"I'm just saying that the claim "There is no god", due to it's being based on the proving of a negative, which is, obviously, impossible
is a bit of a silly one.

The only sensible position is to admit to not knowing."

Firstly, it's not actually impossible to prove a negative, only ignorant people who can't be bothered to actually think believe that it would be impossible, for example, to prove that "there is not a biscuit in this tin". Yeah, taking the lid off and looking is beyond the ken of thinking people. So it's not a fact in any way shape or form that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Secondly, while you may feel all superior to think that the only sensible position is to admit your own ignorance, sadly a moment's analysis is all that is required to realise that agnositicism is far from the sensible position. There either is or there is not a god. If there is then you should believe, if there isn't then you should not believe. Not committing is in fact the worst decision you can make on this issue. Agnosticism was the position adopted by Thomas Huxley. Many have followed in his footsteps. Few of those who followed in his footsteps realise agnosticism was conceived as a joke. Fewer still realise that Huxley's agnosticism pretty much disappeared on the publication of Darwin's work and that Huxley himself provided the foreword to later editions.

Thirdly, there do exist philosophical proofs against the existence of god(s)by the likes of Nicholas Everitt and Robin le Poidevin amongst others. There also exist arguments that falsify the claim for any particular gods whose existence is claimed thus far. There may be "other" gods with other "properties" that may exist in spite of these philosophical arguments, but nobody thus far in human history have claimed existence for them. Fair enough, those who don't read philosophy might be tempted to assume such things don't exist or have never been attempted, god knows, it seems to be a commonly parrotted "fact" amongst agnostics who can't be bothered to get off their smug arses and actually look.

Which is why what annoys me most of all is the knee-jerk parrotting of the fashinable opinion, following the lame-brained relativist columnists who patronisingly pronounce, with bugger all by way of argument or evidence, that atheism is as bad as theism. Idiotic cunts like you in other words.

Ho hum, back to lurkage.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 0:55, 2 replies)

Off you go, then.
Proof god doesn't exist, please. Keep it clean, simple, and concise, otherwise you risk being perceived as obfuscating.

As for the personal insults - "idiotic cunts like you", etc, I'm sure someone of your education and intellect is more than aware that such tends to imply defensiveness, which does nothing to instil any faith in your position or claims.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 8:49, closed)

"As for the personal insults - "idiotic cunts like you", etc,"

Ah right, as opposed to the self-righteous, knowingly-ironic twats you so despise eh? Pot, kettle, black etc. There's these things called mirrors, really you should look into one sometime.

"Proof god doesn't exist, please."

I've already told you two places you can go and look, perhaps you weren't paying attention. But this is symptomatic of the intellectually lazy who will parrot their mantra that theirs is the only sensible position when none of the dozy cunts have put in any effort at all. Easy to get your opinions off the shelf I suppose, much easier than having to, you know, think or something.

But if you insist, here's a condensed disproof of the notion of a creator god which, for a fuller explanation, you can consult the authors I've previously pointed out.

Definitions:
Contingent: that which is dependent upon something else
Necessary: that which is self-sufficient and not dependent on something else

Two things, five possibilities, god and the universe.

a) necessary universe, necessary god; can be ruled out, a necessary universe has no creator god
b) necessary universe, contingent god; can be ruled out, both for the preceding reason and because theists insist their god is not contingent
c) contingent universe, contingent god; can be ruled out again because theists insist their god is not contingent
d) contingent universe, necessary god; the classic theist claim. Unfortunately a necessary thing can never be the explanation for a contingent thing because of the nature of causality which takes place within a framework of pre-existence. All forms of causality follow the formula x (which exists) acts on y (which exists) with result z. Since it is impossible to disengage causality from existence one can only conclude
e) necessary universe; that the universe has existed for as long as time itself in one form or another and it's existence is therefore necessary and not contingent upon some other thing. See also: physics, which seems to be heading towards the same conclusion.

Well, that's creator gods, there are other gods or ideas for god, such as pantheism. If you want pantheism disproving I suggest you go and look it up yourself, lest you start to sound like a theist demanding of evolutionists "What about the giraffe's neck eh? eh? Go on disprove that then, smartarse!"

But by all means continue to be a smug agnostic, in the final analysis it's the only position that's guaranteed 100% wrong. Did I mention it was a joke?
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 12:25, closed)

Ah - the "I was only joking" line.
Very good.

