Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Nor can he understand that he could just as easily (and equally) say (if he were honest in portraying the agnostic belief position): By choosing his caricature of the agnostic belief position (that it is ONLY based on knowledge) he is ignoring the contradictory position that is just as valid as his. This contradiction means his logic is faulty and his position is invalid.His insistence on only seeing one side is amusing. Cognitive dissonance blinders anyone? (also known as willfull ignorance when applied to YECs).EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

And you wonder why people are amused by your persistent insistence on black and white boxes. And one of those ways is to describe (poorly) a state of belief that is mixed, part theist and part atheist. Your insistence on a different definition for agnostic does not invalidate that there are people with mixed belief\disbelief. Curiously that is why framing the issue with skepticism is a more valid approach and more readily comprehended, but you refuse to entertain that line of discussion: Except, of course, when it comes to changing your mind on the definition of agnosticism to allow one that is a secondary definition for a position on belief.

quote:

---

Oxford Dictionaries
language matters
Agnostic

​

noun

​

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

---

Color added -- orange is the definition re knowledge and yellow is the definition re belief. That this is also the way the word is used in the general public is also an indication that the usage has been expanded since Huxley coined the term.Regardless, whether you accept the definition and the word use (or not), your larger problem is that even one person that "claims neither faith nor disbelief in God" proves that your black and white delineation is a false dichotomy, that your position is simply wrong.The actual words used are irrelevant, because what IS relevant is the fact that people exist that say they have "neither faith nor disbelief in God" -- words are descriptors for things in communication about those things.If you want we can coin a new terminology\word to describe this group of people.And when you tangle your thread up with repetitious arguments concerning which definition and use of a word that you will allow, while ignoring the real evidence of a class of people that do not fit your "either belief or non-belief" paradigm, means that you are avoiding the issue of actually being wrong. Amusing deflection from dealing with the fact of being wrong. The evidence is that there are people that use "agnostic" to mean " a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." and that they can be described as having an "agnostic" belief position that will be understood to mean a mixed position of belief and disbelief.The evidence is that whether we use the word "agnostic," or some other word, that these people exist.We could even coin a new word, if you want to avoid confusion with agnostic as it applies to knowledge, ... like for instance "noncommittalist" to apply to any person not committed\sure of belief AND not committed\sure of a lack of belief, ... a possibly larger group than is generally understood by the term "agnostic" ... as it would include ignostics and people that don't think about it and have not investigated their level of commitment to belief and\or disbelief ...... to distinguish all such people from theists and atheists, because these people will continue to exist, regardless of the word games you play.The evidence is that you can't force them into your little dichotomy boxes because they end up in both boxes: Two boxes, one person: dichotomy fail.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Ah Straggler old fiend, Actually I don't care what definition you hide behind, what I am concerned with is that there actually factually are people that class themselves as agnostic on belief because they recognized - and believe - they are not really theist nor really atheist but in the middle, a mixed belief.Thus no matter what definition you use there is no real dichotomy. Life is like that.

quote:

---

False Dilemma

​

Definition:

​

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

​

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

​

Examples:

​

1. Either you're for me or against me.
2. America: love it or leave it.
3. Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
4. Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

​

Proof:

​

Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.

---

Done and done and done again. Crickey there are even dictionary definitions that identify this group of people.And the only "refutation" is claiming that "obviously" such people are theists in one breath and then claiming that "obviously" such people are atheists in the second breath ... more of a car wreck than a refutation imho. Curiously several other people have raised the same objection.But what makes it rather hilarious is that this whole thread has been side-swiped by the author into making a point that has no real significance to reality: who cares what people say they believe, when they believe that what they say in fact describes their beliefs (and that they can discuss in detail if necessary)?Other than logically challenged pedants.Now go have another tired tirade that ignores reality and general usage of words. Amuse me some more.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Is it? Other than Texas they would seem to allow several different religions and levels of belief. There is nothing there that outlaws Jewish or Deist (or Muslim) religions and at those times they would have been familiar with Jews and Deists (and that Muslims existed -- see Jeffersons letter to Muslims).But I still think that "skeptical" would be more acceptable to the voting public without any real loss of definition for the person in question. I know several atheists that prefer to use "skeptic" as a better descriptor of their beliefs. And I'm still talking about beliefs. As I was specifically discussing in Message 672:

quote:

---

Message 624 Tangle: All of which is irrelevant if you remove the word 'belief' from your analysis.

