Annoying Atheist logic. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Annoying Atheist logic.


Pages : [1] 2

G23Gen4TX
05-17-2012, 19:53
Lets see some annoying atheist logic pictures and quotes.

I'll start.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg846/scaled.php?server=846&filename=57660638086147861773220.jpg&res=landing

Sarge1400
05-17-2012, 19:56
Free will, the devil made him do it, blah blah blah, all the standard bul|$h|t.

G23Gen4TX
05-17-2012, 19:57
Free will, the devil made him do it, blah blah blah, all the standard bul|$h|t.

Party pooper. Show me something funny. :tongueout:

Sarge1400
05-17-2012, 20:00
Party pooper. Show me something funny. :tongueout:

I'm sure someone will be along shortly, unless I took their answer.

juggy4711
05-17-2012, 20:10
I don't get it.

Gunhaver
05-17-2012, 21:06
http://www.nullsession.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/atheismmilitant.jpg

G23Gen4TX
05-18-2012, 12:31
I don't get it.

What is it you need help with?

eracer
05-18-2012, 12:32
To those who rely on faith for their version of the truth, any logic is annoying.

G23Gen4TX
05-18-2012, 13:37
To those who rely on faith for their version of the truth, any logic is annoying.

And we have a winner. Common, give me some photos / quotes.

eracer
05-18-2012, 13:39
And we have a winner. Common, give me some photos / quotes.I just gave the most annoying atheist quote of all.

(Disclaimer: I am not an atheist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night...)

eracer
05-18-2012, 13:43
Oh all right...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3WCLAUp22a0/T0CWQv4pWSI/AAAAAAAAAUM/80C-GYkSTDk/s1600/FarSideGod.jpg

SIGlock
05-20-2012, 21:20
If your belief is that there is NO GOD. Well, you still have to believe :)

So much for being an atheist.

juggy4711
05-20-2012, 22:39
If your belief is that there is NO GOD. Well, you still have to believe :)

So much for being an atheist.

Atheism is a lack of a belief in God, or if one prefers/chooses a belief that there is no God. Either way one with such belief or lack of is still an Atheist. So much for your comprehension of the English language.

Kingarthurhk
05-20-2012, 23:13
Atheism is a lack of a belief in God, or if one prefers/chooses a belief that there is no God. Either way one with such belief or lack of is still an Atheist. So much for your comprehension of the English language.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is an unprovable metaphysical supposition, chosen by the believer to form the matrix in which all of reality is viewed. From that belief, or supposition, logical coralaries must follow. If there is no God, then there is no revelation from God. If there is not revelation from God, then there must logically be no morality. If there is no revelation, no morality, then there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, then there is no meaning. If there is no no purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been often termed, the philosophy of suicide.

Syclone538
05-20-2012, 23:21
If your belief is that there is NO GOD. Well, you still have to believe :)

So much for being an atheist.

This really does need to be in every single thread in this forum doesn't it?

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuAzDSxGLgSW8Cd3P3PjIbP1czdW_6amwan7CnKZwTO5ZBIv-n

Lone Wolf8634
05-20-2012, 23:24
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is an unprovable metaphysical supposition, chosen by the believer to form the matrix in which all of reality is viewed. From that belief, or supposition, logical coralaries must follow. If there is no God, then there is no revelation from God. If there is not revelation from God, then there must logically be no morality. If there is no revelation, no morality, then there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, then there is no meaning. If there is no no purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been often termed, the philosophy of suicide.

Once again, Atheism is simply the rejection of a God or Gods based on lack of evidence. Not a "belief that there is no God."

IMHO the difference isn't even that subtle.

And the only thing that may make me shoot myself in the head is your inability to understand what Atheism is!!! Not really.

And haven't we been over the morality thingy already?

Lone Wolf8634
05-20-2012, 23:25
This really does need to be in every single thread in this forum doesn't it?

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuAzDSxGLgSW8Cd3P3PjIbP1czdW_6amwan7CnKZwTO5ZBIv-n


Twice, for good measure.

