Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

What’s the point as you just ignore it or lie about it every time I do it?

Again:

“God is”: an asserted truth with no known means of investigation or verification.

“Leprechauns are”: an asserted truth with no known means of investigation or verification.

Well then an avenue we haven't explored is you establishing a heirarchy of guesses as per Law's law of going nuclear and how you do it. careful again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“Leprechauns are”: an asserted truth with no known means of investigation or verification.

Highly debateable. I suppose Ryan air and Shannon airport are asserted truths with no means of investigation or investigation....

What they and Leprechauns ARE though is epistemically Irish with physical attributes

[Outrider]

Highly debateable. I suppose Ryan air and Shannon airport are asserted truths with no means of investigation or investigation....

Is Shannon airport reputedly magical, and found at the end of a rainbow?

What they and Leprechauns ARE though is epistemically Irish with physical attributes

God is epistemically Jewish. As to whether Leprechauns have physical attributes, what are you basing that on?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well then an avenue we haven't explored is you establishing a heirarchy of guesses as per Law's law of going nuclear and how you do it. careful again.

1. So once again you ask a question, it’s answered and you just ignore the answer.

2. Then you lie about something that’s already been explained to you more than once since your complete fuck up about Law’s critique of the going nuclear argument. 

What do you get out of your trolling?

Focus now: re the asserted truth claims “god” and leprechauns there is no “hierarchy of guesses” because they’re epistemically the same category of statement.

I thought you were going to write this down 100 times in the hope it would sink in. What happened? Should we make it 1,000 perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is Shannon airport reputedly magical,

They do a great display at Christmas. Apparently it has been sighted at the end of a rainbow on occasion

God is epistemically Jewish.

Had to laugh at that.

As to whether Leprechauns have physical attributes, what are you basing that on?

on account of them being described a Tiny Irish people Dressed in Green and supposedly observable at the end of rainbows[/font][/size]

Honestly, I blame fucking Dawkins for this ignorance regarding the Little fellers.

[Outrider]

They do a great display at Christmas. Apparently it has been sighted at the end of a rainbow on occasion.

Ah, so that's a no, then.

on account of them being described a Tiny Irish people Dressed in Green and supposedly observable at the end of rainbows

Except that there is no 'end of the rainbow', and whilst they might be described as tiny irish people dressed in green that's up there alongside descriptions of Bigfoot, Nessie and the Virgin Mary all of which have reportedly been seen by people who just don't happen to have a decent camera around...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Except that there is no 'end of the rainbow', and whilst they might be described as tiny irish people dressed in green that's up there alongside descriptions of Bigfoot, Nessie and the Virgin Mary all of which have reportedly been seen by people who just don't happen to have a decent camera around...

As for that matter has Vlad's god, 34 times it seems if the Bible is to be believed. There were witnesses too we're told - and he claims ancient accounts of witness statements to be a reliable source of verification, so you know...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, so that's a no, then.

Except that there is no 'end of the rainbow', and whilst they might be described as tiny irish people dressed in green that's up there alongside descriptions of Bigfoot, Nessie and the Virgin Mary all of which have reportedly been seen by people who just don't happen to have a decent camera around...

O.

Your not seeing it are you? The reasons people don't entertain Bigfoot and Nessie is because they are described as having physical features and live in specific areas but science hasn't found them but has found Shannon Airport and the odd chipmunk which are smaller than bigfoot. As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.

Now that we've taken down Leprechauns in the heirarchy of Guesses suggested by Law....stop, woah, yeh, wait a minute mr postman...and supplied reasons..and Invisible Pink Unicorns have been dismissed as a logical impossibility It is high time we dealt with the flying spaghetti monster (epistemically Italian).
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your not seeing it are you? The reasons people don't entertain Bigfoot and Nessie is because they are described as having physical features and live in specific areas…

Same as your god then – 34 times at least it seems “He” had “physical features”, and he popped up specifically in the Middle East. You do realise there were actual witnesses right?

…but science hasn't found them…

And nor has it found your god. So...?

