Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,137 Year: 5,394/9,624 Month: 419/323 Week: 59/204 Day: 1/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 708 of 777 (750983)
02-25-2015 10:46 AM


It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
I think Straggler's posts most reflect my position.
If I was to assert that I am an atheist when it comes to the belief in the Easter Bunny, axe-murderers in my house, leprechauns, etc., . . . no one would raise their eyebrow.
I think saying I am an atheist about Easter Bunnies is the most intelligent way of communicating my non-belief in Easter Bunnies. So why should there be special pleading for other non-evidenced entities?:
Specific gods or generic gods are in the EXACT same category as Easter Bunnies. Unevidenced.
However, I too have found the word "atheist" to be problematic in communication, particularly in america. It appears to have a negative edge. Sooo, instead of trying to describe what I am not, it seems much better to describe what I am. A "naturalist." To me, the laws of nature/science are more than adequate to describe/understand life.
Yet, when using the word "naturalist," I still find I need to expand my thoughts. And yes, even in Europe, I get the nearly latent rolling of the eyes after I am done, as if I am being artificially elitist in some manner.
So, even though it still has problems, does anybody concede that the term "naturalist" is the best term to use?

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2015 11:39 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 718 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2015 2:13 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 722 by Jon, posted 02-25-2015 8:00 PM dronestar has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 714 of 777 (750993)
02-25-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by RAZD
02-25-2015 11:39 AM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
Why not "skeptic"?
If I asked you: Are you skeptical or atheist about Easter Bunnies that created the universe, I suspect you would say you are atheist about those entities. To say you were merely skeptcal would mean to me that you were earnestly keeping an open mind to such entities such as universe-tampering Easter Bunnies.
If scientists kept an infinitely open mind to all possibilities, I would think science wouldn't progress too quickly. I would prefer scientists who are working on cancer and environmental problems to not keep an open mind and consider/hypothesise/test that Easter Bunnies are possibly tampering with the universe.
Not with my tax money, thankyou.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2015 11:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 10:13 AM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 719 of 777 (751006)
02-25-2015 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by New Cat's Eye
02-25-2015 2:13 PM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
I think Straggler has already covered this. Let me try in my words . . .
It seems you are special-pleading. There is no difference between the Easter Bunny and god(s):
All gods and the Easter Bunny are correctly placed together in two categories:
1. Both are un-evidenced
2. Both were originally created from man's imagination. (Where else?)
Easter Bunny: A child believes in the un-evidenced Easter Bunny because the child does not realize it was made-up by adults. Through today's education, science, and critical-thinking, he will quickly learn that the Easter Bunny was deliberately made-up.
Christian god: A bronze-age caveman believed in an un-evidenced god(s) because he did not realize it was made-up a few minutes earlier by another bronze-age caveman. Unfortunately, the bronze-age caveman had no education, no science, no critical-thinking, thus, he never learned that the un-evidenced god(s) was deliberately made-up. Through millennia, a less clear construct of the god concept grew out of indoctrination and personal bias. An enduring false patina of believability helped support the fabricated entity. The relative believability of the Easter Bunny is at an extreme disadvantage here. None-the-less . . .
Man had forgotten that at one time, a long time ago, the creation of god, exactly like the Easter Bunny, was only through the imagination of man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2015 2:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 720 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2015 5:00 PM dronestar has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 733 of 777 (751039)
02-26-2015 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by RAZD
02-26-2015 10:13 AM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
Open-minded and skeptical is not "infinitely open mind to all possibilities" -- it involves choices
Yes, that was my hopeful point in asking:
quote:
Are you skeptical or atheist about Easter Bunnies that created the universe?
By writing "it involves choices," it seems you are agreeing that there SHOULD be SOME limits or "choices" to open-mindedness. Good.
RAZD writes:
Well I would say that was playing word games to redefine the "easter bunny" as a god
No, I was not re-defining the "Easter Bunny." I was specifically attempting to use the Easter Bunny as gullible children use it. Children believe the Easter Bunny is an invisible magical entity that delivers goodness, chocolate, and hides baskets. Children believe the Easter Bunny does these magical/supernatural things, just as god(s) similarly do, I am told. My parallel construct is accurate.
