And I have said so before also. I may not have said this directly to you, but I'll say it again. If you take your emotion and ego out of this conversation, you may learn something.
I already know how to play "let's pretend". I don't need you to teach me that.
The problem is your
ego. You're the one coming here and saying that their ideas are worth any sort of consideration, even though you have given no reason to consider them other than "you might learn something".
First, that was just a joke. Second, you jump to the incorrect assumption that I think you live in the US and then go on to say that you don't and what you would do if you DID live in the US. And why get so offended when you're reading a US based message board when someone might incorrectly assume they're talking to Americans? Put your flag on your avatar or something if it offends you so much.
It says my country on my profile page,as it does for all of us. As for it being a joke, I doubt that since there was nothing even potentially humourous about it that would allow it to qualify as even a bad one. It was most likely simply a case of you attempting to be a douche, as seems to be your typical MO.
As for being offended, I wasn't. I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of what you said.
I don't have to. There is no ego involved in calling something that is pointless and stupid, pointless and stupid.
Also saying "ego check" does not constitute an argument against the accusation made. There was no reason to even say such a thing. So essentially, you responded to the accusation of your words being pointless and stupid with something that was equally so. Congratulations.
What is there to respond to? You are correct. According to the static definitions, you can go ahead and classify my arguments that way. I'm not going to argue with something you've already got made up in your mind. I'm wasting time trying to convince you that there are argubly other forms of proof and I've moved on. Why beat a dead horse? You're not seeing my pov.
It's so much easier to make fallacy than it is to actually discuss and argue a point, isn't it?
It's not something I've made up in my mind. It's how the words are used. You see we humans use words to communicate. We are able to do this because the words that we use have meanings which we have learned to recognize. If you randomly change the meanings of words then effective communication has become impossible. Take note of how pretty much every person in this thread has made comment on your ideas being either vague, nonsensical, nuts, or similiar term at some point so far. This is because you're changing words from the way they are being used and then attempting to make arguments. If you can't even communicate your ideas in a manner that is possible to understand then no one can actually "learn" anything from you can they?Aside: Is anyone else on this forum saddened by the fact that I have to explain the basics of human language and communication to a grown person, or is it just me?
For example, "other forms of proof". Such as what? Proof has a defined meaning. There are certain standards as to what constitutes proof, which we have already established that you cannot meet. So no, there are no "other forms of proof" unless you've changed the meaning of the word. In which case, we can't communicate with you because we don't know the definition of "proof" that you're using because it is not "proof" as defined by the rest of humanity. Furthermore since this definition of "proof" is completely in your head then the definition effectively changes to suit your whim. In which case everything can possibly be considered "proof", and consequently renders the entire concept of "proof" meaningless.
You see, I am seeing your point of view, it's stupid, but I do see it. What you have failed to answer at all is why your point of view has any value in a discussion. All you say is that if I take my ego out of the equation I might learn something. Except that my ego isn't in this equation and you have yet to show that it is. From what we can see it seems to be your ego that is the issue as you're the one who is trying to make the english language twist itself to his wishes because he can't make his arguments using the way the language actually works.
As for learning, you have nothing to teach. You can't even communicate your ideas in an effective manner. You don't even have a desire too, as evidenced by this last part in particular.
From the beginning of this I have stated that what you have to say is meaningless and indistinuishable from mentall illness (which is a fact), but here's the thing. I've also asked you to justify why I should think otherwise over and over again. I've given you every opportunity to change my mind about this. I have outright asked you to give me some reason to accept what you have to say as anything other than ramblings. Instead you wrote me off as having "static definitions" and have said that you're "wasting time" trying to convince me. Something that you can't actually know because not once have you put any effort into trying to convince me of anything
. So yes, I do remain unconviced. You keep saying that I should learn something, but you won't put in any effort to try and teach. Then you blame me and my "ego" when I was the one expending all of the effort.You
are the one that has been rigid and unwilling to be accepting. I simply stated the facts and then asked you to present your case. I gave you the chance to change my mind and to maybe teach me something. I also gave you the opportunity to maybe learn something (which is how it should be in a proper discussion) and you did not take that either. Again, it seems to be your ego that is getting in the way here.
