Jump to content

Iggy

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Iggy

  1. Yeah, I said that. You can quote it. Sure.
  2. Could you go so far as to ask iNow to stop doing it too? I realize it's a lot to ask... but if you could. Also.. if you could stop saying "I will assert there is no difference" then that will be fine too. It's like you're attacking me, and I honestly don't know why.
  3. Isn't that exactly what every religious person you've ever met said? They say something stupid, like "I can't prove anything I'm saying, but it's all perfectly self-evident" I don't believe it from you any more than I believe it from them.
  4. Between corn dog pooping dragons and God? Do you own a dictionary? This is getting more and more embarrassing. It's called an equivocation fallacy. You can't assert that there is no difference while two things are distinctly different. It's just an equivocation fallacy. That's all you're doing. Where is Tar? That guy does it like nobody else. He'll tell you that god is no different from the laughter of children. "There is no difference?" That's what you say? Tar is going to be unbelievably happy about this. Yeah, I'm going to prove your claims for you. Sure.
  5. Yeah, you're going to compare me to a small child. In a bit you're going to compare me to woman, and after that it'll be every other nasty thing you can think of. You said "there is no difference". You just in the last day said that. I'm just standing here wondering how you're going to show that corn dog shitting dragons are equivalent to God. It sounds fun. There are all kinds of principles of logic that could be applied to your faith. I'm just standing here wondering how you're going to do it. It's fascinating to watch. And, of course you compare me to a kid in the mean time. Of course you do. I'm sorry, "there is no difference"? Can you repeat that?
  6. You get that I never said they're different, but iNow said they're equivalent? You know that? Refusing to answerer how they're different doesn't prove they're equivalent. What part of that is so hard to understand? Read the above sentence again. Then read it two or three... maybe four or five... more times. Still don't understand it? You don't get to say X then beggar everybody else to prove X false. That isn't how it works. You can go ahead and prove your own claims, and iNow can go ahead and prove his. I won't be bothered to do either. I thought it was pretty good.
  7. Exactly. iNow, your unsupported statement that God is equivalent to dragon poop is no different from a claim "my father raped me in the bathroom". Your announced claim of the former does nothing to address the latter. I welcome any evidence I can find, But, the unevidenced nature of both those make them exactly in kind. I couldn't agree with you more, John. Honestly, iNow.... did your father rape you in the bathroom? Realize... I'm going to ask this question 20 more times while you refuse to answer. And, in the mean time, you can't show that God is equivalent to dragon poop. Because... these unsupported claims are equivalent. Just like John said.
  8. You "believe" they're equivalent, but you can't in the least explain or show why. This is like someone believing that God exists but can't in the least explain or show why. You don't get to do that! We are both refusing to answer. You said it first. You said god is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. You said it. I'm not going to be dragged into proving your private beliefs for you. Either show they are equivalent, or admit they aren't, or shut the hell up with that particular claim. Equivocation fallacy 101. Embarrassing! You're above this. You're smart enough to tap Tar on the shoulder when he says "God is equivalent to child's dreams and all kinds of lovely things", or whatever he says, but you can't see exactly the same thing when you do it? It's disgusting. Hypocritical and disgusting.
  9. I know how you feel. Please do so. Thanks.
  10. Yeah, I read it. Twice now. I didn't see you show that God is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. Nor did I see you say that you were wrong in that assumption. You could say anything else in the world to me, but those really are the only two things I'm looking for. You said that God is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons, and before that you compared god to pixie farts, and before that it was leprechaun erections. It's dirty every time. I get that you're trying to drag religion through the mud. You're trying to be smutty. I get it. I don't exactly disagree with your desire to do that. It's just that your attempt to do it is so crude and wrong... "God is equivalent to pixie farts"... I mean... it's laughable. You're making us look bad.
  11. Please do. You said it before I confronted you in the least. You're glad. Please do. Please do so in your next post. Please don't ask someone 20 questions before you get on with it. Your next post, do what you said you would, or admit you can't.
  12. Yeah, I welcome you to assert some evidence. Right, you asked "how are they different" after you said they are equivalent. I'm gonna fall for that. Sure. You said it. You freakin prove it. Your kicking and screaming about it only makes it look worse. Just say "God isn't equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons". I won't even point out your hypocrisy if you do that. Just say what I just said and we'll be behind this. Nothing more said. But, you don't get to say "I'm glad to show how they are equivalent" then beggar everybody else with 20 questions to show you their differences. I won't do that.
  13. So, yeah. I'm qualifying what I'm saying. In general "X exists" is not falsifiable. That is to say... if X is well defined. I think religion's god usually qualifies. The judeo-christian god is, in my opinion, not just falsifiable, but already falsified. So, I agree with you, and I like what you're saying and how read up you are on this. But, I think my last post and this one makes my point stand just fine. Right, but that's where I sort of agree with Phi and Ydoa. I can show scientific evidence that the biblical god doesn't exist, and I can show scientific evicence that the god of the empire of Japan did exist, but between those two lines it gets fuzzy. You really do have to define God at that point. Deism is a safe place to go if you want to run there. But, "a god who doesn't affect anything" isn't any sort of god by my standard.