Syclone538
05-20-2012, 23:32
http://i.imgur.com/RYDeM.jpg

void *
05-20-2012, 23:46
From that belief, or supposition, logical coralaries must follow. If there is no God, then there is no revelation from God. If there is not revelation from God, then there must logically be no morality. If there is no revelation, no morality, then there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, then there is no meaning. If there is no no purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been often termed, the philosophy of suicide.

You are incorrect, largely because you are leaving out a necessary modifier.

If there is not revelation from God, then there must logically be no morality that was revealed by God.

That does not mean that we, the human race, cannot collectively make our own morality, that is not revealed, but rather, based on what is good for humans, individually and collectively. We can make our own purpose. We don't *need* a metaphysical hope, our entirely mundane hopes and dreams are enough.

Suicide, in the view of someone who believes that there is no life after death, is the self-inflicted end of existence, and is thus highly illogical, rather than being a logical necessity. Much in the same way that murder is a worse crime, because murder is not changing someone's form of existence, but snuffing it out entirely. This can be easily determined by really thinking about the expression "Kill them all and let God sort it out".

I feel kind of sad for you, if you really truly believe that life is hopeless and without meaning unless there's some external entity that proclaims it so.

GreenDrake
05-21-2012, 05:22
Theists really REALLY want everyone classified in a believers club. They have a difficult time with the mere definition of the word that absolutely means LACK OF BELIEF IN A DEITY. Their comprehension is that lack of belief in something is a belief in something.

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 05:31
http://i.imgur.com/RYDeM.jpg

How so? Both are correct. It is a graphical representation of a point of view. Some view it one way, some view it another. And both are incorrect. Graphics are a poor way to analyze belief systems. Multiple axis would be needed to get an accurate picture.



I think the sliding scale between the two is a better representation. I also disagree on the wording. At the extremes, are the believers on both sides, then there are atheistic agnostics and theistic agnostics.

But that's just what I think.

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 05:38
Theists really REALLY want everyone classified in a believers club. They have a difficult time with the mere definition of the word that absolutely means LACK OF BELIEF IN A DEITY. Their comprehension is that lack of belief in something is a belief in something.

It's more than that. It is a foundation. But it is very clear from an agnostic point of view that atheism and theism are different sides of the same coin. One group chooses to live their life as if there is no god, the other as if there is.

muscogee
05-21-2012, 07:34
If your belief is that there is NO GOD. Well, you still have to believe :)

So much for being an atheist.

Belief and faith are not the same thing. Belief can be based on evidence. Faith is necessary when the evidence is insufficient. Belief in God is illogical because the evidence is insufficient.

"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer"

Voltaire

muscogee
05-21-2012, 07:38
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

How many times has this been explained to you? Yet you persist.

It is an unprovable metaphysical supposition, chosen by the believer to form the matrix in which all of reality is viewed. From that belief, or supposition, logical coralaries must follow. If there is no God, then there is no revelation from God. If there is not revelation from God, then there must logically be no morality.

How many times has this been explained to you? Yet you persist.

If there is no revelation, no morality, then there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, then there is no meaning. If there is no no purpose there is no hope.

How many times has this been explained to you? Yet you persist.

That is why Atheism has been often termed, the philosophy of suicide.

By whom? If so, why are there atheists?

void *
05-21-2012, 08:22
But it is very clear from an agnostic point of view that atheism and theism are different sides of the same coin. One group chooses to live their life as if there is no god, the other as if there is.

As an agnostic, do you live your life as if there is a god? If you do not, please explain how the way you live your life is so substantially different that it cannot be described as living your life "as if there is no god".

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 09:33
As an agnostic, do you live your life as if there is a god? If you do not, please explain how the way you live your life is so substantially different that it cannot be described as living your life "as if there is no god".

I live my life with the understanding that there might be a god. Might not be one too. The third possibility is maybe there was one, but he/ she/ it no longer exists. Maybe there wasn't one before, but there is now.

:dunno: I'm ok not knowing for sure.

void *
05-21-2012, 09:38
I live my life with the understanding that there might be a god. Might not be one too.


Please describe how this is substantially different than living your life as if there is no god.

For instance, do you go to church regularly? If not, how is that substantially different than living your life as if there is no god?

I am looking for concrete examples of behavioral differences here, because I do not grok how there is any substantial difference.

