| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark Richardson" |
| Date: |
02 Mar 2004 08:21:49 PM |
| Object: |
Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
And I thought:
Why not just answer the question truthfully?
What harm could it do?
8-)
Let's list the actual reasons.
The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
they actually *want* evidence) but because :
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
Any others?
I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
It's more direct and honest.
Mark.
* I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
truthful. 8-)
NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
can help us be better, stronger and smarter.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
02 Mar 2004 08:33:21 PM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com...
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
And I thought:
Why not just answer the question truthfully?
What harm could it do?
8-)
Let's list the actual reasons.
The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
they actually *want* evidence) but because :
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
Any others?
I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
It's more direct and honest.
Mark.
* I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
truthful. 8-)
NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
can help us be better, stronger and smarter.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
You see the key here fool is *truthful*.You just slipped in their **** :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
02 Mar 2004 09:07:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:33:21 -0700, "The Church of The Painful Truth"
<Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:
<snip>
You are not *the* troll - you are a different troll.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
02 Mar 2004 09:14:22 PM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:70ja4092ri3bkk5vrb3ne66bskr13mn8fk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:33:21 -0700, "The Church of The Painful Truth"
<Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:
<snip>
You are not *the* troll - you are a different troll.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
+I'm just trying to help a fool, that's all+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Hobson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 01:47:24 AM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<l4c1c.238$Ag7.91204@news.uswest.net>...
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:70ja4092ri3bkk5vrb3ne66bskr13mn8fk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:33:21 -0700, "The Church of The Painful Truth"
<Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote:
<snip>
You are not *the* troll - you are a different troll.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
+I'm just trying to help a fool, that's all+
Then you should be using a self-help book.
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 11:38:32 AM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com...
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
And I thought:
Why not just answer the question truthfully?
What harm could it do?
8-)
Let's list the actual reasons.
The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
they actually *want* evidence) but because :
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
Any others?
That is a pretty good summary.
I go along with 1, 2, and 5 mostly.
I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
I generally don't ask for evidence. It is a valid
question but it doesn't seem to be effective.
Instead I ask them to explain, clarify, or describe
God. They usually bail out as I close in on the
inevitable inconsistencies.
I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
It's more direct and honest.
Mark.
* I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
truthful. 8-)
Cool. :)
NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
can help us be better, stronger and smarter.
Yup.
(Is this the troll that has actually been plonking some
of us? If so, has someone found the hot button to get
him/her/it to plonk the whole group? :)
(NGs other than a.a uncrossed.)
--
Dr. Ron Baker, Ath.D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 06:36:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:38:32 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com...
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
<snip>
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
Any others?
That is a pretty good summary.
I go along with 1, 2, and 5 mostly.
I am not happy with 5 - philosophically.
That's another discussion. 8-)
I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
I generally don't ask for evidence. It is a valid
question but it doesn't seem to be effective.
Instead I ask them to explain, clarify, or describe
God. They usually bail out as I close in on the
inevitable inconsistencies.
Thats is a better aproach - gods are ideas - treat them as such and
find the internal inconsitencies/absurdities.
(Is this the troll that has actually been plonking some
of us? If so, has someone found the hot button to get
him/her/it to plonk the whole group? :)
He is "TheGodTrole" AKA" Kaditcha Man" (spelling??) he often says
*plonk* to people but he doesnt actually put you in his killfile - its
just a game he plays.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 10:03:00 PM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:k9uc40tmqjd2ieuc9vblk9h1n9iu978496@4ax.com...
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:38:32 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com...
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
<snip>
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
Any others?
That is a pretty good summary.
I go along with 1, 2, and 5 mostly.
I am not happy with 5 - philosophically.
That's another discussion. 8-)
Generally I'm a hard realist. As humans we
have feeling that put values on philosophical
and artistic things but ultimately everything
is based on hard reality.
I'm not trying to be a buz kill, just
giving my view. :)
I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
I generally don't ask for evidence. It is a valid
question but it doesn't seem to be effective.
Instead I ask them to explain, clarify, or describe
God. They usually bail out as I close in on the
inevitable inconsistencies.
Thats is a better aproach - gods are ideas - treat them as such and
find the internal inconsitencies/absurdities.