With this definition clearly now defined, I will re-ask you:
quote:
Are you skeptical or atheist about Easter Bunnies that created the universe?
I suspect you will CHOOSE to answer "athiest."
RAZD writes:
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).
As I wrote before, tax money is finite, tax-payers SHOULD have a say into what researchers do with our money. Some money is well-spent: Cancer research, Alzheimer's cure, larger phosphorus bombs to use on a bigger parts of civilian communities. But I wouldn't want my tax-money spent on researching the existence of Easter Bunnies.
I believe everybody on this forum can contrive other satisfactory examples.
RAZD writes:
btw -- are you aware of the usage of "naturalist" for nudist?
Yeah, in conversation using the term naturalist, if people's eyes widen, I know I have to further clarify my naked position. (But which came first, the naturalist or the nudist?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 10:13 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 2:58 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 735 of 777 (751054)
02-26-2015 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by RAZD
02-26-2015 2:58 PM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
RAZD writes:
And sometimes that choice is to do nothing until better information is available.
Okay, sometimes.
RAZD writes:
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.
And as I previously explained to CS, you would also have to show evidence that the bronze-age caveman didn't also create its god as a fictional character. And since we know that god's and Easter Bunnie's magic/supernatural abilities exist only in the imaginations of man, then its without doubt that all gods started as fictional characters too. But perhaps you need even more tangible evidence . . .
RAZD writes:
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.
Well, I don't doubt that a bronze-age cavemen COULD have imagined a rabbit-god, then created an Easter Bunny church, and through time, have it expand. And wouldn't you know? There is just such an example, a temple to a rodent, not a rabbit, but a rat, in India, Karni Mata Temple.
And yes, RAZD, their beliefs in this god come through believing adults. The similarity of children believing in the Easter Bunny as a god is uncanny, wouldn't you agree? (or are you gonna split hares?)
quote:
Out of all of the thousands of rats in the temple, there are a few white rats, which are considered to be especially holy. They are believed to be the manifestations of Karni Mata herself and her four sons.
Karni Mata Temple - Wikipedia
RAZD writes:
Myself, I would apply the term atheist for things supernatural that were intended to be believed. By adults. For life.
Like the following little adorable gods? . . .
Sooo, do you, RAZD, beleive that the Easter Bunny rat manifestations of Karni Mata herself, are:
1. indeed gods
2. merely skeptical but very open to more evidence,
3. athiest about them?
RAZD writes:
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.
I haven't disagreed with this.
Edited by dronestar, : (or are you gonna split hares?) too good a pun to leave out

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 2:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 4:59 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 739 of 777 (751379)
03-02-2015 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 736 by RAZD
02-26-2015 4:59 PM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
Hi RAZD,
I think we are making progress . . .
RAZD writes:
Ah, no -- the onus falls on you because this is your claim, not ours.
Sorry no, until you provide one "real" god, the default natural position is that every god is a fictional entity. Of the two claims, your claim is supernatural, special-pleading, thus, the onus is on your anus.
RAZD writes:
[Karni Mata] . . . is A holy person that did not perform any supernatural actions etc. More like Buddha or the Pope than a supernatural being.
