There is no God

[Myles O'Reilly]

Why do you see her as a big deal?

I don't Miss, nor did Dawkins which is why (I think) he didn't answer Morgan's question.

 

[scolairebocht]

But don't you get my point, its impossible to argue against a black hole like that? You would need to elaborate on that I think if you want a proper debate.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Certainly MW wouldn't have thought that.

Who's MW?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Go piss up against another tree FFS

 

[SeekTheFairLand]

The only party I seen use Christian symbols in their Easter messaging this year was Alex Salmond's Alba party.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

 

[Fishalt]

It is impossible to reason a person out of a mindset which he has never been reasoned into.

An interesting maxim. One you no doubt conceived with your arm buried elbow-deep in a cow's arse, wishing you were the cow and the arm was your boyfriend's.

I'll break it up into little pieces for you (you'll be hearing that a lot in the next few years after you're shuffled off to shady acres elderly cared facility)

A) The title of this thread is a flame; a charged declarative statement created by Electricity (no pun intended) in order to lure people of faith into it so that he can berate people with atheist talking points, mostly gleaned from Dawkins clips. He does this to manufacture a sense of intellectual superiority, to feel separate from and better than others, likely because in his standard day-to-day existence, this is something he never experiences, even when ferrying drips to finger-painting classes behind the wheel of a short white bus.

The nature of this thread is not philosophical nor is it theological. Even if Electricity had the inclination to augment this thread in such a way, he lacks the tools, because the only literature he has to draw on is a pop-up book about a hungry caterpillar or a dog named spot. That isn't the intention, however. What he wants is essentially to brick-bash someone's terminally ill granny with recycled atheist rhetoric he's too stupid to have reasoned to himself, to tell her she's a silly old cunt for believing in salvation before sweatily goose-stepping into an adjacent room where he can press his ear to the wall and listen to her crying whilst he furiously masturbates.

Nobody is going to change their religious predilections or lack thereof as a result his piffling regaling. The religious will remain religious, the agnostic will remain agnostic, the atheist will remain atheist. All that is borne out of this debacle is enmity and bad-will.

 

[Coal Gas and peat]

You wouldn't want to be a pansie coming onto Sarsfields that's for sure

 

[Fishalt]

You wouldn't want to be a pansie coming onto Sarsfields that's for sure

Figure 1:0: Fish, reading 95% of the replies in this thread.

 

[Fishalt]

And so, you unapologetic coward, and considering I've talked about it a lot, I would like to debate you on who exactly you think this middleman is, The Agnostic. R u up for it?

Imagine reading my post and thinking I'm the sort of person who would apologise for virtually anything.

You can't hang with me in a debate about anything, Electricity. Your terms are acceptable.

 

[Fishalt]

Go ahead and lie about me as much as you want..


The debate is what you think the middleman, The Agnostic, is?

You clearly distinguished between the following categories;

Theist
Agnostic
Atheist

You can decide what the subject is.

It makes no difference.

 

[Fishalt]

I told you what it is

The debate is what you think the middleman, The Agnostic, is?

That's a question, Electricity.

 

[Fishalt]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

You distinguished between these three categories;

Theist
Agnostic
Atheist

The debate is on who you think the middleman is. Do you want to start debating? Or not.

Correct. To avoid confusion in future, learn when to use a question mark.
I'm still not sure what you're asking me. But what I glean from this sentence:
We are debating as to how, or if an agnostic is different from a theist or an atheist. Is this correct? Or should I interpret this sentence literally, and the subject of debate is whether I think an agnostic is different from a theist or an atheist? If it's the latter the answer is yes, because I am me, and I do think this. Therefore I win the debate.

 

[Fishalt]

More specifically, why you think an agnostic is a separable category from atheist.

Now start your debatin'.. Or stop boring us all TO DEATH!

Fine.

You are going argue that it is technically both possible to be agnostic and an atheist concomitantly, which is the sort of trite imbecility circulated among militant atheists with bad logic on the internet.

It is not possible to be both agnostic and atheist, because this concept is axiomatic. If one is an Atheist, they definitionally do not accept--or perhaps more accurately posit-that deities do not exist. If one is agnostic, they definitionally posit that whether deities do or do not exist is unknowable. They posit that they do not know.

Agnosticism does not mean 'I'm not sure'. It is not an uncertain doctrine. It is a preposition based in certainty of the unknowable. What it means is 'It cannot be known'. If one takes this position, they cannot be a theist, because that would require them to be certain that deities do exist. Inversely, if they are an Atheist, this means that they are certain that deities do not exist.

