Disproofs of God.

[jeremyp]

As I say you seem to be taking a Pascal's wager type affair.

No, why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, why?

No I’ll take your word for it. Why are you turning I have no proof into I shall pretend God doesn’t exist? When you could act as if you don’t know whether God exists or not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

bollocks doesn't get any better with more exposure Hillside. Why, sorry, how do you keep doing it?

You were confused about the difference between "why" and "how". I explained the different to you, and gave you dictionary references to that effect.

Why do you think the dictionary writers are wrong?

Answer. That's easy Vlad I pull it out m'ass and Just keep posting it.

No, I "pull" it from dictionaries - something you seem to be unable to grasp.

trouble is it doesn't exist is a claim with a burden of proof .....that is unavoidable.

And your trouble remains that "it doesn't exist" isn't a claim that anyone makes, for reasons that have been explained to you approximately 43,126 times already but that you continue to ignore or to lie about nonetheless   

Also...

You can't have a "also" when your prior effort has crashed and burned...

''' you have admitted that for you investigation is just science investigation.

No, I've said that - so far at least - "science investigation" as you put it is the only testable method on the table to distinguish between reasoned conclusions and just guessing about stuff. I've also invited you approximately 3,456 times to suggest an alternative method to do the job but that's when you always run away remember?

So the filthy stench of philosophical empiricism hangs over your post.

Spitting the dummy won't help you either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Well you can't investigate it empirically.

Or it seems by any other method either. That's your problem remember?
 

However if it is also at the  centre of moral reality.....well, were all, most of us a bit morally competent perhaps we can investigate that Avenue.

However, if my Grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle as Gino D' Acampo memorably put it. If something, then anything. If the moon is made of cheddar cheese, then there could be mice there. Your problem remains to demonstrate that "if" remember? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

No I’ll take your word for it. Why are you turning I have no proof into I shall pretend God doesn’t exist?

"Pretend"? Why are you begging the question and lying again?

When you could act as if you don’t know whether God exists or not?

Which is what atheists actually do, just as a-leprechaunists do in response to the claim "leprechauns". Why is this so hard for you to grasp, or is your need to lie so pathologcal that you do understand it but feel compelled to lie about it anyway?

[jeremyp]

Why are you turning I have no proof into I shall pretend God doesn’t exist?

If there's no evidence of God's existence, it's not pretending to act as if he doesn't.

When you could act as if you don’t know whether God exists or not?

What's the difference?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there's no evidence of God's existence, it's not pretending to act as if he doesn't.
What's the difference?

I think you are trying to say you are acting as if but you dont actually  know but that it is a special type of acting that involves no pretence.

Isnt that complete and utter bollocks......if not, why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there's no evidence of God's existence, it's not pretending to act as if he doesn't.
What's the difference?

I disagree. Acting like an agnostic might stop someone acting like a disrespectful arsehole.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are trying to say you are acting as if but you dont actually  know but that it is a special type of acting that involves no pretence.

Isnt that complete and utter bollocks......if not, why not?

As Whoopi said to Mick

https://youtu.be/3B2q-8AM_Ig

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there's no evidence of God's existence, it's not pretending to act as if he doesn't.
What's the difference?

I'm acting like Tony Manero. Does that mean I'm not acting?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm acting like Tony Manero. Does that mean I'm not acting?

'Al Pacino! Attica! Attica! Attica!'

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

I think you are trying to say you are acting as if but you dont actually  know but that it is a special type of acting that involves no pretence.

Isnt that complete and utter bollocks......if not, why not?

He isn't saying that, so stop lying about it.

1. Do you know that leprechauns don't exist?

No you don't.

2. Do you act as if leprechauns don't exist?

Yes you do.

3. Is that therefore "a special type of acting that involves no pretence"?

No, it's just normal reasoning that involves no pretence.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp (or to not lie about)?
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

"Pretend"? Why are you begging the question and lying again?

Which is what atheists actually do, just as a-leprechaunists do in response to the claim "leprechauns". Why is this so hard for you to grasp, or is your need to lie so pathologcal that you do understand it but feel compelled to lie about it anyway?

