Free Counselling for Theists!

[Swami Dring]

Whilst I don't believe in god, I don't disbelieve either. That makes me agnostic. I suspect that our debate will show very clearly why I am agnostic

So you don't know your definitions. Your quote "I don't believe in god" makes you an atheist. A=without, theist=belief in magic poof. You're an atheist. Many people make the mistake of thinking that all atheists positively assert that there are no gods. They, and you, are wrong.

As for the label of "agnostic", I presume you don't qualify your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot, leprechauns and ghosts with the word "agnostic". You, like most sane people, would simply say that you don't believe in them. But when it comes to the biggest crock of shit ever told, all of a sudden you're an agnostic unbeliever. To me, the word is a wank word used by tossers to try to give the impression of being open-minded. However the fact that they use the word exclusively for matters theistic means that they are either lending an undeserved credibility to the claims of religious nuts to appease them, or they are hedging their bets and hoping that if the magic poof does indeed exist, he will go easy on them because they sat on the fence.

Such is the difference between fact and believe, between deductive and inductive reasoning. It is a fact that a square is defined by 4 lines of equal length at right angles to one another. It is a believe that such an animal as you described is in my house. Facts are either true or false. Beliefs are either more of less persuasive. So, whilst I am yet to be persuaded that this creature is in my house, I cannot discount it as untrue.It is highly improbable, but not impossible.

Actually, it's impossible. The upper estimate for the number of particles in the universe is 10^87. My fictional giraffe has 13x10^600 heads (European centillion).

What theists need to remember is that the god story is a vastly, immensely bigger crock of shit than my giraffe crock.

And of course believing in god due to the inability to disprove his existence compels the theist, if they wish to be intellectually consistent, tee hee, to believe in every fictional character in every fiction book ever written in the history of the universe.

Again, of all things imagined and subsequently expressed, they can be improbable, but not impossible. Arm chair atheists confuse fact with belief, deductive with inductive reasoning.

Your argument merely persuades by playing with the idea of belief. It does not express fact. And because it only persuades, it does not disprove my belief in god/s that are not found in religious texts.

And again, you have used your incorrect definition of atheism on which to base your argument.

[boxy]

Such is the difference between fact and believe, between deductive and inductive reasoning. It is a fact that a square is defined by 4 lines of equal length at right angles to one another. It is a believe that such an animal as you described is in my house. Facts are either true or false. Beliefs are either more of less persuasive. So, whilst I am yet to be persuaded that this creature is in my house, I cannot discount it as untrue.It is highly improbable, but not impossible.

Actually, it's impossible. The upper estimate for the number of particles in the universe is 10^87. My fictional giraffe has 13x10^600 heads (European centillion).

But you said he was majical!

Can't we believe anything you say, swami?

[Sappho]

Whilst I don't believe in god, I don't disbelieve either. That makes me agnostic. I suspect that our debate will show very clearly why I am agnostic

So you don't know your definitions. Your quote "I don't believe in god" makes you an atheist. A=without, theist=belief in magic poof. You're an atheist. Many people make the mistake of thinking that all atheists positively assert that there are no gods. They, and you, are wrong.

Actually, I did not say: "I don't believe in god". I said: "Whilst I don't believe in god, I don't disbelieve either." It is a complex proposition I've presented which cannot be simplified without loosing the meaning. It is like saying: "I neither believe or disbelieve in god.", or "I am neither with or without theism." Some clarification though... where I say god, I really mean god/s. It is important that this 'agnostic' distinction remains, because it allows me to do something that you cannot do: that is, to entertain the idea of theism and/or atheism. If you are without theism, you cannot entertain its concepts, they can only be refuted as you seek to do here.

As for the label of "agnostic", I presume you don't qualify your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot, leprechauns and ghosts with the word "agnostic". You, like most sane people, would simply say that you don't believe in them. But when it comes to the biggest crock of shit ever told, all of a sudden you're an agnostic unbeliever.

Again, I neither believe nor disbelieve imaginings, I simply entertain them by engaging them. Take for example the tooth fairy. When my children were growing up, I entertained and engaged the concept, and I would add improved on them. I created Fairy Blue Bell the flower fairy who would moonlight as a tooth fairy, by only for my daughter. I also created Alf Elf who moonlighted as a tooth fairy, exclusively for my son. Both 'toothfairies' left my children letters, when they came to collect teeth, telling them about the life, times and adventures of Fairyland. Even the family cat was ropped in as the messenger passing on to the 'tooth fairies' news of a new tooth ready for collection. I was myth making no less and me and my children thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience, were completely engaged in the experience and gained much from it.

You are right to assume that god/s belief is in the same catigory as and other fantasmagorical things. They are all imaginings without a basis in truth because they explore possibilities. The beauty of possibilities is that you can choose to believe or disbelieve, or, you can choose either or neither option. And, it is not just the fantasmagorical that can be imagined. All practical things created by humans that we now take for granted started as imaginings.

To me, the word is a wank word used by tossers to try to give the impression of being open-minded. However the fact that they use the word exclusively for matters theistic means that they are either lending an undeserved credibility to the claims of religious nuts to appease them, or they are hedging their bets and hoping that if the magic poof does indeed exist, he will go easy on them because they sat on the fence.