This a critical point that Dawkins--who you are entirely informed by--cannot understand. There is no such thing as 'Agnostic Atheism'. This is simply fallacious logic. It is a feeble attempt at demiurgic hedge-betting.

 

[Fishalt]

Bzzzt.. Wrong!

Start again.

It isn't wrong. You simply don't understand what an Atheist is. Your definition of Atheism is taken from pop culture.

 

[Fishalt]

Btw, for anyone who isn't aware, even the "World's most famous atheist" [sic], Richard Dawkins, has said time and time and time again that he isn't "certain that God doesn't exist".

Then he's agnostic.

 

[Fishalt]

I'll wait for you to provide your definition of Atheism.
Keep in mind Richard is a scientist, not a philosopher.

 

[Fishalt]

I'm going to presume that it has something to do with 'I can't verify the existence of a God with any of my senses therefore I do not etc et al'. Correct?

 

[Fishalt]

So you're saying that Dawkins (World's most famous atheist) isn't an atheist, was he ever one?

I've no idea. I'm not in his fan club.
What I do understand is that Richard doesn't know what Atheism and Agnosticism are.

 

[Fishalt]

Or perhaps you're going to tell me that atheism simply means a lack of belief in any established deities/faiths, whilst taking a punt on the big question of a prime mover, or creator.

 

[Fishalt]

Neither am I.

What I'm asking you is, is have you ever considered Dawkins (who you say is an 'agnostic') to be an atheist, at any point in time?

I don't know.

He strikes me as more of a technocratic secular humanist.

 

[Fishalt]

lofl.. You don't know?

So at no point in time you would have ever considered Dawkins to be an atheist? You're serious

He's certainly anti-theist in the postmodern rallying against organised religion sense of that term. But that is not the same thing as being an Atheist. Atheism is the convicted belief that deities do not or cannot exist. As definitions go, it is quite narrow.

If one moves out of this, they technically become agnostic or some sub-species of this. Ostensibly what they are saying is 'I don't subscribe to any religion in existence currently, and believe them all to be falsehoods, but the door is left open, and maybe one day I'll change my mind'.

 

[Fishalt]

So you're down the pub, having a schooner of VB with your (anti-atheist) mates.. and someone mentions Dawkins and you interrupt to say - He ain't no atheist bruv, he's an 'agnostic'. Do you expect me to believe that?

That scenario wouldn't happen.

But yes, if the subject was broached, I would take the position I am taking now that he is technically agnostic. He just doesn't understand this.

 

[Fishalt]

But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.

Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low."

 

[Fishalt]

Technically?

Right so. We've established that you believe that The World's Famous Atheist, who says himself that he's an atheist is not, in fact, an atheist, correct?

Correct. It is at least my opinion that he is not.

 

[Fishalt]

Have you ever considered Dawkins to be an atheist?

You're stuck in an infinite loop. I have already told you, I am not familiar enough with his entire catalogue of work to know the answer to this question. Or to venture an opinion on it. For the sake of things moving forward, let's functionally assume that I have. This is obviously the answer you want.

 

[Fishalt]

You don't know whether you've ever considered Dawkins to be an atheist?

I do not know.

I had assumed he had not wavered from 100% conviction in the non-existence of deities, but this does not seem to be the case.

 

[Fishalt]

It may be the case he once was, but it would appear that is not the case now.

 

[Fishalt]

Wait, so you did consider him to be an atheist, once upon a time (about ten minutes ago)?

There is whether I consider Richard to be an Atheist, and whether he does. I don't think he knows what he is. As it stands right now, he strikes me as an anti-theist who doesn't understand that he is technically agnostic. Perhaps this has always been the case. I don't know.

This is your party, after all. What do you think?

 

[Fishalt]

He HASN'T wavered from 100% his conviction..

It's that a dumb, stubborn, theist asshat like you don't know what an atheist is, shithead

And yet, he said in an interview that he could not be sure that God didn't exist. He was mostly, but not entirely convinced of this. That was his assertion. Therefore, he does not know--or more accurately, posits that he cannot know.

That is agnosticism.

 

[Fishalt]

Good fucking lord..

He HASN'T wavered from 100% his conviction..

It's that a dumb, stubborn, theist asshat like you don't know what an atheist is, shithead

Let
It
Sink
In

In what way?

It is not possible to occupy two oppositional positions concomitantly without constituting absurdity or an invalidation of one or more clauses of either position. He said it himself. He cannot be sure.