​

... I'm as skeptical as anyone here and I am very open to changing my mind - given the evidence.

​

Except, of course, when it comes to changing your mind on the definition of agnosticism to allow one that is a secondary definition for a position on belief.

​

quote:

---

Oxford Dictionaries
language matters
Agnostic

​

noun

​

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

---

​

Color added -- orange is the definition re knowledge and yellow is the definition re belief. That this is also the way the word is used in the general public is also an indication that the usage has been expanded since Huxley coined the term.

​

Regardless, whether you accept the definition and the word use (or not), your larger problem is that even one person that "claims neither faith nor disbelief in God" proves that your black and white delineation is a false dichotomy, that your position is simply wrong.

---

But what still makes it rather hilarious is that this whole thread has been side-swiped by you into making a point that has no real significance to reality ... who the heck cares what people say they believe, when they believe that what they say in fact describes their beliefs (and that they can discuss in detail if necessary)? Tangle: person A is obviously a theist!!! (Message 665"... a lack of disbelief in something must just mean belief in something which demonstrates that belief is a positve, active state") but Next breath: Person A is obviously an atheist!!! (Message 655: "it still boils down to a lack of belief in those god/s.")RAZD: curiously you are talking about a single person being both theist and atheist at the same time, and this demonstrates that your argument is false.Tangle: but agnostic is defined by Huxley to ONLY apply to knowledge ... it's different from talking about beliefRAZD: and I was talking about belief. So then let's define this type of belief with a different word if you don't want to accept that usage for "agnostic" (Message 672: for instance "noncommittalist" to apply to any person not committed\sure of belief AND not committed\sure of a lack of belief, ... a possibly larger group than is generally understood by the term "agnostic" ... as it would include ignostics and people that don't think about it and have not investigated their level of commitment to belief and\or disbelief ...)Tangle: (chirp chirp chirp) ...... the sum total of your response to my post was: Deflection is when you reply to two words of a long post and ignore the rest, pretending (to yourself) that those words were the most important argument in the post. Having a "reasonable discussion about valid points of dispute" would require that you actually participate in the discussion of the valid points of dispute I and others have raised, rather than complain about not being treated fairly (which is ludicrous coming from you -- you have zero cause to complain). Indeed, it is rather obvious that you are not even willing to discuss evidence contrary to your opinion, and that your claim: ... is not really factually accurate, this appears to be more of a lie you tell yourself ...?... when you reject simple evidence that doesn't even come close to the relative importance of belief/s -- not what they are but how we talk about them -- you can't even bring yourself to agree on the relevant terminology of the issue ...For example, let's talk about the topic in Message 1 assuming for the sake of argument that there are three groups of people:

1. people who claim faith in God/s
2. people who claim neither faith nor disbelief in god/s
3. people who claim disbelief in god/s

What matters more to the discussion of Message 1 -- what the people claim to believe or what you think they believe?Certainly in terms of politics it would seem that what was more critical was what they claimed.Now let's frame it a little differently

1. people who say that theism describes their belief in God/s
2. people who say that agnosticism describes how their belief is a mixture of some belief in god/s with some disbelief in god/s,
3. people who say that that noncommittalism describes how their belief is a mixture of some belief in god/s with some disbelief in god/s,
4. people who say that atheism describes their disbelief in god/s

What matters more to the discussion of Message 1 -- what the people believe they believe or what you think they believe?Certainly in terms of politics it would seem that what was more critical was what they said they believed.Now how is that different than in any other honest and respectful discussion?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