What then do you feel about people who act like agnostics and arent willing to, as Dawkins would say in his high cultured womanly way, be beastly to people who act as though God is reeeeeal.?.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

"Pretend"? Why are you begging the question and lying again?

No if you know you dont know whether God exists and then act as if he doesn't that is pretence. You are taking on a role dear boy.

When you fail to realise that you are Moderator: content removed.

As for me dear boy. I've made money from acting dont you know. While were about it......could any one iron this cheque for me?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap’n Pigeon,

What then do you feel about people who act like agnostics and arent willing to, as Dawkins would say in his high cultured womanly way, be beastly to people who act as though God is reeeeeal.?

What are you even trying to say here?

No if you know you dont know whether God exists and then act as if he doesn't that is pretence. You are taking on a role dear boy.

See whether you can work out for yourself why that’s so fucking stupid (clue: it’s just been explained to you about six times).

When you fail to realise that you are Moderator: quoted content removed.

Rational actually – you should try it.

As for me dear boy. I've made money from acting dont you know. While were about it......could any one iron this cheque for me?

Trust me, there’s no acting in your complete fucking cluelessness or dishonesty. Whichever it is, it’s real enough.

Try again:

1. You don’t claim definitively leprechauns to not exist.

2. Nonetheless, you proceed on the basis that they don’t exist.

Step 2 doesn’t require a special pretence does it. QED   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap’n Pigeon,

What are you even trying to say here?

See whether you can work out for yourself why that’s so fucking stupid (clue: it’s just been explained to you about six times).

Rational actually – you should try it.

Trust me, there’s no acting in your complete fucking cluelessness or dishonesty. Whichever it is, it’s real enough.

Try again:

1. You don’t claim definitively leprechauns to not exist.

2. Nonetheless, you proceed on the basis that they don’t exist.

Step 2 doesn’t require a special pretence does it. QED

I am not on Leprechaun sites berating Leprechaunists who believe in them for believing them.

That is a peculiar aspect of what you do. Are you for instance on here against God, Christ, early christianity or historic christianity? ZIn fact as I have said before which part of your argument is atheist?

Secondly I would proceed as if Leprechauns did not exist even if they did.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap’n Pigeon,

I am not on Leprechaun sites berating Leprechaunists who believe in them for believing them.

Utterly irrelevant, and no-one here “berates” theists for believing in gods either.

That is a peculiar aspect of what you do.

No it isn’t because I don’t do it. Stop lying.

Are you for instance on here against God, Christ, early christianity or historic christianity? ZIn fact as I have said before which part of your argument is atheist?

See above. The only thing I’m “against” is theists insisting I take their claims seriously when the arguments they attempt to justify them are demonstrably wrong.

Secondly I would proceed as if Leprechauns did not exist even if they did.

Yes – so just as atheists do with regard to gods then.

As you’ve just ducked and run from having your latest set of fuck ups and lies exposed, can we take it that you still don’t intend ever to suggest a method to investigate your claim “God” then?

Thought so.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap’n Pigeon,

What are you even trying to say here?

See whether you can work out for yourself why that’s so fucking stupid (clue: it’s just been explained to you about six times).

Rational actually – you should try it.

Trust me, there’s no acting in your complete fucking cluelessness or dishonesty. Whichever it is, it’s real enough.

Try again:

1. You don’t claim definitively leprechauns to not exist.

2. Nonetheless, you proceed on the basis that they don’t exist.

Step 2 doesn’t require a special pretence does it. QED

In which case I am resolved to act according to the extremely remote chance that a tribe of Pygmy Irish men who are found at the ends of Irish rainbows with pots of Gold  exist. Not only does THAT not require special pretence it has no pretence about it. Unlike an atheist who can’t prove God doesn’t exist but acts as though he has.

[Sebastian Toe]

Unlike an atheist who can’t prove God doesn’t exist but acts as though he has.

What if they.... just proceed as if Gods did not exist even if they did?
Would that be a reasonable way to go through life?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap’n Pigeon,

In which case I am resolved to act according to the extremely remote chance that a tribe of Pygmy Irish men who are found at the ends of Irish rainbows with pots of Gold  exist.