(Is this the troll that has actually been plonking some
of us? If so, has someone found the hot button to get
him/her/it to plonk the whole group? :)
He is "TheGodTrole" AKA" Kaditcha Man" (spelling??) he often says
*plonk* to people but he doesnt actually put you in his killfile - its
Damn.
just a game he plays.
Imagine that, a dishonest troll.
Oh well, it is in his/her/its name.
:)
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 08:31:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:39:57 +1100, Mark Richardson
<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:38:32 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote:
(Is this the troll that has actually been plonking some
of us? If so, has someone found the hot button to get
him/her/it to plonk the whole group? :)
He is "TheGodTrole" AKA" Kaditcha Man" (spelling??)
"Kadaitcha Man"
he often says
*plonk* to people but he doesnt actually put you in his killfile - its
just a game he plays.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 04:42:47 AM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com...
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
Hmmmm.I answered, in effect, - There is none, so why bellow about god being
a fact.
That was honest.
And I thought:
Why not just answer the question truthfully?
What harm could it do?
8-)
Let's list the actual reasons.
The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
they actually *want* evidence) but because :
The truth is some atheists, and some believers, ask bellowing idiots to
support THEIR claims that god actuialy exists!
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
No - they are defending themselves (their opinions, and at times their
freedoms) by making these bellowing idiots realize that not only their
"beliefs" just "beliefs" - but their zealous RELIGIOUS' beliefs do NOT rule
the world!
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
As opposed to the "seeds of ignorance based absoluteness"?
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
The atheist may be interested in god just as much as a theist. Sadly, since
there is no valid evidence of ANY god - there is nothing for the atheist to
"believe". They CERTAINLY aren't interested in blindly following whatever
religious insanity that just happens to be popular at the time!
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
Since there is NO valid evidence to suport ANY god - it is the theist zealot
who MUST, by default, resort to word games, mind games, and idiotic,
invented, arguments to either support an unsupportable position - or
fraudulently attack the opposition.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
The atheist believes what can be supported.
No religious zealot's argments have ever been supported.
You're acting like being based in reality is a crime!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 05:02:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:42:47 -0500, "ZenIsWhen"
<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com...
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
Hmmmm.I answered, in effect, - There is none, so why bellow about god being
a fact.
That was honest.
That's not an answer.
What's "honest" about avoiding a question?
And I thought:
Why not just answer the question truthfully?
What harm could it do?
8-)
Let's list the actual reasons.
The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
they actually *want* evidence) but because :
The truth is some atheists, and some believers, ask bellowing idiots to
support THEIR claims that god actuialy exists!
Some do - we are talking specifically about those atheist that ask for
empirical evidence for the metaphysical.
Why do it?
I have suggested 5 possible reasons - can you give me another?
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
No - they are defending themselves (their opinions, and at times their
freedoms) by making these bellowing idiots realize that not only their
"beliefs" just "beliefs" - but their zealous RELIGIOUS' beliefs do NOT rule
the world!
That is all very fascinating - really - we should talk about it
sometime.
You are changing/avoiding the subject again.
WHY ask for empirical evidence for the metaphysical?
Can ***you*** answer the question or not?
Do you honestly think none of my 5 reasons is ever the reason?
Are they really that unbelievable?
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
As opposed to the "seeds of ignorance based absoluteness"?
Yes. What's wrong with that?
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
The atheist may be interested in god just as much as a theist.
<snip>
Sorry - you are still trying to change the subject.
Parrots *might* like dogfood but its got ***** all to do with why
people ask for physical, material, forensic, CSI Miami type evidence
for the metaphysical.
If you haven't got any reasons then why not just say so and let
someone else have a go?
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
Since there is NO valid evidence to suport ANY god - it is the theist zealot
who MUST, by default, resort to word games, mind games, and idiotic,
invented, arguments to either support an unsupportable position - or
fraudulently attack the opposition.
You think so? Fascinating.
Stop changing the subject.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
The atheist believes what can be supported.
Terrific.
Well why doesn't he do *that* instead of demanding real world,
physical, empirical, CSI Miami type evidence for the metaphysical?