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 11:01
Please describe how this is substantially different than living your life as if there is no god.

For instance, do you go to church regularly? If not, how is that substantially different than living your life as if there is no god?

I am looking for concrete examples of behavioral differences here, because I do not grok how there is any substantial difference.


Did you want a 30 page single spaced thesis?

Church, last couple dozen times, just to vote. Other than that, I try to do what I think is right. It may be possible to have to answer for what I do, maybe not too. To answer about substantial differences, I'd have to know a lot more about you than I currently do.

Altaris
05-21-2012, 11:18
Common, give me some photos / quotes.


Here is one that I always like.....

http://leftchristianity.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/308330_10150871030460117_302201620116_21087501_767102519_n.jpg

void *
05-21-2012, 11:26
Did you want a 30 page single spaced thesis?

No, but if that's what you want to provide I don't see any reason to reject it.

To answer about substantial differences, I'd have to know a lot more about you than I currently do.

I'm not asking about me. I'm asking about you. What would you do substantially differently if you were 'living your life as if there is no god' as compared to 'with the understanding that there might be a god. Might not be one too.'?

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 11:43
That is an interestingly difficult question. I'm not sure, as I've not decided. Hypothetically, it could be different, or pretty close to the same. I like being nice to people, so maybe no change there.


I think most people do the things they do for a lot of reasons. There are plenty of theists and atheists that are good guys and bad.

void *
05-21-2012, 11:52
I couldn't think of a single example, possibly because I don't see a conflict between not being able to know (maybe there is, maybe there isn't) and not believing that there is. My answer would be "No", inasmuch as I don't see a real distinction.

Perhaps the reason it's an 'interestingly difficult question', as you term it, is because there's no need for there to be a conflict between not believing and understanding that you can't assign an absolute truth value to the question of whether or not there is a deity. Something to think about.

(Edited to add: For instance, I know, concretely, how I would behave differently not believing vs. believing, because I know how I behaved when I actually did believe. I went to church of my own volition, I prayed, etc.)

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 12:38
I couldn't think of a single example, possibly because I don't see a conflict between not being able to know (maybe there is, maybe there isn't) and not believing that there is. My answer would be "No", inasmuch as I don't see a real distinction.

Perhaps the reason it's an 'interestingly difficult question', as you term it, is because there's no need for there to be a conflict between not believing and understanding that you can't assign an absolute truth value to the question of whether or not there is a deity. Something to think about.

I think that really believing one way or the other, would effect decision making somewhat. If I decided there was a God, I'd have to follow some rules that I don't now. For example, I'm not an absolute anti abortionist. If I was sure there was no god, I might be tempted to worry about getting ahead more. What makes it difficult, is I don't think I was ever sure if there was or was not a god. But whether one believes that there is a deity or not, is only one of many factors in how they behave. Throwing that switch might have a significant change in behavior, and might not.



(Edited to add: For instance, I know, concretely, how I would behave differently not believing vs. believing, because I know how I behaved when I actually did believe. I went to church of my own volition, I prayed, etc.)

void *
05-21-2012, 12:54
I think that really believing one way or the other, would effect decision making somewhat.

I'm not saying it wouldn't.

I'm getting at the point that by your 'atheist, agnostic, theist' definition, it is a difficult question for you to describe how your behavior would be substantially different if you were an atheist vs. an agnostic. Whereas it is trivial to describe how behavior would be different as an atheist vs. being a theist, and how behavior would be different as an agnostic vs. being a theist (i.e., neither would have reason to go to church, etc).

I suggest this might be largely because the 'atheist, agnostic, theist' model is inadequate, mostly because it fails to account for a distinction between belief and knowledge.

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 13:24
I'm not saying it wouldn't.

I'm getting at the point that by your 'atheist, agnostic, theist' definition, it is a difficult question for you to describe how your behavior would be substantially different if you were an atheist vs. an agnostic. Whereas it is trivial to describe how behavior would be different as an atheist vs. being a theist, and how behavior would be different as an agnostic vs. being a theist (i.e., neither would have reason to go to church, etc).

I suggest this might be largely because the 'atheist, agnostic, theist' model is inadequate, mostly because it fails to account for a distinction between belief and knowledge.