Chuckle, I think not. You glossed over the fictional silliness associated with Karni Mata, regarding the Goddess Durga. Karni Mata is worshiped through the reincarnated rats as the incarnation of the goddess Durga by her followers:
quote:
Durga is the most popular incarnation of Devi and one of the main forms of the Goddess Shakti in the Hindu pantheon.[2] Durga is the original manifested form of Mother Parvati or Adi-Parashakti. Durga is Adi-Parashakti herself. The Devi Gita, declares her to be the greatest Goddess. Thus, she is considered the supreme goddess and primary deity in Shaktism, occupying a place similar to Lord Krishna in Vaishnavism. According to Skanda Purana, the goddess Parvati accounted the name "Durga" after she killed the demon Durgamaasura. Goddess Parvati is considered to be the complete incarnation of Adi Parashakti or Goddess Durga, with all other goddesses being her incarnations or manifestations. Adi Parashakti or Mahadevi, the supreme power, is called Durga Shakti as per Devi-Mahatmya. Adi Parashakti or Devi Durga is a Hindu concept of the Ultimate Shakti or Mahashakti, the ultimate power inherent in all Creation. This is especially prevalent in the Shakta denomination within Hinduism, which worships the Goddess Devi in all her manifestations. She is Goddess Lakshmi and Goddess Saraswati in her mild form; Goddess Kali and Goddess Chandi in her wrathful form. Durga is also called Padmanabha-Sahodari and Narayani, the sister of Lord Vishnu. According to Shaivism and Shaktism, she is supreme, but to bring back lord Shiva in Sansar, she was reborn in human form (Sati and Parvati) to marry Shiva.
Durga - Wikipedia
(When considering the WHOLE supernatural back-story, the Easter Bunny doesn't seem half as silly, eh?)
Okay, let's re-cap, I believe gods, like the Easter Bunny, are only from the imagination of man, indeed, they do not exist anywhere else. Because I cannot prove a negative (that something doesn’t exist), and using Occum's razor (the simplest solution is usually the correct one), the onus would be on you to show that just one measly god exists outside of man’s imagination.
But I am open-minded, let's continue testing. You are starting to pile up pre-qualifications for gods, so let's start to list them as we go along, (I suspect there will be many more as we progress):
Although a child's magical belief system in the Easter Bunny isn't any different than the magical belief system of adults in gods, you believe that a real god needs to be believed by adults. Okay, check.
You believe that a real god needs to be believed by an adult for life. (Hmmm, that doesn't allow Cat Steven's or fighter Muhammad Ali to revise their worshipping?) Okay, check.
You wrote "There are no churches to the Easter Bunny AFAIK." You believe that gods need to have a church (a place of wordship?). (I was rather impressed that a reincarnated rat with a fanciful ancestral history of gods has it's own brick and mortar temple in India, but it seems you quickly downplayed that pre-qualification.) Okay, check.
You believe that gods need to be more than just a tad-bit supernatural. (Reading Durga's reincarnated/incarnated super-duper previous life(s) is pretty supernatural spectacular to me, but you poo-pooed it). Okay, check.
So let’s move on and try out this animal-god for "godliness":
the Egyptian crocodile-headed Sobek, god of fertility.
1. Believed by adults. Check.
2. Believed by adults for their entire lifetime. Check
3. A temple is built for him, Kom Ombo. Check.
4. Creator of the world. That sounds kind of supernatural to me. Check.
Sooo, do you, RAZD, believe that the Easter Bunny, rat manifestations of Karni Mata, the crocodile-headed Sobek, is:
1. a real god, thus you are a deist/theist
2. possibly a god, but without further research using tax-payer money, you will merely be skeptical, but very open to more evidence, thus agnostic
3. a fictional character created by bronze-age cavemen, thus you are an atheist about Sobek?
To me, so far, a Venn diagram would show the Easter Bunny, rat manifestations of Karni Mata, and the crocodile-headed Sobek inside the same circle, labeled as fiction. But I ackowledge this is just a small sample . . . so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 736 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 4:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 10:00 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 749 of 777 (751658)
03-04-2015 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 740 by RAZD
03-03-2015 10:00 PM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
RAZD writes:
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.
Errm, . . . you just made a claim in your first sentence. As coyote succinctly writes, you ARE claiming a 50/50 proposition.
RAZD writes:
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.
To be specific, I made a yawn-producing, potentially falsifiable claim that gods do not exist outside of man's imagination. You may falsify my claim by presenting a real god any time that you wish. I'll wait.
In the meantime, I will present gods of human history as evidence to further support my claim that all gods are fictional . . .
. . . just like the imaginative Easter Bunny.
So let's keep moving on. There are an awful lot of gods to consider RAZD.