This is why you should care about what I'm saying -- you might learn something. I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but the lesson might not be obvious so I'll paint a picture.
Again, you make no effort to teach anything. Also saying that you're not trying to be arrogant rings very hollow when your entire position is based on it.
Maybe, you'll learn how one particular theist thinks. Maybe, if you listen with an unbiased ear and hear what this theist is trying to say, you'll figure him out.
This is a base assumption on your part, though. You're simply assuming that I have some sort of bias. You're also assuming that I don't or can't figure you out. As opposed to the possibility that I do understand and have figured you out, and just think you to be wrong.
You discover the arguments that make sense to him and those that don't and refine your game plan on this new found knowledge. You might discover that theists don't respond well to statistics, data, or proof and those things may actually drive a bigger wedge between the two sides.
Then that wedge needs to be driven even deeper. Statistics, data, and proof are the very issue here. What makes sense to you does not matter. What matters is what is true. There's nowhere that it was promised to you that reality was contractually obligated to make sense. This is why we use those bits of data, so that we can make sense of things. If someone doesn't respond to data and proof, then no argument about reality is ever going to make sense to them.
I'm going to try to explain this one more time, and perhaps you can actually put your
ego out of the way for just once and understand this.
Those statistics, data and proof are the only way that we humans have ever found which allows us to accurately recognize the difference between fantasy and reality. This is the problem that occurs with religion. Once you leave these behind (which is what religion must do) then there is no way to tell the two apart.
This is why there are tens of thousands of religions at this moment (nevermind the enormous number that have existed throughout history). This is why even within the same religion everyone has different ideas of their theism. Why everyone who claims to experience god always seems to experience a different god then the others. A god who (coincidentally) always agrees with what they want to be true. Because religion can never offer truth. It can only ever offer opinion.
If one religion says to love your neighbour, another says to kill anyone who does not follow your god, and a third says to dance naked through the streets spreading butter on your crotch every sunday there is no way of knowing which one is right because they all have the same evidence behind them and the same basis in reality. If the love your neighbours theists want to argue against the butter-crotch theists how do they do it? Any religious argument that they use to support their case can equally be used against them by the other side. They would have to go outside of their religious faith to actually make a case for themselves (rendering their faith basically useless).
When you get right down to it, this is the center of pretty much every bad thing that has ever occurred because of religion (the wars, Inquisitions, the racism, etc.). Religions inability to actually give us the truth about our world.
This might have been ok when we humans were in our infancy, limited to living our lives in the same few square miles of earth for most of our existence and hitting rocks with bigger rocks so that we can smaller rocks, but it doesn't work so good now. The world that we live in is global and we now have the ability to wipe out our entire species ten times over very quickly. There are problems now that affect more than just the little corner that one happens to live in, but the entire planet and our race. It's time for us to all get on the same page in regards to what reality is. We can't afford to have idiots running around starting pissing mathes to demonstrate who's made-up deity has the more magnificent "godhood". We need to come together, not be driven apart because someone's made up book doesn't like people who aren't part of the right clique. We should not be having dipshits who read a two thousand year old book having arguments with scientists who have spent hundreds of years of research over how life was created and evolved. Or how the universe was first formed.
That theists don't like statistics and data, is not some great revelation. We know that theists don't like those things and that they don't rely on those things. That's because those are the very things which call their beliefs into question (rather convenient wouldn't you say). However just because someone does not like something does not mean it isn't true. This is the point, to get to the truth whatever it might be. Theists had most of human history to do it their way, and what we got were millennia of war, ignorance, and a raft of morals that are shameful to us as a species. Religion has never produced anything positive that could not also have been gained without it.
Proof and data has gotten us to the moon. Not to mention cures, help for amputees (which god has never even tried to aid), computers, mapping of the human genone,etc.
