Answers to prayers?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What about intersubjectivity with regard to morality or liking marmite?
Are you saying that this has the same status?

What about it, and the same status as what?

[ippy]

Dear Ippy

How is it the odds?
What are the Odds?
Give one argument against?

Yours not holding breath for any answers from you

Vlad

Have another read of my post and then try to understand how it relates to Owl's post, if you can?

If you manage to understand my post in its context you'll see that this post of yours is meaningless Vlad.

That's assuming you're not doing your best to not understand?

ippy

[ippy]

  If only you could prove the above or show understanding by revealing what in the bible would support your statements. With God as my guard and guide you will never be able to do anything to substantiate your statement, but thanks for the welcome back.

What Sass? No biblical text? A bit of a short reply from you? Worrying?

I like and enjoy all of the exchanges we have here on the forum and In a way enjoy the company of everybody, it's only a difference of points of view, even my wife disagrees with me sometimes? It doesn't mean that I dislike her and ditto the people that post here on the forum Sass.

What's it going to take to convert you to Atheism Sass?

ippy

[Owlswing]

But I'm afraid atheists see the word faith as LIES or BOLLOCKS.

You should be afraid - atheist belief is as much faith as religion, their faith is that the gods do not exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

You should be afraid - atheist belief is as much faith as religion, their faith is that the gods do not exist.

Nope. Our reasoning is that there are no cogent arguments to demonstrate that gods do exist.

That's a very different matter, albeit that for practical everyday purpose we proceed on the basis that there are no gods - as indeed most theists do but for the one god in which each happens to believe.

[Owlswing]

Owls,

Nope. Our reasoning is that there are no cogent arguments to demonstrate that gods do exist.

That's a very different matter, albeit that for practical everyday purpose we proceed on the basis that there are no gods - as indeed most theists do but for the one god in which each happens to believe.

not in my case!

[torridon]

You should be afraid - atheist belief is as much faith as religion, their faith is that the gods do not exist.

Nonesense; you've already been corrected on this many times before

[Owlswing]

Nonesense; you've already been corrected on this many times before

Another Sassy, but atheist - I am right and everyone else is wrong!

[Nearly Sane]

Another Sassy, but atheist - I am right and everyone else is wrong!

Except torridon is correct here and you are the one behaving like Sassy. Atheism is the absence of belief. Just as I have absence of belief in unicorns, and hugyuhoops (and no, I don't know what they are either I just have no belief in them).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

Another Sassy, but atheist - I am right and everyone else is wrong!

Actually torri is pretty much the opposite of Sassy here. What he's saying is that the argument is right - and if you don't agree with that argument, you're welcome to attempt to rebut it. Sassy on the other hand has no arguments at all to deploy, so relies instead on expressions of her personal faith beliefs. "It's in the Bible, therefore it's right" is the beginning and end of it for Sassy with no interest whatever in examining why she thinks that to be the case (let alone in suggesting why anyone else should agree with her).   

[Sassy]

What Sass? No biblical text? A bit of a short reply from you? Worrying?

I like and enjoy all of the exchanges we have here on the forum and In a way enjoy the company of everybody, it's only a difference of points of view, even my wife disagrees with me sometimes? It doesn't mean that I dislike her and ditto the people that post here on the forum Sass.

What's it going to take to convert you to Atheism Sass?

ippy

Hi Ippy,

For me to convert to Atheism God would have to cease to exist...

You asked but I am not sure the answer is what you wanted. Have a good day. Glad you enjoy the exchanges on the forum.
Though it is kinda obvious you don't take the forum or yourself, too seriously. Kind regards to your missus...

Sassy x

[Sassy]

Another Sassy, but atheist - I am right and everyone else is wrong!

Desperate times call for desperate measures....

Is that it... the Sassy card and the worst attempt to relay an untruth?

Gosh! Owlswing, you are losing it...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

For me to convert to Atheism God would have to cease to exist...

Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of reification. What would actually have to happen is that your belief in "God" would have to cease to exist - a very different matter.

[Sassy]

Sassy,

Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of reification. What would actually have to happen is that your belief in "God" would have to cease to exist - a very different matter.

WRONG My  faith is based on the KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL PROOF that God exists.
As you can find no way to challenge or disprove that then you are the one who ultimately living on faith alone for their beliefs.

Found a way to disprove the existence of God, yet?  Nah! thought not... you keep reading what others say and not bothering to find a way to prove it. Christ has given us a way to prove it to us.