In other words, people are very complex. Belief does have a place in decision making, but the influence depends on what you believe on more than one topic.

void *
05-21-2012, 13:27
In other words, people are very complex. Belief does have a place in decision making, but the influence depends on what you believe on more than one topic.

More that aligning 'believe / not believe' with 'atheist' and 'gnostic / agnostic' with where you stand on the question of 'can it be known' nicely gets rid of any difficulty at all, since the resulting model makes it trivial to describe how behavior would be different based on the value of the believe / not believe axis, and the can be known / can't be known axis doesn't have a whole lot of impact on behavior either way (People for who that variable is different might make claims of knowledge or not make claims of knowledge, but that's about it).

G23Gen4TX
05-21-2012, 14:02
Here is one that I always like.....

http://leftchristianity.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/308330_10150871030460117_302201620116_21087501_767102519_n.jpg

Nice save attempt but it looks like this thread just turned into an "annoying" thread.

G23Gen4TX
05-21-2012, 14:32
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/528686_178354865617575_154582054661523_262033_1169494452_n.jpg

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 15:41
More that aligning 'believe / not believe' with 'atheist' and 'gnostic / agnostic' with where you stand on the question of 'can it be known' nicely gets rid of any difficulty at all, since the resulting model makes it trivial to describe how behavior would be different based on the value of the believe / not believe axis, and the can be known / can't be known axis doesn't have a whole lot of impact on behavior either way (People for who that variable is different might make claims of knowledge or not make claims of knowledge, but that's about it).

But it could be known. I'm just sure I don't know.

You have your way of looking at things, I have mine. No big deal.

void *
05-21-2012, 16:49
But it could be known. I'm just sure I don't know.

So add a third variable, modeling the true dichotomy of whether or not you claim to know. And I disagree, as a Deistic god can't be tested for, nor can an all-powerful deity that can remove evidence of it's own actions, because the claim that such evidence was removed to allow for faith can be made. (although there can be gods that are defined with specific traits that we can test for)

You have your way of looking at things, I have mine. No big deal.

I'm cool with that. Right up until you tell me I'm wrong when I tell you I don't view my atheism as a religious belief, when my way of looking at the world doesn't require it to be so. :wavey:

Geko45
05-21-2012, 20:27
If your belief is that there is NO GOD. Well, you still have to believe :)

So much for being an atheist.

That's like saying an apathist still has to care.

:upeyes:

G23Gen4TX
05-21-2012, 20:36
Eff off my thread!

http://i.imgur.com/z7PBo.jpg

Geko45
05-21-2012, 20:50
http://thehidalgograincompany.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/cains-wife.jpg

Geko45
05-21-2012, 20:53
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/103-The-Bible-Talking-Donkeys.jpg

Paul7
05-22-2012, 12:29
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/103-The-Bible-Talking-Donkeys.jpg

So, God could never be able to make an animal talk, but speech can arise by random chance?

void *
05-22-2012, 12:36
So, God could never be able to make an animal talk, but speech can arise by random chance?

I don't seem to remember anyone in the thread making that argument. You wouldn't, perhaps, be erecting a straw man, would you?

Lone Wolf8634
05-22-2012, 14:45
So, God could never be able to make an animal talk, but speech can arise by random chance?

I wish that, just for 30 seconds, you could read this statement from my point of view.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm.......

G26S239
05-22-2012, 15:03
So, God could never be able to make an animal talk, but speech can arise by random chance?
:rofl::rofl::rofl: Of course he can.

chickenwing
05-22-2012, 16:22
Eff off my thread!

http://i.imgur.com/z7PBo.jpg

:rofl::rofl:

You owe me a keyboard. :supergrin:

Geko45
05-22-2012, 17:25
So, God could never be able to make an animal talk, but speech can arise by random chance?

Did that logic annoy you?

juggy4711
05-22-2012, 19:37
This whole atheism is a religion debate has seriously gone off the rails. So many folks so all over the place, all an in attempt to some how vindicate their side of the argument. Everyone choosing whatever definition of whatever word one thinks best backs up their position and nothing but New Speak. Hell in one thread someone posted that Islam was not a religion. WTF is going on here.