This is why atheists use those things. Because they work, and they have improved our lives and our species more than anything else. Morality made greater leaps through philosophy and logic than it ever did because of theism. We know that theists don't respond well to them. However the alternative would be to start making things up like they do. Which would defeat the whole point and take us back
into being a more primitive people, not forward. At some point our species is going to have to decide whether we're going to accept reality or not. That's what drives the wedge between atheists and theists, one group wants to understand reality (whether it means there's a god or not), while the other side insists that there is a god and tries to bend reality around that.
This brings us back to another thing as well. Your "you might discover" bit.
I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating in this case. YY, you are not some brilliantly unique theist/pantheist/whatever that is here to impart some great insight to us so that we can unlock the secrets of the religious mind. You're the same as many other believers that come through here all claiming that they were touched in their special godplace by the divine hand and have a wonderful perspective to share with us. Nothing you have said is original or particularly enlightening. It's all been said before a thousand and one times, and (not actually meaning offense this time) said much better by others. Believe it or not, we actually know theists/pantheists in real life. They actually walk among us in the world.
We do understand, many of the people here were in your (or a similiar) position. Understanding your position, however, does not mean that someone accpepts it as valid. This is what I have been asking you over and over, and you still don't answer. Why should we accept what you say as anything other than moronic rambling?
Your position is understood. It is just that, like any other theist position it is vague, poorly thought-out, relies on fallacy, redefining words for seemingly no reason other than you don't like the real meanings, and is no more valid than something made up.
You are being questioned as to why one should change that analysis in regards to your position. Why should your words be treated differently than any other theists words. All of which are largely dismissed as irrelevant.
Also your whole speech still rings hollow when you've still made no actual effort to teach what you claim you are trying to get me to learn.
I've learned that I need to convince atheists with proof. I almost need to argue as if I were a lawyer,
Not like a lawyer. Just like an intelligent human being. Words are how we communicate and they have meanings. In any sort of scholarly activity precision with your words is important so that you convey your meaning properly and efficiently. Just moving a single comma can change the meaning of an entire sentence. In casual conversation it's not quite so important, but in conversations regarding important subjects it is.
If scientists used the word "theory" as freely as laymen do, it would screw things up quickly and royally. The same holds true for any other field of research and scholarly discussion, including debate. As far as I am aware, no human can read anothers mind, so the words you use need to be clear in conveying your information. This is why atheists seem to obsess over words that might not seem to be worth obessing over.
In example, many theists will try to re-define atheism as claiming that he god not exist. Whereas atheists will usually quickly point out that the word does not mean that, it means a lack of belief in a god.
This may seem merely semantic but it isn't. One is a rational statement while the other is not. Since you cannot (with some exceptions) prove non-existence then it would be illogical to state that there is no such thing as a god. Although you may be able to state such a thing about specific gods, if they are either contradictory in nature or conflict with observable reality. It also means that atheists have ruled out the possibility of a good ever being able to exist or ever having existed (which is also irrational without evidence to support it) The idea that there is not some sort of god out there is always a possibility. One which atheists admit to. One of the key principles that makes science work is that a scientist always leaves open the possibility that he can be proven wrong.
A lack of belief in gods however, is a completely reasonable position to take as there is no evidence to support the claim that any god exists. Lacking evidence, in fact, the only rational claim a person can make is that they reject the claim and don't believe it until evidence is provided.
The proper usage of the word is important, both for understanding the position actually being taken by atheists, and also so that we can understand how these things apply to the discussion. Since this is a subject that is of high importance and will probably only become more important as time goes on, we need to communicate properly and know what we are talking about.
except that lawyers can have a human jury which takes into account factors beyond scientific proof and sometimes come to a conclusion using emotion, and probably just as often come to incorrect conclusions with concrete data.
If the data was concrete, then the reason for the false conclusion was the jury itself failed to look at the data properly. This is a very bad analogy.
And you're calling me insane?
At no point did I call you insane. I said that your beliefs were indistinguishable from insanity. There is a difference.
I've been here about 15 times in the past 5 years and hear the same old tired arguments.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” ~~ Albert Einstein
As I mentioned before, I can only play the strings that I'm given. Since it's the ones who believe in a god that have the burden of proof I can only respond to the arguments that they use. Unfortunately they've been using the same twelve or so arguments for thousands of years. Just as their arguments have been failing for thousands of years. This is why they still have to fall back on faith.