Yes, you are the problem. There you go again, deflecting the conversation into perceived insult rather than dealing with the issues. Looks more like a total lack of good faith on your part to me.This is the third time in recent posts that YOU have not replied with anything of any substance, the third time you have dismissed a whole post based on a single sentence taken out of my several points, one that you stretch to perceive as an egregious insult.You try to shift the blame for your lack of any substantial reply to my post by cherry picking out a single word or two that you don't like ... So it still looks like you still have no answer, still have no refutation to the points I've made (several times).Perhaps you should complain to admin\moderation on how hard I am being on your tender sensibilities: here's the link General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') ...Enjoy

So then you have no reason to post those deflection replies rather than honest ones -- they don't accomplish anything of value, do they? Then respond to my posts in that manner, like an adult setting an example, instead of like a child making small petty complaints and pretending that it is all ... ... especially when you don't actually show any "hyperbole, intransigence and name calling" in my posts.Sometimes I have to wonder what alternate universe you are referring to when you make such claims. As your misbehavior continues to exemplify, rather than setting an example of the kind of post you purportedly want to have.Don't use an excuse to avoid a debate.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : /

Words are a means to communication, words (and logic) are not reality.Theories are words in a logical formulation, and when reality gets in the way, it is the words that are discarded by science. not the logic and not reality. It can be argued until the cow comes home that the words in the theory are to be understood one way and only one way, that any other interpretation of the words is a false representation of the theory, but it cannot rationally be argued that the words are correct and therefore that reality is false.The logic of the theory may be impeccable, so the logical structure is not invalid, but the theory is still invalidated by the contrary evidence of reality. It is still wrong.The fundamentalist theist (like Faith) believes their (interpretation of words) Bible is an important TRVTH, and when reality gets in the way, reality is discarded to maintain belief in the words.Those words get in the way of seeing\understanding reality.The fundamentalist atheist (Tangle, Straggler) believes their interpretations of words are an important TRVTH, and when reality gets in the way, reality is discarded to maintain belief in the words.Those words get in the way of seeing\understanding reality.If the words seem to generate a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist in reality, then it is because words are poor descriptors of reality, and the (false) dichotomy is an artifact of language\words and of the imperfect nature of words.When words get in the way, understanding suffers.Of course when the same pedantic logic was not applied to the sure v not-sure then it was apparent that special pleading was being employed to only apply to belief v not-belief.What makes partial sureness different from partial belief? Do we argue that partial sureness is really not-sureness? or do we argue that partial sureness is really still sureness?Take three people, two at the top of a cliff and one at the bottom. One (a base jumper with a parachute) jumps off.To the observer at the top he starts as high as she is and then becomes increasingly not-high as he descends. To the observer at the bottom he starts high and becomes decreasingly high until he reaches the level she is at. To the jumper he is high the whole time () ...When does the jumper become not-high, at the beginning of the jump or at the end?Certainly not-high means anything that is not actually high, doesn't it? Isn't that what the words tell us?Pretending that we all must bend down to an artifact of language and ignore reality is the height of hubris and closed-minded thinking.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ..

Why not "skeptic"?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, :

Well I would say that was playing word games to redefine the "easter bunny" as a god, and I am agnostic\deist on god/s.The original easter bunny was a symbol of fertility for the goddess Eostre, along with colored eggs. What we have today is a caricature construct, a cartoon. Bunnies do exist, and the do "breed like rabbits" and thus are a perfectly legitimate symbol of fertility.We also have objective empirical data that shows that mammals in general and rabbits in particular are not prone to laying colored eggs, nor do they have hands for carrying baskets. You're actually talking about god/s tampering with the universe, and curiously there are a lot of people, some of which are theist scientists, some of which are creationists and IDists that do spend time considering god/s tampering with the universe.Open-minded and skeptical is not "infinitely open mind to all possibilities" -- it involves choices: different choices will be made by different people. Some may choose to investigate, others to wait and see, and others still to criticize.For example you can take the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Evidence pointed to this bird being extinct since a pair was shot in Florida in the 50's (for identification iirc).

