+- Punaweb Forum (https://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (https://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (https://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: God (/showthread.php?tid=23834)
RE: God - TomK - 03-05-2026
(03-05-2026, 06:46 AM)MyManao Wrote:(03-05-2026, 06:31 AM)TomK Wrote: Proof is for mathematicians and courts. It's not part of the scientific method.
Obfuscation
And to think, it was your ridiculous picking on Rob that started it all. You asked for it and you can't take it when it's handed to you on a silver platter. You're not a scientist, you're a joke.
Yes, Rob posted a troll saying something along the lines of "and some say a god doesn't exist" because he was implying that god existed and created a miracle which saved some people at sea. In the meantime, there are plane crashes, wars, starvation, murders, kidnappings, pedos, cults, poisonings, bombs, etc happening everywhere on the planet.
And you post some link that's about sex acts? I haven't seen the movie you refer to, and I'd rather not watch it, but I have to wonder why it's so important to you. In the meantime, some of us have had a discussion, I admit not that friendly, but certainly not as abusive as your contributions, and where do your posts get us? They're simply meant to insult.
So tell us about your understanding of the scientific method and why atheists have to prove that a god or any other deity doesn't exist rather than the other way round?
And please note, no one here has yet provided any evidence that a god or Pele exists. Nada. Nothing. Yet I get asked to prove that something with no evidence of its existence doesn't exist. Do you understand how illogical that is?
RE: God - MyManao - 03-05-2026
(03-05-2026, 07:14 AM)TomK Wrote: And you post some link that's about sex acts? I haven't seen the movie you refer to, and I'd rather not watch it, but I have to wonder why it's so important to you. In the meantime, some of us have had a discussion, I admit not that friendly, but certainly not as abusive as your contributions, and where do your posts get us? They're simply meant to insult.
So, are you saying my post earlier this evening qualifies for your asking "where do your posts get us?" Did you even read it?
As to my musical reference.. it's a very famous play. You really should check out our culture, we're quite diverse. In fact I'd lay odd on it having had a healthy run in England as well.. the song chosen is because that is all you're doing here. In fact you spend so much time on PW doing absolutely nothing I get to wonder, when do you actually do the science you claim to be doing?
And as to being taken down your rabbit hole of obfuscation. Why should I? Why should anyone, when its all a ruse on your part to avoid every question all the way back to your claims that every reference I made in an earlier post was evil. You never answered that and you haven't answered anything since.
RE: God - HiloJulie - 03-05-2026
Speaking of musical references, all this God this, God that, Religion this, Religion that, and of course any discussion of God or Religion must include sexual acts, so I think its a good time to mention the long time, although part time Maui resident George Harrison, who, at the end of the Beatles run, was so fed up with his band-mates and, in general, life, wrote one of his best solo songs, "Wah Wah."
The the opening line of the song begins with "You've Given Me a Wah-Wah" which translates into "You've given me a bloody headache."
So for those inclined to hear that great song and while this is a "non George" performance of that song, in my opinion, it is the BEST EVER performance of the song and remembering just how great George was.
Enjoy! It just might make your headache go away!
Wah Wah
RE: God - TomK - 03-05-2026
(03-05-2026, 07:33 AM)MyManao Wrote:(03-05-2026, 07:14 AM)TomK Wrote: And you post some link that's about sex acts? I haven't seen the movie you refer to, and I'd rather not watch it, but I have to wonder why it's so important to you. In the meantime, some of us have had a discussion, I admit not that friendly, but certainly not as abusive as your contributions, and where do your posts get us? They're simply meant to insult.
So, are you saying my post earlier this evening qualifies for your asking "where do your posts get us?" Did you even read it?
As to my musical reference.. it's a very famous play. You really should check out our culture, we're quite diverse. In fact I'd lay odd on it having had a healthy run in England as well.. the song chosen is because that is all you're doing here. In fact you spend so much time on PW doing absolutely nothing I get to wonder, when do you actually do the science you claim to be doing?
And as to being taken down your rabbit hole of obfuscation. Why should I? Why should anyone, when its all a ruse on your part to avoid every question all the way back to your claims that every reference I made in an earlier post was evil. You never answered that and you haven't answered anything since.
I'm saying that no one here has yet provided any evidence that a god or Pele exists. Nada. Nothing. Yet I get asked to prove that something with no evidence of its existence doesn't exist.