If he is not entirely convinced that God does or doesn't exist, he is technically agnostic. One could operate as though God didn't exist, and still retain some level of doubt that it did. But this is not Atheism. As stated previously, demiurgic hedge-betting on the against end of the spectrum rather than the for.

Still not Atheism. That is anti-theism.

 

[Fishalt]

Would it help if we moved off Dawkins and I explained to you why I consider myself to be agnostic?

 

[Fishalt]

I can understand your frustration, but neither you nor Richard knows what Atheism means. Not believing in something, nor subscribing to it until the advent of more information is not Atheism.

 

[Fishalt]

Fucking hell

The World's Most Famous Atheist, who describes himself as an atheist, who hasn't "wavered" in any way.. is not an atheist, according to you.

Just listen to yourself, you arrogant cunt.

Are you saying that 6.9/7 is 100%?

But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.

Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low."

 

[Fishalt]

Let's try something else:

There is the belief in the possibility of a creator God--a prime mover. That is one position. Then there is the position of saying I know God exists, I can talk to it, I know how it wants me to behave, and what to eat, etc et al.

Surely you can follow that there is at least a difference. One is quite different from the other.

It never ends!

 

[Fishalt]

Baha! This should be good

Go ahead..

When engaging in any discussion, or questions about existence, nature, and the universe, it is important to consider the value principle of scale, and of time-span. Human beings are prone to making rash decisions based on observable modes of functioning--in their own bodies etc. But actually, it is extremely rash to draw conclusions far beyond the scale to which said observations were confined.

For example, perceptible changes, or the absence of any, in one minute say nothing of the scale of change in five minutes. A perceptible change in five minutes says nothing of a perceptible change in an hour. Nor a day a week, nor a week a month, nor a month a year, nor a year a century, nor a century, nor a century a millennium. Nor a millennium a million years, nor a million years a billion. This problem can be extended indefinitely.

Any change in this secession is necessarily large compared to its predecessor, and small compared to its successor.

Are you following me here?

Every human being in existence and all that ever have existed--both you and I, and Newton, and Witten, are trapped like bugs in amber--prisoners of our own lives and times. We are in fact equally as deluded as the modernists, who arrogantly believed they had everything figured out. We now consider them to be relics of a quasi dark age. We will always be necessarily limited in our understanding and beliefs relative to the amount of available information in our life-times.

You now, are informed by communicators of science in your own web of life and time. You accept on faith explanations of a range of given phenomena relative to physics and biology both.

Phrenology was once science. So was Blood-letting and Humour-balancing. You probably think 'Ha--those things were ridiculous! There's no way I'd ever believed in any of that nonsense!' This is incorrect. You absolutely would have. Such things were what existed, and would have framed your epistemology and understanding of the world.

What is important to understand is that this very same process is happening to you right now. You currently believe in, and prescribe to, notions, theories, 'evidence', that will become redundant with the passage of time. You are living in a dark age but cannot see it the way a fish cannot see water.

Personally, I am not arrogant enough to say 'never'. I am humble enough to accept that, as I said originally to you, that there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in my philosophy. In some way that is currently unimaginable to either of us, it may be the case that it is ostensibly proven that God does exist, and versions of faith practised in a certain way result in the entering of some kind of afterlife.

Perhaps Jordan Peterson is right to behave as if God exists.

 

[Fishalt]

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Penison is just a stupid drug addled egotistical twat pretending that he was the one who invented the notion of "Pascals wager"nYou should hear some of the deranged racist shit this guy comes out withwhen he's under the influence:

You are one quare nutcase to be calling out others.

You once said (among other things) dogs should have equal access to abortion services as humans.

And that folk collecting honey was an act of evil!

You're a very very sick man Dolittle.

 

[Fishalt]

Agreed with you more or less up until you mentioned that arsehole Jordan Penison.
Maybe we should put garlic over the door just in case vampires exist too Jordan?
After all you never know!

Penison is just a stupid drug addled egotistical twat pretending that he was the one
who invented the notion of "Pascals wager"


View attachment 968

You should hear some of the deranged racist shit this guy comes out with
when he's under the influence:


View: https://vocaroo.com/18eJAfb7JaYb

Really? You haven't heard about that AI voiceover program?

Well done 4chan Autists. Looks like you bagged another tard.

 

[jpc]

God is every single thing that happened to bring you here today = = I mean all the way back to the beginning of time if there was a beginning of time.

That is God.

Brilliant summary!