You've just made the assumption that god/s is/are judgemental, to which I can only reply... maybe, but then again, maybe not. Certainly I can understand how someone can come to such an assumption. The only existance humans know is that of the human and humans are known to be judgemental.

That agnosticism is used specifically for describing uncertainty in matters theistic and atheistic, is because that is its intent. But as we agree, theism belongs to a larger classification that describes fantasmagorical things, which like practical things, are imagined. I think that the problem for theists and atheist alike is that they try and ascribe a status of existance or non existance upon that which is imagined and that the wrong approach. Imaginings could become or not become existant. Imaginings could have been or not have been existant. And whilst the act of imagining has a present tense which exists, the subject of the imaginings do not have a present tense existance... not that that matters for theists since the fantasmagorical is metaphyiscal... that is beyond the space time continum of physical forces.

Such is the difference between fact and believe, between deductive and inductive reasoning. It is a fact that a square is defined by 4 lines of equal length at right angles to one another. It is a believe that such an animal as you described is in my house. Facts are either true or false. Beliefs are either more of less persuasive. So, whilst I am yet to be persuaded that this creature is in my house, I cannot discount it as untrue.It is highly improbable, but not impossible.

Actually, it's impossible. The upper estimate for the number of particles in the universe is 10^87. My fictional giraffe has 13x10^600 heads (European centillion).

As boxy quite rightly points out, your description of the animal was as a magical being and that condition was so placed, in your sentence, as to affect the rational considerations of deductive logic that would otherwise find the creature an impossibility. Magic is metaphyisical and so not constrained by the limitations of the physical. If you wanted my absolute disbelief, then you should not have stipulated metaphyisical qualities.

What theists need to remember is that the god story is a vastly, immensely bigger crock of shit than my giraffe crock.

And of course believing in god due to the inability to disprove his existence compels the theist, if they wish to be intellectually consistent, tee hee, to believe in every fictional character in every fiction book ever written in the history of the universe.

No, no necessarily. If they wished to be intellectually consistant, then they would need to be, with all other fantasmagorical things, as an agnostic is with theism and atheism.

Again, of all things imagined and subsequently expressed, they can be improbable, but not impossible. Arm chair atheists confuse fact with belief, deductive with inductive reasoning.

Your argument merely persuades by playing with the idea of belief. It does not express fact. And because it only persuades, it does not disprove my belief in god/s that are not found in religious texts.

And again, you have used your incorrect definition of atheism on which to base your argument.

To be without belief as an athiest is without god belief, is a matter of inductive and not deductive logic. Athiests are persuaded over to that belief via compelling and valid rationals that do not speak to truth and falsehood, but to belief and disbelief. It is a matter of well considered faith if you will.

If you think this is the wrong, don't just say it, explain its wrongness in debate.

[Canine Sex Trafficker]

If God were a dog his penis would be long, pink with a large ball at the base.

[Swami Dring]

Whilst I don't believe in god, I don't disbelieve either. That makes me agnostic. I suspect that our debate will show very clearly why I am agnostic

So you don't know your definitions. Your quote "I don't believe in god" makes you an atheist. A=without, theist=belief in magic poof. You're an atheist. Many people make the mistake of thinking that all atheists positively assert that there are no gods. They, and you, are wrong.

Actually, I did not say: "I don't believe in god". I said: "Whilst I don't believe in god, I don't disbelieve either." It is a complex proposition I've presented which cannot be simplified without loosing the meaning. It is like saying: "I neither believe or disbelieve in god.", or "I am neither with or without theism." Some clarification though... where I say god, I really mean god/s. It is important that this 'agnostic' distinction remains, because it allows me to do something that you cannot do: that is, to entertain the idea of theism and/or atheism. If you are without theism, you cannot entertain its concepts, they can only be refuted as you seek to do here.

As for the label of "agnostic", I presume you don't qualify your lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot, leprechauns and ghosts with the word "agnostic". You, like most sane people, would simply say that you don't believe in them. But when it comes to the biggest crock of shit ever told, all of a sudden you're an agnostic unbeliever.

Again, I neither believe nor disbelieve imaginings, I simply entertain them by engaging them. Take for example the tooth fairy. When my children were growing up, I entertained and engaged the concept, and I would add improved on them. I created Fairy Blue Bell the flower fairy who would moonlight as a tooth fairy, by only for my daughter. I also created Alf Elf who moonlighted as a tooth fairy, exclusively for my son. Both 'toothfairies' left my children letters, when they came to collect teeth, telling them about the life, times and adventures of Fairyland. Even the family cat was ropped in as the messenger passing on to the 'tooth fairies' news of a new tooth ready for collection. I was myth making no less and me and my children thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience, were completely engaged in the experience and gained much from it.

You are right to assume that god/s belief is in the same catigory as and other fantasmagorical things. They are all imaginings without a basis in truth because they explore possibilities. The beauty of possibilities is that you can choose to believe or disbelieve, or, you can choose either or neither option. And, it is not just the fantasmagorical that can be imagined. All practical things created by humans that we now take for granted started as imaginings.

