Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Robert_S]

A term used by the religious to exert control over others...

You know how to control others with a ham hock in your cornflakes? A joint rolled in toilet paper?

[JimC]

A term used by the religious to exert control over others...

You know how to control others with a ham hock in your cornflakes? A joint rolled in toilet paper?

Is that a ham hock in your cornflakes, or are you just glad to see me?



As for joints, the sweetest are rolled in pages ripped from Gideon's Bibles in tragic, low-rate motels...

[Seth]

Indeed, bullshit. So quit citing bullshit. God does not have to be supernatural in order to exist. God need only be undetectable and untestable by our paltry, primitive human intellects and science. Therefore, you cannot deny the existence of God based on a false claim that God is supernatural, not even such a claim made by a theist, because that's just another iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy.

Not supernatural, yet undetectable... Then it's just a silly waste of time to say anything about it.

Just because YOU can't detect it doesn't make it a "silly waste of time to say anything about it." With that sort of attitude, the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the presently-undetectable Higgs Boson would not exist, now would it?

Undetectable in practice, or in principle?

Are you claiming that God is undetectable in practice?

[Robert_S]

Indeed, bullshit. So quit citing bullshit. God does not have to be supernatural in order to exist. God need only be undetectable and untestable by our paltry, primitive human intellects and science. Therefore, you cannot deny the existence of God based on a false claim that God is supernatural, not even such a claim made by a theist, because that's just another iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy.

Not supernatural, yet undetectable... Then it's just a silly waste of time to say anything about it.

Just because YOU can't detect it doesn't make it a "silly waste of time to say anything about it." With that sort of attitude, the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the presently-undetectable Higgs Boson would not exist, now would it?

Undetectable in practice, or in principle?

Are you claiming that God is undetectable in practice?

Which god?

[Seth]

Undetectable in practice, or in principle?

Are you claiming that God is undetectable in practice?

Which god?

Any god. All gods. Some gods. If you claim God, or god, or gods are undetectable in practice, you will be required to show critically robust evidence supporting that assertion, otherwise it can be, as someone recently told me, dismissed without consideration for lack of evidence.

[Robert_S]

Undetectable in practice, or in principle?

Are you claiming that God is undetectable in practice?

Which god?

Any god. All gods. Some gods. If you claim God, or god, or gods are undetectable in practice, you will be required to show critically robust evidence supporting that assertion, otherwise it can be, as someone recently told me, dismissed without consideration for lack of evidence.

Lemme get this straight: You want evidence of undectability?

[Seth]

Undetectable in practice, or in principle?

Are you claiming that God is undetectable in practice?

Which god?

Any god. All gods. Some gods. If you claim God, or god, or gods are undetectable in practice, you will be required to show critically robust evidence supporting that assertion, otherwise it can be, as someone recently told me, dismissed without consideration for lack of evidence.

Lemme get this straight: You want evidence of undectability?

You make the claim, you get to provide the evidence if you don't want your claim summarily dismissed. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Robert_S]

Undetectable in practice, or in principle?

Are you claiming that God is undetectable in practice?

Which god?

Any god. All gods. Some gods. If you claim God, or god, or gods are undetectable in practice, you will be required to show critically robust evidence supporting that assertion, otherwise it can be, as someone recently told me, dismissed without consideration for lack of evidence.

Lemme get this straight: You want evidence of undectability?

You make the claim, you get to provide the evidence if you don't want your claim summarily dismissed. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I dismissed the concept of an undetectable god as a waste of time. You took issue, so I have now revised my statement that the concept of a god that is undetectable in principle is a waste of time.

A god that is undetectable in practice with our current methods may not be a waste of time, but I doubt it very much.

[Seth]

Undetectable in practice, or in principle?

Are you claiming that God is undetectable in practice?

Which god?

Any god. All gods. Some gods. If you claim God, or god, or gods are undetectable in practice, you will be required to show critically robust evidence supporting that assertion, otherwise it can be, as someone recently told me, dismissed without consideration for lack of evidence.

Lemme get this straight: You want evidence of undectability?

You make the claim, you get to provide the evidence if you don't want your claim summarily dismissed. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I dismissed the concept of an undetectable god as a waste of time.

It may be a waste of your time, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether you are making a specific claim about the detectibility of God.

You took issue, so I have now revised my statement that the concept of a god that is undetectable in principle is a waste of time.

Well, the problem is that "undetectable in principle" would be imposing constraints on God again, which is an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy.

As I've said before, none of us can say with any sort of strength of reasoning and logic that God does not exist, or that God does exist. The best we can say is that we don't know, because God may exist, but be undetectable by our present knowledge or science, but be detectable by some future knowledge or science, or God may not exist.

Whether it's a waste of time for you to worry about it is another matter entirely. Of course you are free to simply ignore the entire proposition as pointless and a waste of time, but you CANNOT make a rational claim one way or the other. That's all I'm saying.

A god that is undetectable in practice with our current methods may not be a waste of time, but I doubt it very much.

But what if you're wrong...??

[Rum]

Given that any god appears to be undetectable and there is no evidence one exists I personally am not going to waste my time of getting involved with what has every appearance of being a made up one.

[Seth]

Given that any god appears to be undetectable and there is no evidence one exists I personally am not going to waste my time of getting involved with what has every appearance of being a made up one.

Grand idea. Does this mean you're going to now STFU about God and leave the theists alone to enjoy their delusions in peace?

Something tells me (an invisible little bird chirping in my ear) that you are fibbing, and that you actually ARE going to continue to "get involved" with God-claims, because like most militant Atheist religionists, you just can't stand to not shove your oar in to the debate because it's a matter of religious faith to you that you oppose theism whenever it rears its ugly head because you think, perhaps, your opinions actually matter.

Talk about your delusions...

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Given that any god appears to be undetectable and there is no evidence one exists I personally am not going to waste my time of getting involved with what has every appearance of being a made up one.

Grand idea. Does this mean you're going to now STFU about God and leave the theists alone to enjoy their delusions in peace?

Something tells me (an invisible little bird chirping in my ear) that you are fibbing, and that you actually ARE going to continue to "get involved" with God-claims, because like most militant Atheist religionists, you just can't stand to not shove your oar in to the debate because it's a matter of religious faith to you that you oppose theism whenever it rears its ugly head because you think, perhaps, your opinions actually matter.

Talk about your delusions...

Riiiight, so atheists are the ones that love the oar-shoving are they?

[Robert_S]

It may be a waste of your time, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether you are making a specific claim about the detectibility of God.

You took issue, so I have now revised my statement that the concept of a god that is undetectable in principle is a waste of time.

Well, the problem is that "undetectable in principle" would be imposing constraints on God again, which is an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy.

I did not say that God is detectable or not.

You said

Indeed, bullshit. So quit citing bullshit. God does not have to be supernatural in order to exist. God need only be undetectable and untestable by our paltry, primitive human intellects and science. Therefore, you cannot deny the existence of God based on a false claim that God is supernatural, not even such a claim made by a theist, because that's just another iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy.

Back here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 6#p1075866

My position is that if we cannot detect this god, then it is a waste of time to worry about it.

As I've said before, none of us can say with any sort of strength of reasoning and logic that God does not exist, or that God does exist. The best we can say is that we don't know, because God may exist, but be undetectable by our present knowledge or science, but be detectable by some future knowledge or science, or God may not exist.

Whether it's a waste of time for you to worry about it is another matter entirely. Of course you are free to simply ignore the entire proposition as pointless and a waste of time, but you CANNOT make a rational claim one way or the other. That's all I'm saying.

A god that is undetectable in practice with our current methods may not be a waste of time, but I doubt it very much.

But what if you're wrong...??

Anything from I get into heaven free because God loves a doubter to I go to Hell but would have gone to Hell no matter what I thought or did because God is a rotten bastard like that.

Maybe there is a god and that god doesn't give much of a damn either way, so s/he/it won't do nothing for me.

But in order for me to really even speculate on whether God or object number 4485633556-A exists or is detectable, I need

[Robert_S]

A term used by the religious to exert control over others...

You know how to control others with a ham hock in your cornflakes? A joint rolled in toilet paper?

Is that a ham hock in your cornflakes, or are you just glad to see me?



As for joints, the sweetest are rolled in pages ripped from Gideon's Bibles in tragic, low-rate motels...

In many contexts, the word "soul" describes things that have quite natural explanations.

Does that work of art have soul, or is it just another derivative piece of hack for the pretentious gallery critics?

That guy used to care about the diners he owned as a valuable part of our community, but then as his greed took over, it became just another soul-less corporate chain.

That band used to really push the creative envelope, creating unique sounds that mesmerised us while the honesty of the lyrics tore at our hearts. Their latest couple albums however, they're bland as hell and the words seem to have been written by a focus group. they sold their souls.

[Hermit]

Given that any god appears to be undetectable and there is no evidence one exists I personally am not going to waste my time of getting involved with what has every appearance of being a made up one.

Grand idea. Does this mean you're going to now STFU about God and leave the theists alone to enjoy their delusions in peace?

Sounds like a fair deal on one proviso: If the millions of missionaries, evangelists and proselytisers stop praying in our schools, we promise not to think in their churches.