• A believer would say that the bird survives in the depths of Louisiana swamplands and we must go and search for them.
• The open minded skeptic would say it is possible the bird survives, but the information is anecdotal and inconclusive -- you go and look if you want, but I can wait for better results.
• The disbeliever would say don't waste your time (and my tax dollars) looking

Well believers went and looked and found better evidence, the open-minded skeptic is happy.Or we can take the Sasquatch for an example. There are many claims of Sasquatch sightings but nothing is confirmed yet

• A believer would say that the Sasquatch lives in the tangled depths of West-coast forests and we must go and search for them.
• The open minded skeptic would say it is possible such a critter exists, but the information is anecdotal and inconclusive -- you go and look if you want, but I can wait for better results.
• The disbeliever would say don't waste your time (and my tax dollars) looking

Believers are still looking.Curiously I have no problem with people looking for things that may or may not exist, that is one way discoveries are made after all (even if not necessarily what was being sought).Enjoybtw -- are you aware of the usage of "naturalist" for nudist?

But the discussion is about what people say they believe, not whether their beliefs are valid. The reality is that people describe their beliefs in many different ways, as is rather obvious from the length of discussion on this thread.Logic exists to assist understanding. Logical fallacies also exist, and they are ways to identify poor understanding. But if we are talking about what people actually say they believe, the people that should get to say what they believe are the people themselves, not someone else.If a person says they are a theist, that the word "theism" describes their beliefs, then they are de facto a theist, and we should take them at their word that that is what they believe. They should be able to use whatever definitions and descriptions they like to describe their belief in greater detail if necessary.If a person says they are an atheist, that the word "atheism" describes their beliefs, then they are de facto an atheist, and we should take them at their word that that is what they believe. They should be able to use whatever definitions and descriptions they like to describe their belief in greater detail if necessary.and ...If a person says they are an agnostic, that the word "agnosticism" describes their beliefs, then they are de facto an agnostic, and we should take them at their word that that is what they believe. They should be able to use whatever definitions and descriptions they like to describe their belief in greater detail if necessary.We would not and should not let a fundamentalist theist say that an atheist is by definition a "godless immoral sinner," because that is the fundamentalist defining the beliefs of the atheist rather than the atheist.Likewise we should not let some intolerant fundamentalistic dictionary pedant say that one specific definition must be used, that ONLY the orange definition can be used for "agnostic" ...

quote:

---

Oxford Dictionaries
language matters
Agnostic

​

noun

​

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

---

... and that people who claim to use the yellow definition are using the wrong definition and that they are actually a theist or actually an atheist (depending on how the pedant feels that moment) that is too dishonest to admit it to themselves.For that is no more tolerant or respectful of other people of their beliefs than the fundamentalist theist was of atheism.And a person can even make up their own terminology to describe what they believe if they find the existing words inadequate.For instance: If a person says they are a Simultanist, that the word "Simultanism" describes their beliefs that god/s both exist and don't exist at the same time, then they are de facto a Simultanist, and we should take them at their word that that is what they believe. They should be able to use whatever definition they like to describe their belief in greater detail if necessary.Anything less is fundamental intolerance and disrespectful.Like I said: "words are poor descriptors of reality" -- so people should be allowed to define and expand on how they are using words to improve communication, and not be put presumptively in one box or another.You are free to have your opinion of my beliefs but your opinion does not define my beliefs, it defines your (in)tolerance of my beliefs and how I describe them.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : clrty

