Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About B_Dubb_B

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. I'm having the same issue and I can't find a way out of it other than cheating (but I don't want to lose achievements). I noticed that this happened after Cillan attacked me with golems.
  2. Ohello all. I'm looking for a strong (not necessarily min-maxed) Potd Bleak Walker 2h sword heavy armor off tank/strong dps build with decent dialogue stats (if that still exists in this game). Wondering if anyone can help point me in the right direction (especially in regards to best multi class options). Thanks in advance for any help.
  3. Like I've said, I have no interest in this kind of discussion. Blame games and petty squabbles are pointless. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.
  4. 1. Except for I gave you the exact quote of you doing it and you simply ignored it. I give proof, you give assertion. That's the difference between us. Tell me how that quote of yours was NOT misrepresenting my position. 2. That claim means God does not exist in English, again, unless repeating your own axiom (which idk if you even hold) that all ideas are manufactured. That's a philosophical viewpoint that I respect, but I highly doubt that's what you were saying. You were saying that the idea of God specifically was manufactured. While you may not have meant that to mean he is not real, that's what it means in the english language. 3. And I already dealt with that admission, I was trying to be polite and move the conversation onto fertile grounds. You're ignoring what I've said to try to find any way to save yourself from the obvious conclusion that you're wrong. 4. No that is a conclusion derived from the english language. I used dictionaries to show your words mean what I've said they mean. If you don't like the English language, don't speak it. This point is even stronger when you consider what people take from certain words/phrases in language (connotation). Ask anyone, "x is purely fabricated" means "x is false". "God is a purely fabricated idea" = "God is false". You might not have meant it that way, but that's the way any rational person would take it, and when I asked for clarification you should have given it in your first response. You had room to, you did not. Regardless, I have no interest in these blame discussions. If you insist on keeping at this I'll simply exit this conversation. You're trying to keep it as petty and futile as you can instead of focusing on the overall point, and I have no interest in that.
  5. Firstly, you were caught and shown to be misrepresenting my position, in the exact same way, no less than 3 times, once even after I showed it was outright misrepresentation. "You keep typing up 100 different ways of claiming the same thing: "it's okay to claim that something exists, and no one can deny it until they prove that it doesn't exist." Good for you." I never claimed any such thing and yet you claimed I did. So I find it kind of funny you continue to try to throw a fit about me misrepresenting your case (and I tried to be polite and simply concede so we could have a fruitful discussion) in one post. Since this is the hill you've chosen to die on, I'm not misrepresenting anything, it's a quote. I understand now what you MEAN, but you cannot argue what you SAID. You spoke inaccurately and that lead to a misunderstanding. These are your exact words: "Science supports my point that the idea of "god" is purely manufactured." Those words directly imply, whether you intended it to or not, that God is purely fabricated (indeed if you look up manufactured definition, it gives fabricated as a synonym), anything that is purely fabricated does not actually exist. That is what fabrication/manufactured means in the context in which you said it, like it or not. Taken from Merriam Webster (a dictionary) "to create or make up something (such as a story) in order to trick people" Unless of course you meant fabricate/manufactured in the sense of to produce a physical item lol. If you don't see how your use of language was incorrect and lead to this misunderstanding, then nothing can be done. It's best we just end the conversation as you're not interested in fruitful discussion, but attempting and failing to play word games with me.
  6. Which is still NOT the same thing as saying, "science has proven that God does not exist." You are twisting my words and then proclaiming that I must provide evidence that proves your version of what you only wish I really said. I reject the notion that I must prove something I didn't say. Alright, true, and that 1 quote of mine was a simple mis-stating of your point. A simple clarification is all that's required (as you'll remember, I asked for clarification on exactly your point very early on). Can we move on and stop pretending small mistakes like this never happen? I still mostly represented your point correctly and gave accurate replies to it. You can choose to keep obsessing over one instance of misuse of words or move on, your call.