(03-05-2026, 07:56 AM)HiloJulie Wrote: Speaking of musical references, all this God this, God that, Religion this, Religion that, and of course any discussion of God or Religion must include sexual acts, [...]
What? Why? Catholic priests?
RE: God - knieft - 03-05-2026
Tom, you might be able to get behind this version of god. Or maybe not. ;)
https://www.punafsm.net/
Ramen,
Kirt
RE: God - Durian Fiend - 03-05-2026
(03-05-2026, 06:31 AM)TomK Wrote: Proof is for mathematicians and courts. It's not part of the scientific method.
I believe this is true. Do you disagree, MyManao and ironyak?
RE: God - MyManao - 03-05-2026
(03-05-2026, 04:35 PM)knieft Wrote: Tom, you might be able to get behind this version of god. Or maybe not.
https://www.punafsm.net/
Ramen,
Kirt
Fun. Reminds me of geology professor at UH Hilo who, as a full time geology teacher, found religion. So, here a bunch of us were eating in Pahoa after a morning traipsing across the lava flows back in the day when lava was pouring into the ocean near Kalapana and another professor asked him, 'hey how do you reconcile your new found beliefs in the Bible which posits that the Earth is only 6,000 years old with the courses you teach in geology where the Earth is billions of years old?' And he replied, with a straight face no less, 'God made old rocks.’
True story.
RE: God - ironyak - 03-05-2026
TomK - Proof is for mathematicians and courts. It's not part of the scientific method.
Durian Fiend - I believe this is true. Do you disagree, MyManao and ironyak?
Trying not to get bogged down too much in semantics, proof extends across many disciplines and is considered "sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition". What we're doing here is a conversation or dialog where TomK is making assertions or propositions and then being asked to provide evidence and reasoning in support to prove those claims. We're not doing the scientific method and making observations of the natural world and gathering evidence to test a hypothesis.
"Scientific method: an empirical method for acquiring knowledge through careful observation, rigorous skepticism, hypothesis testing, and experimental validation."
Ok, TomK - what is the hypothesis to be empirically tested? There are "no such gods" or "some gods are evil"? What is the experiment setup that would allow us to test this or your preferred and related hypothesis?
As you pointed out DF, wording is really important in these sorts of exercises and it remains unclear what TomK is actually trying to claim. He claims to be an Atheist which is generally divided into two camps - Soft and Hard atheism. Soft atheism "is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none." Hard atheism "is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist."
When TomK says "I think there is no god because there is no evidence that shows one exists" he is being a soft atheist, which is just him stating his beliefs and not making any claims about the world at large. When he says "no such god exists" he is making an explicit hard atheism claim about reality and so the burden of proof falls on him to support it. When he goes attacking other people's beliefs he appears to be a Hard Atheist showing that gods don't exist, but when defending he retreats into being a Soft Atheist that all he is claiming is about what he believes based on evidence and not making any claim about external reality. It's a common feature of the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, which I find to be more of a tactical rhetorical device than actual intellectual honesty about what exactly the atheist believes.
Atheist TomK - care to clarify and directly answer: do god(s) exist or not?
TomK - No one here has yet provided any evidence that a god or Pele exists.
Correct, you're the one making the claims that "we're dealing with gods and goddesses who seem quite evil" and "a god that doesn't cause wars [etc, etc]. But no such god exists". No one is obligated to take up your demands to defend things they didn't say.
There's a term for this where you distort, exaggerate, or misrepresent an opponent's position to make it easier to attack that I'm sure you're familiar with. Can you just stick to actually defending your claims?
RE: God - Durian Fiend - 03-06-2026
(03-05-2026, 07:12 PM)ironyak Wrote: ... it remains unclear what TomK is actually trying to claim. He claims to be an Atheist which is generally divided into two camps - Soft and Hard atheism. Soft atheism "is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none." Hard atheism "is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist."I don't see much difference in the two, other than the former sounds unmanly.
If I don't believe gods exist and you ask me my opinion, then I've quickly gone from soft to hard, no?
Obviously no one can prove no god or gods exist.
RE: God - Rob Tucker - 03-06-2026
"no one can prove."
I don't understand this compulsive need and obsession to prove things. As far as I'm concerned people are all allowed their own personal beliefs and should not have to defend themselves. I see it a lot of it on Punaweb where members appear driven to "win" in the face of differing opinions. A different opinion need not be a challenge...it's just a different opinion. Communication does not require a winner, it works best with simple basic respect.