Just kidding. I've only been here twice before.
Again, pointless and stupid.
But I have a very logical premise although you may not agree.
Seeing as how I had previously pointed out that you have no logic to your beliefs and you have just implicitly agreed to that, it seems that you don't have a logical premise (whatever your premise is since you didn't bother to state it).
More to the point though, once again I notice that you made no case for the logic of your premise. Simply asserted it. So again, no actual effort on your part to further any sort of discussion despite your repeated goal for us to learn something or to understand your position.
First, why waste your time writing up this long thought out post if I'm not welcome in your sandbox? Secondly, I'm writing here because the title of the entire thread has my NAME in it! How more direct can that be? Someone asked me a DIRECT question in the title of this thread, and it obviously wasn't you.
Because it was a valid question. You say you want to be understood. It was a rather pertinent question towards understanding you, don't you think? Why would you post in a forum when you clearly have no intention of following the rules that you agreed to when you signed up, or in participating in the manner in which the forum was intended. Not to mention in one where what you say is so clearly not going to be taken seriously.
Why come to a discussion/debate forum with no intention of doing either? It's a valid question, much in the same way it would be valid if I we were at a baseball game (which I have no interest in) and you asked me why I was there.
You're the one saying he wants to be understood.
Also, none of this actually addresses anything that was said in what you quoted. So I'm wondering why you bothered except in an attempt to create another diversion.
No, it's because nitpiks can't get past "where's the evidence?".
Again, you give no reason to. Nor have you attempted to give any reason to other than the fact that you think your ideas are worthy of some sort of special consideration that would not be given to other, similiar ideas.
Let me put it this way. If I wanted to talk to you about the underpants gnomes that live in my dresser drawer and eat holes in the fabric, would you give what I said serious consideration?
Again, the pointless "ego check" comment to substitute for your lack of ability to hold a conversation like an adult.
Consider our posts so far in this thread. In everything I have said I have justified my position, given reasons for my conclusions that I can support. Then I have turned around and given you the opportunity to openly make a case to show me wrong on this forum. Becasue there is always that possibility.
Yet you can't seem to do this. Every point I make is responded to with your "ego check" ad hominem, a red herring (or some other evasion attempt), and claims that I am somehow fundamentally incapable or unwilling to see your point, even though you have not even tried to make it. Instead of following the rules of the forum (evidence,etc.), you assert that they should instead bow to accomodate you. You seem to think that you're somehow not required to be held to the same standards that everyone else (theist and atheist) here is. That a two-word dismissive is the way to deal with valid and thought-out posts. You've even redefined parts of the english language just to accomodate what you want to believe and what you want to claim.
Now, this is not to say that I do not have a streak of arrogance in me (I've never once denied that fact), especially when I'm dealing with idiots and intellectually dishonest liars. I freely admit and accept this. However, what I have never done is allow that to interfere with my reasoning abilities or my ability to engage in a discussion. I have always been fully capable of accepting new ideas when there is a valid reason to actually accept them. I am completely capable of understanding the viewpoints of other people, even if I think these viewpoints are idiotic. This is because one can contemplate an idea without actually subscribing to it. As I do with non-logical beliefs such as yours. I understand your ideas, however they are still monumentally stupid and you have made no effort to demonstrate otherwise. So there is no ego involved in labelling your beliefs as useless and idiotic. I have shown why this is so and you have made no case to the contrary.
So the continued claim of "ego check" or "leave your ego out of the equation" is more than a little outright offensive. Now offensive I can handle and don't really care too much about. However what does encourage the bile to rise up in my throat is that it is also hypocritical and dishonest, and you do it so easily and with so little shame.
If you're going to accuse others of ego and bias, being a whiny, self-entitled, judgemental little shit-stain is most likely not the best way to portray yourself. Attacking someone as a response does not invalidate the points that they make, it merely makes you seem like a petulant child who needs to attack others so that they don't notice the weakness of his ideas. The same holds true for the red herrings and all of your other fallacies.
As I said, you're not much different from most of the theists that come here.