  7. First off, I was referring to the Christian God which stems from the Bible, which contains the Gospel's. Second, my exact comment was, "the Gospel's as the only source of evidence," which is in reference to my discussion with Silent Winter, where he presented the Bible - specifically the Gospel's - as evidence of God's existence. Third, I'm fully aware of other sources for Jesus. I mention Josephus in an earlier post, and I specifically cite the "historical Jesus" in a recent post. I am also aware of other sources of evidence of "God" as I mentioned to you specifically "The Dead Sea Scrolls" in a recent post. That is false. You quoted me saying, "Science supports my point that the idea of "god" is purely manufactured." And turned in to something else: "A lack of evidence does not entail that something doesn't or probably doesn't exist." https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1788864 That's the only thing you've said in this thread that is accurate lol 1. "However, science has proven that ALL known evidence for God is purely manufactured". This is another quote of yours just before the quote you mention, and I don't take things in isolation, I read them all in context. You were not only claiming the gospels, not only the entire bible, but ALL evidence has been proven to fail. Also mentioning you're familiar with some evidences for God, does not mean you're familiar with all (which is what you seem to be implying). 2. Something that is purely manufactured (the wording you used in your original quote https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1788457), does not exist Thus my treatment of your point was completely accurate, as it was not meant to be a quote of your point but a response to the main thrust of it. 3. Pointless and completely without evidence, in other words just like the rest of your points so far. Still waiting on specifics/evidence rather than bare assertion and blind faith.
  8. Nah, I'll pass. I've been through many, many such discussions over the years, and they never really go anywhere -- I was a regular on alt.atheism in the 1990's. I also haven't been really invested in the question for over fifteen years or so. I'm not all that interested anymore in what people believe; I'm more interested in the question of how people with different beliefs find ways to coexist and cooperate. That's a far more pressing question in my opinion, and likelier to lead to constructive outcomes. With all this obvious proof of the existence of god rattling around, it's a wonder there are so many different beliefs out there to cause so much conflict. Who said there was any proof of God, let alone obvious proof of God? lol
  9. Nah, I'll pass. I've been through many, many such discussions over the years, and they never really go anywhere -- I was a regular on alt.atheism in the 1990's. I also haven't been really invested in the question for over fifteen years or so. I'm not all that interested anymore in what people believe; I'm more interested in the question of how people with different beliefs find ways to coexist and cooperate. That's a far more pressing question in my opinion, and likelier to lead to constructive outcomes. Yeah I really feel you honestly. I suppose it's something about getting older, you see the patterns and realize some things really can be quite fruitless overall. Learning to live with each other seems to be a much more interesting/pressing goal than learning who has the best arguments (at the risk of sounding like a boy scout). I just wish I weren't so inclined to debate... If someone says something that offends my beliefs I always feel obligated to challenge them on it... and it never does anything really.
  10. That's the problem right there. The Bible isn't evidence for God, any more than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is evidence for God (or, if you will, the Iliad is evidence for Aphrodite). It's evidence that people believed in God, and about the kinds of things people believed about God. That's not the same thing at all. Sure, that's not really part of the discussion. My point there was to say that whatever evidence Christians think is in the bible, it's not the only evidence for God and thus showing the bible false doesn't show there's no good reason to believe in God (indeed, I'm more than willing to argue there is, but that's another subject). Honestly, I'm more than happy to get into this, but just letting you know it would be walls of texts. I have had discussions on this topic that were many pages per reply (I think my largest discussion was 30+ pages of text in Microsoft word per reply to my partner in dialogue). If you're actually wanting to get into serious detail, I'm good with that, but if not please let me know beforehand (and it's fine, not many want to take such time on such subjects). I don't want to write up a wall of text for no reason.
