Aren't we all agnostic?

[Sheldon]

@Lucifer

The likelihood of deist philosophy being true is so infinitesimally small that it is unworthy of consideration, we can freely declare that deist philosophy is false.

Sorry but you have made two mutually exclusive claims there? Either something is false or there is an infinitesimally small chance it is true, but it can’t be both.

[Lucifer]

@Sheldon

Well I have a fairly middling intellect of course, but you made a sweeping assertion here:

If someone says to you “unicorns are fake”, do you accept it or say: There’s an infinitely small chance unicorns do exist so I don’t believe you". If it’s the first reaction then there is nothing about my assetion theat’s “sweeping”.

@Sheldon

pointed out that the odds against something being true don’t negate it being true, so it’s clear his observation is relevant. What’s more you seem to be using the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy many religious apologists try to peddle on here, and your hubris is really starting to grate a little, since you don’t appear to be debating the topic.

And you clearly missed the point of my whole comment that “the chances of some things are so infinitesimally small that as a species we give ourselves a right to claim they are false.“Desit phiolosophy” as are all gods is the same as “unicorn” philosophy” above, we can safely ignore that which has no evidence whatsoever and classify it “fake” without consideration of those deluded into believing it true

@Sheldon

That is not true, I disbelieve that unicorns are real for the same reason I disbelieve any other claim, because there is no objective evidence to support them being real. The human imagination is a vitally important first step in the methods of science don’t forget.

That is very unfortunate for you. I found out that unicorns were made up and fake, long before I was capable of applying “objective evidence”. Maybe you were just a late starter whose parents kept you believing in unicorns into your 20’s.

@Sheldon

To what end? And again then, you’re preaching at a forum of predominantly atheists, and you seem to be implying we have not ourselves carefully considered the arguments and “evidence” made for deities. Some concepts of deities are unfalsifiable, and I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, but I also withhold belief from them all of course, as to believe some of them would involved closed minded bias, and to believe them all must inevitably violate the law of non-contradiciton.

Oh so the atheists aren’t supposed to address the theists. You should advise the site moderators so they know. Or arejust talking rubbish?

Well, if you had actually “carefully considered the arguments and evidence made for deities” which are worshiped on earth (the only ones of relevance) you would have realised they are all falsifiable. Now go and see if you can figure out why.

@Sheldon

Au contraire, and it would of course be a salient fact when someone claims, as you did, that we can make contrary claims when the likelihood of the original claim is infinitely small. Lets try an example, how likely did most scientists think it was that the continents could move, before we understood plate tectonics and continental drift? Now we might have been correct to withhold belief, and assert we didn’t know if it was possible, until the idea was properly evidenced, but to claim it was impossible based on how likely we thought it at the time, would have been wrong, no?

Ah Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!!! Hate to break this to you but, at the time people didn’t debate continental drift it was because no one had thought of it or observed it. Because you fail to think about what you are saying let me enlighten you: If no one had created “unicorns” no one would have been denying their existence as being infinitesimally small. People have invented gods. Try again…

@Sheldon

Straw man fallacy, he believes nor has he claimed to believe any such thing.

Is he debating in favour of theism or is it just because he’s batsh#t crazy? If he’s just batsh#t crazy, you could be right. Do let me know.

@Sheldon

So perhaps you could demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that no deity exists, I would find this very helpful in dealing with religious apologists in the future.

As is always the case, it is the person claiming the theory is true that has to prove it true, not the person claiming it is false to prove it false i.e. clearly I am right until I am proved wrong (which will be confirmed by the fact I will never be proved wrong). Seriously, you didn’t know that? WOW?!

I have made it clear I do not claim there are no deities as fact but I do say there are no deities worshiped on earth that are true. (And I won’t be going into that here god by god. I will prove the god oof Abraham false at some time of my choosing.) As I said and left with you, all gods worshiped on earth are falsifiable, it’s up to you to figure out why.

@Sheldon

Not without using an obvious contradiction, and if they;re not worthy of consideration I wondering why he is in an atheist debate forum that deal primarily with considering arguments theists present for deities? An atheist debate forum seems an odd destination for not considering theistic arguments.

If you were able to comprehend my comment (which is actually a requirement of responding and maybe why you get everything wrong) you would knw there is no contradiction (figure it out).