Remember, if I find just one god you are atheist about, then you must submit a real god to balance your 50/50 claim.
RAZD writes:
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.
Patience RAZD, patience. We are investigating as quickly as we can.
RAZD writes:
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.
If true, then you could never distinguish the child's belief in a modified version of the Easter Bunny with an adult's belief in a god. The result, a venn diagram with both the modified Easter Bunny and god in the same circle.
RAZD writes:
Your premise includes your conclusion, and thus is begging the question, another logical fallacy.
My premises does include a TENTATIVE conclusion. But an open-mind demands we test it. As we are . . .
RAZD writes:
Now I think you will agree
A. that there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence that demonstrates conclusively that god/s exist nor that they do not exist
Hold on there Baba Looey, you just admonished ME for supposedly concluding my claim. We are in the middle of testing our claims, why are you rushing to rule that I have no evidence? (Wow, talk about projecting)
dronestar writes:
But I am open-minded,
RAZD writes:
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.
I see I need to often remind you that we are currently testing both our hypotheses.
RAZD writes:
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.
"So you are NOW saying?"
"moving the goalposts a bit there?"
I suspect you are being disingenuous. Did you really, initially, believe that people who build an elaborate rat temple, worship at the rat temple, employ adult priests at the rat temple, though impoverished provide sacred offerings to holy rats, and come from a culture who worship imaginative gods by the sackful was only about a common woman?
You stated that the mortal woman Karni Mata and the rats were not supernatural, nothing special. And when you suggested . . .
RAZD writes:
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.
"Perhaps you can investigate and tell me more."
I then presented a fuller history of the supernatural history of the rats and their associations with gods. To which you then replied . . .
RAZD writes:
moving the goalposts a bit there.
C'mon RAZD, don't do that. Are you for honest investigation or not?
Okay, so now, after you have been made more appraised of the supernatural rats and their associations with gods, are you:
1. Theistic about the supernatural rats and their associations with gods
2. Agnostic about the supernatural rats and their associations with gods
3. Atheist about the supernatural rats and their associations with gods
RAZD writes:
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.
Yes, so far I am standing by my claim that children see the Easter Bunny as a supernatural being as adults see their god as a supernatural being. Both are fiction.
RAZD writes:
People can believe in the rats being reincarnations of people without involving any supernatural beings or any supernatural powers.
I suppose people can, but specifically, the people of India who worship at the rat temple do believe in supernatural rats and their associations with gods.
RAZD writes:
Again, you should investigate origins rather than "disneyfied" stories. What's next - Australian aboriginal dream-time spirits?
No, I already told you, the next subject is the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek. But first answer the question about the supernatural rats and their association with gods.
Patience RAZD, patience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2015 10:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 769 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2015 12:35 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 767 of 777 (751828)
03-06-2015 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 761 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 2:59 PM


CS writes:
Stop lying about me, dick.
CS writes:
You're really grasping at straws to make me look like I've done something wrong here and you're being a real prick about it.
CS writes:
I'm just about ready to blacklist your ass.
CS writes:
What I don't like is you lying about me. Stop it.
Thanks for sharing.
Edited by dronestar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 770 of 777 (752239)
03-09-2015 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 769 by RAZD
03-06-2015 12:35 PM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ...
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
You have not answered my questions, which is part of the give and take of honest debate.
Chuckle. Perhaps you can be a good example and clearly answer my original question first:
Are you:
1. Theist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
2. Agnostic about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
3. Atheist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
RAZD writes:
Stop pussy-footing around with innuendo and your various logically challenged arguments from incredulity etc. and get to the solid evidence.
Chuckle. Says the person who apparently, incredulously, considers that reincarnated rats associated with real gods really can exist.
RAZD writes:
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.
Yes, I'm also shocked, shocked that going through all of history's thousands of years, multitudes of cultures, and their ample lists of fictional gods was going to take more than an afternoon. If only I had previously asked for your patience.
RAZD writes:
Such arguments did not convince me when I was an atheist, and are part of the reason I am now a deist/agnostic.