…but has found Shannon Airport and the odd chipmunk which are smaller than bigfoot.

Is Shannon Airport (and chipmunks) known for flitting at will in and out of material existence, appearing only occasionally to witnesses whose accounts were passed down orally and only written down several generations later?

Or are you trying yet another false analogy here?

As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.

Nice try. Theoretical physics is an empirical discipline that entails reason and testable predictions, at least in principle. Theology on the other hand is the organised guessing about stuff, accompanied by unqualified assertions.

The comparison doesn’t work does it.   

Now that we've taken down Leprechauns in the heirarchy of Guesses…

You’ve done no such thing. Leprechauns and your god remain firmly in the same epistemic category until and unless you finally manage a sound reason to demonstrate that they’re not. And no, false analogies aren’t a sound reason.

…suggested by Law....stop, woah, yeh, wait a minute mr postman...

He didn’t suggest that at all – he did the opposite of that by explaining why “OK if I’m guessing then so are you so our claims are equal” is a bad argument. 

…and supplied reasons..and Invisible Pink Unicorns have been dismissed as a logical impossibility…

Where? By whom? 

It is high time we dealt with the flying spaghetti monster (epistemically Italian).

And with your “god” as it’s beset by exactly the same problems as these other non-investigable and non-verifiable conjectures.

You’re all over the place here. 

[Gordon]

They do a great display at Christmas. Apparently it has been sighted at the end of a rainbow on occasion Had to laugh at that. on account of them being described a Tiny Irish people Dressed in Green and supposedly observable at the end of rainbows[/font][/size]

Honestly, I blame fucking Dawkins for this ignorance regarding the Little fellers.

I'm concerned at your standard of Leprechaunology: you haven't mention pots of gold - you heretic you!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Me: As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universe being studied in universities across the world.

Hillside:

Nice try. Theoretical physics is an empirical discipline that entails reason and testable predictions
 

Testable predictions Hillside?.....For the multiverse and Infinite universe. It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm concerned at your standard of Leprechaunology: you haven't mention pots of gold - you heretic you!

My apologies your Grace.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Testable predictions Hillside?.....For the multiverse and Infinite universe. It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

So here’s what I actually wrote:

Theoretical physics is an empirical discipline that entails reason and testable predictions, at least in principle

Now let’s look at that again shall we, only with the important part emphasised:

Theoretical physics is an empirical discipline that entails reason and testable predictions, at least in principle

Can you see what you did there? You cut out the critical qualifier in order dishonestly to be able to criticise only your straw man version of what I said.

A word of advice: if you intend to persist with you relentless lying you might want to try to be a bit less obvious when you do it. I don’t expect you to apologise (why start now?) but you should. You really should.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So here’s what I actually wrote:

Now let’s look at that again shall we, only with the important part emphasised:

Can you see what you did there? You cut out the critical qualifier in order dishonestly to be able to criticise only your straw man version of what I said.

A word of advice: if you intend to persist with you relentless lying you might want to try to be a bit less obvious when you do it. I don’t expect you to apologise (why start now?) but you should. You really should.

It was you who switched to broaden the whole thing to theoretical physics Hillside, That is disingenuous in my opinion since it looks as though you wish to exploit some kind of halo effect. I was talking of Multiverse and Infinite universe which are untestable even in principle.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy.......when you undertake a tactical victim blaming....you really commit.

Don't you think it's interesting? I may have discovered the reason for the success of Christianity.

Do you accept no wrong in the Roman persecutions? You seem to make them sound more like more law enforcement against criminals.

I used the word "oppression". I think you need concentrate on reading for comprehension a bit more.

[jeremyp]

But I can show you memos from the early church which attest to an historical Jesus which note that several eyewitness to Jesus ministry were still around.

I take it that means you agree that you do not have any eye witness testimony. It makes me wonder why you keep banging on about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I take it that means you agree that you do not have any eye witness testimony. It makes me wonder why you keep banging on about it.