Oh - you just avoided the question again! Did you think I wouldn't
notice?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 05:35:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:02:10 GMT, Mark Richardson
<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
"ZenIsWhen"<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
The truth is some atheists, and some believers, ask bellowing idiots to
support THEIR claims that god actuialy exists!
Some do - we are talking specifically about those atheist that ask for
empirical evidence for the metaphysical.
Why do it?
The question of the existence of God requires empirical evidence. The
fact that christians pretend there is empirical evidence shows that
they would like there to be. The fact that they do not present any
shows how discredited the whole things is.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 08:20:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:35:39 GMT, (William)
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:02:10 GMT, Mark Richardson
<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
"ZenIsWhen"<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
The truth is some atheists, and some believers, ask bellowing idiots to
support THEIR claims that god actuialy exists!
Some do - we are talking specifically about those atheist that ask for
empirical evidence for the metaphysical.
Why do it?
The question of the existence of God requires empirical evidence.
That is one opinion.
Some people obviously dont believe God requires emperical evidence.
Bishop Spong for example.
The
fact that christians pretend there is empirical evidence shows that
they would like there to be.
Some christians (the really stupid ones) do.
The fact that they do not present any
shows how discredited the whole things is.
It descedits that subset I suppose - but in doing so you "lower"
yourself to their level.
I am not going to do it.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 09:33:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:20:37 GMT, Mark Richardson
<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William)wrote:
The question of the existence of God requires empirical evidence.
That is one opinion.
Some people obviously dont believe God requires emperical evidence.
Bishop Spong for example.
So he has an infinite number of Gods he can believe in . .
The
fact that christians pretend there is empirical evidence shows that
they would like there to be.
Some christians (the really stupid ones) do.
They might be the more sensible ones; the ones who realize that
rational beliefs require supporting evidence. They then try and
convince themselves they have found it. That sounds more sensible than
those who don't have evidence but say they can believe without it.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 11:18:50 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:20:37 GMT, Mark Richardson
<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
telige@mail.clara.fl.com (William)wrote:
The question of the existence of God requires empirical evidence.
That is one opinion.
Some people obviously dont believe God requires emperical evidence.
Bishop Spong for example.
So he has an infinite number of Gods he can believe in . .
BZZZT! Logical fallacy of excluded middle. Possible evidence of
questionable hidden assumptions or motives. Statement fails to
scale any kind of belief between reasonable and absurd and may
imply a tacit that belief of all kind is unreasonable.
The
fact that christians pretend there is empirical evidence shows that
they would like there to be.
Some christians (the really stupid ones) do.
They might be the more sensible ones; the ones who realize that
rational beliefs require supporting evidence.
BZZZT! Logical fallacy of excluded middle again. Fails to
deal with the question of unprovable truth and may be seen
as categorising all belief as unreasonable.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 04:40:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:18:50 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:20:37 GMT, Mark Richardson
That is one opinion.
Some people obviously dont believe God requires emperical evidence.
Bishop Spong for example.
So he has an infinite number of Gods he can believe in . .
BZZZT! Logical fallacy of excluded middle. Possible evidence of
questionable hidden assumptions or motives. Statement fails to
scale any kind of belief between reasonable and absurd and may
imply a tacit that belief of all kind is unreasonable.
Showing your ignorance once again. If you do not require empirical
evidence for your beliefs you have an infinite number of beliefs
available to you. Do READ stuff before jumping in.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 05:08:36 AM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:18:50 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:20:37 GMT, Mark Richardson
That is one opinion.
Some people obviously dont believe God requires emperical evidence.
Bishop Spong for example.
So he has an infinite number of Gods he can believe in . .
BZZZT! Logical fallacy of excluded middle. Possible evidence of
questionable hidden assumptions or motives. Statement fails to
scale any kind of belief between reasonable and absurd and may
imply a tacit that belief of all kind is unreasonable.
Showing your ignorance once again. If you do not require empirical
evidence for your beliefs you have an infinite number of beliefs
available to you. Do READ stuff before jumping in.
On the contrary. I'm highlighting your ignorance. I'd explain it,
but your ignorance is so deep you'll not understand it so you'll
just have to take my word for it.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
05 Mar 2004 04:17:28 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<7ssfVGGc0rn936F01318RWvQANP9Xgox@internet.unitech.com.br>...
William wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:18:50 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:20:37 GMT, Mark Richardson
That is one opinion.
Some people obviously dont believe God requires emperical evidence.
Bishop Spong for example.
So he has an infinite number of Gods he can believe in . .
BZZZT! Logical fallacy of excluded middle. Possible evidence of
questionable hidden assumptions or motives. Statement fails to
scale any kind of belief between reasonable and absurd and may
imply a tacit that belief of all kind is unreasonable.
Showing your ignorance once again. If you do not require empirical
evidence for your beliefs you have an infinite number of beliefs
available to you. Do READ stuff before jumping in.
On the contrary. I'm highlighting your ignorance. I'd explain it,
but your ignorance is so deep you'll not understand it so you'll
just have to take my word for it.
Is this troll talk for "I don't know how to answer"?
If one can believe something without evidence, what are the limits on
the number of things one can believe?
Wait! Wait!
I'll answer for you:
"You're so stupid that it wouldn't be worth my time explaining it to
you. I am so smart that I have a secret I can't tell you, which would
prove God, only you keep asking for proof, which is stupid! Ha! My
point"
Am I right? Or should I have included your fallacy du jour?
kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
05 Mar 2004 05:34:32 PM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<7ssfVGGc0rn936F01318RWvQANP9Xgox@internet.unitech.com.br>...
William wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:18:50 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:20:37 GMT, Mark Richardson
That is one opinion.
Some people obviously dont believe God requires emperical
evidence. Bishop Spong for example.
So he has an infinite number of Gods he can believe in . .
BZZZT! Logical fallacy of excluded middle. Possible evidence of
questionable hidden assumptions or motives. Statement fails to
scale any kind of belief between reasonable and absurd and may
imply a tacit that belief of all kind is unreasonable.
Showing your ignorance once again. If you do not require empirical
evidence for your beliefs you have an infinite number of beliefs
available to you. Do READ stuff before jumping in.
On the contrary. I'm highlighting your ignorance. I'd explain it,
but your ignorance is so deep you'll not understand it so you'll
just have to take my word for it.
Is this troll talk for "I don't know how to answer"?
If one can believe something without evidence, what are the limits on
the number of things one can believe?
Logically there are no limits. But that's a different issue, even if you
think it isn't.
Wait! Wait!
I'll answer for you:
"You're so stupid that it wouldn't be worth my time explaining it to
you. I am so smart that I have a secret I can't tell you, which would
prove God, only you keep asking for proof, which is stupid! Ha! My
point"
Am I right?
Apparently you're not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 05:31:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:08:36 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:18:50 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
So he has an infinite number of Gods he can believe in . .
BZZZT! Logical fallacy of excluded middle. Possible evidence of
questionable hidden assumptions or motives. Statement fails to
scale any kind of belief between reasonable and absurd and may
imply a tacit that belief of all kind is unreasonable.
Showing your ignorance once again. If you do not require empirical
evidence for your beliefs you have an infinite number of beliefs
available to you. Do READ stuff before jumping in.
On the contrary. I'm highlighting your ignorance. I'd explain it,
but your ignorance is so deep you'll not understand it so you'll
just have to take my word for it.
OK, let's have a god for every proton in the universe, and then one
for every electron in the universe. Then add in as many other gods you
can think of and give me this list. I can ALWAYS add another one.
Without any constraint (ie, the requirement to support claims of gods
with evidence) there is an infinite number of gods available to him.
Do try and think before jumping in and accusing people of ignorance.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 05:54:37 AM |
|
|
William wrote:
Do try and think before jumping in and accusing people of ignorance.
Do you suppose that if you repeat that often enough that someone other than
yourself might believe it?
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 09:25:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:54:37 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
Do try and think before jumping in and accusing people of ignorance.
Do you suppose that if you repeat that often enough that someone other than
yourself might believe it?
Since you have snipped the whole of that post I have the pleasure of
knowing you had no refutation of my argument.
You had plenty of opportunity to debate in a civil and constructive
manner. However, since you also dishonestly snipped the other posts of
mine and inserted more purile insults you are killfiled.
