No, I'll wait till I get banned and then create sock puppets over and over to ask members in good standing how come they don't contribute.
Lol!
A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.
Posts
Total:
436
-->
@Willows
@ATroubledMan
@Tyrano_R
Guy, these discussions, as rewarding as they can be, do not merit the obsession it takes to create multiple accounts. (Who are you? Kevin Durant?) Obsession can be good, especially when used to cultivate one's reasoning. So, do yourself a service and read your cited link. Then, if all goes well, you can improve your arguments, and we can have ourselves a proper discussion. Until then.
-->
@zedvictor4
Athias and therefore athiasism has one intent.That is the glorification and adoration of their own intellect.I would suggest that they are really not that interested in a god.
You're a psychic now? You have no substantial argument (and have thus resorted to qualifying my position with witless neologisms and appeals to motive.) I gather you have enough wisdom to not attack my "intellect" directly, so instead you sought to set a standard where my "intellect" would be taken out of the equation (i.e. your mere dismissal of epistemological analysis.) Because, it's demonstrative that my "intellect" allows me to argue through your bullshit (i.e. "data" this... and "show me" that...)
Though the truism has never sought for proof of a god.All that is required is for the theist to admit that there is currently no real proof of a god.
A claim with no substance, much less logical consistency, merits no one's kowtow.
-->
@Athias
Guy, these discussions, as rewarding as they can be, do not merit the obsession it takes to create multiple accounts. You're a psychic now?
If you are accusing me of breaking rules here, please take it up with the moderators. Calling people out and making false accusations IS breaking the rules here. I have already been in contact with the moderators in regards to someone's extremely toxic behavior and have been assured they will be warned of that behavior. I have no problem contacting them again with you calling me out and falsely accusing me if that's what you want?
So, do yourself a service and read your cited link.
The link was provided for you as there was no logic in your posts so I took the liberty of helping you out. If you're not interested in learning how logic works, I have no problem pointing out those flaws in future posts as I have just accomplished with your false accusations.
-->
@ethang5
The same goes for you, I have no problem contacting the moderators again in regards to your behavior. They have assured me you will abide by the rules here, so it would be best for you to heed their warning.No, I'll wait till I get banned and then create sock puppets over and over to ask members in good standing how come they don't contribute.
Now, then gentlemen, are any of you willing to start posting something intelligent or not?
-->
@ATroubledMan
Enjoy your day, sir.
The same ones who banned you?I have no problem contacting the moderators...
I have no problem contacting the moderators...
Nor do you have a problem making sock puppets apparently.
(I couldn't decide on one response so I posted both)
They have assured me you will abide by the rules here, so it would be best for you to heed their warning.
Perhaps I should create a fake account and spam the board. Would they like that?
-->
@ethang5
I have not been banned and if you continue with the false accusations, I will report you to the moderators as I did before. Did the warning they gave you have no meaning?The same ones who banned you?
Perhaps I should create a fake account and spam the board. Would they like that?
Please do, but I'm sure they won't appreciate that.
Lol. OK Clyde.I have not been banned....
You create sock puppets as a hobby.
Lol!
I will report you to the moderators...
Which account will you use to do so?
-->
@ethang5
I have used this account to report you to the moderators yet again for name calling and false accusations.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Wouldn't it be better if you used all of your sock puppets?
This 23-day-old forum sounds like is leaving its original purpose. Now the 3 last active members are just trying to report one of them.
I would say that God CAN certainly exist, although I can't prove it. This sense is equivalent to that you know your phone is not broken, but you can't find it.
-->
@ethang5
I have reported that post, as well. You're digging quite a deep hole for yourself.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Sure I am Willows.
I may have the record for most posts reported from a sock puppet account.
-->
@ethang5
That you may.I may have the record for most posts reported from a sock puppet account.
But more relevant are your records for:
1) Insulting the most people.
2) Using the word "moron"
3) Getting things horribly wrong.
-->
@Athias
But still no proof.
You see, things can be as complex or as simple as you care to make them...….Neologisms this and epistemological bullshit that.
But the bottom line remains the same.
