What if God is real but quiet to max out your free choices?

[Hermit]

What is a troll?

As I understand it, trolling is a method of fishing from a boat. You drag a lure along behind the boat, and wait for the fish to take the bait.

That is a trawl.

Trawlers use nets. Trollers use hooks. Forum trolls post.

[JimC]

What is a troll?

As I understand it, trolling is a method of fishing from a boat. You drag a lure along behind the boat, and wait for the fish to take the bait.

That is a trawl.

Incorrect. Trawling uses a net towed behind a boat, trolling involves a lure with hooks.

Then there's tra-la-ing, which involve absurd attempts to sing rustic songs...

[Seth]

And yet you zealously defend the religious against being disbelieved, disrespected, disregarded, criticised, admonished, and ridiculed.

No I don't, I merely point out the hypocrisy and irrationality involved.

You say that it's futile to make proclamations about supernatural entities but what-ifs are okay because they drive development and knowledge, unless they lead to the religious being disbelieved, disrespected, disregarded, criticised, admonished, and ridiculed, at which point you declare them Religious and futile.

Right, but the point is that that what-ifs do not apply to "supernatural entities" they apply only to "natural" entities. When an Atheist uses the "supernatural entities" crutch for an argument against religion I point out that it is irrational to do so because to assume, a priori that God is a "supernatural entity" is to invoke the Atheist's Fallacy. There is zero evidence that God is a "supernatural entity" don't you see?

My point, which I'm sure you grit, is obvious; you are an irrationally Religious disbeliever, disrespecter, disregarder, criticiser, admonisher, and ridiculer of atheism, and this is irrational and illogical as long as you continue to fail to produce credible, critically robust scientific evidence that God does not not exist.

Not at all. It's not atheism that I am critical of, it's Atheists and their irrational arguments.

Can you give an example of a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism.

Sure.

Does God exist?

I don't know.

[Seth]

What is a troll?

As I understand it, trolling is a method of fishing from a boat. You drag a lure along behind the boat, and wait for the fish to take the bait.

That is a trawl.

Trawlers use nets. Trollers use hooks. Forum trolls post.

Er, trolling a forum involves a "hook" that entices the prey to strike the lure and become hooked on it.

Some forum members are like whitefish, which will strike on nearly anything. Others are like trout, which will strike on a good pattern lure. Only a very few are like steelhead, which are extremely selective and discerning.

[Hermit]

I spent some time on fishing boats. They trawl in pairs with a net spread out between them.

My first day was quite an experience. After leaving the harbour around four in the morning we caught almost nothing for most of the day, and I was rather seasick for the first few hours. The last time the net was hauled in, it was the proverbial jackpot. After the partner boat handed over its end of it and chugged off to the harbour we winched it aboard and started filling the hold. When that was full there were a few tons of fish left which the captain decided to just dump on the deck. Great result. Everyone was happy.

Until something went bang. The mechanic discovered that the engine had done something engines are not supposed to do. He tried to kind of jury rig the thing, and there was another bang followed by a hiss. The mechanic came back up on deck with a badly scalded arm that needed urgent attention. The engine had died completely, arcing out the batteries as it went. So now we were immobilised so far out that we could not even see the coastline and we had no means to notify anyone about our plight. All we could do was to sit there and wait. The captain's son had one of those flare guns ready.

After an hour or so a breeze sprang up and created a choppy sea. The boat began bobbling about a bit, which shifted the fish lying on the deck to starboard. The boat started listing and the list gradually got worse as the bobbles shifted more fish to the side. The captain told his son to get the sledge hammer and start taking the railing out, so the fish can slide off. This worked, except then water had started lapping into the hold. Without power we could not even manoeuvre into the wind. Of course the pumps did not work without it either and the two-way radio was out as well. I started examining how the capsule that contained the inflateable life raft was fastened to the roof of the cab.

