Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

Thisd is an entirely predictable attempt by theism to claim that atheism is the same beast. It displays both arrogance and a poverty of imagination.Not believeing in a thing is not the same as believing in a thing. Its not even the same as a negative version of believeing in a thing. I have non-belief in anything that does not exist. I have non-belief in the famous djinn voiced by Robin Williams in a series of animated movies.If I am to be accused of "fundamentalism" in regard my belief in the non-existance of the djinni, then surely I must be a fundamentalist in regards the non-existance of, say, Postman Pat. Or the Tweenies and the rugrats or the Simpson family.How can I be a "fundamentalist" in all these aspects simultanesously? The term is being used to imply that I am a fanatic in regards these topiucs, but is it really plausible to be seen as fanatically hostile to imaginary entities? I cannot have any postitive position if I am so busy denying Jessica Rabbit.This is also, I should point out, the misuse of the term fundamentalist, and using it for slander. A Fundamentalist, while probably a fanatic, is a particular type of fanatic, appealing to an orthodox teaching. What is the orthodox teaching against Bugs Bunny? Atheism has no teaching, has no fundamental doctrine, and so you cannot be a fundmentalist atheist: the required structures do not exist.RAZD:

quote:

---

I assume that there are also several atheists that recognize that their belief that "(2) No {A} does not exist" is based on faith and not logic.

---

Nope. Becuase there is no REASON whatsoever to think A exists. So you must show me some plausible basis for expecting or knowing that A exists in the first place. This dishonesty on your part was already highlighted with the keys example - you are not comparing like with like.

quote:

---

Both these groups have world views where faith exists aside from logic (and Agnostics are sitting pretty in the cat-bird seat).

---

Nonsense. Agnostics are just cowardly theists, and have the least rational position of all.I ask now specifically: do you leave a bowl of milk out for the brownies? They can make your life a living hell if you spurn them, you know.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-04-2005 05:46 AM

quote:

---

Ooops: looks like atheism has at least one tenet: the belief or doctrine that there is no god ... your evidence that contracycle is "correct" just evaporated.

---

Nope, thats still nonsense I'm afraid. Look, tyhere are no fundamentalist gardners, either. Gardning is an activity, its commonly practiced, it can be given the label "gardening" and that will be meaningful to most observers. It might even be viable to speak of "fanatical" gardners. But there can be no fundamentalist gardners, becuase there is no doctrine of gardening.Now, while I know that theists sometimes like to paint atheism as a sort of conspiracy by unwitting dupes of satan to fool the public, there is no doctrine of atheism. Nobody undergoes a course or passes a test to be an atheist; there is no catechism, no personal relationship, no moment in which the spirit fills you or feel the Word move upon the face of the earth. There is no commonality of positions in any meaningful way. And yet, becuase this group of people CAN be sepearted from the remainder, it is entirely valid to label them as non-believers, or atheists. That is a DESCRIPTIVE term. But that term does not imply a dotcrine to which allegiance is given.In other words, this is another word game. There can be no fundamentalist atheists.

quote:

---

not the case at all. LOL. you are assuming a belief in "satan" now to further your argument.

---

No, I am reporting to you things that christians have said to me about atheists.

quote:

---

atheism is just a belief that there is no god.

---

Nope. Atheism is the absence of theism. That is all. Thats what the word says.

quote:

---

perhaps you could show us how agnosticism is not logical? and why a skeptic should not be an agnostic?

---

Oh, I have done so repeatedly - as you manifest failure to confirm or deny whether you leave milk out for the brownies demonstrates.Agnosticism is a ridiculous position, less rational than either theism or atheism. A theist claims knowledge of things not in evidence, but at least procedes rationally from that basis. An atheist acts only on things in evidence, and consistentl;y from that point. The agnostic considers both the real and the unreal as of equal status; and this absurd starting position leads them necessarily to illogical positions, such as accepting some things not in evidence and rejecting others, despite acknoiwledging that there is no reason to do so.Agnosticism is wholly illogical. I believe its popularity is based on cowardice and the fetish for taking the "middle" or "moderate" path.

quote:

---

So you are ascribing to me the comments of other people who happen to have beliefs quite different from mine, and you think this is a valid form of debate?