And my role is not to consider arguments from theists with regard to a god that I know doesn’t exist. That would be a real contradiction.

[Lucifer]

@Cognostic

Now please explain to him that the above statement literally means, ‘Gods Exist.’ Worthy or not worthy of consideration, you cannot assert that they do not exist, and in the same breath say, "The likelihood is infinitesimally small.’ It cognitive dissonance on your part and an outright contradiction.

Look up ccognitive and dissonance.

Taking another walk away from comprehension? Why don’t you just try to keep up. Either print off the comments and read them until you comprehend or ask someone with an IQ over 75 to assist. How many time does this have to be explained to you before you catch on?

@Cognostic

Holy Shit! You got the right answer out of him. FINALLY Now if he just says the same thing about consciousness we are well on our way to a real discussion!

You are only amazed because you failed to comprehend it the first four time it was said. Would you like me to speak to you as I would a 5 year old? If that’s the case, it will only be bye bye.

And if you ever manage to comprehend anything being said you will realise that it changes nothing. In the absense of an actual definition of consciousness, it will always remain, to claim it requires a god, the person claiming it will have to prove consciouness exist and define it.

Please, try to wake up.

[Sheldon]

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

Well I have a fairly middling intellect of course, but you made a sweeping assertion here:

@Lucifer

The likelihood of deist philosophy being true is so infinitesimally small that it is unworthy of consideration, we can freely declare that deist philosophy is false.

If someone says to you “unicorns are fake”, do you accept it or say: There’s an infinitely small chance unicorns do exist so I don’t believe you".[/quote]

You claimed it was false, and simultaneously claimed there was an infinitesimally small chance it was true, it cannot be both. Changing the target of the claim from a deity to a unicorns only demonstrates you have no clue what you actually said, or why it is demonstrably erroneous.

@Lucifer

If it’s the first reaction then there is nothing about my assetion theat’s “sweeping”.

It was an absolute claim, it is therefore the very definition of a sweeping claim, since the assertion involved all and any concepts of deities. You could not possibly evidence your claim, because as has been explained, it is unfalsifiable in the sweeping generic sense you made it.

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

pointed out that the odds against something being true don’t negate it being true, so it’s clear his observation is relevant. What’s more you seem to be using the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy many religious apologists try to peddle on here, and your hubris is really starting to grate a little, since you don’t appear to be debating the topic.

And you clearly missed the point of my whole comment that “the chances of some things are so infinitesimally small that as a species we give ourselves a right to claim they are false.

On the contrary I very carefully explained why why your point is irrational, since you’re using an argumentum ad populum fallacy. I also explained that @cognostics response was relevant, and why. I can only assume you have either not read, or not understood my response? I suggest you learn what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is, and why it applies to your claim. Also why the odds against something being true, don’t negate it being true, you are simply wrong.

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

That is not true, I disbelieve that unicorns are real for the same reason I disbelieve any other claim, because there is no objective evidence to support them being real. The human imagination is a vitally important first step in the methods of science don’t forget.

That is very unfortunate for you. I found out that unicorns were made up and fake, long before I was capable of applying “objective evidence”. Maybe you were just a late starter whose parents kept you believing in unicorns into your 20’s.

Do you really imagine ad hominem will make your asinine facile reasoning more compelling? Either way your hubris here is misplaced, and I am trying to help you stop making yourself appear so ill-informed, but if all you want is to exchange petty insults, then trust me I am happy to oblige. Consider this your first and last warning.

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

To what end? And again then, you’re preaching at a forum of predominantly atheists, and you seem to be implying we have not ourselves carefully considered the arguments and “evidence” made for deities. Some concepts of deities are unfalsifiable, and I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, but I also withhold belief from them all of course, as to believe some of them would involved closed minded bias, and to believe them all must inevitably violate the law of non-contradiciton.

Oh so the atheists aren’t supposed to address the theists. You should advise the site moderators so they know. Or arejust talking rubbish?

I can only suggest you read it again, and try and respond in a way that demonstrates that you have more than a remedial grasp of English, and so understood what I said, then perhaps you can avoid this rather absurd straw man fallacy. You’re either trolling or illiterate, I am struggling to see a third option there?

@Lucifer

Ah Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!!! Hate to break this to you but, at the time people didn’t debate continental drift it was because no one had thought of it or observed it.