What does a religious person have to gain from claiming atheism is a religion? What does an agnostic have to gain from the same? What does an atheist have to gain by claiming its not a religion? Talk about beliefs or lack thereof. How does it change what anyone actually believes, disbelieves, lacks a belief in or believes is unknowable? Is it all an attempt to put each others positions on the same level?

Here's a word I've decided best fits this scenario, "Pointless".

G26S239
05-22-2012, 19:50
If your belief is that there is NO GOD. Well, you still have to believe :)

So much for being an atheist.
Atheism = lack of belief in divine beings.

And your point is?

I also deny the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, minotaurs, werewolves and chupacabras among other old fairy tales/superstitions given the lack of empirical evidence of their existence. Which of these would you recommend that I have faith in? Which of these do you believe in? If you don't believe in them, why don't you believe in them?

chickenwing
05-22-2012, 20:00
So, God could never be able to make an animal talk, but speech can arise by random chance?

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Giant_peanut_in_Plains,_Georgia.jpg&sa=X&ei=p0S8T5TgE4jo9AS9hfhC&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFN6E51jXC2Tuk_sZaJHWTQ9zJFUg

muscogee
05-22-2012, 20:09
So, God could never be able to make an animal talk, but speech can arise by random chance?

Who says it arose by random chance?

juggy4711
05-22-2012, 20:18
Who says it arose by random chance?

Apparently if God didn't directly cause it, everything is just random chance. Evolution, language, what I had for dinner etc...

Sad thing is they don't even understand what they argue against. That is one thing I will certainly give the atheists here credit for. They seem to have far greater knowledge of religious scriptures than the believers tend to have of science. Next thing you know they be spouting off about how atoms randomly bond into molecules as if there were no rhyme or reason to particle physics.

steveksux
05-22-2012, 20:35
Theists really REALLY want everyone classified in a believers club. They have a difficult time with the mere definition of the word that absolutely means LACK OF BELIEF IN A DEITY. Their comprehension is that lack of belief in something is a belief in something.Belief in that for which there is either no evidence, or contrary evidence, is after all the hallmark of fundamentalist theism... :rofl:

Randy

steveksux
05-22-2012, 20:40
Here is one that I always like.....

http://leftchristianity.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/308330_10150871030460117_302201620116_21087501_767102519_n.jpgTruly an argument worthy of God.

Unending. Eternal. A perfect flawless circle, no beginning, and no end.

Randy

G23Gen4TX
05-22-2012, 20:47
:rofl::rofl:

You owe me a keyboard. :supergrin:

So does every porn site in the world owe me a keyboard. Your point? ;-)

G23Gen4TX
06-30-2012, 20:58
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/zoti/8f3b96aa.jpg

Walt_NC
07-03-2012, 12:43
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/031-Thank-you-Jesus-womanFor-helping-me-find-find-my-car-keys-football-player-For-letting-me-throw-that-touchdown-starving-child.jpg

http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/060-What-if-Odin-is-real-650x278.png

http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/013-Morality-of-a-believer.jpg

Gunhaver
07-03-2012, 14:01
This whole atheism is a religion debate has seriously gone off the rails. So many folks so all over the place, all an in attempt to some how vindicate their side of the argument. Everyone choosing whatever definition of whatever word one thinks best backs up their position and nothing but New Speak. Hell in one thread someone posted that Islam was not a religion. WTF is going on here.

What does a religious person have to gain from claiming atheism is a religion?
They bring us down to their level. They understand the logic behind not believing without evidence so they need to put those that do so in the same box as themselves by ridiculously claiming that they "believe" in not believing.

What does an agnostic have to gain from the same?

Some theists here only claim to be agnostic because they think it makes people think they're more impartial. One in particular does a poor job of hiding his theism.

What does an atheist have to gain by claiming its not a religion?

We gain the opportunity to point out the flaws in yet another theist lie. Some of us have made a hobby out of it. Next you ask what is the harm in allowing billions and billions of lies around the planet to go unchecked everyday?
Talk about beliefs or lack thereof. How does it change what anyone actually believes, disbelieves, lacks a belief in or believes is unknowable?
It changed what I believe. When I stepped outside the Christian thought bubble and started to look into these arguments that everyone is having I very quickly saw which side makes more sense. Most atheists here will tell you a similar story.
Which sides have strict rules for how you should think and which information you should avoid while avoiding very damaging information themselves in their speeches and sermons? Which side warns against the dangers of studying other religions? Which side has been offering the same flaccid unchanging answers to it's followers since that side got started?