Meanwhile, the people who had returned to the harbour noticed that we were overdue. The entire fleet of about two dozen boats set out to sea again and started combing the area they thought we were likely to be in. That would have been around three in the afternoon. Daylight was not a problem. It was the middle of summer. Near total darkness would not happen until around eleven. Around five they found us and took us in tow. By then just about all of the fish above deck had slid off. The list had all but disappeared, though the boat's waterline was rather a lot lower than it should be. We were OK.

My mother got worried because she knew I should have been back at the farm house we rented for the holidays, and walked the kilometre or two to the harbour. When we were docked, the first thing she did was to ask the captain: "What has he done this time?" My ability to experience or cause was legendary. Later on I found out that earlier in the day my mother and one of my sisters had a bet; my mother bet I'd fall in the water before nightfall. The captain just grumbled: "Never another Volvo engine again. The next one is going to be a Merzedes." It was a costly day for him, but we as a family profited. The fishers were not interested in anything but herring, which were sold to the petfood factory. Trawling is rather indiscriminate. The nets capture everything that get in their way. Flounders, octopus, lobster, the occasional shark get thrown overboard as the rest is emptied into the hold. They are all dead already. As the giant ball of goodies gets winched up, the pressure kills the lot. I asked if I could fill a bucket with lobster to take home. Of course I could. For the next week I brought a bucket or two of them home every afternoon. We got a bit blasé about them, not bothering with anything but the tails. The rest was just too much bother. Finally, my middle sister said to me as I was about to walk to the harbour: "You know those lovely flounders you brought in one day?" "Yes. I remember. What of them?" "Can you bring back some more of them instead of lobsters?" She wasn't trolling me.

[Hermit]

What is a troll?

As I understand it, trolling is a method of fishing from a boat. You drag a lure along behind the boat, and wait for the fish to take the bait.

That is a trawl.

Trawlers use nets. Trollers use hooks. Forum trolls post.

Er, trolling a forum involves a "hook" that entices the prey to strike the lure and become hooked on it.

Um, you say that as if there's something you disagree with what I posted.

[Brian Peacock]

Can you give an example of a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism.

Sure.

Does God exist?

I don't know.

That's not an argument for atheism, but a declaration of agnosticism, and vast majority of atheist would probably count themselves as agnostic on epistemological grounds, perhaps even qualifying their views, when pushed, as agnostic-atheism. Of course, the agnostic is an atheist too, in the sense that they are not a theist and in the sense that they do not claim or accept the kind of special knowledge so many seem so absolutely sure about. But that wasn't the question was it(?) Can you give an example of a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism, bearing in mind that there first has to be some sort of claim or assertion for some sort of putative supernatural entity to begin with? Indeed, do you think that there can ever be a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism?

[Drewish]

[mistermack]

Some forum members are like whitefish, which will strike on nearly anything. Others are like trout, which will strike on a good pattern lure. Only a very few are like steelhead, which are extremely selective and discerning.

Actually, steelhead are not so much discerning, as not really interested.
They are in a river to breed, not eat.

And you bite on absolutely EVERYTHING. You're more like a newt, which doesn't need a hook.
It will just refuse to let go of a worm, so you can just lift them out of the water on a bit of thread..

[Sean Hayden]

That reminded me of catching burrowing crawfish as a kid. If you tied some bacon to a string they'd grab the bacon and let you pull them all the way up out of their hole.

...thinking about it now, that's probably a sin given the status of bacon 'n all

[Seth]

As I understand it, trolling is a method of fishing from a boat. You drag a lure along behind the boat, and wait for the fish to take the bait.

That is a trawl.

Trawlers use nets. Trollers use hooks. Forum trolls post.

Er, trolling a forum involves a "hook" that entices the prey to strike the lure and become hooked on it.

Um, you say that as if there's something you disagree with what I posted.

See what I mean?

[Seth]

Can you give an example of a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism.

Sure.

Does God exist?

I don't know.