That was entirely my point, dear oh dear.

@Lucifer

Because you fail to think about what you are saying let me enlighten you:

Whilst i am delighted always when someone can expand my woefully small pool of knowledge, I am a little dubious it is going to be someone who hasn’t the most basic grasp of grammar, and a woeful grasp of English.

@Sheldon

Now we might have been correct to withhold belief, and assert we didn’t know if it was possible, until the idea was properly evidenced, but to claim it was impossible based on how likely we thought it at the time, would have been wrong, no?

Why are you repeating my point back to me verbatim, when it demonstrates you were wrong to make your sweeping claim in absence of sufficient evidence or knowledge?

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

Straw man fallacy, he believes nor has he claimed to believe any such thing.

Is he debating in favour of theism or is it just because he’s batsh#t crazy? If he’s just batsh#t crazy, you could be right. Do let me know.

Jesus wept, I’ll dumb it down with bullet points for you:

1. @Cognostic is an atheist, you can ascertain this yourself by looking at anyone’s profile.
2. The claim you assigned him was a straw man, since he didn’t make that claim, I can make that any simpler for you sorry. You are hurling insults at someone who is both far more intelligent, and far better educated than your posts suggest you are, because you have not understood what he has said, and appear not to understand what you have said.

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

So perhaps you could demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that no deity exists, I would find this very helpful in dealing with religious apologists in the future.

As is always the case, it is the person claiming the theory is true that has to prove it true, not the person claiming it is false to prove it false i.e. clearly I am right until I am proved wrong (which will be confirmed by the fact I will never be proved wrong). Seriously, you didn’t know that? WOW?!

Firstly you made a claim, it was not a theory, secondly since you made a claim, then just as you assert here, that claim carries a burden of proof, which I asked you to demonstrate some objective evidence for, and of course you can’t, which is what I and other posters are trying to help you understand, all in vain it appears. Perhaps this is one of those occasions where the bible’s observations on educating certain demographics may be correct. However I shall take one more pass at this, here is your claim again:

@Lucifer

You cannot be a critical ass on something that doesn’t exist be that a unicorn or a god.

Can you, or can you not, demonstrate any objective evidence to support your claim that no god exists? I urge you to take your time, and try and think before you answer.

@Lucifer

I have made it clear I do not claim there are no deities

@Lucifer

You cannot be a critical ass on something that doesn’t exist be that a unicorn or a god.

Dear oh dear.

@Lucifer

I do say there are no deities worshiped on earth that are true.

Then do please demonstrate some objective evidence to support this weeping assertion? As @Cognostic tried to explain, deism presents an unfalsifiable concept of a deity, and I invite you to strive hard to understand why making a claim about an unfalsifiable concept cannot be evidenced.

@Lucifer

As I said and left with you, all gods worshiped on earth are falsifiable, it’s up to you to figure out why.

Since it is your claim it is for you to properly explain and evidence it, and you are yet again woefully wrong. Again deism presents a concept of deity that is unfalsifiable.

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

Not without using an obvious contradiction, and if they;re not worthy of consideration I wondering why he is in an atheist debate forum that deal primarily with considering arguments theists present for deities? An atheist debate forum seems an odd destination for not considering theistic arguments.

If you were able to comprehend my comment (which is actually a requirement of responding and maybe why you get everything wrong) you would knw there is no contradiction (figure it out).

My comment was not responding to anything you had said, it was in response to this from @Cognostic.

@Cognostic

you cannot assert that they do not exist, and in the same breath say, "The likelihood is infinitesimally small.’

So I invite you to understand how idiotic a comment that really was,rather ironically that wasn’t remotely stupidest thing you have said either.

@Lucifer

And my role is not to consider arguments from theists with regard to a god that I know doesn’t exist.

Then again I am left wondering why you are presenting arguments against deities to an exclusively atheistic audience as if they have no carefully considered them already. Especially since your augments are so facile and poorly reasoned.

@Lucifer

my role is not to consider arguments from theists with regard to a god that I know doesn’t exist. That would be a real contradiction.

Yet you are doing precisely that, I am starting to wonder of this is not an elaborate windup?