And which side tells people to weigh all the evidence, study everything and come to your own conclusions and we don't want you until you do that? The truth isn't in some cryptic scripture or yet to be presented clever argument. It's right out there in the way these groups operate.

Is it all an attempt to put each others positions on the same level?

It's an attempt from all sides to show others which side make more sense. Some sides are doing better than others.

Here's a word I've decided best fits this scenario, "Pointless".

Then bow out. You might fit in in some church or mosque if you really don't like open dialog and the presenting of different ideas. Pick a side for completely arbitrary reasons and never look around you for fear that you may not have picked the best one.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 14:23
I think I found that closet theist.


So to you "environmentalist" automatically means Luddite anti-industrialist? No way to have the guns (and cars and houses and all the other things we enjoy) without completely trashing the environment to get them? Or are you just pissed that being careful about how we go about it makes them everything more expensive? Have you ever seen a conservation law that you thought was a good idea?

Jesus. The guy said he likes clean air and water and that's all it takes to trip your trigger. Lay off the talk radio.

Gunhaver
07-03-2012, 14:31
I think I found that closet theist.

I think an explanation is in order. What about that statement makes me a theist? :dunno:

Sarge1400
07-03-2012, 14:55
I think an explanation is in order. What about that statement makes me a theist? :dunno:

Dude, you said 'Jesus'! You must be a believer! :rofl:

Gunhaver
07-03-2012, 15:10
Dude, you said 'Jesus'! You must be a believer! :rofl:

Ah, I see. Although my favorite version of that expletive, "Jesus ****ing Christ on a crutch" isn't very Christian of me. :supergrin:
"Charles ****ing Darwin on a crutch" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

I also like, "Great Cesar's ghost!" so I guess I believe in spirits too.

G26S239
07-03-2012, 15:31
An interesting read I found.
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

Walt_NC
07-03-2012, 15:45
An interesting read I found.
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

Good find. That was hilarious.

Lone Wolf8634
07-03-2012, 16:23
An interesting read I found.
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Hankdammit that was funny!

G26S239
07-03-2012, 16:32
:wavey:

G23Gen4TX
07-12-2012, 23:39
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/532253_10150915783537131_752090767_n.jpg

Gunhaver
07-13-2012, 01:53
Dude, you said 'Jesus'! You must be a believer! :rofl:

It makes perfect sense. I say "oh my god!" or "Jesus" when something is unbelievable.

G26S239
07-13-2012, 02:16
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/532253_10150915783537131_752090767_n.jpg

:rofl:

GreenDrake
07-13-2012, 05:45
This thread is getting better and better. Love the links and pics. Keep em coming.

http://therevealer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/science-vs-religion.jpeg

Altaris
07-13-2012, 08:35
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/532253_10150915783537131_752090767_n.jpg

I love it. :rofl::rofl:

muscogee
07-13-2012, 19:24
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/532253_10150915783537131_752090767_n.jpg

As a follower of Spider Man, I'm offended. :supergrin:

steveksux
07-13-2012, 19:32
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/532253_10150915783537131_752090767_n.jpgGod could learn a few things from Spider-man.

With great power comes great responsibility. Knock off the starving kids, already, its sickening!!!

Randy

Bren
07-16-2012, 09:57
If your belief is that there is NO GOD. Well, you still have to believe :)

So much for being an atheist.

That's a favorite for christians, but amounts to no more than a semantic argument. For the 1000th time - atheists believe that there is no evidence FOR a god or gods and, therefore, your god is no more likely to exist than Odin or Shiva or the great flying spaghetti monster.

Even you believe that Zeus and Apollo and Hades are fake, right? So there is really only a 1-god difference between your beliefs about supernatural gods and those of an atheist.

Gunhaver
07-23-2012, 10:57
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/524285_498859993472766_808319264_n.jpg

Tilley
07-24-2012, 01:33
Wow...the village of the damned is on a roll today.....