[Leonard James]

Hi Ippy,

For me to convert to Atheism God would have to cease to exist...

Sassy x

That is completely untrue! "God" DOESN'T exist, but it hasn't converted you to atheism.

Only when you realise that "God" doesn't exist will you become an atheist.

[floo]

WRONG My  faith is based on the KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL PROOF that God exists.
As you can find no way to challenge or disprove that then you are the one who ultimately living on faith alone for their beliefs.

Found a way to disprove the existence of God, yet?  Nah! thought not... you keep reading what others say and not bothering to find a way to prove it. Christ has given us a way to prove it to us.

Personal 'proof' might convince you god exists, but the personal 'proof' of others leads them to a different conclusion. When you can provide non believers with convincing, verifiable proof god exists, then maybe we might begin to take you seriously. But hell is likely to freeze over first before that happens.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

WRONG My  faith is based on the KNOWLEDGE AND PERSONAL PROOF that God exists.
As you can find no way to challenge or disprove that then you are the one who ultimately living on faith alone for their beliefs.

I have no way to "challenge or disprove" your personal belief in "God", any more than you have a way to challenge or disprove my personal belief in a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri. That's because each of these beliefs is personal - they offer nothing to falsify - but they're only personal. If either of us expects other people to think we're right about our respective beliefs, then we'd need to up our game by building logical paths from personal faith to probabilistically objective truths. 

Found a way to disprove the existence of God, yet?  Nah! thought not... you keep reading what others say and not bothering to find a way to prove it. Christ has given us a way to prove it to us.

Found a way to disprove the orbiting teapot yet? You've just fallen into the negative proof fallacy so beloved by Hope. You two should form a bad argument club.

[ippy]

Hi Ippy,

For me to convert to Atheism God would have to cease to exist...

You asked but I am not sure the answer is what you wanted. Have a good day. Glad you enjoy the exchanges on the forum.
Though it is kinda obvious you don't take the forum or yourself, too seriously. Kind regards to your missus...

Sassy x

Since he she or it never started in the first place and there's certainly no evidence to support your god idea, so you're an Atheist already then Sass, good o.

ippy

[Sebastian Toe]

You've just fallen into the negative proof fallacy so beloved by Hope.

Careful there fella!
Sassy just might be expounding on her negative proof theory, which of course may be completely different from the from the fallacy of the same name. (on the other hand it might not, but can you prove that it isn't? )

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Careful there fella!
Sassy just might be expounding on her negative proof theory, which of course may be completely different from the from the fallacy of the same name. (on the other hand it might not, but can you prove that it isn't? )

Ah, but how do you know that I am not in fact "God", and so therefore that my omniscience tells me exactly which very bad arguments Sassy and Hope will attempt?

After all, can you prove that I'm not? 

[Sebastian Toe]

After all, can you prove that I'm not?

Certainly not, besides I wouldn't presume....!

I'm thinking maybe I will use the NPF for a while, just to see how it looks from the other side!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Certainly not, besides I wouldn't presume....!

I'm thinking maybe I will use the NPF for a while, just to see how it looks from the other side!

Well, given their fondness for it you might have to check with Sassy and Hope in case they have the intellectual property rights on it - but if not, knock yourself out!

[wigginhall]

Sassy's argument seems ironic - you can't disprove God - as the fact that God is not falsifiable is the problem.  Well, it's a problem for theists.  But any position like this seems meaningless or at least, very vague.   Or it takes it into aesthetics and stuff like that.   Picasso is a great painter.  OK, fine. Or Picasso is a lousy painter.  OK, fine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Sassy's argument seems ironic - you can't disprove God - as the fact that God is not falsifiable is the problem.  Well, it's a problem for theists.  But any position like this seems meaningless or at least, very vague.   Or it takes it into aesthetics and stuff like that.   Picasso is a great painter.  OK, fine. Or Picasso is a lousy painter.  OK, fine.

Including morality: slavery is morally good - OK, fine; slavery is morally bad - OK, fine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It's odd isn't it - Sassy, Hope et al thinking that a conjecture that's set up to be unfalsifiable somehow becomes more likely to be true when it can't be falsified. What point do they think they are making - "you can't falsify it, therefore - um - it must be true, but you can't apply the same principle to any other unfalsifiable conjecture in which I don't believe" or something?

Weird.