Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:I never claimed no evidence is possible, you did.

You just said you don't have to specify the kind of evidence you'd accept. Well, you can go round forever on that one. The theist knows just as well as I do that your request is disingenuous. You know no evidence is forthcoming. Or do you?

aban57 wrote:Any evidence will do.

You really don't understand specification, do you? You're welcome to play patty-cake with the theist for as long as you'd like. Keep in mind that life is short.

aban57 wrote:What I care about is this little thing called "reality". Maybe you're heard of it. "Real" things interact with our "real" world in a measurable, observable fashion.

As I say, you'll be waiting until the cows come home. Stop waiting and asking theists for evidence. You already acknowledge that god is not real. Or do you?

Is your root problem really that you understand theist claims cannot be proven wrong? That's what you get by asking for proof. You get to play patty-cake forever waiting for proof.

You're right, I don't see what you mean by specification in that context. Maybe you can explain us why you think theists claims can't be proven wrong ?

aban57 wrote:
You're right, I don't see what you mean by specification in that context. Maybe you can explain us why you think theists claims can't be proven wrong ?

I don't (myself) treat theist claims as truth-apt. Perhaps I misunderstood your requests for proof/evidence as implying you think theist claims are truth-apt, or (in another sense) empirical claims. To ask theists for evidence is to give far too much respect to their claims.

You don't care to try to prove them wrong, either, aban, so don't ask me for criteria you anticipate are impossible. Instead you demand they give you evidence or proof. Perhaps the problem is that you regard their claims as challenges demanding a response. You can't call their bluff by asking for evidence. They seldom recant their belief in the face of that, do they?

What I mean, for my part, is that I don't ask theists for evidence or proof, which would require me to wait around for them to deliver it. Along with that, I don't assume that I know what they denote by "God". If it's the creator god, we already dismiss that because of ignorant goat-roasters and the scope of modern cosmology. If you don't think the creator god is an absurd concept, for which you should not ask for evidence, why don't you think so?

To see what I mean, just give an example of what you think a typical theist claim is that you regard as something for which you should await evidence or proof. Try to imagine what specification you would give them so that they could answer you. The creator god discorporated ages ago for anyone who is not a theist.

Anyway: Specification. If a deity created the cosmos, what should the evidence be? Human consciousnessness or fee-fees? Why the literal fuck? If anyone thinks god is more than a feeling, there's that song from the 70s by Boston.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:
You're right, I don't see what you mean by specification in that context. Maybe you can explain us why you think theists claims can't be proven wrong ?

I don't (myself) treat theist claims as truth-apt. Perhaps I misunderstood your requests for proof/evidence as implying you think theist claims are truth-apt.

You don't care to try to prove them wrong, either, aban, so don't ask me for criteria you anticipate are impossible.

That's your circular reasoning, right here. Also you don't seem to understand that, so let me repeat it again : I don't anticipate anything. You're the only one here claiming their arguments are impossible to prove, refusing to explain why that would be. Not me. So again, stop repeating that lie about me.

And yes, I do care to try to prove them wrong, otherwise, why this talk ? Clearly you don't understand what's going on here, so I'll explain. I challenge all claims. Religious or not. Because lies have a negative impact. Some have little, others cause deaths. That's why I challenge all claims. And in the real world we're (some of us at least) living in, claims need evidence. Of any kind. No exception.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Instead you demand they give you evidence or proof. Perhaps the problem is that you regard their claims as challenges needing a response.

What I mean, for my part, is that I don't ask theists for evidence or proof, which would require me to wait around for them to deliver it.

I don't wait around waiting for anything. A claim is made, I ask evidence. There is none, the claim is bogus. As simple as that.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Along with that, I don't assume that I know what they denote by "God". If it's the creator god, we already dismiss that because of ignorant goat-roasters and the scope of modern cosmology. If you don't think the creator god is an absurd concept, for which you should not ask for evidence, why don't you think so?

Because, as I said, this type of reasoning plays right in their game. Faith is based on accepting any assertion just because it makes you feel good, and special. Your reasoning, in a way, comforts that way of thinking. Asking them to provide evidence, even for their already dismissed so-called "god", dismisses faith, tells them they (and their belief) have nothing special and don't deserve special treatment, just because they have faith, and replaces critical thinking as the only valuable way of thinking (when in search for what's real or not).

Cito di Pense wrote:
To see what I mean, just give an example of what you think a typical theist claim is that you regard as something for which you should await evidence or proof. Try to imagine what specification you would give them so that they could answer you.

I already did that, with the flood example. If you're talking about god specifically, I would ask how they think their god know what we think, how he hears prayers, and how he interacts with our world. For starters.

aban57 wrote:
I don't wait around waiting for anything. A claim is made, I ask evidence. There is none, the claim is bogus. As simple as that.

SImple is as simple does.

You don't really understand theoretical physics, do you? Theoretical physics claims are not bogus simply (there's your simple fucking word) because evidence has not yet been procured. That's when a request for evidence is appropriate. In the case of deities, you (that is, we) anticipate that evidence is not to be expected, because there is no theoretical framework by means of which the hypothesis of a deity was proposed. It was proposed by ignorant goat-roasters who lacked any theoretical framework and we don't expect that evidence fitting a very fuckwitted "theoretical framework" is going to appear magically because wibbling about deities is a tradition.

The General Theory of Relativity was not bogus simply (word, again) because it took some time to acquire evidence for it. This is why asking theists to present evidence is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy borrowed from the field of science, borrowed by those feigning ignorance (or sometimes outright skepticism) of rigorous theoretical frameworks. Do you get this, yet, or do I have to spell it out in even more detail? If so, this is how that is going to go: You name a theoretical framework and specify in terms of that framework what the evidence should look like, and that is called a prediction of the theoretical framework. If you don't respect actual theoretical frameworks, and quake in your boots that theism represents a theoretical framework making predictions of deities, that's going to continue to be your problem, and not mine at all.

aban57 wrote:And yes, I do care to try to prove them wrong, otherwise, why this talk?

Well, best of fucking luck with all that. Be sure to look at the track record, which is the evidence of how well that all works. If you're confused that your inability to prove them wrong means they're right, your confusion is your problem, and not mine. If it's not been clear that I have scant interest in theist claims, and more in the dimwitted claims of so-called skeptics, now it is.

aban57 wrote:Your reasoning, in a way, comforts that way of thinking.

Oboy. On top of everything else you've blown out your ass in this conversation, you're accusing me of giving aid and comfort. You must really be desperate to cling to your failed strategy.

Wortfish is a very, very conventional creationist theist (or else, he's just trolling, here), and you're making the accusation that what I've said bolsters creationism. Think of me as a backslider in the secular humanist religion.

Bullshit, word salad, and more bullshit. Of course I know there's a slight possibility that something ressembling a god might exist, and we'll discover it in the future.
But theists claim their god interact with our world. They claim it exists in our world. If it does, then this existence must be provable by evidence of this world. And if in 50 years we discover that it exists and interacts with us in ways we by then can observe, and have evidence for, then I'll do as all critical thinkers do, and update my knowledge and opinion.

aban57 wrote:Of course I know there's a slight possibility that something ressembling a god might exist, and we'll discover it in the future.

You know?

Sendraks wrote:

aban57 wrote:Of course I know there's a slight possibility that something ressembling a god might exist, and we'll discover it in the future.

You know?

What do you mean ?

aban57 wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

aban57 wrote:Of course I know there's a slight possibility that something ressembling a god might exist, and we'll discover it in the future.

You know?

What do you mean ?

What do you mean?

aban57 wrote:Of course I know there's a slight possibility that something ressembling a god might exist, and we'll discover it in the future.

You didn't compute a probability. You can't. So you know shit, basically. What you're trying to talk about is that knowledge is provisional, but that just means anything you know now is provisional, like the geography of the Balkans, or (indeed) the plate tectonic arrangement of landmasses. Something you don't know yet isn't provisional. It's a speculation, and it's not theoretical physics, except in restricted contexts, as when there's a theoretical framework. Even then, even if something resembles something else, you'd best consult somebody subject to confirmation bias on the topic of how resemblance works. Possibility is specified in relation to a proposition about which one has hope. Don't tell me about your hopes.

aban57 wrote:I'll do as all critical thinkers do, and update my knowledge and opinion.

You have no reason to expect that you will ever need to do that. You're looking under your bed for spooks. So far, you haven't found any. How many times are you going to keep looking?

Resemblance? My ass is what that speculation resembles.

I mean that I'm aware that we don't know everything, and that some entity could exist without us being aware of it right now, and interact with us in ways we can't imagine today. Of course, such entity would be totally different from what theists so far have been claiming their god(s) is/are, but hey, cognitive dissonance hasn't bothered them so far.

aban57 wrote:I mean that I'm aware that we don't know everything,

What does that have to do with deities?

aban57 wrote:some entity could exist without us being aware of it right now, and interact with us in ways we can't imagine today

But why the fuck would you call some unspecified entity a 'deity'? Doesn't that have some sort of definition? It would depend on how it interacts with us. If it didn't interact like a deity, we would not call it a deity. But, how is that, anyway? Specifications, please.

Unimagined theoretical frameworks, right? No. Speculations. There could be a spook under your bed, if you properly specify 'spook' as 'dustball'. Sure, if you want to entertain spooks, be my guest. Enough said.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:Of course I know there's a slight possibility that something ressembling a god might exist, and we'll discover it in the future.

You didn't compute a probability. You can't. So you know shit, basically. What you're trying to talk about is that knowledge is provisional, but that just means anything you know now is provisional, like the geography of the Balkans, or (indeed) the plate tectonic arrangement of landmasses. Something you don't know yet isn't provisional. It's a speculation, and it's not theoretical physics, except in restricted contexts, as when there's a theoretical framework. Even then, even if something resembles something else, you'd best consult somebody subject to confirmation bias on the topic of how resemblance works. Possibility is specified in relation to a proposition about which one has hope. Don't tell me about your hopes.

You like mental masturbation don't you ? Because that's what it is. You can only analyse a situation based on what you know. You can only bear judgment based on what you know.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:I'll do as all critical thinkers do, and update my knowledge and opinion.

You have no reason to expect that you will ever need to do that. You're looking under your bed for spooks. So far, you haven't found any. How many times are you going to keep looking?

Resemblance? My ass is what that speculation resembles.

I have no expectation of that happening anytime, yet it happens everyday on other topics.

Cito di Pense wrote:

But why the fuck would you call some unspecified entity a 'deity'?

I won't, theists will. Can't you get that in your fucking head ?

aban57 wrote:
You like mental masturbation don't you ?

I'm taking apart something you said. Maybe you can pass a law against doing that, or sue me in the World Court.

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

But why the fuck would you call some unspecified entity a 'deity'?

I won't, theists will. Can't you get that in your fucking head ?

If it quacks like a duck, you'll call it a fucking duck. Even if it comes from a hunter's duck call pipe.

This is all about how much you care what theists think, isn't it? Your fee-fees. I've thought so from the beginning.

Cito di Pense wrote:

I'm taking apart something you said.

Yes, you have. Conveniently avoiding to address the lies and misrepresentations in the previous posts, and then coated it with nonsense, which I addressed but you never answered. Again. And then you changed the topic. Typical theist behavior. I'm done with this bullshit.

felltoearth wrote:So the quote mined from The Blind Watchmaker is in a chapter about the diversity of life on earth and the role of evolution by natural selection in bringing it about. It's not about how evolution kickstarted life.

In fact, we have this.

Another swing and a miss wortfish.

Dawkins has always downplayed the origin of life. In the interview, he clearly lumped the origin with the diversity of life: DARWINISM EXPLAINS LIFE, PERIOD

I empathise with banning people...there's chewing toys and then there's a prodigious waste of time.

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:So the quote mined from The Blind Watchmaker is in a chapter about the diversity of life on earth and the role of evolution by natural selection in bringing it about. It's not about how evolution kickstarted life.

In fact, we have this.

Another swing and a miss wortfish.

Dawkins has always downplayed the origin of life. In the interview, he clearly lumped the origin with the diversity of life: DARWINISM EXPLAINS LIFE, PERIOD

You are being disingenuous, or you are a moron. Take your pick

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:So the quote mined from The Blind Watchmaker is in a chapter about the diversity of life on earth and the role of evolution by natural selection in bringing it about. It's not about how evolution kickstarted life.

In fact, we have this.

Another swing and a miss wortfish.

Dawkins has always downplayed the origin of life. In the interview, he clearly lumped the origin with the diversity of life: DARWINISM EXPLAINS LIFE, PERIOD

WATER IS DRY, PERIOD!
PIGS CAN FLY, PERIOD!

See how putting counterfactual assertions in all caps doesn't magically make it true?