And sometimes that choice is to do nothing until better information is available.Now I would also expect that a person that thinks they have seen a sasquatch to think that they have good reason to investigate further, just as the people that thought they heard an ivory billed woodpecker deep in the Louisiana swamps were more committed to investigate further. And imho they are welcome to do that while I await their results with no a priori position on the possibility of their success. Well, if you are a priori going to define the easter bunny as a fictional caricature of the original fertility symbol (because rabbits), then I would agree that such modern fiction is indeed fictional because we can trace the fictional roots in fictional books that portray this fictional caricature. Alternatively I can also say that rabbits exist and they do breed like rabbits, so they would be good symbols of fertility. If you like to believe so, I will not be in your way -- your belief is your belief. But a rather major difference imho is the source of beliefs comparing childhood beliefs with grownup beliefs.For the Easter Bunny the source is cartoonish children story books read by indulgent parents that pretend to believe. There are no churches to the Easter Bunny AFAIK.Adult beliefs come through believing adults, and there is a large body of theological study behind various positions.So I am skeptical that your claim of similarity is valid or anything other than the eye of the beholder. Curiously I can call a fictional caricature a fictional caricature without invoking atheism, just as I can discuss Harry Potter characters as fictional. To my mind it weakens your argument to toss fictional books and stories into a lump with god/s and say you lack belief in them: there is no intent for fictional characters to be believed, just as there is no intent by parents to have their children believe in an easter bunny beyond childhood. Using it thus cheapens it imho.Myself, I would apply the term atheist for things supernatural that were intended to be believed. By adults. For life.Now I can be skeptical of god/s, but I don't feel a need to be skeptical of Harry Potter and the Easter Bunnies (a new rock group in town), when I can simply believe they are fictional stories intended for entertainment, rather than supernatural beings intended to be believed by the faithful. And I don't like for my tax dollars to go to wars and war profiteers or to large fossil fuel corporations, but I can see some value in funding people that want to look for ivory billed woodpeckers ... or sasquatch ... instead - on things we can (possibly) learn from. ... we were all born nudists, it came naturally, a tabula rasa ...Enjoy

Ah, no -- the onus falls on you because this is your claim, not ours. Curiously, they apparently do not worship them as god/s or as supernatural beings:

quote:

---

The temple is famous for the approximately 20,000 black rats that live, and are revered in, the temple.[1] These holy rats are called kabbas, and many people travel great distances to pay their respects. The temple draws visitors from across the country for blessings, as well as curious tourists from around the world.

​

Worship

​

The temple is thrown open to the public early in the morning at 4.00 a.m. Charan priests perform Mangla-Ki-Aarti and offer bhog (special food) in worship. Devotees make offerings to the rats, which roam about the temple in large numbers and are considered auspicious. There are two kinds of offerings made: the 'dwar-bhent' is attributed to the priests and the workers, while the 'kalash-bhent' is utilised for the temple maintenance and development.

---

They are seen as holy animals, much like many animals in India and by Hinduism. At best they are seen as evidence of reincarnation, also a common Hindu theme (they would consider you and I to be reincarnated spirits as well), so there is no special supernatural attribute here to speak of. Perhaps you can investigate and tell me more. Priests, Monks, Rabbis, Imams etc etc etc are holy. The Pope is holy. Holy is not supernatural. Thousands of people travel to see the Pope, but they don't believe he is himself a god or supernatural being afaik.

quote:

---

Karni Mata

​

Karni Mata (Hindi: करणी माता or Karniji) (date of birth and death unknown but traditionally believed by followers to be 2 October 1387 — 23 March 1538,[1]) was a female Hindu sage born in the Charan caste. She is worshiped as the incarnation of the goddess Durga by her followers.[1] She is an official deity of the royal family of Jodhpur and Bikaner. She lived an ascetic life and was widely revered during her own lifetime. At the request of the Maharaja of Bikaner, she laid the foundation stones for two important forts in the region. The most famous of her temples is in the small town of Deshnoke, near Bikaner in Rajasthan, and was created following her mysterious disappearance from her home. The temple is famous for its black rats, which are treated as sacred and given protection in the temple. Contrary to some reports, the temple is not affiliated with Jainism. Another temple dedicated to her during her lifetime differs from others in that it does not contain an image or idol of her, but rather contains a foot-print to symbolize her visit to that place. Karni mata is also referred to as Nari Bai.