Just because a philosopher said god doesn't exist because he doesn't so that's that so there, does not prove or disprove the existence of a or several gods.

That's merely expanded willy-waving.

Next you'll be telling me that it is actually possible to be wrong in one's taste in music.

I'm smug because I'm fucking good, I'm agnostic because humankind does not know whether or not there is a gnos.

But you were explaining how I'm wrong.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 12:33, closed)

"Ah - the "I was only joking" line.
Very good."

You really don't pay attention do you? I was referring to agnosticism being a joke of Thomas Huxley.

"Just because a philosopher said god doesn't exist because he doesn't so that's that so there, does not prove or disprove the existence of a or several gods."

Actually it does, clearly you can't be bothered to intellectually engage with the argument such that you will dismiss the work of philosophers with a wave of your B3tan hand. All this tells us is what an arrogant little wanker you are, a wanker with an inferiority complex of "twatbag students" "Stewart Lee" and now philosophers. Let us all bow to your puissant intellectual skills, such as they are, backed up with nothing by way of argument, example or coherence.

"I'm smug because I'm fucking good,"

This is the point where it is customary to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, with the addendum that opinions are indeed like arseholes.....

"But you were explaining how I'm wrong."

Indeed, I already have. A man with an argument worth propounding would by now have made his case. I note you haven't. Let us draw our own conclusions from this.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 12:39, closed)

I have made my case. You don't seem to have provided any counterpoints.
I am absolutely equal to everyone, and generally better than them, though I will admit that Bono has a better singing voice, and that Ringo Starr is a slightly better drummer.

I'm not one to buy into false modesty, and on philosophy I don't really respect letters after one's name or publications. Everyone has their own view and no one's is any better than anyone else's. To ponce about claiming to have read a book on it doesn't demark one as better or more clever or necessarily better-versed. Some of the best philosophers you'll meet work in factories stuffing envelopes and painting chair legs (not that I imagine Illuminati such as yourself have ever had experience of a factory except possibly seeing one on some awful television programme about the prolitariate).

So - instead of telling me I'm wrong, how about you put down the scented handkerchief, and actually SHOW me how I'm wrong?

I await a diatribe on how you've already directed me to such, in lieu of your demonstrating your understanding of the matter by being able to illustrate such.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 12:47, closed)

"I have made my case. You don't seem to have provided any counterpoints."

Well, I've looked at your posts for the case for agnosticism, it appears to have taken a leave of absence.

" Everyone has their own view and no one's is any better than anyone else's."

And the philosopher Jamie Whyte in his book "Bad Thoughts" wherein he outlines 13 common logical fallacies points out that this position is invariably parrotted by people with no vested interest in learning the truth or falsehood of their positions at invariably the point that, should they examine them, they would find themselves to be in error. It is a shorthand for "bugger off, I'm not interested".

"So - instead of telling me I'm wrong, how about you put down the scented handkerchief, and actually SHOW me how I'm wrong?"

You want showing how agnosticism is wrong? Despite being told that the inventor of agnosticism conceived it as a joke and later became an atheist? Despite it being fairly obvious that if there is or there isn't a god then not picking a side is the only way to guarantee you're on the losing side? Ok, well then, how about you're not an agnostic at all? Sure, I mean you claim to be and everything but really you aren't. Why is that? Well, because people actually do commit in action whether they don't commit in principle. A theist is someone with god, an atheist is someone without. Agnosticism is merely a position on epistemology and not god at all, what you're actually agnostic to is the possibility of knowledge. And it's perfectly possible, indeed it's unavoidable, to on the one hand state that you don't know if it's proveable whether or not god exists and yet to commit one way or the other. As such, all agnostics fall into two camps: theistic agnostics, who don't think it can be proved but still behave as if god exists and atheist agnostics, who are actually like you. I'm guessing you don't attend church or behave in any way that indicates that you believe there's even a possibility that god exists. Like it or not then, you're an atheist. You've just chosen, for whatever reason - maybe you don't like having to explain yourself to theists or maybe you're just a lazy cunt (I find from experience it's mostly a 50/50 split) - to proclaim yourself an agnostic. Well, spastic beliefs on epistemology and parrotting of relativistic mantras aside, sorry son, you're an atheist.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 12:59, closed)

Yes I'm well awre of the "agnosticism is a joke" argument.
It doesn't denigrate it.

