the argument is if everyone on the forum is uninformed enough to make the same conclusion as you based upon a number of faulty premises I have laid out. Deny, defend, but never define.

Imagine having a forum on UFOs insisting that the only ones you could talk about are spaceships.

Unidentified.
Click to expand...
Dude, I linked you to a whole page of definitions, and I notice that you continue to fail to actually use them... Or any definitions at all... When discussing any such concept.
 
Also, really? It's absolutely insane to argue the existence of God based on a definition that has nothing to do with creation, administration, or privileges within a system or simulation.

It is semantically non-sequitur.
 
RIS said:
bilby said:
Huh? I said nothing about any examples.

My definition (which btw I have since refined to remove an unwarranted question begging) is general - it applies to all gods.

Here it is as revised:

A god is a powerful entity that can do things that are impossible for humans to do, but can be lobbied by humans to act on their behalf.​

That such entities are only found in stories is not a part of the definition, and I shouldn't have included it - it is a conclusion, and not a part of the definition.

I am working this stuff out in real-time here; Gods are not important to me, so I don't waste a lot of time thinking about them, until and unless asked to do so.
Click to expand...

I've studied other religions and other gods for 30 years now because I'm interested in other perspectives on the subject. A subject which I find interesting. When I ask various theists about their perception and perspective on the subject I get pretty much the same response as I do with atheist, excpet for it's slightly broader, much less dogmatic than what I get with atheists. Unlike the various forms theists adhere to, the atheist is insistant that a god can only be their definition. Magic sky tyrant, doesn't exist. I think this is because atheism is really only a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic culture within the society they live.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like you spend a lot of time studying a specific genre of fiction. Nothing wrong with that, of course; But it's generally not very interesting to non-fans of the genre.

It also sounds like you really cannot grasp the simple fact that atheists have nothing whatsoever in common, except a disbelief in gods.

Your insistence that a certain group of other people must fit into your stereotype of "those people" is bordering on bigotry.
RIS said:
Nothing wrong with that, if fact I'm very empethetic to that admirable and necessary response. That's one of the reasons I always gravitate towards atheists rather than theists. The nature of the response I see from atheist I don't like, though I do feel the need for it. The purpose behind the response.
Click to expand...
I cannot make sense of that paragraph.

The purpose behind my response is to provide my opinion, and ideally to discuss where it differs from yours with reference to reality, so we can determine which (if any) of us is right.
RIS said:
When I ask an atheist for a personal definition of god I get the exclusive example, a model of the Biblical "God" Jehovah. To an atheist there is that singular concept of a god, which I don't understand because how could there be gods if there is only that one example?
Click to expand...
Your response here makes no sense in the context of my post to which it is ostensibly a reply.

The definition I gave fits most, perhaps all, of the gods ever proposed. It is in no way 'a model of the Biblical "God" Jehovah', and I am struggling to see how you could possibly get from what I said, to what you responded with.

A neolithic shaman who sacrifices a baby to the frog god, so that the frog god can ensure a bountiful harvest for the village, is lobbying a powerful entity to act on his behalf, and to do something no human can do.

How the fuck you get from there to the Biblical "God" Jehovah, I don't know. Can you enlighten me?
 
RIS said:
Jesus said you could move mountains with faith. It was a hyperbolic statement, but it's literally true as well.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. It is literally false.

You can move mountains with bulldozers, but faith is utterly irrelevant to the task.

Unless by "literally true" you mean "figuratively true".
 
  • Roll Eyes
Reactions: RIS
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom