Philosophy Now Forum

Notvacka wrote:

attofishpi wrote:You still dont consider that God could result from physical, material causes.

Nothing resulting from physical, material causes would fit my definition of God.

Yes i'm sure there are masses of people with the same opinion.

mickthinks wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it.

That's an interesting assertion, chaz! How do you decide that you truly know something, and what makes you think you only think you know something?

What makes you think your question is valid?

chaz wyman wrote:

mickthinks wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it.

That's an interesting assertion, chaz! How do you decide that you truly know something, and what makes you think you only think you know something?

What makes you think your question is valid?

That's a deflection, chaz, and a clumsy one. The question is difficult for you to answer because it exposes the nonsense inherent in your pronouncement on attofishpi's knowlege claim. I expected you to duck it, and I think that reflects badly on you.

mickthinks wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
What makes you think your question is valid?

That's a deflection, chaz, and a clumsy one. The question is difficult for you to answer because it exposes the nonsense inherent in your pronouncement on attofishpi's knowlege claim. I expected you to duck it, and I think that reflects badly on you.

Nope.
There is no ducking here. Rather than attack me personally, why don't you show me how and why the the question is valid.
Put up or shut up.

CARRY ON DUCKING

chaz wyman wrote:

mickthinks wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it.

That's an interesting assertion, chaz! How do you decide that you truly know something, and what makes you think you only think you know something?

What makes you think your question is valid?

The question is valid Chaz, you made the assertion and micthinks is questioning the logic of your assertion.

What came first, the noun...a bird called a duck, then the verb became associated with it since it tends to fly low? Or vice versa?

I normally call it a Chaz copout but either way, as mickthinks said,

CARRY ON DUCKING

mickthinks wrote:
CARRY ON DUCKING

Why don't you show me how and why the the question is valid.
Put up or shut up!

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

mickthinks wrote:]The question is valid Chaz, you made the assertion and micthinks is questioning the logic of your assertion.

What came first, the noun...a bird called a duck, then the verb became associated with it since it tends to fly low? Or vice versa?

I normally call it a Chaz copout but either way, as mickthinks said,

Why don't you show me how and why the the question is valid.
Put up or shut up!

STOP DUCKING!!!

chaz wyman wrote:"...... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it."

How, or in what context is that a valid assertion?

attofishpi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:"...... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it."

How, or in what context is that a valid assertion?

Because people believe things that are false all the time.

Knowledge requires more that just wish fulfilment; and believing is not truth. It is yearning for truth, a claim of truth, a plea for truth.

I feel under no obligation to accept your claim of knowledge, though I acknowledge your claim for belief.

Any fool can claim knowledge. For example I know you are a 4' 1" dwarf.

Huh Wuh! What, umm,,, people in the 21st century are still going for the god schtick and they have ipods also? WTF! I mean, the obvious analogy is,,,,,superstitious caveman marvels at the sharpness of the obsidian rock flake, lol
But I accept 'godness consciousness', nevertheless, because the people I love and respect believe in this almighty Dude, it is their constitution and I believe in the right of anyone to believe in whatever, as long as they don't ban beer, hah.
Why argue about it like Dawkins, just deal with tolerance and anyway, when the shit hits the fan, religionists always revert back to there instinctual drives, look at all the religious christian wars of the past 2000 yrs. Damn! All this hate over a presumed god, when us atheists sit on the porch drinking beer after some daily community building with some genuine religionists, whatever god, it's not worth arguing over, really. .

Piltdownbrain wrote:Huh Wuh! What, umm,,, people in the 21st century are still going for the god schtick and they have ipods also? WTF! I mean, the obvious analogy is,,,,,superstitious caveman marvels at the sharpness of the obsidian rock flake, lol

What is your point? That atheists invented the ipod and theists are superstitious idiots?

This is what grinds my gears with you atheists. You think that atheism has a mandate on science which truly makes you rather pretentious. There are masses of theist scientists that can see past the dogma of religion, so get off your pedestal.

It is high time that all atheists have the intelligence to admit that they DONT comprehend the complexity of reality...thus the stance of agnosticism is far more reasonable.

chaz wyman wrote:Any fool can claim knowledge. For example I know you are a 4' 1" dwarf.

Well then, you truly are a fool.

attofishpi wrote:

Piltdownbrain wrote:Huh Wuh! What, umm,,, people in the 21st century are still going for the god schtick and they have ipods also? WTF! I mean, the obvious analogy is,,,,,superstitious caveman marvels at the sharpness of the obsidian rock flake, lol

What is your point? That atheists invented the ipod and theists are superstitious idiots?

This is what grinds my gears with you atheists. You think that atheism has a mandate on science which truly makes you rather pretentious. There are masses of theist scientists that can see past the dogma of religion, so get off your pedestal.

It is high time that all atheists have the intelligence to admit that they DONT comprehend the complexity of reality...thus the stance of agnosticism is far more reasonable.

you're generous, I am more the agnostic, I have heard ghosts and seen strange lights and had premonitions, however, I do not construct an institution on mere superficialities, and I would rather such mysteries remain as they are. It also grinds my gears that theists likewise missionarianize(Jeezus, I invented a word)their spiritual narrative all over the world! My words are genetic reflex defence mechanisms.

chaz wyman wrote:I feel under no obligation to accept your claim of knowledge, though I acknowledge your claim for belief.

This would have been reasonable if you had stopped there, chaz, but you went further than not accepting. You actually denied the claim as if you knew it were false. In other words, you made a competing knowledge claim, and you made it on the grounds that knowledge claims are foolish.

Now I think everyone else here can see how foolish that was of you, but you need it to be spelt out. No surprise there ...