---

No, I acribed nothing to you, I have shown how belief in iraational thinigs can lead to homicide.

quote:

---

Actually it isn't. I have posted the definition twice. The definition specifies "the doctrine or belief that there is no God"

---

... which is a word game. Obviously, if I am not a theist, and there is not evidence for god, it is quite reasonable to conclude god is a fiction propagated those who gain from so doing. But of course, listening to what actual atheists say is much less satisfying then TELLING them what their own beliefs are, right?

quote:

---

agnosticism is also an absence of theism as are some forms of deism (specifically ones that believe that god no longer exists), so obviously that is insufficient as a definition of atheist.

---

a- theism: a greek construction meaning "not theist" (or absence of theism or similar).a- gnostic: a greek construction indicating absence of knowledge of god. This implies an assumption of the existence of some kind off god.I am non obliged to adhere to your definitions. n the other hand, I will confidently state there is no god. But this is a conclusion, not a belief.

quote:

---

If you are a common atheist then there is no need to get all bent out of shape over the definition of "fundamental atheist" and if you are a fundamental atheist then using a lesser definition than you subscribe to is equivocating.

---

Nonsense - I object to your attempt to use the language of theism and apply it to a-theists, who have renounced those very silly systems. The fact that "fiundamentalist" theism is even less sensible than common-or-garden theism is NOT equivalent to the quite reasonable position that there is no god, based on the inability of anyone to demonstrate god.

quote:

---

your blindness to agnosticism is amazing. the milk for the brownies shows just how much you misunderstand the concept: it appears you think that any doubt about the non-existence of {A} is equal to a fervant belief in the existence and worship of {A}. You only allow (1) and (2) to be answers and deny that (3) has any validity.

---

Huh, and you accuse ME of equivocating?I do not misunderstand the situation. I point out only that most agnostics apply limits to the things they are agnostic about: you fight to retain a justifiable agnosticism about sky-fairies, but won't fight for a similar position regarding brownies. How do you make that decision? There is no logical basis for it.

quote:

---

again this appears to be rejecting as "nonsense" any idea that conflicts with your {world view} just as you did with sexual selection in humans.

---

Actually they are totally different. My argument about sexual selection was that the statement contained no data, a point you were unable to refute.

quote:

---

Some people think there is more evidence for each of these than there is for your brownies ...

---

What some people think is utterly unimportant. What matters is what they can prove. I shall demonstrate this by working through the question of life on other planets and UFO's, superficially very similar questions.Do I have REASON to think there may be spacefaring life? Yes, becuase life seems to evolve, and we have no reason to expect this would not occur elsewhere. And there are a lot of eslewheres.Do I have reason to think we have been contacted? Apparently yes, becuase of all the reports. As against that, the immense distances. But my reserach indicates the witness reports are unreliable and contradictory; furthermore the behaviour of alleged UFO's is irrational for a spacefaring society. These lead me to disregard such reports as credible. Therefore I conlude, there are no UFO's, or at least, I have no serious reason for thinking there are any.Thus I can say: I am confident life exists elswhere.
I can also say: I am confident we have not been visited by aliensIf new EVIDENCE emerges, I can and will change my position, because these are not BELIEFS in which I have an emotional investment.All of this is substantially sounder than saying "there might be so it is dogmatic to pick position". Thats nonsense, merely dogmatic fence-sitting and refusal to engage the intellect.

quote:

---

so you concur that the concept of dark matter and dark energy should be discounted. excellent.

---

How you draw this conclusion is beyond me - Hitchy said no such thing.In fact, we conclude the existance of these things to explain observable phenomenon - that is, we have evidence. Is there any evidence for god? Still not? After thousands of years? Shame.Furthermore, there is a huge difference between an idea, a meme, that is proposed for discussion and examination, but not demonstrated by a provable theory. Precisely for that reason, I would not find it all distressing if dark matter were eventually replaced with some other explanation. But while that process is complete regarding theism - there is a suitable altrenate origin, that of social deception - the agnostic clings desperately to their prior belief, denying knowledge.

quote:

---

If social deception was a result of human nature, what makes you think that human nature will solve the same problem that it created?