There is an extreeeeeeeeeeemly high probability that Paul interviewed eyewitnesses.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It was you who switched to broaden the whole thing to theoretical physics Hillside,…

Lie 1: It was you, not me, who introduced theoretical physics in Reply 1157 here:

As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.

What discipline do you think conjectures about a multiverse etc are studied in if not theoretical physics - Biology? Sports Centre Management?

That is disingenuous in my opinion since it looks as though you wish to exploit some kind of halo effect.

Lie 2: Any “halo affect” was done by you, not me, when you linked the study of theology to the study of matters proper to theoretical physics. Here again (Reply 1157):

As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.

That's the only "halo effect" anyone has tried.   

I was talking of Multiverse and Infinite universe…

Lie 3: “Multiverse and infinite universe” hypotheses are theoretical physics. 

“…which are untestable even in principle.

Lie 4: clearly untrue as you have no way to know what methods and tools may be available in future to test these hypotheses.

And now back to your biggest lie. Even if 1 – 4 above weren’t all true (and they are), what you did was doctor something I wrote so you could dismiss your doctored version of it. That’s disgraceful behaviour and you should apologise for it.

Why won’t you?

[jeremyp]

There is an extreeeeeeeeeeemly high probability that Paul interviewed eyewitnesses.

I didn't ask if you could name people who claimed to have met eye witnesses, I asked if you have any eye witness accounts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't ask if you could name people who claimed to have met eye witnesses, I asked if you have any eye witness accounts.

I am sure there are eye witness accounts incorporated and that's as good as it gets for much of any ancient history...in other words, good enough.

You don't believe in witness testimony anyway.

I think your disbelief of the accounts is due though to other factors based around the belief that these things just don't happen. More than if there aren't any signed witness statements I would imagine.

What the Epistles are are memos of a fairly sophisticated organisation established for a couple of decades whose members believe in a historical Jesus and that miracles and teaching occurred around him and their increased understanding of his divine connection and nature and that they are at least earnest in their beliefs.

We have no problem with our recollections of the millenium. Why then start to think it was different for people in the first century?

[jeremyp]

I am sure there are eye witness accounts incorporated

Incorporated into what specifically?

and that's as good as it gets for much of any ancient history...in other words, good enough.

Good enough for what? Good enough for history books to talk about how Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and overthrew the Roman Republic...

... oh wait, bad example: we do have eye witness accounts for those events.

Historians gather the available evidence, evaluate it and draw conclusions based on its credibility and then write down their conclusions in books. By the way, the evaluation absolutely does include asking if it is contemporary and written by somebody who was there.

You don't have any accounts of Jesus' ministry from anybody who was there. You don't have eye witness accounts of his resurrection. You do have the fact that dead people don't come alive again. No neutral historian presented with that fact and the accounts of Paul and the Evangelists would conclude that Jesus did rise from the dead.

I think your disbelief of the accounts is due though to other factors based around the belief that these things just don't happen. More than if there aren't any signed witness statements I would imagine.

Dead people coming alive again just doesn't happen.

What the Epistles are are memos of a fairly sophisticated organisation established for a couple of decades whose members believe in a historical Jesus and that miracles and teaching occurred around him and their increased understanding of his divine connection and nature and that they are at least earnest in their beliefs.

Paul's genuine letters do not argue for a sophisticated organisation, if by sophistication you mean with a priestly hierarchy. However, I would agree that, by the time the books of the New Testament were all finished, there was a sophisticated Christian church. This is not evidence for miracles, only people's belief in miracles. 

We have no problem with our recollections of the millenium. Why then start to think it was different for people in the first century?

I can remember exactly what I was doing on the night of 31st December 1999/Jan 1st 2000.

As it happens, I saw a man walk in his bare feet down the middle of the River Thames between London Bridge and Tower Bridge.

Also, on the same night, I watched the London fireworks from a twelfth floor flat in the Crystal Palace area.

There you are: you have an eye witness account to somebody walking on water. It must be true. Do you believe it? Do you believe my other account? Is there any reason to reject one and tentatively believe the other?