  11. I stand by that claim. Science has not proven that God certainly does not exists. However, science has proven that all known evidence of God is purely manufactured by man-made doctrine. The scientific method requires consistency, however the Gospel's as the only source of evidence of God's existence contain many inconsistencies and contradictions. Through science we are able to discredit the only piece of evidence that God exists, albeit man-made evidence to begin with. If you care about the truth and how it is used, then you shouldn't have spent so much time purposely twisting my words. The fact that you chose to twist my words is evidence of you being lazy, irresponsible, and intellectually dishonest. All of my claims against evidence of God has been in direct reference to man-made doctrine, such as the Bible. 1. Okay thanks for the clarification. I don't agree and I'd need some evidence of that, as I don't take things based purely on faith. 2. Assessing the Gospels according to the scientific method is like hammering a nail in with a screwdriver. It might in certain cases work, but since the Gospels are past events, we judge them via the historical method not the scientific method (as that's what the historical method is equipped to do). Nearly all historical documents have internal contradictions (contradictions within the document), external contradictions (contradictions with the other known historical facts or documents), and most from the ancient world are suffused with mythology (surpassing even the bible, and these are documents that are considered good sources of historical information). Historians use certain criteria to ascertain how trustworthy documents/passages are, and do not dismiss them wholesale because of mythology or inaccuracy/inconsistency. If we were to use your criteria of the scientific method on all of history, as an example, Alexander the Great. Every document we have about him (and for the record, remember books of the bible are separate documents written by separate people) has the same inaccuracies and and inconsistencies of the bible (e.g. diogenes contradicts many other historical sources on whether or not Hephastian and Alexander were romantically involved or simply loved each other like brothers). We do not dismiss ANY of these simply because of said contradictions/inconsistencies. This applies to most notable historical figures/events. For example, Tacitus, arguably one of the most famous historians of all time, is found to at a good few points be completely wrong and his writing is often filled with Roman propoganda. Also the Gospels are not the only source of the evidence for God (as you'll recall I listed many philosophical/scientific arguments that attempt to show just such a thing, to varying degrees of success). in fact they're not even the only source for the evidence for the historical Jesus. 3. I never twisted your words, I quoted you repeatedly in as close to an accurate manner as I can. I asked you for exacting clarification on what you meant and you didn't give it to me, so I was forced to guess as best I can at what you meant. For the record, imo, I was still pretty much correct but that's neither here nor there. 4. Okay, great. I have no issue with that as I believe the Bible is full of errors myself. Just so long as you're not claiming science shows Christianity false/purely man made (only certain claims in the bible) or that no God exists, I'm completely fine with that. I certainly believe science has showed the Earth is old, that man did not appear on the earth over the course of a day but instead evolved over a lengthy period of time, and that the universe was created in a Big Bang over 14 billion years ago. Science has shown portions of the bible that contradict that false, but not the bible as a whole (indeed, it's key to notice that Jews who understood what the bible was trying to teach, which is somewhat mangled by a different culture and the fact that we read it in English, did not take the creation account to be literal universally). Like I've said, specifically show where I'm twisting your words if you like. I may have, I don't know, I'm open to the possibility (though I obviously don't think I did). But I don't like this vague "oh it happened, trust me!" thing, let's get specific. Also if you're talking about my final post, summing the point up as an argument against the existence of God was for brevity, not accuracy.
  12. Methodological naturalism can disprove a deity which acts measurably on the world though. It can't disprove a deity which sits passively outside the world of course, a neo-Platonist Prime Mover for example. But a God who answers prayers (or bestows punishments) to some measurable effect? Can be (and has been) disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, I know. Mentioning that it uses methodological naturalism was by no means to say it can't ever interact with the God question, simply that we don't expect it to by default and as such merely "we have no evidence of God" does not necessarily imply God probably/certainly does not exist. The part about methodological naturalism merely appropriately puts the onus on the person claiming absence of evidence is evidence of absence to show that science SHOULD give us evidence. I agree with the rest of what you say.
