Tussock wrote:
I tore that one up already, but you keep going back to it, eh. You were insisting that because you wouldn't assert anything about god's consciousness that it couldn't be disproved by looking at what that word means. Which is bullshit, and intellectual cowardice of the highest order now that you keep going back to it like this.
Your refusal to define a deity means we get to dismiss it, including by looking at real things that it is obviously not. Like any fucking thing other than an idea from an ancient myth (which stole that idea from even older myths, duh).
You don't understand this conversation. Like, at fucking all.
1) Kaelik made an inductive argument asserting the likelihood of god's non-existence using all consciousnesses ever observed.
2) I point out that that argument is shit, because it is shit; all consciousnesses ever observed is obviously biased, so the conclusion is so unreliable as to be fucking meaningless.
3) Lots of shit. Then Frank says that god's non-existence is the default assumption, because "any claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
4) I point out that god's non-existence is a claim without evidence, and therefore can be dismissed without evidence.
5) Some discussion about epistemological theory, and Frank says "we don't have to entertain notions of magic sky fairies/matrix/god."
6) I go no shit; the questions themself offer no predictive power to any of our models of the universe, so we ignore the questions. We don't assume we know any answer, true or false, to them.
None of my above positions require to me make an argument for (or even define) god's existence, so... uhh... fuck you, shut up? Argue with what I am actually saying.
Calling a stupid argument stupid does not put in the position of defending its opposite conclusion!
@LargePrime, the problem you're pointing out is about the problem of using language to describe a shifting category. Christianity, in the future, may refer to shit like the belief that "Jesus is the divine robot, sent to us by God and Optimus Prime to defeat the decepticons... of our hearts." But the word, Christianity, does not currently refer to any belief like that. When the language changes such that Christianity refers to new shit, my argument has to be re-examined to see if it applies or if the word Christianity has to be replaced with something narrower. But that's a linguistic problem, caused by the
meaning of a word changing between now and then. You can frame my argument to be independent of the word Christianity, since Christianity is such a relatively unstable word:
1) The religious text of X is infallible.
2) The religious text of X says Y happened.
3) Y didn't happen.
4) The religious text of X contains a mistake.
C) Contradiction; 1 and 4 cannot both be true.
Now the argument is generalized to apply to any X,Y which satisfy the premises. Of course, some Christians don't hold the infallibility of the bible, so for them, premise 1 doesn't hold. But that's one argument out of dozens; there's also god's infallibility + Christianity's flipflopping on moral issues over the past 2000 years. That's a contradiction. God can't be infallible AND have been wrong when he said "slavery is cool; go ahead." Modern Christianity looks nothing like old Christianity, but at the same time it doesn't admit that Christianity used to be 'wrong,' and that leads to a huge number of potential contradictions that we can call on to show internal inconsistency.