---

A holy person that did not perform any supernatural actions etc. More like Buddha or the Pope than a supernatural being. More than a bit of a stretch, imho, to make this into a bunny-rabbit bearing eggs supernatural god being, so no, I do not see any resemblance to the easter bunny caricature fictions.Nor do I see any reason to disbelieve that she was real ... do you? They are rats, and as far as I can see the concept of reincarnation (which I am skeptical of), has not been invalidated. Do you have some methodology or equipment that can tell?Certainly I am not atheistic about rats existing, as that would be rather silly, given the massive amount of objective empirical evidence that they, like bunny rabbits, exist.Nor are they claimed to be god/s. Reincarnated spirits are not god/s ... unless you consider (believe) every living thing to be godly ... not that there is anything wrong with that.And certainly I am open minded (albeit skeptical) of reincarnation, but I don't see that as making people into supernatural beings per se. And sometimes that choice is to do nothing until better information is available ... as here: I see no need to investigate reincarnation at this time, but if you are interested, then feel free. So I am happy to let those that are concerned investigate further, whether it is Ivory Billed Woodpeckers, Sasquatch or reincarnated spirits.Enjoy

Except ...... that I am agnostic and believe that the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s. Now, I am open-minded to either being true, but as such I am not making a claim either way.You, however, have made a positive claim that god/s do not exist and thus bear the onus of supporting your position with objective evidence. Yet Occam's razor is not evidence or a measure of reality, it is just advice on where to spend energy on initial investigations. If you are not doing any investigation then it is just a crutch you use to prop up your unevidenced belief.Neither is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence, as this is a logical fallacy. Any perceived absence of evidence is only evidence for an lack of perception of any evidence. Others may have different perceptions. Your premise includes your conclusion, and thus is begging the question, another logical fallacy. Theists disagree, so I do not find this to be a convincing argument. Now I think you will agree

1. that there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist ... so we eliminate the (A) position,
2. that there is no need to form an opinion whether god/s exist or not ... so we can eliminate the (B) position.

So that leaves us with my position (C) that I can wait for further information before making an informed decision ...... and your position (D) where you jump to a conclusion based on your opinion\beliefs rather than evidence and logic.Curiously I think the (C) position is more akin to a scientific approach, than the (D) position of leaping to a conclusion based on poor, logically questionable thinking. Position (C) says "we don't know, we should find out more before deciding" while (D) says "I already know and don't want to waste my time looking" ...Curiously theists also think they know the answer (the theist says "I know, god-did-it"), and I don't see any qualitative difference in the degree of evidence available between your position and theirs. Are the anecdotal rumors that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (believed by biologists to be extinct since the last mating pair was killed in the '50s, ironically to confirm their identification) exists deep in the Louisiana swamps ...True, Don't Know or False? Are the anecdotal rumors that the Yeti (which might be an unknown bear related to polar bears) exists high in the Himalayan mountains ...True, Don't Know or False? Are the anecdotal rumors that the sasquatch exists deep in the northwest mountain forests ...True, Don't Know or False? Are the anecdotal rumors that the god/s exist deep in the spirit world beyond our ability to measure them (but not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as some people claim) ...True, Don't Know or False? Are you?There is a difference between skepticism and pseudoskepticism ... the open-minded skeptic is as skeptical of their own beliefs as they are of others. So you are now saying that the belief that people are reincarnated as rats translates to belief that one of the rats is a reincarnation of a holy person who some believe is - in addition - a reincarnation of one of the aspects of the Hindu henotheistic amalgamation, that purportedly was a supernatural being ... moving the goalposts a bit there. The rats are not believed have any supernatural powers per se.Your original claim was that the Easter Bunny was a supernatural being. It wasn't, as I pointed out, but you still seem fixated on this. The rats still do not compare. People can believe in the rats being reincarnations of people without involving any supernatural beings or any supernatural powers. Actually "Possibly initially based on a spiritual experience that is not confirmed nor invalidated in the present day" -- it is anecdotal and unconfirmed, nor is it invalidated as a possible religious\spiritual experience. Have you investigated the history to determine the origin?And this is still different than taking a fertility symbol (rabbits) and making a caricature that is seen dressed up in children story books. Again, you should investigate origins rather than "disneyfied" stories.What's next - Australian aboriginal dream-time spirits?Enjoy
_________________________
the "Hindu Hypothesis" that all god/s experienced, are different aspects of god/s, where the perception is tempered by the personal beliefs of the person and the culture they live in.