Atheist, agnostic - I will give that yes it's more of a linguistic/vocabularian taste issue than anything - granted. However, one could argue that the concept of reality in it's entirety is.

As for your rather teenage devotion to, and determination to try and persuade others to, your particular semantic/epistomological taste, perhaps when you grow up you'll realise that no one's really all that right about it and no one's all that wrong, and that getting upset about anyone who beliefs are different, or claiming otherwise, merely serves to mark one out as being insecure about being taken seriously.

There might be a god/s - there might not be - we don't know. The end. As I stated in the first place.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 13:07, closed)

" However, one could argue that the concept of reality in it's entirety is."

One could argue that, unfortunately one ends up like Jacques Derrida, as someone who nobody doubts their sincerity but on the other hand, nobody understands a fucking word he said, almost certainly including Derrida himself. Or you could be Richard Rorty, one of the supreme advocates of philosophical skepticism who took up that position because "philosophy was too hard". So if you wish to make the case for philosophical skepticism go right ahead. I'm waiting. This should be a laugh.

"perhaps when you grow up you'll realise that no one's really all that right about it and no one's all that wrong"

Oh dear, there's that relativist mantra again. Do you have anything to actually back this shit up or does repeating variations on the theme "all opinions are equally valid" really sooth your feelings? Sorry bud, when you grow up you'll realise not all opinions are equal, some are very significantly better than others and by posting on the internet, using a toaster etc etc you actually do by into that idea and hold this other absurd position out of a need to be perceived as "radical" and "doing your own thing", ironically the very thing you so loathe in others. Maybe you need a pshrink, you seem to be exactly what you loathe.

"and that getting upset about anyone who beliefs are different, or claiming otherwise, merely serves to mark one out as being insecure about being taken seriously"

I direct you, once again, to your initial post.

"There might be a god/s - there might not be - we don't know. "

There may be a god, as I myself have stated *if* only you paid attention. However, where you and I differ is that for all the gods that man has so far speculated about, their existence can be dismissed via a variety of arguments, thus inviting atheism to all these man-made constructs. And since these are all the gods we know of, granting them the benefit of the doubt through agnosticism, a joke position, is a joke in itself. There may be the great god Cedric (Cedrics get a poor deal generally) who can fart out universes in a nanosecond and both you and I can be agnostic as regards Cedric. However, there aren't adherents of Cedric about with a holy book and a credo stating that he exists. For those that are about, the only sensible position is atheism.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 13:19, closed)

So we both agree, then - I'm right.
Good.

Thanks for playing.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 13:30, closed)

"So we both agree, then - I'm right.
Good.

Thanks for playing."

It's funny how arguing with agnostics is exactly like arguing with theists. You can show how they're ignorant twunts fifteen different ways but they'll always sign off with the faux bravado of "well, I'm right". As I pointed out earlier, you gave yourself away when you trotted out the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" mantra. Well, you can keep your opinion and no doubt you will, clearly you're not interested in changing it. Whether you're entitled to it is a different matter entirely, you certainly haven't demonstrated that you are. But I think we've seen you've got no grounds on which to be smug, none at all.

Back to lurkage.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 13:34, closed)

You haven't shown anything.
You've merely strutted around claiming proudly to have read a book once, but have not actually demonstrated any knowledge of it's contents.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 13:39, closed)

"You haven't shown anything."

Try *reading* son. Twice in this exchange I've caught you out on you not actually having read my posts. Perhaps if you did try reading them and attempting to comprehend you may get somewhere, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. You've asked me for a proof which was provided with directions where to find more. I've answered all your objections as concisely (as you requested) as I could. From yourself there have been wondrous claims that agnosticism is the only sensible position and how you're right and so forth and yet you've not attempted to demonstrate why, you seem to merely take it as writ that you are right. You've been similarly unable to answer criticisms of your position. You are, in short, just a shouty wanker desperately trying salvage some sort of draw out of a public bitchslapping.

Good luck with that.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 13:46, closed)

No you haven't. You've simply made spurious, non-commital references
For example "their existence can be dismissed via a variety of arguments", but not provided those arguments.

But you were telling me how I'm a shouty wanker.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 13:58, closed)

"For example "their existence can be dismissed via a variety of arguments", but not provided those arguments"

I see, so when someone claims belief in a creator god then providing an argument that rules out the possibility of a creator god counts, in your eyes, as "not providing those arguments"? Yessssssssss. I merely meant in the follow-up that there exist other arguments against specific religions and their claims for gods. You now want me to list all these arguments for you, just so your pointy little headed objectionism can be sated? Did you not read (of course you didn't, why am I fucking asking?) above where I mentioned that you risk sounding like the theist going "what about the giraffes neck, eh? eh?" with ever more fervent demands for even more disproofs once one is offered. Well, you've been told where to look, go and educate yourself you silly little ignorant prick. (Cue the "oh you've sworn, clearly you've lost the argument" defence employed by all good ignoramuses online everywhere, ever, in lieu of reason or demonstration.

Still waiting for a reasoned demonstration of why agnosticism is correct from you. So far we've had:

Vagabond: "Agnosticism is sensible, innit? We can't prove nuffink, yeah?"

Others: "Go on"

Vagabond: "Yeah, well, we can't prove nuffink can we? Stands to reason, dunnit?"

Others: "Does it?"

Vagabond: "Yeah, we can't prove nuffink, well, because we can't prove nuffink. All opinions are equal-like"

Others: "Deeply fascinating, now fuck off"
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 14:07, closed)

Yes I want you to list AND APPLY those arguments.
Simply informing me there are some is absolute, utter tripe.

If not, I simply dismiss you with "Well there are very good arguments against your case. You lose. Next!" which I'm sure you'll agree is not really arguing at all.

But by all means - insult me in lieu of doing so. It would appear very important that you at least have the last word, despite the fact no one's watching, or that my opinion of your online persona is so, in which case you're going to have to do a whole lot better than simply huffing and puffing about your philosolophy degree and how much better you are than anyone with a different opinion.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 14:14, closed)

sorry dude but reading through all this
your arguments have been soundly routed, you're offering no rebuttals or counterpoints or even giving due consideration to the other side, you just seem to be either being argumentative for the sake of it or waiting for Dildo Bugger to stop posting so that you can have the last word.

You have dropped in my estimation.

I have no doubt that you will reply to this, almost certainly insulting me, casting aspersions on my intellect or sexuality, probably telling me I'm taking it too seriously. Whatever. On the evidence of what I've read above, I'm afraid there's no point trying to engage with you.

That is all.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 14:10, closed)

"Yes I want you to list AND APPLY those arguments.
Simply informing me there are some is absolute, utter tripe."

Of course you do, it's the only way you can save face, by getting me to list all the arguments I've ever come across against the existence of god (a good few years reading's worth) in the hope that you can pounce on one single flaw and go "AHA! I WIN!!!!!!!". Fuck off you silly little man, you've had a proof against any creator god (i.e. pretty much 99% of them ever postulated throughout history), if you want more proofs against gods whose existence is claimed but who aren't creator gods or you want more singular arguments against the various proposed deities like Yahweh, Al-Lah or Jesus then do what I did, go and look them up. Such singular arguments take second place to the one you were offered which are constructed against a multitude of deities and not just the one, anyway. This is exactly what I said above: here's one argument, if you want others look them up. Apologies if it's repeating myself but you seem too thick (basically you just can't fucking read you lazy cunt) to have taken it on board the first time. No doubt you'll try and spin this response into a win for you, despite it being totally unreasonable to expect someone to regurgitate several years worth of study at the behest of an internet mong.



"If not, I simply dismiss you with "Well there are very good arguments against your case. You lose. Next!" which I'm sure you'll agree is not really arguing at all."

Actually, this is a pretty decent summary of the dearth of arguments from you so far. Where, may I ask for not the first time, is your wondrous defence of agnosticism? Is it going to put in a show anytime soon? I mean, I've been good enough to provide arguments for you, you've ponied up Jack Shit son. The weight on your side of the scales seems to be missing entirely.

"But by all means - insult me in lieu of doing so."

Nah, I've provided you with arguments so it's hardly in lieu of anything. I will call you an ignorant little twat again though, that never gets old.

"It would appear very important that you at least have the last word, despite the fact no one's watching,"

Clearly someone is, someone who has pointed out it's you who has to have the last word. This is only to be expected, you're the one trying to save some face.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 14:35, closed)

Actually, I've jumped on to have a quick read n all
Can I just ask one question: what do you hope to achieve? What difference will it make if you manage to prove Vagabond wrong? It seems like the ultimate exercise in intellectual posturing to me. We get it, you have strongly held beliefs, a high regard of your own intellect, and no doubt love the sound of your own voice - beyond that, not much else substantial has been established. On either side.

By all means, feel free to turn your arguments on me, but I really don't care either way. What you believe makes no difference to me, and I don't know why you expect Vagabond to care either
(Godwin's Lawyer is more evil than Hitler, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 15:33, closed)

"Can I just ask one question: what do you hope to achieve?"

Very little, except perhaps one thing, that while Vagabond boasts he is smugly dismissive of fashionable views such as atheism, when questioned he clearly has no grounds.

Moreover, all he himself is doing is subscribing to a fashionable view. There have been, starting a few years ago now, various editorials by liberal intelligentsia in the papers all parrotting the viewpoint "that Richard Dawkins eh? he's as bad as those he rails against, him and Christopher Hitchens, atheism is just another religion". Vagabond seems to have absorbed this via whatever orifice he takes things in (he talks out of his arse so it's reasonable to assume his various openings are similarly misused) and is parrotting it here presumably in the hope that we're all impressed by how cool he is. Well, when questioned on his views he's just not very good at backing them up with reasoned argument. In fact, he looks like a dick. And as long as people reading his responses realise that he's a dick then my work here is done. Well, that, and being sure that deep in his heart he's not quite so cocksure about himself, means my work here is done. I couldn't care less if people perceive me as arrogant, that's not the point.

And clearly, he cares, despite you asking why I expect him to.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 15:45, closed)

Then I guess my next question would be;
Why do you care? More specifically, why do you care so much? Did Vagabond kill your family, and this is your long-awaited revenge or something?
(Godwin's Lawyer is more evil than Hitler, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 15:48, closed)

"Then I guess my next question would be;
Why do you care? More specifically, why do you care so much? Did Vagabond kill your family, and this is your long-awaited revenge or something?"

Yes, Cairo in 1941, Vagabond gunned down my family in a dark alley because he was a field agent for the Gestapo.

Flippant answers aside, it just bugs the hell out of me to see someone parrotting mantras they've just been spoon-fed by the media without question in the assumption that they're right without ever having examined what they're saying. It especially bugs the hell out of me when it's coupled with hypocrisy, as in this instance. Vagabond hates people believing trendy things like atheism when all he's doing is repeating the crappy editorials of the Grauniad or the Telegraph.

Some people have a compulsion to correct the spelling and grammar of others online, some people like telling people to piss off to 4chan, I like to point out relativistic bullshit when I spot it. Each to their own.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 15:58, closed)

I too like to point out bullshit, but I also have a real job as well.
Hence my short replies.

Some people you'll get nowhere with, though.

If you could point out someone who isn't a hypocrite that would be grand, ta.

Good work on the arrogant assumptions about my reading habits, personality, etc, by the way.

Pffft.

I love pointing and laughing at hypocrites like my shit doesn't stink.

Just like everyone else.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 16:09, closed)

"I too like to point out bullshit, but I also have a real job as well."

Well, I was made redundant myself so I have some time to kill. I refuse to apologise for it.

"Good work on the arrogant assumptions about my reading habits, personality, etc, by the way."

I admit, I may be wrong about your reading habits. Based on the evidence today, you don't read.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 16:13, closed)

Hmm?

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 16:26, closed)

Except
that taking the lid of the biscuit tin doesn't actually prove that there arn't any biscuits as that is empirical evidence and doesn't take into account the fact that you might be nuts, blind or suffer from a rare disease that causes you to see chocolate hobnobs as a metalic silver colour that looks exactly like the bottom of a tin.
(Banjax, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 10:50, closed)

that taking the lid of the biscuit tin doesn't actually prove that there arn't any biscuits as that is empirical evidence and doesn't take into account the fact that you might be nuts, blind or suffer from a rare disease that causes you to see chocolate hobnobs as a metalic silver colour that looks exactly like the bottom of a tin.
----

You can be certified sane, if you were blind you wouldn't see anything and it would therefore be pointless attempting to look, although you do have your senses of smell, touch and taste remaining to ascertain the biscuit which you seem to be forgetting and I would ask you to name the bizarre disease you postulate. In short, your objections don't really cut the mustard.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 1 Sep 2010, 12:28, closed)