@Lucifer

@Cognostic

Now please explain to him that the above statement literally means, ‘Gods Exist.’ Worthy or not worthy of consideration, you cannot assert that they do not exist, and in the same breath say, "The likelihood is infinitesimally small.’ It cognitive dissonance on your part and an outright contradiction.

Look up ccognitive and dissonance.

Your claims are mutually exclusive, until you can understand that simple fact I fear you will continue to bang your chest as if you have said something profound, rather than said something that is profoundly stupid.

I think what we are dealing with here is the Dunning-Kruger effect writ large.

[Cognostic]

@Lucifer

And you clearly missed the point of my whole comment that “the chances of some things are so infinitesimally small that as a species we give ourselves a right to claim they are false

And you also have the right to look and sound like an idiot when challenged on your assertion. Then you can backstop and assert "I meant nearly certain.’ as you eventually did with your claim that there are no Gods. It’s the exact same backstop that you have already done. You are pretending to know shit that you can not possibly know. You have been asked for the evidence and you have produced nothing. That should bother the hell out of you. It’s a sad thing that it does not.

[Sheldon]

@Lucifer

Donald Duck doesn’t exist,

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Ahem. That is a falsehood. Donald Duck as a character most definitely exists.

@Lucifer

I stand corrected. Donald Duck has sustainable evidece.

It can be objectively demonstrated that the character exists as a cartoon character.

I don’t know why you keep using the word sustainable to describe evidence, I don’t think sustainable means what you think it does. It surely is more compelling for evidence to be objective, than that it can be upheld or defended, since theists do this all the time, what I have never seen a theists or apologist do is demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or any rational argument that a deity is even possible.

[Lucifer]

Sorry I generally dumb my comments down for those who struggle to comprehend and, after all I am talking with you.

So it’s pathetic attempts at insults backed up by comments which can only SUSTAIN you have actually nothing to say.

I think it’s time for me to stop playing with the kiddies. Kicking your asses has become boring.

[Cognostic]

@Lucifer

I think it’s time for me to stop playing with the kiddies. Kicking your asses has become boring.

Once again you have demonstrated your imagination and lack of creativity does not extend into your ability to fling insults. You were doing so well in your posts. You should probably stick with what you know best. When it comes to insults, you appear to be suffering from delusions of adequacy. Well, come to think of it, I guess that is true of your posts as well. You just remind me of one of those Russian dolls; full of yourself. Thanks for playing and you can pick up your participation tropy on your way out.

[Sheldon]

@Lucifer

Sorry I generally dumb my comments down for those who struggle to comprehend and, after all I am talking with you.

I don’t think the facile irrational bombast you’ve posted can be dumbed down if I’m being honest.

@Lucifer

So it’s pathetic attempts at insults backed up by comments which can only SUSTAIN you have actually nothing to say.

Again one can only marvel at this lack of self awareness.

@Lucifer

I think it’s time for me to stop playing with the kiddies. Kicking your asses has become boring.

Or you could stop projecting, and try and learn something. I have little hope at this point, but feel obliged to try and help anyone as desperately ill-informed as your posts suggests you are. However you are of course free to leave if you want, indeed as you lied previously that you were going to, almost as if your ego won’t allow you to tolerate anyone disagreeing with your hubristic bombast, as a matter of fact exactly like that, but at the same time lacking the ability to see or even try to understand why they disagree.

[Sheldon]

@Lucifer

Sorry I generally dumb my comments down for those who struggle to comprehend and, after all I am talking with you.

So it’s pathetic attempts at insults backed up by comments which can only SUSTAIN you have actually nothing to say.

I think it’s time for me to stop playing with the kiddies. Kicking your asses has become boring.

Ask one of those adults if they can explain the fucking quote function to you.

[Cognostic]

@Sheldon

fucking quote

At least you got that part right. Another fucking quote. This is just so tiresome.

[Sheldon]

@Lucifer

I think it’s time for me to stop start playing with the kiddies, Kicking your getting my asses kicked has become boring.

Fixed it for you.

Now tell us all again how you can predict the future? As you claimed there “never would be any evidence for any deity”, I’m intrigued as to what magic powers you think you have? Beyond your manifest superpower to create asinine arguments by overusing hyperbole of course. Oh and since you still don’t understand the word, that claim where you asserted “there never would be any evidence for any deity”, is an example of the kind of ludicrous hyperbole I am talking about.