So don't bother sending a post to tell me you haven't read this!!
It is so nice to have the last word on a troll.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 04:44:51 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
You had plenty of opportunity to debate in a civil and constructive
manner.
You had plenty of opportunity to show that you could actually think.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 11:18:35 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:02:10 GMT, Mark Richardson
<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
"ZenIsWhen"<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
The truth is some atheists, and some believers, ask bellowing
idiots to support THEIR claims that god actuialy exists!
Some do - we are talking specifically about those atheist that ask
for empirical evidence for the metaphysical.
Why do it?
The question of the existence of God requires empirical evidence.
Logical fallacy of extended analogy. Assumes that "the existence of God
requires empirical evidence" is directly related to some metaphysical
entity that can or should be observable in the physical realm.
The
fact that christians pretend there is empirical evidence shows that
they would like there to be.
Fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. It is not necessarily true
that "christians pretend there is empirical evidence" because it
has not been shown that it is true.
The fact that they do not present any
shows how discredited the whole things is.
Logical fallacy of petitio principii. The premise is just as faulty
as the conclusion. Invalid inference, probably drawn from the orginal
logical fallacy of extended analogy.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 04:49:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:18:35 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
Mark Richardson<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
Some do - we are talking specifically about those atheist that ask
for empirical evidence for the metaphysical.
Why do it?
The question of the existence of God requires empirical evidence.
Logical fallacy of extended analogy. Assumes that "the existence of God
requires empirical evidence" is directly related to some metaphysical
entity that can or should be observable in the physical realm.
And this coming from the arrogant sod who says: "I assert knowledge as
a fact, unquestioningly established".
Fortunately, sensible folk test their knowledge against reality and
accept that it may not always reflect it. That's why they ask those
who assert that they have unquestionable knowledge that their
particular God exists and is calling them to kill others in his name
to actually question that knowledge.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 05:10:37 AM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:18:35 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
Mark Richardson<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
Some do - we are talking specifically about those atheist that ask
for empirical evidence for the metaphysical.
Why do it?
The question of the existence of God requires empirical evidence.
Logical fallacy of extended analogy. Assumes that "the existence of
God requires empirical evidence" is directly related to some
metaphysical entity that can or should be observable in the physical
realm.
And this coming from the arrogant sod who says: "I assert knowledge as
a fact, unquestioningly established".
You mean you still can't figure it out?
Fortunately, sensible folk test their knowledge against reality and
Er, it is a statement of reality, boofhead.
accept that it may not always reflect it. That's why they ask those
who assert that they have unquestionable knowledge that their
particular God exists and is calling them to kill others in his name
to actually question that knowledge.
Allow me to illustrate your problem...
I doubt your reality. Please prove your reality.
Case closed.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 05:21:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:10:37 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
William wrote:
Fortunately, sensible folk test their knowledge against reality and
Er, it is a statement of reality, boofhead.
You've already accepted that reality cannot be known with certainty.
No matter what knowledge you have - it can always be doubted. It may
or may not reflect reality.
accept that it may not always reflect it. That's why they ask those
who assert that they have unquestionable knowledge that their
particular God exists and is calling them to kill others in his name
to actually question that knowledge.
Allow me to illustrate your problem...
I doubt your reality. Please prove your reality.
Case closed.
You've got it at last. Reality can be doubted. Knowledge of reality
can be doubted. Knowledge that can be doubted requires belief for it
to be accepted.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
04 Mar 2004 05:42:40 AM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:10:37 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
Knowledge that can be doubted requires belief for it
to be accepted.
BZZZZT! *NITWIT ALERT* *NITWIT ALERT*
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
06 Mar 2004 06:52:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:42:47 -0500, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
A certain troll asked:
Why a troll?
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
Hmmmm.I answered, in effect, - There is none, so why bellow about god being
a fact.
That was honest.
But wrong. All evidence demands the existance of God. There is no evidence for
the non-existance of God.
And I don't mean that in a "you can't prove a negative" kind of way.
No one can say there is no God, unless he is just saying "no". He has nothing
to substantiate his claim.
The truth is some atheists, and some believers, ask bellowing idiots to
support THEIR claims that god actuialy exists!