---

Because eventually we developed science, which gives us a methodology with which to interrogate the material world and limit the influences of our own biases. It is human nature to develop counter-measures against deception, too.

quote:

---

Theism explains the innate inadequacies of human nature and provides solutions.

---

Actually it does neither. We are supposedly gods SPECIAL creation but have a backwards eye and a useless vermiform appendix. And merely formalising deception, and building a house in which to be decieved once a week, is not a solution: its entrenching the problem.

quote:

---

Granted that the Church has long been a Capitalist tool and is prone to corruption---but so is government! Any form of government!

---

Roughly speaking, yes.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-11-2005 08:54 AM

quote:

---

Although not exactly the position I hold, I don't see how this is intellectually lazy, or ant type of fence sitting cowardice, and certainly it's not dogmatic. It is actually quite a strong position to argue with believers from, and emphasises the value of evidence just as much as (if not more than) declaring yourself to be an atheist.

---

I cannot see how this position emphasis the value of evidence. Because it still says that mere rumour of the existence of some god is enough to take the proposition seriously. That undermines the value of evidence, it does not emphasise it.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-11-2005 09:15 AM

quote:

---

So don't confuse this position with a blind acceptance of any doctrine that people can throw at me, and don't think I am some kind of wishy washy fence-sitter, who will declare that we can't make a judgement on anything. I do accept that there is a possibility of some kind of God, but people better back it up with evidence. Hope that makes sense.

---

Not IMO, no. Why do you accept the possibility there is some kind of god? Only because of unproven hearsay. Why should unproven hearsay be taken seriously enough to keep open the possibility of the existance of this persitantly undemonstrable thing? And, how do you distinguish between one thing reported by hearsay, and another?The problem with keeping all options open merely on principle is that this is a principle of a higher order than the application of logic. It is an affectation, a posture, not a logical analysis.

quote:

---

.... gentlemen and ladies, the prosecution rests. contracycle is an admitted fundamentalist atheist.

---

Tirsome nonsense. I have no fundemanetal creed to adhere to - your argument is still as stupid as when ut was first proposed.

quote:

---

they are not "my definitions" but the dictionary ones, and when you go to converse with other people, you will find that if you use the same definitions for words that they do, understanding will ensue. of course you are not obliged to being understood either.

---

Ha ha ha - thats an appeal to authority, I'm afraid. Who's to say mere dictionary compilers are sufficiently equipped to make such a statement? They are obliged to record words as they are used, not their connotations in specific contexts. I am NOT obliged to use your definitions or those of any notional authority; after all, you are insisting that the word says something other than its construction actually communicates: the absence of theism.

quote:

---

the language of logic applies to you as it does to everyone regardless of faith and belief. the language of people applies to you as it does to everyone regardless of faith and belief. language is what makes conversation possible, and the persistent use of different definitions for the same words means that communication does not occur.

---

Language also necessaarily carries connotations and implications. I will not be held to a bunch of superstitious nonsense, merely becuase you find it useful.

quote:

---

"belief" is not "the language of theism" but the distinction between what is known and what is felt to be true without evidence

---

Exactly so. That is why the cautious and reasonable conclusion that there is no god is entirely reasonable as an inference, and not a belief. It is qualitatively distinct from a belief without evidence: every single claim to the existance of god has been undemonstrable. There is no need to take the CLAIM seriously, it is only a claim, by human beings. you can claim the moon is made of green cheese too, if you want.

quote:

---

likewise the basis of the term "fundamentalism" is not created by theists:

---

This is a purely opportunist and dishinest argument. Of course the word "fundamental" exists, just as the word "community" exists. However, "fundamentalist" is a specific and local construction, by theists, just as "communist" is a specific and local construction by a particular group.And what fundamentalIST conveys, entirely in accordance with the rules of construction, is a person how adheres to a basic, or original, coda or praxis. Seeing as I have no original p-raxis, have not code, I cannot be a fundamentalist. That point is done with; give it up.

quote:

---

this too, is not a term that comes from theism but from popular description of the rigid principles and the intolerance of other views -- rarely words people choose to describe themselves eh?