Please, by all means, continue on with this rant...

















...is it me or is it getting warm in here?

Gunhaver
07-24-2012, 05:27
Wow...the village of the damned is on a roll today.....

Please, by all means, continue on with this rant...
















...is it me or is it getting warm in here?


When all you've got is, "You're going to hell", you're doing it wrong.

Also, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

Smacktard
07-24-2012, 05:47
When all you've got is, "You're going to hell", you're doing it wrong.

Also, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion


Thanks for the link!


...

void *
07-24-2012, 10:21
...is it me or is it getting warm in here?

I've heard a sense of humor can help with that.

Gunhaver
07-24-2012, 14:12
Wow...the village of the damned is on a roll today.....

Please, by all means, continue on with this rant...

















...is it me or is it getting warm in here?


Hell: A delusion that only affects those that don't have it, according to those that do.

Gunhaver
07-26-2012, 19:56
Thanks for the link!


...

And here's the rebuttal. http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-catholic-reply-to-how-to-suck-at-your.html

SIGlock
08-02-2012, 19:54
A message to the atheists:

O.K., so you don't believe in God. And I careless what you believe.:yawn:

I just don't understand why you have to be so upset with the religious people. I mean, you don't believe in God, right? Go find someone else that has the same interest and be happy.

So, you atheists need to go get a life. And I careless what you believe. :wavey:

Lone Wolf8634
08-02-2012, 20:01
A message to the atheists:

O.K., so you don't believe in God. And I careless what you believe.:yawn:

I just don't understand why you have to be so upset with the religious people. I mean, you don't believe in God, right? Go find someone else that has the same interest and be happy.

So, you atheists need to go get a life. And I careless what you believe. :wavey:

Ummm.....Ok.

muscogee
08-02-2012, 20:15
A message to the atheists:

O.K., so you don't believe in God. And I careless what you believe.:yawn:

I just don't understand why you have to be so upset with the religious people. I mean, you don't believe in God, right? Go find someone else that has the same interest and be happy.

:panties:

As John Locke would say, "You can't tell me what to do".

And I careless what you believe. :wavey:

Rhetoric isn't your strong suit is it?

Geko45
08-02-2012, 20:22
I just don't understand why you have to be so upset with the religious people. I mean, you don't believe in God, right? Go find someone else that has the same interest and be happy.

When all the theists stop trying to dictate who can marry who, who can have an abortion and even who can buy beer on Sunday then I'll be happy to do just that.

dereklord
08-03-2012, 20:20
When all the theists stop trying to dictate who can marry who, who can have an abortion and even who can buy beer on Sunday then I'll be happy to do just that.

In all fairness, and without trying to get all into a huge "debate" (as I have used the same disclaimer in many other threads) I dont think anyone is saying who can marry who, or who can have an abortion, its more who can't. It sounds like you don't agree with being sensored/regulated. I know most of society feels that way, as do I about most things. However, how do you feel about gun regulations? Regulation of certain drugs? How about alcohol or cigarettes? What if they tried to regulate foods that weren't good for you? I am sure if you polled 100 people with these questions, you would get alot of different answers. So to say that you don't agree with marriage and abortion being "regulated/controlled" is merely stating your opinion. I am also merely stating my opinion. Doesn't make either of us right. Just proves that we wasted that portion of our lives in which we took the time to type the words into this thread.

dereklord
08-03-2012, 20:25
When all the theists stop trying to dictate who can marry who, who can have an abortion and even who can buy beer on Sunday then I'll be happy to do just that.

Just an afterthought...I am not very, uhh, informed when it comes to politics. However, isn't it politicians that mainly regulate these issues? I would say that politicians, as a whole, worry more about the next election rather than any form of theism or religion. I don't think that theists are behind all of the decisions that atheists or agnostics don't agree with. Nor do I believe liberals/athiests/agnostics are behind all of the decisions that theists don't agree with.

Geko45
08-03-2012, 21:27
I am sure if you polled 100 people with these questions, you would get alot of different answers. So to say that you don't agree with marriage and abortion being "regulated/controlled" is merely stating your opinion. I am also merely stating my opinion. Doesn't make either of us right. Just proves that we wasted that portion of our lives in which we took the time to type the words into this thread.

