|
Post by Gino Ryder on Feb 19, 2012 1:24:49 GMT
Sorry to butt in guys, but I can't help pointing out a couple of things. First of all, I've checked the post in question and indeed flyingteapot did say those words. I'm not taking sides but it is clear what was said. I'll leave it up to you two to take it from there.
Secondly, flyingteapot, please do not call another poster a liar simply because of a disagreement or a (possible) misunderstanding. Let's keep it civil.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 19, 2012 16:54:15 GMT
For the record, you have 100% denied that you said the following, which is from paragraph 11 of Reply #45, which is the first post displayed on this very page : "Your efforts to misunderstand me leave me very impressed. Congratulations! Words cannot describe how well you manage to misunderstand me (deliberately?) on a regular basis. I did not say since there is no reason to believe in god, there is no god. What I said was Since there is no god, I don't believe in a god. I hope this is easy to understand for you , especially since you don't seem to be able to fathom the simplest of things." I wanted to give you a chance to refer to what you yourself said, but since you have repeatedly denied it, it's right here in black and white (I would never have let this pass without quoting you if necessary - clearly it has become necessary). Of course, you could have just scrolled up, quoted yourself, and then justified your words, but obviously you didn't want to do that. I haven't altered what I have copied, except to bold the bit in question. You can verify this for yourself. So, we can now see that you said "Since there is no god...". When a person says "Since...", what follows is presumed by the person saying it to be a statement of fact. You therefore stated that there is no god (unless you speak a dialect of english which works differently to the version I'm accustomed to - but there is no evidence for that). You have a chance now to explain what you said. Was it a mistake? You are quite right. I did say those words. I apologize. I shouldn't have called you a liar. I hope you accept this apology. I was at work while typing off that reply and apparently missed to insert the words "evidence for" in between "there is no" and "god". I meant to say that Since there is no evidence for god, I don't believe in god. I don't think that is a poor line of thinking or logic at all. You had turned this logic on its head and made my conclusion the premise. You said that because I have no reason to believe in god, there is no god. This was clearly not what I was saying at all.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 19, 2012 17:05:16 GMT
I'll never accept your apology. You just fucked with the wrong theist. Just kidding, apology accepted. It's not even necessary, you just typed the wrong thing, a bti lkei this. It happens. Maybe it was an act of God (I have evidence of this, by the way). It was just so weird seeing you deny that you'd said it, and quoting you would have been too easy which is why I just wanted to see how far you'd go in denying it first. That was bizarre, and quite funny, you must admit.
Ok but now let's look at what you meant to say :
"Since there is no evidence for god, I don't believe in god"
Atheists always accuse theists of making claims without evidence. Do you see where I'm going with this?
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 20, 2012 3:44:08 GMT
I'll never accept your apology. You just fucked with the wrong theist. Just kidding, apology accepted. It's not even necessary, you just typed the wrong thing, a bti lkei this. It happens. Maybe it was an act of God (I have evidence of this, by the way). It was just so weird seeing you deny that you'd said it, and quoting you would have been too easy which is why I just wanted to see how far you'd go in denying it first. That was bizarre, and quite funny, you must admit. Ok but now let's look at what you meant to say : "Since there is no evidence for god, I don't believe in god" Atheists always accuse theists of making claims without evidence. Do you see where I'm going with this? LOL. Point taken. But let's not generalize. I certainly do not accuse anyone of anything unless there is evidence. I was working under the assumption that I said "Since there is no evidence for a god, I do not believe in a god." I will ignore the last few posts since we both were talking about something that I didn't mean to say.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 20, 2012 3:44:28 GMT
Sorry to butt in guys, but I can't help pointing out a couple of things. First of all, I've checked the post in question and indeed flyingteapot did say those words. I'm not taking sides but it is clear what was said. I'll leave it up to you two to take it from there. Secondly, flyingteapot, please do not call another poster a liar simply because of a disagreement or a (possible) misunderstanding. Let's keep it civil. Thank you. You are right. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 20, 2012 12:42:41 GMT
Ok, remember how earlier I kept saying that you had (effectively - with the use of the word "since...") stated that there's no god? Well that's what you're doing with regards to the concept of there being no evidence for god. You're basically stating that there's no evidence for god, right? If that's the case (which it seems to be - correct me if I'm wrong) then where is the evidence for that? That's what I mean by atheists accusing theists of saying stuff with no evidence. You appear to be saying that there is no evidence. But on what evidence do you base that conclusion?
I'd understand if you said that you've not personally encountered anything which you feel you could reasonably regard as possible evidence of god. If you are stating that there's no evidence of god (which again, it appears to be the case) then how on earth can you possibly know this? Would it not be wiser to just say I dunno, I haven't seen evidence?
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 21, 2012 5:59:30 GMT
Ok, remember how earlier I kept saying that you had (effectively - with the use of the word "since...") stated that there's no god? Well that's what you're doing with regards to the concept of there being no evidence for god. You're basically stating that there's no evidence for god, right? If that's the case (which it seems to be - correct me if I'm wrong) then where is the evidence for that? That's what I mean by atheists accusing theists of saying stuff with no evidence. You appear to be saying that there is no evidence. But on what evidence do you base that conclusion? I'd understand if you said that you've not personally encountered anything which you feel you could reasonably regard as possible evidence of god. If you are stating that there's no evidence of god (which again, it appears to be the case) then how on earth can you possibly know this? Would it not be wiser to just say I dunno, I haven't seen evidence? If you can show mw the evidence for a god, I am open to it. Personal anecdotes, opinions etc do not count as evidence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 21, 2012 13:55:35 GMT
Hold on just a minute. Read my post one more time. It is me that is asking you a question.
Your claim : There is no evidence for god. You didn't say that you haven't come across evidence, you said there is none.
My question : How do you know? It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and it deserves an answer.
There are 2 possible answers to this question which I have asked you :
a) I don't
b) I do, and here's why I know (followed by evidence of how you know)
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 22, 2012 4:47:35 GMT
Hold on just a minute. Read my post one more time. It is me that is asking you a question. Your claim : There is no evidence for god. You didn't say that you haven't come across evidence, you said there is none. My question : How do you know? It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and it deserves an answer. There are 2 possible answers to this question which I have asked you : a) I don't b) I do, and here's why I know (followed by evidence of how you know) Alright, Let me answer that then. I don't know. To make my meaning perfectly clear, let me say this: I have not come across any evidence for god, and no one has been able to provide the same to me. Since I have not seen evidence for a god, I don't believe in a god. Is that perfectly clear? Anyway, the point is atheism is a response. It is the response that I just gave you.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 22, 2012 13:23:03 GMT
This means then that your statement earlier ("there is no evidence for god") is wrong. Or, more accurately, it's not a statement which you're in a position to make. It's wrong to make such a statement. I don't want you to feel that I'm being confrontational or smug when I say this, it's just a clarification of what you said, as far as I can make out.
You also said earlier that if there's evidence for god (which is ironic given that you said there is none, but have now retracted), you are open to it. Which is confusing. You're an atheist, how can this be? How am I to be convinced that you are indeed open to evidence?
Incidentally, you say that you've not come across evidence for god. In what ways have you searched for any evidence? And, just as importantly, what type of evidence would you expect it to be, in other words, what type of evidence have you sought?
|
|