I give positive answers to that comment all the time.
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
No - they are defending themselves (their opinions, and at times their
freedoms) by making these bellowing idiots realize that not only their
"beliefs" just "beliefs" - but their zealous RELIGIOUS' beliefs do NOT rule
the world!
Who says we want to rule the world?
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
The atheist may be interested in god just as much as a theist. Sadly, since
there is no valid evidence of ANY god - there is nothing for the atheist to
"believe". They CERTAINLY aren't interested in blindly following whatever
religious insanity that just happens to be popular at the time!
Why not? They follow their religious insanity that there is no God.
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
Since there is NO valid evidence to suport ANY god - it is the theist zealot
who MUST, by default, resort to word games, mind games, and idiotic,
invented, arguments to either support an unsupportable position - or
fraudulently attack the opposition.
All evidence demands the existance of God.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
The atheist believes what can be supported.
No he doesn't. He has NO support for the non existance of God.
No religious zealot's argments have ever been supported.
You're acting like being based in reality is a crime!
You are the one ignoring reality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
05 Mar 2004 04:10:01 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com>...
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
And I thought:
Why not just answer the question truthfully?
What harm could it do?
8-)
Let's list the actual reasons.
The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
they actually *want* evidence) but because :
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
Any others?
I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
It's more direct and honest.
Mark.
* I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
truthful. 8-)
NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
can help us be better, stronger and smarter.
I'm simply asking why I should believe an extraordinary claim when I
ask that of a ...visitor. If I were to say, "George Bush is an android
from Mars", you would be correct to ask "Have any evidence?"
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Truthful answer to a trolls question. |
03 Mar 2004 09:07:12 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message news:<kaea40ta99q791j1nehof4tvjdc6mre7q4@4ax.com>...
A certain troll asked:
*** Evidence for God***
There is none, so why ask for it?
He got lots of replies, but very few truthful answers.
(most of the replies didn't answer the question)
And I thought:
Why not just answer the question truthfully?
What harm could it do?
8-)
Let's list the actual reasons.
The truth is (some) atheists ask theists for evidence and/or proof of
God not because they actually expect it to be produced (not because
they actually *want* evidence) but because :
(1) they hope to shut the theist up and make him go away.
(to be fair Chris Lee gave this answer)
(2) make the theist think about *why* he believes - and perhaps sow
the seeds of doubt.
(3) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
thinking about rocks and stars and animals and plants and stuff he can
see and learn about - so he is basically changing the topic of
conversation to something he *is* interested in - the world as
perceived by the senses. (the science nerds reason*).
(4) The atheist isn't interested in God or spirits or souls - he likes
argument and rhetorical tricks and again wants to change the topic to
something he knows (or thinks he knows) about - evidence, epistemology
"burden of proof" and related stuff.
(5) The atheist truly believes that empirical evidence is the
beginning, middle and end of all knowledge and truth and thinks that's
the end of the matter. (a logical positivist/ Objectivist or similar
person)
Any others?
I actually think 1,2,3,4 have some legitimacy - although I personally
never ask theists for evidence or proof of gods.
I prefer just to say explicitly "I am not interested in gods, spirits
and other spooky ectoplasmic stuff - want to talk about rocks?"
It's more direct and honest.
Mark.
* I am a science nerd - I am not being derogatory here - just
truthful. 8-)
NB I think its really important to actually think about what we say
and why we say it (at least once in a while) - instead of just
following our well worn behavioral patterns. So even a Trolls question
can help us be better, stronger and smarter.
Well, personally, I don't believe it's possible to know with certainty
there are no gods, and therefore it's impossible to know with
certainty there is no evidence for any gods. It's just in the nature
of the universe, because it's such a big place; nobody can know
everything. That does not, however, mean I *believe* that gods exist;
I think the possibility is *extrememly* unlikely, but I can't declare
that it's impossible. Therefore, since I wish to maintain a sceptical
but still open mind, I ask for evidence. Just because I've never seen
objective evidence supporting the existence of any gods doesn't mean
that evidence doesn't exist, but until it is, I can truthfully say I
see no evidence, and therefore have no reason to believe in any gods
I've ever heard of. Does that fall under number 5?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