Only if you think proceeding as if all claims with no good reason to justify them should be treated as if they’re real anyway. You’d quickly come a cropper though - first because there’s an unfathomably large number of them (you'd be worn out before breakfast), and second because as many supposed gods are as juvenile and insecure as yours they threaten all sorts of grisly punishments if you “worshipped” the wrong ones (worship is a big thing for theists apparently, though why you’d want to subject yourself to such a dehumanising subjugation is anyone’s guess). How then would you select one unjustified belief from all the other unjustified beliefs? 

Not only does THAT not require special pretence it has no pretence about it. Unlike an atheist who can’t prove God doesn’t exist but acts as though he has.

Or an a-leprechaunist who can’t prove there aren’t leprechauns but proceeds without believing in them nonetheless. You for example. 

Keep trying – it’ll sink in eventually…

…or maybe not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap’n Pigeon,

Only if you think proceeding as if all claims with no good reason to justify them should be treated as if they’re real anyway. You’d quickly come a cropper though - first because there’s an unfathomably large number of them (you'd be worn out before breakfast), and second because as many supposed gods are as juvenile and insecure as yours they threaten all sorts of grisly punishments if you “worshipped” the wrong ones (worship is a big thing for theists apparently, though why you’d want to subject yourself to such a dehumanising subjugation is anyone’s guess). How then would you select one unjustified belief from all the other unjustified beliefs? 

Or an a-leprechaunist who can’t prove there aren’t leprechauns but proceeds without believing in them nonetheless. You for example. 

Keep trying – it’ll sink in eventually…

…or maybe not.

I have good reason to believe in God and arguments support that rather than steer me into the mire of “ I don’t know but it can’t be God because he is a big leprechaun/ sub Planck length teapot” in other words if that is the best you got then potentially there isn’t much substantial to sink in.

I find I cannot avoid God who’s existence I am convinced of and his surrounding philosophies are basically sound. Obviously I would say God has to be experienced and your behaviour hints to me that this God business is occupying a lot of your emotional energy. Of course any activity at that level is between you and God.

I think you need to examine why you are prepared to countenance the popping out of nothing and the infinite material theories both unnatural, why you are prepared to tolerate almost any solution to the universe as long as it is unconscious.

I have given reasons aplenty as to why I don’t think Leprechauns are likely but am resolved as of now to act according to how probable I think they are and have given reasons.

Not only will you not resolve to do that with God you will not give your reasons.......which incidentally cannot be the same reasons for why you disbelieve in Leprechauns.....if they are the same reasons I disbelieve in Leprechauns......but hey we will never know because of your swerve argument.

This message has been brought to you by Vlads humble opinion.

[jeremyp]

I think you are trying to say you are acting as if but you dont actually  know but that it is a special type of acting that involves no pretence.

No. The sentence was a bit ambiguous though, so let me clarify:

If there is no evidence of God's existence, why bother acting as if he does exist? Acting as if God exists without any evidence is pretending that he exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap’n Pigeon,

Only if you think proceeding as if all claims with no good reason to justify them should be treated as if they’re real anyway. You’d quickly come a cropper though - first because there’s an unfathomably large number of them (you'd be worn out before breakfast), and second because as many supposed gods are as juvenile and insecure as yours they threaten all sorts of grisly punishments if you “worshipped” the wrong ones.

As a monotheist I would say there is only one God so there is only one to miss. Which makes Dawkins smirky “ which God?”completely redundant.

[jeremyp]

I disagree. Acting like an agnostic might stop someone acting like a disrespectful arsehole.

Why shouldn't I act like a disrespectful arsehole towards something that shows no evidence of existing? I've been disrespectful towards your god for thirty years or more and never once has he punished me for it or even just asked me to stop.

[jeremyp]

I am not on Leprechaun sites berating Leprechaunists who believe in them for believing them.

This isn't a Christian site.

And nobody is berating you for being a Christian. They are berating you for not being able to substantiate the claims you make and for not engaging with their arguments in an honest way.