Have a nice day sir.
The following is the OP of this thread, please try to get back on topic (or otherwise start new threads for the massively diverging topics):
Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?
-->
@Barney
Hello Ragnar.
Most religion threads have a tendency to evolve in a similar way.
Nonetheless, I will now leave this one alone altogether, confident in the knowledge that my point has been validated
Regards.
-->
@zedvictor4
What was the gist of your conclusion? (yeah, I'm not reading through the nine pages)I will now leave this one alone altogether, confident in the knowledge that my point has been validated
-->
@Barney
Well.
One was not disputing religion or faith or belief.... Confidence and acceptance of ones own thoughts (or data constructs as I refer to them), should be a given right.
All that one was asking, was for Theists to be honest and admit that they had no actual proof of their chosen god....(Real physical evidence that can be shown to a sceptic such as myself.)
As there has been no evidence to the contrary forthcoming. I am therefore confident that the truism as presented is in fact correct
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think you've proven a bloody thing, because both questions of the OP are negative claims, as in neither camp can prove their respective camp leaders. In fact, one camp[ #1] tells the other camp [#2] that they do not recognize there is a camp leader to deny, and the opposing camp tells the first camp that the first camp's alleged camp leader is a myth.
Out of that construct, adding that a logical argument cannot be made to prove a negative, what proof do you expect? It does not help to propose a logical cat's cradle.
Your argument has no sides on which to hold. As Theodore Roethke said of a woman, "She has more sides than a seal."
-->
@fauxlaw
One wasn't trying to prove a "bloody thing".
Anyway last post on this thread.
Regards.
-->
@zedvictor4
<br>I am therefore confident that the truism as presented is in fact correct
-->
@Tyran_R
And yet your sock puppets keep getting deleted. What am I getting wrong loser?Getting things horribly wrong.
-->
@fauxlaw
Out of that construct, adding that a logical argument cannot be made to prove a negative, what proof do you expect? It does not help to propose a logical cat's cradle.
He's fully aware of the illogic in his argument fauxlaw.
His payday is when he claims, "there has been no evidence to the contrary" forthcoming."
No evidence of what? That atheist cannot prove God doesn't exist, and that theists can't prove God exists.
But, as Athias demonstrated, this is nonsense, as non-existence cannot be "proven", and his claim that "no evidence to the contrary" is forthcoming, is a lie.
What he means is that he accepts no evidence, which is a very different thing from no evidence actually existing.
He claims there is absolutely no evidence, but cannot explain why so many millions over so many centuries have believed otherwise.
-->
@zedvictor4
@fauxlaw
I am therefore confident that the truism as presented is in fact correct
I don't think you've proven a bloody thing,
He alleges that he wasn't trying to prove a thing yet argues and sustains that his claim is true.
Here's his body of work as it concerns my exchange with him:
You are not being honest.You are assuming that words alone can prove the existence of a God.People have been employing this tactic for centuries and it simply doesn't work.
Yes one admires your cognitive and literary capabilities.Nonetheless your reply was self explanatory. In so much has your reply was only confirmation of what I expressed previously.Clever but ultimately futile.
Notice his immediate attempt to make this exchange about that which he believes are my personal characteristics.
Show me God.Nonetheless lets dial back.The truism nor the atheist has ever sought to deny the existence of a god.In fact the atheist and the truism emphatically state that the existence of a god cannot be disproved.Nor has the truism or the atheist asked that the theist should prove the existence of a god.Nor has the atheist or the truism suggested that the theist should stop believing in a god.Therefore the atheist is being honest.All that the atheist asks is for the theist to also be honest and accept the truism.So why can theists not be honest?
Notice the contradiction. He argued that sustaining his claim didn't mean that an atheist "asked" that a theist prove the existence of God. Yet his criterion for proof, for something he claims can neither be proven nor disproven, is to "Show [him] God."
You have a basic misunderstanding of atheism.The atheist cannot deny something that cannot be denied.The atheist simply does not believe.And if gods are not physical then they are an assumption.And the truism remains just as ever.Be honest...No amount of your clever words will ever prove the existence of a god.The honest atheist is certain that they cannot disprove the existence of gods and therefore has nothing to prove.So the truism remains so.
Notice how he never substantiates the veracity of his claim and just merely repeats that his claim is true. Also notice once again, how he attempts to qualify the argument with mentions of my "clever words" rather than providing a substantial rebuttal or counterargument, not to mention his O.P.'s insinuation that Theists are being "dishonest."
Oddly, for such a wordsmith, you appear to also have a basic misunderstanding of the word belief.
Once again, he attempts to qualify the discussion with that which he believes is my personal characteristics despite my frequent rebuffs.
And this is perhaps his most substantial contribution:
Well."Epistemology" is what it is and does nothing to explain or reduce the dilemma that is, mans uncertainty. Epistemology is just another internal exercise concerning the manipulation and ordering of data.So we accept operational parameters within a certain level of internal certainty based upon acquired data.Therefore a concept is the internal manipulation of data and as such gods are internally valid and therefore able to be regarded as an internal certainty and I would imagine that no reasonable person would deny the existence of gods as an internal, conceptual certainty. Similarly no reasonable person would seek to deny the theists ability to convert their internal certainty into an assumed external reality (belief).Nonetheless, the theist makes an assumption based upon internal processes. They assume that their interpretation of data and god concept unequivocally proves the existence of a god as an external reality.... If this is not correct, then why does the theist struggle to accept the truism?All that the truism asks, is for the theist to be honest and accept their god concept for what it is and also for what it has become, which is an internal certainty and a consequent assumption.
Notice that he dismisses epistemology without substantiation, merely relegating it to an "internal process." He argues the concept of "certainty" which is fundamentally relative, yet as I repeatedly demonstrated the discussion over certainty is futile as it concerns an external reality because it's logically incoherent to relate our experience to that which we can't perceive--an admission he himself tacitly makes.
Also, notice his strawman argument--the part which I've emboldened.
Same old same old.I think that I will refer to it as Athiasism.So prove the existence of an external god then.And how do you think that knowledge/information/data (other than inherent functionality) gets into your brain?......I would suggest, acquisition.The term acquired data is therefore aptly descriptive.
Notice how he resorts to a tone argument by creating a neologism. Furthermore, notice how he extends his strawman argument to his demand for proof for an "external" God despite just earlier his asserting that sustaining his claim meant that "the truism or the atheist [has not] asked that the theist should prove the existence of a god."
And if you look at the fourth line, you'll notice how he fails to substantiate his claim of acquired data, instead appealing to his own incredulity and attempting to reconcile by repeating his claim.
At he end of the proverbial day Athias.The best that we can both do is assume that we are certain of something.And I assume that there is an externality and that the mass has internality.And as there is no consistency in the god concept it is reasonable to assume that assumed gods are sometimes assumed to be external, but nonetheless, the internal concept in what ever form, is only resultant of internal data manipulation rather than an externally real god..All that one asks is for proof of the external god rather than for proof of an internal assumption or concept.One doesn't doubt the nature of the internal concept, what one doubts is the existence of the external god.So hard proof please and less Athiasims.
And here once again, he concedes that his notion of reality is nothing more than mere assumption. And in an inconsistent grasp of logic, he demands proof of the logically incoherent "externality," which is nothing more than a strawman argument he continues to extend.
Zedvictor, you only "presented" your claim. You never substantiated its veracity.
-->
@Athias
Athias, have mercy. Perhaps you should argue with half your brain tied behind your back. That wouldn't make it fair, but it might make it less of a mismatch.
-->
@Athias
Point proven.
Theists will not be honest.
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already.
On what grounds do you conclude that processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind?
-->
@Mdh2000
On what grounds do you conclude that processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind?
The real world, our day to day observations. Perhaps you can share with me processes that occur all by themselves? as far as I can tell processes are associated with minds (intelligence) involved.
Process-
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
a systematic series of actions directed to some end
to treat or prepare by some particular series of actions, as in manufacturing
a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner
a series of actions that you take in order to achieve a result