  14. When Zeus meets Perseus, God is observed. Verified. Existing in the flesh. The concept "no god is observable" isn't making sense to me. You know, they said the emperor of Japan was God for a long time. I can't tell you how observable that guy was. A deistic god is a bit of a rarity... at least in the literature.
  15. No, no. "Falsifiable" doesn't mean that you've proven something falsified. It means that something is capable (in principle) of being shown false. You don't (in principle) have to search the whole universe over to show "apple does not exist " is false. If you're eating one then you've already done a good job of that. That's kind of a myth. And, maybe what I'm about to say will address Phi's question more precisely. The judeo-christian god is easily within the realm of testing as a google search for "elijah's altar" will show... which is to say, first kings 18 will tell you how to do it. edit: added "does not" to "exist"
  16. I mean, in principle, "X exists" is not falsifiable (you'd have to search the whole universe over to show it wrong, as I think you previously pointed out to me). "X does not exist" is falsifiable. A verified observation shows it wrong. So, how is God X... well... that's up to whoever is making the claim. Like iNow said, there are many definitions for god. But, in general, whatever the definition it should fit the profile I just laid out
  17. So... functionally equivalent doesn't mean functionally equivalent? To say that belief in one is the same as belief in the other means that switching the beliefs doesn't change anything. Nothing would be functionally different. I think maybe you need to define your words. I'm not following precisely what you mean. No, iNow. That is most definitely wrong. You aren't asking anyone to cite anything when you say this: and this... You're clearly saying they're equivalent. You're saying that you can show they're equivalent. Why should I need to cite something in order for you to do that? This isn't my problem. Relevant to what? Claim A is equal to claim B only if A is equal to B. Either you can show A equal to B or you can't. What someone finds relevant is completely beside the point. If A is more popular than B then A is not equal to B. It is just that simple. Consensus makes a definition, not the inverse. If 99% of people disagree with a dictionary then it's the dictionary that's wrong. Falsifiability doesn't need consensus.
  18. "God exists" is not falsifiable. "God does not exist" is falsifiable. You shouldn't compare them like that. The first is a reasonable observation (or could... in principle be), and the latter is a reasonable hypothesis (or could... in principle be). But, an observation is not a hypothesis. They're distinctly different things.
  19. What an amazing amount of faith you have. You actually believe, based on no evidence, that the world would be functionally equivalent if 85% of humanity had their core belief in god changed to a core belief in corn dog pooping dragons. This is a belief you can't even explain, but you have complete conviction -- complete blind faith. Not only that, now you've convinced yourself that I'm agreeing with you. I think what happened is that a bunch of atheists got together and started saying "god is equivalent to pixie farts" and "god is equivalent to leprechaun erections". They had such a good laugh and felt so good about it that they actually started to believe it. Sort of like mass hypnosis. Someone should do a case study. This is fascinating to watch in real time. A myth is being born and people are willing to have faith in it. Beautiful. No, I don't disagree. I was using the word proof offhandedly. I'm actually a true believer in the cogito. The only thing one can truly prove is "I exist". [ I don't mean that sarcastically ]
  20. I don't follow. Evidence of what truth? What truth do you think I'm trying to evidence?
  21. Besides popularity, in what... Popularity works for me. Were you getting around to addressing your equivocation fallacy? Heh That's why mathematicians say physics is too important to be left to the physicists. Too funny.
  22. I realize you haven't been, and I guess I should explain. There was somebody here (named Pears) who said some things. She made no arguments based on region. She made no arguments based on religion. But, nevertheless, some people around here decided to ask her "how are your beliefs different from dragon poop". It seems a bit odd to me. Dragon poop is a bit different from God, but that isn't just what they asked, it's what they claimed. They said "god is equivalent to dragon poop". And, of course they can't prove anything like that. So here we are.
  23. Nope. Prof isn't just for the math. It's for you as well, and I don't think asking for it is unreasonable as well. You said that god is the equivalent to corn dog shitting dragons, You aid... "I'm glad to show how they are equivalent". You said that. Ether do it or admit you can't! There is no other option!
  24. I want to agree with you. I agree with you in principle, but I don't know where to draw the line. I mean... you just contradicted yourself. You just said "eye-witness testimony is admissible in court (if the witness is credible), it's not enough on its own to support a theory" then you said "If Einstein had claimed to witness something in his lab that he couldn't reproduce for colleagues to verify on their own"... so... First of all: Einstein didn't reproduce the 1919 eclipse for his colleagues. But, that isn't important... more than that... Religious people are verifying on their own what others see. Someone like Francis Collins hears his whole life that Jesus is real and all that BS, and he doesn't believe. Then one day he sees something that makes him believe. He independently verifies it in his own mind. How is that different from what science does every day? I honestly think there is an answer but I'm struggling to find it. If I hear my whole life that the earth is round then one day I take a trip on orbit then I'm going to believe too. I can't find the demarcation.
  25. Science is continually wrong. Newtonian mechanics was trusted for so long until it was falsified, and the paradigm shift introduced us to general relativity. It isn't exactly that science is right and verified while religion is wrong... it's more that science accepts that it can be wrong. It is skeptical in a way that faith can't be. For that... I trust science far more.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.