---

Of course. But then, this is, as you point out, a dictionary definition, and thus reflects popular usage. The fact that "fubndamentalist" has aquired a patina of intolerance and rigidity is not inherent to the term: it arises as a result of fundamentalist theistic praxis. It is undoubtedly the case that fundamentalists consider their position as right and true and just, and that they are superior ro non-fundamentalists in their commitment and zeal.This is apprent every time you see christians fight over whose bible is right, whether or not other groups are christians etc. The Fundamentalist label is an appeal to a knowledge of an essential truth which superficial organs miss.

quote:

---

the plain fact is that some (not all) atheists exhibit a rigid adherence to the tenet that there is no god and an intolerance of other views, that they in fact exhibit all the basic behavior forms usually attributed to fundamentalist theists.

---

And yet, there remains NO SUCH TENET. And there can be no such tenet, because there is no movement. And the behaviour is NOT like those of fundamentalist theists, becuaze it is NOT a belief absent of evidence: there is a great deal of evidence that all claims to the existance of god are baseless. that is sufficient for inferring the non-existance of god: all known phenomenon are suitably accounted for. There is no gap for god to fill.

quote:

---

ROFLOL! you were the one left with no position and unable to post any explanation for your position or a single refutation of the evidence for sexual selection.

---

Umm no, you were left bandying jargon about in lieu of an actual argument. And when pressed, it turned out you did not have an argument, only the reflex of believing your own assumptions.

quote:

---

your claim that it "contained no data" is just exactly the rejection of the {concept} contradicting the {world view} I was talking about, in spite of the fact that all the evidence pointed towards sexual selection and away from your running sweating model.

---

Except it did not; the actual EVIDENCE supported my model substantially. Your statement still contains no data, and is merely an appeal to alleged authority and expertise - but if you had such expertise, you could easily have supported your argument. The fact remains that you ASSUMED sexual selection out of ignorance; and that is precisely why the statement contains no data.

quote:

---

this is off topic here, and I will be happy to take it up again elsewhere: my only point in bringing it up was to show your position for what it was -- belief, unfounded on evidence ... or logic. you should be embarassed to make this claim knowing that it has no relation to the truth that anyone can see by reading the posts.

---

Except you are of course 100% wrong; I supported my argument with evidence, and you kept spinning about your BELIEF, sans evidence, that it "must" be sexual selection for no good reason you could argue.And you think you are showing ME up? I suggest you keep your mouth shut, as it present opening it only results in the changing of your feet.

quote:

---

No, we don't have evidence. We have an observation that does not match the predicted behavior of large scale astronomic systems. Based on that observation the concept of dark matter was proposed as one way for that behavior to be explained. You cannot use the observation of an anomaly as evidence for a concept that explains the observation -- you need something else, and as yet that is totally lacking. Instead of evidence for the existence of dark matter though, what has occured is that this concept is itself insufficient to explain the behavior of large astronomical systems, and so now we have dark energy. And the really amazing thing is that between these two concepts they supposedly account for some 96% of the universe, without a single piece of independant evidence to back it up.