​

Edited by RAZD, : splng

​

Edited by RAZD, : format

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

I'll pick both, Steve ... what's my prize?You really don't pay attention do you? You whine and bitch and moan about people not "getting" what you post but you ignore what they are saying ... And yes Coyote, 50% Deist + 50% atheist = agnostic. Why? No objective evidence either way, no compelling reason to make a decision: ↠ (C) inconclusive and unsure of both pro and con, abstainWhat psychological pathology drives - compels - you to make a decision when none is necessary?Logically if god/s exist they would be deist like god/s, based on the evidence available, and logically if god/s don't exist it would not matter what designation was used.So my Tangled friend ... what drives you to decide things when you have a lack of evidence?

1. Are the anecdotal rumors that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (believed by biologists to be extinct since the last mating pair was killed in the '50s, ironically to confirm their identification) exists deep in the Louisiana swamps ...
   ​
   ... True, Don't Know or False?
   ​
2. Are the anecdotal rumors that the Yeti (which might be an unknown bear related to polar bears) exists high in the Himalayan mountains ...
   ​
   ... True, Don't Know or False?
   ​
3. Are the anecdotal rumors that the sasquatch exists deep in the northwest mountain forests ...
   ​
   ... True, Don't Know or False?
   ​
4. Are the anecdotal rumors that the god/s exist deep in the spirit world beyond our ability to measure them (but not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as some people claim) ...
   ​
   ... True, Don't Know or False?

What are your answers and more importantly - why?Enjoy

You know if you are not going to pay attention, then there is not much point in discussing something with you.This is like claiming that flipping a coin and predicting it is going to fall on "not heads" (ie your position on god/s) is NOT a claim ... ... but somehow saying "don't know" IS a claim. Fascinating, just fascinating. What hypothesis of mine are you talking about? The one where you make up my having a claim when there is none?Nor are you robustly testing your hypothesis. How would you test that deist gods do not exist? Again, you have made the claim regarding all god/s, and the onus is (still) on you to support it. So far you haven't. To suggest that an agnostic just take a deist god (or any god for that matter) out of their back pocket and make it sing and dance for you like a puppet - when such god/s could/would be totally disinterested in whether you believe or not - simply shows two things:

1. that you don't understand that the agnostic would be convinced by having such evidence, and
2. that you do not have a robust falsification test that covers all possible supernatural beings.

Such arguments did not convince me when I was an atheist, and are part of the reason I am now a deist/agnostic.You have not answered my questions, which is part of the give and take of honest debate.Curiously, these questions do test your claim ... and the consistence of your approach to questions with little or no evidence on which to base a sound conclusion.And I can keep repeating these questions until you answer. For the record, I consistently take the (C) position of "Don't Know" on each of these -- what do you do? So you are claiming path (A), that validated scientific evidence exists which clearly shows that god/s do not exist. Fascinating. Alert the newspapers, schedule time on TV ... announce a press conference: the world will want to know.If you have objective empirical evidence that god/s do not exist then trot it out: don't be shy. Stop pussy-footing around with innuendo and your various logically challenged arguments from incredulity etc. and get to the solid evidence.Curiously, I won't hold my breath, as I have yet to see "sufficient objective empirical evidence" on which a valid conclusion can be reached. Certainly the unsubstantiated hypothetical argument that all supernatural beings are made up does not convince me. You need evidence ... you need to show that supernatural beings are made up ... with proof of authorship, yes?Harry Potter: fictional supernatural stories, as discussed by the known author, J. K. Rowling, that kind of thing. So find the authors and show that they wrote fiction as opposed to (possibly fanciful) documentation of actual experience/s.That is (one of) your claim/s, yes?Looks to me like you got some work to do. Libraries are open late tonight.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : format