So, you're an atheist now, right Stu? Clearly your god is "something better than the human mind" that you have conceived of but cannot build. According to your own logic, your own belief in god is nothing more than "fantasizing".

Or would you like to give some ad hoc hand waving, speculations, excuses, or equivocations?

[ ] - Needed a new thread.
[x] - Jibbonatron is on his way.

Yes, I'm sorry I forgot how much RGT posters like to talk about bull**** little minor issues instead of actually getting to the heart of why people believe what they believe. (Hint: Stu just proved that he does not believe in god for logical reasons.) That admission is a pretty important one IMO. Maybe you don't think that's important but you and Jib don't get to lock or delete threads simply because you find them less interesting than someone else does. Pretty sure that's not in the T&C.

So if you don't think the thread is interesting, don't open it and don't reply. You don't get to tell other people that they can't talk about it though.

That's the same kind of ******ed thinking that people had when they said, "I don't like gambling. I don't like the idea of gambling online. Therefore, nobody should be allowed to gamble online." Your thinking is literally no different than that.

If you don't think this admission is important - leave. I do.

I don't think St admitted he doesn't believe in God. It's a technicality. He was referring to concrete physical minds and obv not God. I called him out on it because I thought it was amusing, but it means nothing.

Really, where was he referring to concrete physical minds? I thought I saw him referring to "something greater than the human mind", which god is, by definition. If he was only referring to "physical minds" how exactly would I have gone about "building" such a thing as he required it? He obviously was referring to exactly what he said: "something greater than the human mind"

Once again, your opinion. I think catching him in doing his ad hoc routine and showing how he really does just ad hoc out excuses without exploring the effects of what he actually says implies things about the religious mind in general.

I think you care a bit too much about Stu. It's like you're engaged in some sort of war with the theists on here :P

Stu may or may not be a troll. He certainly says a lot of dumb stuff. I think he just likes arguing and will argue the side he's on without really thinking about the truth.

Is this your way of admitting he wasn't actually referring to just "physical minds"?

Agree

No it's not. I just wonder why you get so worked up on here. You take it so seriously. Who cares about Stu?

Hint: Zero people believe in God for logical reasons.

What a boob.

This isn't facebook. I'm not looking to make friends here and I'm not here to socialize. If you want me to be an atheist version of Joey, look somewhere else.

Now, stop changing the subject and explain where exactly Stu was referring to only "physical minds" and why, if he was referring to only physical minds, did he ask me to "build" one.

Then explain why this is a "technicality".

Hint: Religious people don't ever admit this as obviously and as clearly as Stu has here. That's why it's worth talking about.

I think it's a technicality because you're assuming he's talking about ANY sort of intelligent thing that perceives.

He was just saying the human mind is the best tool at perceiving reality [that we know of in the natural world].

I think he was talking about the natural world because of the context of the conversation. I don't think his statement was intended to be all encompassing. I thought this was pretty obvious.

I'm not assuming anything. I've said it to you at least two times now in black and white. Stu said essentially, "find me something that can perceive reality better than the human mind and "build" it. If you can't then you're just fantasizing." Yet at the same time he believes there actually is in fact something that can perceive reality better than the human mind (god) and not only can he not "build" god as he required of me but in fact cannot tell us anything about any of god's most important characteristics, or even that "god" exists at all.

It may not have been intended that way but it certainly was said that way. There was no qualifier of "in the natural world" as you are trying to attach to the argument. In fact, not only did he not say that it needed to be natural, he said all I needed to do was "concieve" of it.
That's the quote. It's not "if you can find something better in nature" it's "if you can conceive of something better". God is a "concept" widely agreed, by Stu as well, as "better than the human mind"

Atheists are constantly admonished about how they cannot judge a situation from a human perspective because they know so little and god knows so much.

Please explain how that does not fit what Stu said.

I don't really care.

I also think you're jumping to conclusions. Stu did not include God when considering the best minds we know of. I don't think you can say this means he doesn't really believe.

Great argument. The classic "argument from nu-uh"

Done with you.

BAHAHAHAHA

Sweet, more one liners with no substance.

"I don't really care"
"hahaha"

man, you guys are really getting me good here. I'm drowning in the substance of your arguments. What will I do!!

Stu's quote shows that he unknowingly thinks that is own belief is a fantasy. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept.

This:
does not follow this:
Because it was Stu who 'admitted' it. Stu. STU!

The 'substance' of your argument here is approximately as follows:

Stu rhetorically invites you to construct something superior to the human mind. His (terribly weak) point being that your inability to do so means that you must accept the primacy of human perception (at least, that's what I assume he was trying to do).

You perceive that Stu's failure to exempt the god he worships from his argument makes the argument potentially incompatible with his avowed belief.

You conclude from this that Stu's belief is insincerely held.

Why is this ******ed? I hear you ask. Why does this not represent some lethal blow to acceptance of the sincerity of Stu's faith?

It's because you're looking at it all backwards. Stu will either accept your claim that his argument is incompatible with his belief, or he will reject that claim. If he rejects the claim, he will construct a rationalisation (perhaps more properly an apology) which will demonstrate that your claim is false - he would probably be best advised to do so by claiming that his invitation was intended to be restricted to things which can, theoretically, be 'built', and by further claiming that his god does not fall into this category.

If, on the other hand, he accepts your claim, he will retract his rhetorical invitation, and (presumably) the argument that rests on it.

I had previously confined my comments on this matter to 'BAHAHAHAHA' because my default assumption was that all sane, literate and mentally competent individuals examining the OP would immediately grasp the above.

I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept.

And that rationalization would of course be completely terrible, as is the one that you suggested for him.

It was pretty obvious he said [If you can conceive of something better at perceiving reality than the human mind, build it.]

Even if I granted that rationalization [that he was talking only about "things which can be built" (which "theoretically" could actually still include god)] that is still dreadful since he does not hold his own beliefs to the same standard. Clearly, he didn't require himself to be able to "build" god before believing that there was one. Requiring me to satisfy that which he cannot is - wait for it - dishonest.

OK? If he's forced to retract the "rhetorical invitation" then that's pretty much a forfeit.

While 'god' is not a very well defined term, you're the first person I've ever come across who's attempted to define 'god' as something that can be built.

A forfeit of what? His belief in god, or the point of discussion in the other thread (it's most likely neither)?

Because that's 'pretty much a forfeit' of any justification for having created this thread.

I didn't define it that way, I said theoretically (your word 'lacking practical application or actual existence; hypothetical') it could still be included. We certainly don't know that some kind of "god" could not be "built".

The point.

Oh noes, there are several people on the interwebs that think I made a temporary area of discussion that I shouldn't have.

The god Stu worships?


Discussion with you is like debating a bright nine-year-old who watches a lot of Matlock. Only funnier.

Sure, since even he can't demonstrate any of it's characteristics, or what caused it's existence, or how long it's existed.....or..............

Discussion with you is like debating a bright eight-year-old who watches a lot of GUTS. Only funnier.

Weee this is fun.