---

All you have achieved is to explain why, after all, we do have evidence; and you are dishonestly failing to discuss the TENTATIVITY of these arguments.You are quite correct to say that dark matter is an inference based on the failure of other models. Thats quite reasonable, as is giving a proposed solution to the paradox a short-hand name. Dark matter is an entirely negative conclusion. But we DO have evidence foe SOMETHING, even if we do not kniw much about it. And the very name that it was given communicates what we do know about the limits: its matter, becuase it interacts with other matter gravitationally, and it is dark becuase it interacts ONLY gravitationally. Thus, this term conveys what we know and no more.Further, these conclusions are tentative, not claims to absolute fact. Sure, you may find people who are very confident of the existance of dark matter, but this only means that they are confident there is "something out there". And the very vagueness of the term also indicates how poor the relevant science is; how tentative the argument is, and how likely it is to be supplanted by further research, or at least clarified. The existance of dark matter is still not an article of faith.The situation with god is entirely different. There is NO evidence for the existance of god, not even the negative evidence we use to infer dark matter. In fact, adding god to a problem never makes it more sensible, while adding dark matter to certain problems does make them more sensible. These are entirely different cases; and the reaction to them is also entirely different. I've never heard a scientist make a hard statement about the nature of dark matter, but theists continually make hard - and contradictory - statements about the nature of god.Once again the thrust of my argument is plain to see: in order for the theist, or in this case the alleged "agnostic", to construct the intellectually dishonest argument that all thought is belief, all opinions are faith, all notions are dogma, they must misrepresent the methodology that science uses to gain knowledge, and impugn the intellect of those who pursue this path. All theists are trying to do is drag everyone down to their illogical level in which there is no science, only competing claims of hearsay.science rtemains the superior methodology. Theism remians a dishonest claim to things that cannot be known. Agnosticism remains the romantic or simply stupid apprehension that all claims are of equal merit merely becuase they are advanced. Agnosticism is not a logical position.

quote:

---

umm, because it is their job and the work is checked and cross-checked, while your opinion is just you saying whatever you need to in order to dance around the issue. This also fails to address the issue of communication -- that if you don't use the same meanings as other people then you are speaking a different language that only appears similar.

---

My you are gullible. It is also the job of Snopes to track down urban legend, but their "debunking" of the allegation that Bush said the French had no word for Entrperenuer to Blair is based only on the report of Alistair Campbell, one of the formeost liars in British politics.Or, I can find dictionaries tha propagate the lie that communism payes everyone equally. Thats an outirghjt falswhood, but dictionaries propagate it.Your appeal to fatuous authority is dismissed. I will not be held to the opinions of a few individuals who cannot possibly reasearch the absolute validity of every word in the language.

quote:

---

claiming that atheism is a belief system is superstitious? nope.

---

Yes it is. Because atheism is the absence of a theistic belief. That is all.

quote:

---

claiming that atheists who claim it is not belief but a known fact is superstitious? again nope: demonstrated.

---

Not remotely demonstrated, becuase your entire illogical argument dependas on attributing to me a position I do not hold, and then telling me I am mistaken in the position I do hold. You have to deal with atheists as we are, not how we are in your imaginings.

quote:

---

No matter what you call it, it is still a belief.

---

No, its not a belief. To describe my position as a "belief" renders the term "belief" useless, as it now means any opinion on any topic, no matter how tentative.

quote:

---

LOL. The more you argue as you have in these posts, the more you show your fundamental adherence to your dogmatic tenet that there is no god is factual and not belief. Seems you cannot be anything else but.

---

And assignation of "fundamentalist" remains a blatant and insulting slander, as I have neither tenet nor dogma, nor is there any such for atheism.

quote:

---

sounds like a tenant to me.

---

A tenet of which movement, faction, fraction, sect or tradition? Please be specific. Where are they headquartered?

quote:

---

and a fundamental belief that will not accept other viewpoints event though it has no evidence, in spite of your (erroneous) claim (you have not ruled out ALL claims of ALL gods, and "a great deal" is not a unanimous position either).

---

Well, why should I? All existance evidence for god has been dealt with and suitably accounted for. There is no need to deal with the question of god any further - a model that explains all god-related phenomenon has been devoloped. And I do not need to take seriously claims merely becuase they are claims; I first need to be persuaded that there is even the remotest possibility they are serious.

quote:

---

Yeah right, you were reduced to insult after insult because your evidence didn't stand up to the sexual dimorphism evidence while sexual selection did.

