Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[Walter]

O M G

is the no end to this wrong headedness

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop taking the piss Hillside. If one says X does not exist then that suggests that one knows what X is other wise one is talking Carp.

And the king of the straw men is among us again.

Now try reading what Floo actually said.

[Walter]

one thing is for sure, belief does not protect the believer from idiocy.

you know who you are

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

O M G

is the no end to this wrong headedness

Apparently not. Now he's claiming that there's a "mountain of definition" for "God". How he proposes to define something supernatural is anyone's guess, but it'll be fun watching him try I guess. So far all efforts have been either a CV ("He created the universe") or bad poetry ("the ground of all being") but let's be fair - if Vlad is the first one ever to provide a meaningful definition he should at least be in line for a Templeton prize...

[Walter]

hahahaha a Templeton Prize. I love it.

[Maeght]

Yes but there is a mountain of definition for God but "*&*^"*£%^FD&" is something you've just typed in......even though it's the most meaningful thing I've ever seen you post on here.

What does a mountain of definition mean?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

What does a mountain of definition mean?

It means that Vlad is lying.

Again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

one thing is for sure, belief does not protect the believer from idiocy.

you know who you are

Old antitheists, new antitheists.....they never get any better.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does a mountain of definition mean?

A lot of in comparison to some spurious and random string of letters, numbers beloved of the likes of Bluehillside and Torridon and indeed former owners of the ZX spectrum.....goodness those guys are so Eighties.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Walter,

Apparently not. Now he's claiming that there's a "mountain of definition" for "God". How he proposes to define something supernatural is anyone's guess, but it'll be fun watching him try I guess. So far all efforts have been either a CV ("He created the universe") or bad poetry ("the ground of all being") but let's be fair - if Vlad is the first one ever to provide a meaningful definition he should at least be in line for a Templeton prize...

.......A down on the Templeton prize.....You been at the Dawkins again Hillside?

[Walter]

Vlad, no improvement is required. All we require is EVIDENCE its that simple.

off you go then.....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, no improvement is required. All we require is EVIDENCE its that simple.

off you go then.....

First of all there is the sense of alienation abroad in the world. When Douglas Adams talked about puddles fitting holes in the ground he either misunderstood, was ignorant of or wanted to deliberately forget that religion is about dealing with alienation. Just as acquisitive materialism deals with spending one's way out of thinking about it...without actually dealing with it.

So a sense of alienation is part of the evidence.

[Walter]

Oh FFS

you poor little martyr. You might think that constitutes evidence .... you know what , it doesn't even warrant further comment, pathetic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh FFS

you poor little martyr. You might think that constitutes evidence .... you know what , it doesn't even warrant further comment, pathetic.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say there is no such thing as alienation in the world?

[Walter]

WHAT?...

[Maeght]

A lot of in comparison to some spurious and random string of letters, numbers beloved of the likes of Bluehillside and Torridon and indeed former owners of the ZX spectrum.....goodness those guys are so Eighties.

Yes, I know thet 'a mountain of ...' means 'a lot of ...' - but how can you have a lot of definition?

[Walter]

Its just bollox Maeght

[bluehillside Retd.]

First of all there is the sense of alienation abroad in the world. When Douglas Adams talked about puddles fitting holes in the ground he either misunderstood, was ignorant of or wanted to deliberately forget that religion is about dealing with alienation. Just as acquisitive materialism deals with spending one's way out of thinking about it...without actually dealing with it.

So a sense of alienation is part of the evidence.

In which Vlad:

1. Utterly fails to grasp the point of Adams' puddle - which was merely an adroit way of addressing the anthropic principle and had nothing whatever to do with "alienation";

2. Fails to notice that, even if religion does attempt to "deal with" alienation, that says nothing at all to whether there's a word of truth in it's factual claims; and

3. So utterly corrupts the term "evidence" that it now encompasses any aspect of the lived experience being evidence for any conjecture he or anyone else may happen to dream up.

Apart from that though....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad:

1. Utterly fails to grasp the point of Adams' puddle - which was merely an adroit way of addressing the anthropic principle and had nothing whatever to do with "alienation";

2. Fails to notice that, even if religion does attempt to "deal with" alienation, that says nothing at all to whether there's a word of truth in it's factual claims; and

3. So utterly corrupts the term "evidence" that it now encompasses any aspect of the lived experience being evidence for any conjecture he or anyone else may happen to dream up.

Apart from that though....

1: Adroit? He fucked up by charicaturing religion.
2: It goes a lot further in addressing the issue of alienation than any Dawkinsian, Darwinian or Hillsidian/Pisstakeian vantage point.
3: Why don't you just say that it does not constitute evidence.....you know you want to but dare not for some reason.

[Walter]

Blue. re your 637

you have far more patience than me, well done.

[Walter]

oops 367

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

Blue. re your 637

you have far more patience than me, well done.

Thanks, but actually I'd intended to step away from the idiocy posted here. I guess sometimes when it's off the scale Vladiocy though even the most determined of us will succumb from time-to-time darn it.

[Walter]

I've never heard of suspected message board addiction described like that before.

very good Vlad, an almost well thought out coherent sentence with a touch of humour.

[jeremyp]

Walter,

Apparently not. Now he's claiming that there's a "mountain of definition" for "God". How he proposes to define something supernatural is anyone's guess,

God: Intelligent being that created theUniverse.

Wow, I just defined God. It wasn't that hard in the end.

[torridon]

God: Intelligent being that created theUniverse.

Wow, I just defined God. It wasn't that hard in the end.

Define 'being' in this context, then.

Trouble is, we can say nothing about the nature of the being that would lend itself to observation and hence evidence.  We can say nothing about its location, mass, nature, speed, structure, provenance, substance or any of the properties that could be identified to characterise a being's existence.  How can a being be said to exist if it has no measurable existential properties ?