Ahh, . . . so before I finish presenting my evidence, you are declaring my claim a failure. That doesn't sound very open-minded to me. Are you sure you are correctly describing yourself as an agnostic?
RAZD writes:
2. . . . you do not have a robust falsification test that covers all possible supernatural beings.
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
Man's imagination is infinite. And there seems to be an equal amount of fictional gods. So a preponderance of evidence is all I can realistically present.
RAZD, I can't change a willfully set mind, but I am wondering if my evidence is valid to others?
Any participants (besides RAZD) want to play along in the following court of NATURAL law? . . .
Last Fall, after two years, I finished working on the Federal Grand Jury. To indict somebody with a crime, we were specifically instructed to consider if the evidence presented was more likely true than not. If twelve members voted yes, a "true bill" was created. The suspect was then charged with the crime and it moved to trial.
Well, if this system is good enough for the Justice Department of the USA, then it should be good enough in this forum. Can the forum's participants help me create a true bill from the following?
I'll present my evidence showing that all gods are fiction and only exist in man's imagination is more likely true than not. If I get 12 affirmative votes from the forum's participants, then RAZD is declared erroneous, and I have valid evidence.
Okay, let's go . . . the case number to this case is EVC030615, the evidence:
1. I call to the witness stand Mr Coyote. Do you affirm the testimony you make is true.
"I do."
Mr. Coyote, . . . by the way that's a nice looking tie, . . . uhh, . . . what is your occupation?
"I have been a professional archaeologist for the past 20+ years."
Mr Coyote, you have a vast knowledge of many cultures and their many alleged gods. Do you believe the evidence against god/s is as poor and inconclusive as the evidence for god/s?
"After thousands to tens of thousands of years of shamans of all stripes making claim after claim about the existence and desires of their particular deities, all the while providing no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, how could anybody intelligently claim it is a 50/50 proposition? That would be pretty silly. What's the fancy Latin term in logic for "argument based on wishful thinking?"
Thank you Mr Coyote, you may step down.
2. My next witness is Mr. Straggler. Please remove the bowler hat Mr. Straggler. Do you affirm the testimony you make is true.
"I do."
Please present your testimony to the jurors.
"My friend Sam is a leprechaun-ist. Sam, often rolls his eyes and tells people that they are being a typically closed minded a-leprechaun-ist. According to Sam, Leprechauns do exist deep in the spirit world, far beyond our abilities to measure them. But not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as many other people observe their gods. Sam states that leprechauns are real, they DO EXIST! Sam points out that the evidence a-Leprechaun-ists cite showing that some leprechauns are fictional logically fails to support their position that no leprechauns can exist. Sam makes it clear that he most definitely is not talking about the obviously fictional strawman examples that a-leprechaun-ists tirelessly cite. Sam delightedly takes their inabilty to provide further justification as to why their a-leprechaun-ist positive position is any more valid than his own pro-leprechaun positive position as a clear sign that his argument regarding the two positive positions being neither more valid than the other is entirely sound."
So there is no difference between a Leprechaunist and Theist?
"None that I can reckon."
Thank you Mr. Straggler, you may step down.
3. I would like to introduce our next witness, Ron L. Hubbard. Mr Hubbard, Do you affirm the testimony you make is true.
"Oh, absolutely."
Before founding the religion Scientology, you wrote science-FICTION stories, correct?
"Oh, absolutely."
Science-FICTION means made-up, fabricated, imagined, and non-real stories, correct?
"Oh, absolutely."
Afterwards, you created a religion that states that each human has a soul which is a "Thetan" that came from another planet. Is this silly nonsense?
"Oh, absolutely NOT! Thetans exist deep in the spirit world, far beyond our abilities to measure them. But not beyond an ability to experience them, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as many other people observe their gods. Thetans are real, they DO EXIST!"
So there is no difference between a Thetanist and Theist? (Sounds like am am lisping)
"None that I can reckon."
Thank you Mr. Hubbard, you may step down.
4. And lastly, one more witness, I call to the stand little two-year-old Cindy Lou Who. Do you affirm the testimony you make is true.