---

You remain deluded. You claimed there was no evidential support for the running ape model, and that sexual selection was therefore chosen by default. You never were able to come up with a suitable response when I demonstrated that there WAS a bgetter explanation in the running ape model, and therefore the absencen of evidence default that sexual selection relies upon was not automatic. Behave like an adult and admit your errors.

quote:

---

I went down the list of observed patterns of hairiness and hairlessness and showed how it matched sexual selection criteria, while you just made more insults. but like I said, I will be happy to take this particular argument elsewhere.

---

No, you were hurling the insults, accusing me rather fatuously of not being an expert in the field. Your argument was destroyed. Deal with it.

quote:

---

Is it really? Sounds like you are a solid believer in the factual existence of dark matter. Of course that was not enough to explain the anomaly, so now we have to have dark energy too ... to counteract the gravity ... so which is it?

---

Don't ask me, as a theoretical physicist. I am happy with best guesses based on the available evidence. And if you conclude that I "beleieve" in a thiing merely becuase I am able to explain roughly how science came to the conclusion it did, it reinforces the point that you use "belief" to really mean "opinion", and this argument is entirely semantic.

quote:

---

No, what we have -- and all we have -- is an observation that does not match the prediction. Period. Dark matter appealed as an explanation, until they needed to add dark energy (what's next?), but the reality is that there is not just insufficient evidence to justify belief in it, there is no independent evidence: it just doesn't stack up, particularly when you look at the scale of the problem. I also remind you of your words:

---

Sure. And lots of people don't "believe" in it because everyone is aware how minimal our knowledge on the topic is. You are now defaulting to the common Theist trope of demanding that science be absolutely perfect and answer any and all questions immediately, or be "false". That is absurd.

quote:

---

Seems you are stuck with absolutely believing in dark matter (so that you can believe that all known phenomenon are suitably accounted for),

---

LOL. It is my OBSERVATION that amny physiocist use the term" dark matter" for a largely inexplicable phenomenon, and you turn this into a positive belief in the existance of a particular thing?This just shows how contorted and semantic your manipualtion of the term "belief" is.

quote:

---

when there is as much evidence for dark matter as there is for a god making the universe spin.

---

A what? Is there any reason to think that entities called gods exist? No there is not. Why therefore would I consider the possibility?[And incidentally, dark matter could even turn out to be the hand of god. That would not alter the validity of observing the effects of dark matter and giving it a label.]

quote:

---

It seems your {world view} is forcing you to commit to this concept, regardless of how little evidence is there, just so all the universal ducks are in a row.

---

Nonsense. It is because all the ducks ARE in a row that I adopt the concept.

quote:

---

And you still have not gone down the list of {A} items. I am guessing that you would show yourself to be inconsistent in the application of your criteria.

---

I have given you a siutable answer; your word-games do not amuse me much and I see no reason to go through the motions again and again. I am not your baby-sitter.

quote:

---

Thank you for summing up your fundamental position on this topic, and I again remind you of your own words

---

Don't bother, I wrote them.
--
So, do you have an argument yet? Or shall I just claim victory by default?

quote:

---

And yet I am not the one using archane and unusual if not abnormal definitions of words to bolster a tenuous position and call it logical.

---

Yes, that exactly what you have done - remember, you prposed that keys I saw 10 minutes ago are equivalent in their mystery to a god who has never been observed ever in human history.

quote:

---

LOL. in one breath you claim you are not part of a group, and in another that you are.

---

Bullshit - all I denied was your appeal to spurious authority.If I bought a publishing company, and we printed a dictionary containing the definition "RAZD: noun, a fool" would that then become True?

quote:

---

No, I will let belief stand as it is commonly defined and used by the rest of us. Atheism is not an opinion, but a belief. Perhaps you can tell us what your definition of belief is?

---

ahahaha... having appealed to dictionary authority, RAZD now appeals to the vulgar argot. Hypocritical much?Seeing as you in such awe of the mental acuity of dictionary compilers, why don;t you look it up?belief Audio pronunciation of "belief" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.opinion Audio pronunciation of "opinion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

quote:

---

heh. you're mixing up belief "Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons" with fundamentalism. Of course to a fundamentalist they are the same.