  13. You are being purposely obtuse, and apparently convinced yourself that if you present questions in a rhetorical way you've somehow achieved something. You keep typing up 100 different ways of claiming the same thing: "it's okay to claim that something exists, and no one can deny it until they prove that it doesn't exist." Good for you. I took the "bait" with the author of this thread, Romanul; and I will gladly engage in the ideological debate with Silent Winter. Your attempts to add confusion and diffusion to the discussion won't be entertained much by yours truly. I disagree with your ramblings, but due to the length of responses I have given the other two posters I won't be spending much time explaining why. If you need to take that as a victory then have at it, winner lol How am I being purposely obtuse? This is yet another instance of a vague assertion with no specific evidence given lol. Bare assertions with no evidence... Atheists usually claim to be against this sort of thing. Almost none of my questions were rhetorical, in fact probably none of them were if I'm recalling correctly. Intelligent discussion calls for precise use of language, so when someone says something vague I ask for clarification. It's not okay to claim God exists without evidence (as far as a burden of proof goes), I have never said anything otherwise. Yet another straw man of my position. You keep assuming my beliefs and stating it as if it's fact but it's simply not true, I have these same arguments with Christians too. Everyone should keep their claims modest and accurately reflect the evidence they possess. The evidence you think you have against God is terrible, you have none, you simply lack evidence for Him, and as such your claims are too strong. That is what I'm arguing against. I'll tell any Christian who believes in God for terrible reasoning the same exact thing. Also feel free to exit our conversation. I don't care about winning, I care about the truth and how it's used. I simply don't like how you misuse science to fit your own worldview. Science doesn't speak to the supernatural, and there not being any evidence of God does not mean he does or does not exist. Both are equally wrong, and neither claim is okay without proper evidence to back it up.
  14. A lack of evidence does not entail that something does or probably does exist. I have supplied plenty of evidence showing that the only attempt at proving the existence of God is through man-made writings that explain phenomena that has never been confirmed or directly observed. Since the only attempt to ever prove the existence of God comes from humans, and not an actual deity, I draw the conclusion that the God as described in the man-made doctrine does in fact not exist. Do you believe that a 6 foot tall Orc is outside your house simply because I failed to prove that it isn't? All evidence of God comes from man-made doctrine. That is a statement of fact. I hold the stance that science does in fact prove that our only evidence of God comes from man-made doctrine. If you need proof, Google "sources of the Bible." Scientific methods have confirmed that ancient writings, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, are in fact writings that are ancient. I don't really know how to separate quotes on this forum, so I'll just reply with numbers signifying which quote I'm responding to. 1. I never claimed it did, I have not once claimed God exists or probably exists in this argument. This is a red herring, you're distracting from the original topic (your claim that God has been shown not to be a purely fabricated concept by science). I know, this is a catchy atheist slogan, but make sure to use it when appropriate please, because you're just going off topic and saying things which don't even apply to me. 2. What man made writings are you referring to? How do you know those are only/probably the only things that attempt to prove God (this is a claim you made)? Are you talking about holy texts (e.g. the bible/quran)? You're going to need to clarify what you mean here. There are those of course, then there are arguments based on science/deductive logic/history as well. To name a few (as I don't like being vague when I can avoid it): The Kalam Cosmological argument, the Argument From Contingency, various Telelogical arguments (most notably the argument from the fine tuning of the fundamental physical constants), various Ontological arguments (particularly the Modal Ontological argument though others are certainly interesting concepts as well), the Argument from Morality (particularly based on the objectivity of moral values and the grounding thereof), and also various presuppositional arguments (perhaps most notably the Transcendental Argument, though I DO NOT subscribe to these). I would be quite interested to know what concrete evidence you've given that in one fell swoop dismisses all of these. 3. No, I believe nothing based purely on a lack of evidence for it. I don't disagree with you that this approach would be simple insanity. But, yet again, this is a red herring. Instead of discussing your own claims, you're distracting from that original topic by bringing my beliefs into this (and seemingly straw manning them, but you might not be so I'll refrain from that accusation). Dismissing ANYTHING as FALSE based only on a lack of evidence is lazy, irresponsible, and intellectually dishonest. I would say the exact same thing about anyone who says "you can't disprove God so he IS real!", so I have no idea why you're directing that at me.
  • Create New...