"Yu'up."
Does the Easter Bunny Exist?
"Yes, but not as the popular fictional character. Rather as a real God with many supernatural abilities."
But what about the providential evidence from the German Lutherans or Georg Franck von Franckenau's De ovis paschalibus in 1682? And there's no church to your God. And, for goodness sake, you're only TWO years old!
"I can assure you, regardless of one's age or alleged historical providence, the real Easter Bunny does exist deep in the spirit world, far beyond our abilities to measure Him. But not beyond an ability to experience Him, perhaps, via spiritual or religious experiences, as many other people observe their gods. The Easter Bunny, as a real god, DOES EXIST!"
So there is no difference between an Easter Bunnyist and Theist?
"None that I can reckon."
Thank you Miss Who, you may step down.
5. Unfortunately, our court time and resources are limited, I will only be able to present a truncated list of history's alleged fictional gods. Alas, I don't have the author's names of each alleged fictional god, nor their recorded copyrighted date (lousy budgeted library hours). But again, at this time, you are only being asked if the presented gods below are more likely fiction (imaginations from man's mind) than real:
Millions of Hindus pray over statues of Shiva's penis. Do you think there's an invisible Shiva who wants his penis prayed over or is this silly fiction?
Jehovah's Witnesses say that, any day now, Satan will come out of the earth with an army of demons, and Jesus will come out of the sky with an army of angels, and the Battle of Armageddon will kill everyone on earth except Jehovah's Witnesses. Or is this silly fiction?
Aztecs skinned maidens and cut out human hearts for a feathered serpent god, was that belief silly fiction?
Catholics are taught that the communion wafer and wine magically become the actual body and blood of Jesus during chants and bell-ringing. Silly fiction?
Millions of American Pentecostals spout "the unknown tongue," a spontaneous outpouring of sounds. They say it's the Holy Ghost, the third god of the Trinity, speaking through them. Fiction?
Ancient Greeks thought a multitude of gods lived on Mt. Olympu. ???
India's Thugs thought the many-armed goddess Kali wanted them to strangle human sacrifices. Do you think there's an invisible goddess who wants people strangled or is this fiction?
Tibet's Buddhists say that when an old Lama dies, his spirit enters a baby boy who's just being born somewhere. Silly fiction?
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/doubt.html
Okay, jurors I have completed the evidence and testimonies presented for this case. If you believe I presented evidence that shows all gods are MORE LIKELY to be fictional imaginations (existing only in man's imagination) THAN NOT, please vote, post an affirmative reply. (A reminder, we need TWELVE votes to indict.)
Thank you.
Edited by dronestar, : typo, "TWO"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 769 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2015 12:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 771 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2015 4:35 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 774 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2015 7:57 AM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 775 of 777 (752755)
03-12-2015 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 774 by RAZD
03-10-2015 7:57 AM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ... still no real evidence (sigh)
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
So, more song and dance or honest answers?
Well, how about honest dancing?
RAZD writes:
and instead of providing evidence you use another logical fallacy: the argument from incredulity and the appeal to ridicule.
Yes, I am shocked, shocked to find serious beliefs and ruminations about Easter Bunnies, Leprachans and rat-gods lead to ridicule. Shocking.
RAZD writes:
And now you are adding the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity you essentially are admitting that you do not have a basis for a scientific conclusion.
When a person is convicted by a jury using testimony, science, evidence and inductive reasoning, I suppose you would argue that that system too is really, nothing more than an illogical appeal to popularity.
RAZD writes:
Can you show that reincarnation does not occur? (that would be evidence)
You keep asking me to prove a negative? I cannot demonstrate conclusively that something doesn't exist. Curiously, you can remember every other logical fallacy except this one . . . for some reason.
RAZD writes:
all you can do is run a Gish-Gallop on them claiming that they are fictional.
In a Grand Jury, one sits for hours, sometimes many sessions over weeks, and sometimes even months to hear an unending tedium of evidence and testimony. Curious that you need to dismiss a large body of evidence, derogatorily, as "Gish-Gallop."