---

Erm, I'm not, you are: remember, you are inventing tenets that do not exist in order to justify you rationalisation.

quote:

---

see there you go again. in a group, not in a group, in a group, not in a group ... depending on the argument? of course, that the same questions can be posed for deism is probably beyond you. or do you contend that deism is not a belief

---

I note you have failed to answer with any indication of where these tenets exist, or where your mythical organisation of dogmatic atheists is to ,located.And in regards deism, they do have tenets - having been in Friends House, a deist facility, I have seen them on the walls. Duh.--

quote:

---

your penchant for blatantly misrepresenting the facts is, again, hereby noted. these are both falsehoods. I challenge you to show a post where I said either. this is just one more example of your complete inabilty to deal with the subject honestly.

---

LOL. Your challenge is accepted, becuase I already succesfully posted them once. But it will have to wait for another post.

quote:

---

The other option is that we don't (fully) understand how gravity works, but this means that we do not understand something that is fundamental to the way the {observable\inferable} universe works (a position that also includes the absent observations of "gravitons" and "gravity waves" that the standard theory predicts).

​

But someone who firmly believes that "all the ducks ARE in a row" cannot accept this kind of concept, this is after all, someone who believes they have eliminated all possibilities of a god existing:

---

you are clearly no longer conversing rationally. Yes, the ducks are in a row, BECAUSE the tentativity with which we hold Dark Matter does not invalidate the theory as the best we have. Thus, my stated principle of going with the best available theory is in good order.And similarly, in the case of god, all alleged encounters with god can be satisfactorily explained with non-theological explanations; thus it remains the case that I have no unexplained experimental data that requires explanation, and I can go with the best prevailing theory.Your position remains wholly irrational.

A prayer for the unflinching agnostic:Dear unknown universal force who may or may not exist,We hope that in your potentially existent total/partial wisdom you will hear our prayers on this Thursday afternoon. We picked a Thursday afternoon, because we figured that if there is a God of some sort, his/her weekends are already pretty full and Thursday afternoons are probably kind of dead.First, we ask that, if in fact there is a God (and there could be, although the jury is still out as far as we're concerned), that you hear our prayers through the hearing mechanism of your choice. We will be brief, as, if you exist, you must be pretty busy, and if you don't, we will look funny if we talk to ourselves for too long. Thus, we will skip the bullshit.(Congregation turns to very end of prayer book)1. Dear powerful force (Buddha, aliens, whatever) please give us some nice stuff. Maybe a sports car, or, if you have the power, a really good condo near a lake or ski resort or something.2. If indeed there is a complicated theological structure to the universe, and if that structure contains some kind of hell/fire-area/penalty box, please make sure that we don't go there. Since we admit that there is a probability that demons exist, we really would like to avoid being put in a position where they get to eat our lungs. So, please give us a hand in that department, if in fact you can.3. Please heal our sick friend (insert name of sick friend, i.e. 'Jim') Jim. If you exist and have some kind of divine plan that calls for Jim's death, well that's kind of a bummer but we'll understand. However, if Jim is going to die and make this congregation take care of his illegitimate children as a result of some random molecular interaction, it would be nice if you could use any divine power which you might well possess to intervene.Thank you for potentially directing some divine interest in our direction.(optional "Amen" or "God is Grrrrrreat!", if you feel like it)http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/agnostic_prayer.html

quote:

---

The point being that, logically, the conclusion should not depend on what the item {is} but on the structure of the logic leading to the conclusion.

---

And therein lies your error. It is the classic error of the use of pure logic alone - it is possible to creat logical constructs that have no bearing on reality.It DOES matter what the subject of the argument is, because there is no basis for claiming that merely becuase you can conceive of a logical construct, that construct must actually have any material reality.This is why Materialism, specifically dialectical materialism, is a superior analytical methdology. You MUST always keep your eye on the material instance, not the abstraction.And hence your argument continues - necessarily - to ignore the fact that there is no case to answer for god, because all reports of god can be sufficiently explained by other means.