The thing is, before you even get to questions like that, you have to have an eye witness account and you don't have one for the resurrection of Jesus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Incorporated into what specifically?
Good enough for what? Good enough for history books to talk about how Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and overthrew the Roman Republic...

... oh wait, bad example: we do have eye witness accounts for those events.

Historians gather the available evidence, evaluate it and draw conclusions based on its credibility and then write down their conclusions in books. By the way, the evaluation absolutely does include asking if it is contemporary and written by somebody who was there.

You don't have any accounts of Jesus' ministry from anybody who was there. You don't have eye witness accounts of his resurrection. You do have the fact that dead people don't come alive again. No neutral historian presented with that fact and the accounts of Paul and the Evangelists would conclude that Jesus did rise from the dead.
Dead people coming alive again just doesn't happen.
Paul's genuine letters do not argue for a sophisticated organisation, if by sophistication you mean with a priestly hierarchy. However, I would agree that, by the time the books of the New Testament were all finished, there was a sophisticated Christian church. This is not evidence for miracles, only people's belief in miracles. 

I can remember exactly what I was doing on the night of 31st December 1999/Jan 1st 2000.

As it happens, I saw a man walk in his bare feet down the middle of the River Thames between London Bridge and Tower Bridge.

Also, on the same night, I watched the London fireworks from a twelfth floor flat in the Crystal Palace area.

There you are: you have an eye witness account to somebody walking on water. It must be true. Do you believe it? Do you believe my other account? Is there any reason to reject one and tentatively believe the other?

The thing is, before you even get to questions like that, you have to have an eye witness account and you don't have one for the resurrection of Jesus.

Historians also look for what events throw up, their legacy if you will and the epistles are in that category. In fact for someone with a problem with eye witness accounts they are better since what they show has been tested by time. In the case of the epistles twenty odd years.

By sophistication I mean something with an active membership with international lines of communication. Priestly sophistication is not that important here.

As for the man walking on the Thames, I did hear about that and took no action when I heard it was a professional illusionist out to top his previous effort. Miracles alone don’t grab me.

[jeremyp]

Historians also look for what events throw up, their legacy if you will and the epistles are in that category. In fact for someone with a problem with eye witness accounts they are better since what they show has been tested by time. In the case of the epistles twenty odd years.

The epistles attest to an active Christian community. What they can't do is tell us if the beliefs of the people in those communities were true or mistaken. Descriptions of Jesus' life are remarkably hard to come by in the epistles and, in fact, Paul's epistles tell us that there was a lt of dissent in Christian communities about what to believe. Why did Paul need to write 1 Corinthians, for example, if all the Christians were toeing the official Pauline line?

As for the man walking on the Thames, I did hear about that and took no action when I heard it was a professional illusionist out to top his previous effort. Miracles alone don’t grab me.

If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up. Look at that: in the space of forty minutes somebody made a story up out of whole cloth and somebody else independently confirmed it. So much for your fictitious eye witness testimony.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The epistles attest to an active Christian community. What they can't do is tell us if the beliefs of the people in those communities were true or mistaken. Descriptions of Jesus' life are remarkably hard to come by in the epistles and, in fact, Paul's epistles tell us that there was a lt of dissent in Christian communities about what to believe. Why did Paul need to write 1 Corinthians, for example, if all the Christians were toeing the official Pauline line?
If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up. Look at that: in the space of forty minutes somebody made a story up out of whole cloth and somebody else independently confirmed it. So much for your fictitious eye witness testimony.

The expectation that all Christians should be toeing the Pauline line comes from a caricature view I would say or a conflation of early Christianity and medieval Catholicism.

That the illusionist Dynamo walked on water in 2011 rather than 2000 or1999  in my recollection might just indicate how significant the miraculous or even the fucking amazing are outside a divine context.

It seems possible that you saw this somewhere and your mind just didn’t accept that you had seen it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEc_jeGBVxs

Dynamo walking on the Thames.