Drone writes:
Perhaps you can be a good example and clearly answer my original question first:
Are you:
1. Theist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
2. Agnostic about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
3. Atheist about reincarnated rats and their association with gods
RAZD writes:
Gosh I thought I had. I am agnostic about reincarnation, fascinating idea.
How curious. I keep repeating my question, and you keep dodging it, partially answering it only in the most generic of terms. What are you terrified of? That the great pumpkin will hear your insincerity and then punish you by passing you by?
RAZD writes:
Going through history and just claiming that something was made up is not evidence, but just your opinion. How Faithlike.
Chuckle, and ouch. Seriously though, you are claiming, conclusively, scientifically, declaratively, with 100% proof, that EVERY piece of evidence I presented is only an opinion? Really?
RAZD writes:
Your "evidence" is made up "testimony" in a hypothetical court.
Do you not see how incredibly ironic your statements above are? You are dogmatic and slavish to a process that, unless scientifically concluded, COMMANDS you approach EVERYTHING with an infinitely open mind to the point of 100% gullibility. EVERYTHING you cannot conclusively and scientifically PROVE as true or false, your system demands you MUST maintain strict open-minded agnostism.
But the moment your system starts to wobble at the knees, you fold quicker than superman on laundry day . . . without any conclusive scientific proof whatsoever, you declare that ALL my is evidence is 100% opinion. I haven't witnessed such sureness since Dick Chaney stated he knew where Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was hid. What happened to the agnosticism? Wow, talk about special pleading.
RAZD writes:
The argument that humans are capable of imagination so therefore anything they think of is fictional based on imagination is rather logically sloppy, incomplete and inconclusive, imho, and it certainly is not a compelling argument when based on nothing but opinion.
Chuckle. I keep asking, besides man's imagination, where does the supernatural exist? It's not a difficult question. Why so coy?
RAZD writes:
Curiously Grand Juries do not result in convictions (just the prosecutor presents evidence and testimony of subjective and anecdotal evidence), but whether or not a case goes to trial -- where the objective empirical evidence is presented and opinions are cross-examined to ascertain their validity. There is a well known statement that "Grand Juries can indict a ham sandwich" ... but that doesn't mean the ham sandwich is guilty.
I already repeated that I cannot prove conclusively that gods do not exist . . . Alas, I cannot prove a negative. However, I can show a system that successfully uses a preponderance of evidence. And more importantly, the grand jury uses a system that successfully guards against fraud, irrationality, and infantilism. It IS useful in filtering sheer crap. On the other hand, your system not only welcomes crap, it swaddles it like crap in a diaper.
My non-dogmatic system easily allows me to dispose of the notion of a child believing in the Easter Bunny as a god, just as I would throw away a used kleenex. But your system is mandated to accept this embarrassing notion, because it can not conclusively and scientifically prove around the world, all through history, that some child did not have a supernatural god-like experience through the Easter Bunny. As a mandated perpetually open-minded individual, you must tuck away that filthy, disease-ridden, used kleenex into your breast pocket until a day you hope may eventually find conclusive evidence. Ugh, over the years, how many of those disgusting snot-rags are in your pockets?
And similar to the Easter-Bunny-god, you can't declare that leprechauns do not exist (because you do not have 100% scientific conclusive proof that every infinitely distinct leprechaun does not exist). Nor that L Ron Hubbard's Thetans do not exist (because you do not have 100% scientific conclusive proof from interviewing each and every scientologist ever existed).
Nor can you declare that reincarnated rats and their association with gods do not exist. (If you ever answered my question in full)
With imagination, comes infinite doubt that forever renders your system fatally flawed.
I'd lose it.
Enjoy.
Edited by dronestar, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 774 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2015 7:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 777 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2015 5:14 PM dronestar has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 776 of 777 (752760)
03-12-2015 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 771 by 1.61803
03-09-2015 4:35 PM


Re: agnsoticism is still not a positive claim ...
Actually a little unfocused, but really not that hateful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 771 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2015 4:35 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024