That's not an argument for atheism,

Um, that is the ONLY non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism that there is, and that's the whole point. Any other argument immediately becomes irrational and hypocritical the moment some argument against the existence appears, even an implication created by an insult directed at theistic believers because there is zero evidence meeting the standards Atheists demand of theists of the truth of the claim that God does not exist.

but a declaration of agnosticism, and vast majority of atheist would probably count themselves as agnostic on epistemological grounds, perhaps even qualifying their views, when pushed, as agnostic-atheism.

You do not correctly identify agnosticism. Agnosticism specifically claims that we can NEVER KNOW whether God exists or not. That is a prediction of the future that amounts to a position statement on the existence of God. "I don't know" is simply and only a statement of fact. It neither implies that God exists or does not exist and it neither claims that we will inevitably know or can never know whether God exists.

For an "atheist" who has "no belief in the existence of God" as commonly expressed here (a lack of belief) this lack of belief can only be based on a paucity of evidence of the existence of God that is convincing enough to generate a belief in the existence of God. The a priori argument of atheism is, as has been stated here many times, that in the absence of critically robust scientific evidence of the existence of God, God cannot be said to exist and therefore the only rational thing to believe is that God does NOT exist, unless and until such evidence is provided. This common claim attempts to place the burden of proving the existence of God on those who believe God exists.

The problem is that just as (arguendo) there is no evidence that God exists, there is also no evidence that God does not exist. That being the case, the only rational claim that an atheist can make with respect to the question is "I don't know." This is not an agnostic position, it's a statement of logical fact.

Of course, the agnostic is an atheist too, in the sense that they are not a theist and in the sense that they do not claim or accept the kind of special knowledge so many seem so absolutely sure about. But that wasn't the question was it(?) Can you give an example of a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism, bearing in mind that there first has to be some sort of claim or assertion for some sort of putative supernatural entity to begin with? Indeed, do you think that there can ever be a non-hypocritical, rational argument for atheism?

Now you're shifting the goalposts. On what basis do you add the condition "there first has to be some sort of claim or assertion of some sort of putative supernatural entity to begin with"? The existence of God clearly does not hinge on there being a predicate claim or assertion with respect to God any more than the existence of subatomic particles such as muons and quarks hinges on a predicate claim or assertion that subatomic particles exist. This is exactly the sort of illogic that is commonly used in presenting the Atheist's Fallacy, and that is exactly what you are doing here. Beliefs about God or claims about God, either affirmative or negative, have nothing whatever to do with the objective fact of God's existence or non-existence.

The only rational, scientific predicate claim with respect to God that can be made is "Either God exists or God does not exist." That's it. And absent critically robust scientific evidence supporting one or another of those predicate claims no rational conclusion can be drawn by anyone. Therefore the only rational response to both questions is, and can only be, "I don't know." That is a rational, non hypocritical argument both for and against atheism.

[Seth]

Some forum members are like whitefish, which will strike on nearly anything. Others are like trout, which will strike on a good pattern lure. Only a very few are like steelhead, which are extremely selective and discerning.

Actually, steelhead are not so much discerning, as not really interested.
They are in a river to breed, not eat.

Correct. That's the reason that steelhead lures don't have to mimic actual insects, they just have to piss off a fish enough to get them to strike while they are in breeding mode. The same is true of salmon.

And you bite on absolutely EVERYTHING.

Um, I'm not the one who bites, I'm the one who passes the lure in front of your nose close enough to piss you off so you'll strike. And I'm really good at it. I was also pretty good at doing the same to steelhead, but Atheists are so much easier to find than steelhead it's child's play.

[Hermit]

Trawlers use nets. Trollers use hooks. Forum trolls post.

Er, trolling a forum involves a "hook" that entices the prey to strike the lure and become hooked on it.

Um, you say that as if there's something you disagree with what I posted.

See what I mean?

What? Were you trying to troll then?

[Seth]

Trawlers use nets. Trollers use hooks. Forum trolls post.

Er, trolling a forum involves a "hook" that entices the prey to strike the lure and become hooked on it.

Um, you say that as if there's something you disagree with what I posted.

See what I mean?

What? Were you trying to troll then?

No, I was stimulating debate...