To me, the word is a wank word used by tossers to try to give the impression of being open-minded. However the fact that they use the word exclusively for matters theistic means that they are either lending an undeserved credibility to the claims of religious nuts to appease them, or they are hedging their bets and hoping that if the magic poof does indeed exist, he will go easy on them because they sat on the fence.

You've just made the assumption that god/s is/are judgemental, to which I can only reply... maybe, but then again, maybe not. Certainly I can understand how someone can come to such an assumption. The only existance humans know is that of the human and humans are known to be judgemental.

That agnosticism is used specifically for describing uncertainty in matters theistic and atheistic, is because that is its intent. But as we agree, theism belongs to a larger classification that describes fantasmagorical things, which like practical things, are imagined. I think that the problem for theists and atheist alike is that they try and ascribe a status of existance or non existance upon that which is imagined and that the wrong approach. Imaginings could become or not become existant. Imaginings could have been or not have been existant. And whilst the act of imagining has a present tense which exists, the subject of the imaginings do not have a present tense existance... not that that matters for theists since the fantasmagorical is metaphyiscal... that is beyond the space time continum of physical forces.

Such is the difference between fact and believe, between deductive and inductive reasoning. It is a fact that a square is defined by 4 lines of equal length at right angles to one another. It is a believe that such an animal as you described is in my house. Facts are either true or false. Beliefs are either more of less persuasive. So, whilst I am yet to be persuaded that this creature is in my house, I cannot discount it as untrue.It is highly improbable, but not impossible.

Actually, it's impossible. The upper estimate for the number of particles in the universe is 10^87. My fictional giraffe has 13x10^600 heads (European centillion).

As boxy quite rightly points out, your description of the animal was as a magical being and that condition was so placed, in your sentence, as to affect the rational considerations of deductive logic that would otherwise find the creature an impossibility. Magic is metaphyisical and so not constrained by the limitations of the physical. If you wanted my absolute disbelief, then you should not have stipulated metaphyisical qualities.

What theists need to remember is that the god story is a vastly, immensely bigger crock of shit than my giraffe crock.

And of course believing in god due to the inability to disprove his existence compels the theist, if they wish to be intellectually consistent, tee hee, to believe in every fictional character in every fiction book ever written in the history of the universe.

No, no necessarily. If they wished to be intellectually consistant, then they would need to be, with all other fantasmagorical things, as an agnostic is with theism and atheism.

Again, of all things imagined and subsequently expressed, they can be improbable, but not impossible. Arm chair atheists confuse fact with belief, deductive with inductive reasoning.

Your argument merely persuades by playing with the idea of belief. It does not express fact. And because it only persuades, it does not disprove my belief in god/s that are not found in religious texts.

And again, you have used your incorrect definition of atheism on which to base your argument.

To be without belief as an athiest is without god belief, is a matter of inductive and not deductive logic. Athiests are persuaded over to that belief via compelling and valid rationals that do not speak to truth and falsehood, but to belief and disbelief. It is a matter of well considered faith if you will.

If you think this is the wrong, don't just say it, explain its wrongness in debate.

So when you don't understand the meaning of a word, and you then attempt to form an argument around your incorrect definition, and your error is pointed out to you.........................your tactic is to waffle.

Now where have I seen that tactic before?

[Sappho]

And when a person provides a counter argument and requests a rationale of some kind to justify you as yet unjustified stance, you resort to ad homs. Where have I seen that before.

Really Dring, you say you want someone to challenge you and when you get that you throw sticks and stones whilst backing away into your hidey hole. Piss weak.

[Ned Kelly]

Is that right, Skunk. I reckon Dring is on the money and well ahead in the 'debate.' You just waffle with esoterics of your own making, and none of them make any rational sense.

fantasmagorical

[Sappho]

Is that right, Skunk. I reckon Dring is on the money and well ahead in the 'debate.' You just waffle with esoterics of your own making, and none of them make any rational sense.

fantasmagorical

Oh look, it the the PA stalker of women par excellence, contributing nothing more than a healthy disregard for those who want to debate.

You had me quite pissed off with you the other day, but then it was pointed out to me by a very good soul that you have always stalked, with a particular taste for stalking women. This person linked me to the evidence some of which I have saved to fav's. What I notice about your history of forum stalking is that you tend to pick on those who are smarter than you. It is as though you seek to anger them in order quell you inferiority complex.

After reading about your stalking history, I can't get angry at you any more. I'm actually quite proud the wear the 'I've been stalked by Aussie' badge. There are a lot of fine minds who have been stalked by you.

What a fool you are.

[Ned Kelly]

How is that (absurd) ad hom relevant to the 'debate?'

[Swami Dring]

And when a person provides a counter argument and requests a rationale of some kind to justify you as yet unjustified stance, you resort to ad homs. Where have I seen that before.

Really Dring, you say you want someone to challenge you and when you get that you throw sticks and stones whilst backing away into your hidey hole. Piss weak.

Don't be angry, Sappho. Be thankful that I have educated you. Thanks to me, you now know that you are an atheist.