Here's a question. If I have an opinion about how I want to lead my life and you have an opinion about how I lead my life, are our opinions equally valid (excluding scenarios where my choice might directly impact others)?

dereklord
08-03-2012, 21:44
Actually, I'm right and you're wrong. There is a simple litmus test I apply to areas such as this, especially when theists start equivocating about equally valid positions. The test goes like this, "identify the victim". If you can't identify someone who would have their rights infringed upon by the behavior then it should not be regulated and should be left to the individual.

And it has to be a real identifiable person, not "society" or "community" or "god" or even some theoretical individual that may or may not be affected several layers away. It has to be a real, identifiable, tangible victim. Anything else is tyranny (whether promulgated by religion or something else).

Here's a question. If I have an opinion about how I want to lead my life and you have an opinion about how I lead my life, are our opinions still equally valid (excluding scenarios where my choice might directly impact others)?

Who is the identifiable victim in abortion? Is there one? If so, who gets to choose? Does the baby get to choose? The mother? What about the father? Also, I will just use the example of regulating the foods that are bad for you...I can name a victim in that. Everyone who develops heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure etc. from consuming the food. So regulate the food and don't regulate abortions simply because we can identify a victim in one and not the other? (Not giving my opinion on either by the way). Now we have wandered into the realm of free will and freedom. Wether you and I agree that some specific thing should or shouldn't be regulated, I hope we can agree that objectively, no one person can say they are all the way right or all the way wrong with thier personal opinion of these subjects (as you did when you began your response in that last post).

Geko45
08-03-2012, 22:00
Does the baby get to choose? The mother? What about the father?

An embryo becomes a person when the brain develops. Look to medical science to identify when that is. Before that time, it's the mother's choice. After that time, the person has a right to live.

I can name a victim in that. Everyone who develops heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure etc. from consuming the food.

The victim can't be the same person that made the choice. It has to be a third party. People have a right to make bad choices for themselves.

Wether you and I agree that some specific thing should or shouldn't be regulated, I hope we can agree that objectively, no one person can say they are all the way right or all the way wrong with thier personal opinion of these subjects (as you did when you began your response in that last post).

Your "hope" is incorrect. While I could be mistaken in a particular scenario, my philosophy is the only one that is ethical. Live and let live. Nobody has the right to insert themselves into another's life unless it is to prevent them from doing exactly that to someone else.

Your fairly inept attempts to draw equalities between justice and tyranny are quite sickening.

dereklord
08-03-2012, 22:23
An embryo becomes a person when the brain develops. Look to medical science to identify when that is. Before that time, it's the mother's choice. After that time, the person has a right to live.



The victim can't be the same person that made the choice. It has to be a third party. People have a right to make bad choices for themselves.



Your "hope" is incorrect. While I could be mistaken in a particular scenario, my philosophy is the only one that is ethical. Live and let live. Nobody has the right to insert themselves into another's life unless it is to prevent them from doing exactly that to someone else.

Your fairly inept attempts to draw equalities between justice and tyranny are quite sickening.

What about suicide? Does that hurt someone? Why is it that medical science can tell me when a baby is a human or when it is actually alive? Are we (society) really that conceited? In the case of the food, it wouldnt be the person eating it that is being regulated, it would be the establishments creating or distributing the food. Since society seems to want to blame everyone else for their problems, we will just say that the "evil food establishment" is the one doing the harm, the innocent civilian who eats the food is the victim. Now in that scenario, would it be okay to infringe upon the food establishments right to distribute the food that they want? What about alcohol? It could easily directly impact someones life in a negative way. It actually could impact not only the one who drinks the alcohol, but the poor sap minding their business who gets hit by the drunk driver. Should their ability to consume alcohol be regulated? (Not saying that it isn't already, just wondering your stance on the topic) How about buying alcohol? Producing it or selling it? Who is to blame? All I am saying is this...I dont want to argue with you. I may have entered this battle of wits unequipped. I am by no means trying to make anyone here believe that I am smarter or better than you in any way. Although, your posts seem to be probing to do the opposite. I am simply asking questions about the things you say. There is a strong possibility that, on this specific subject, you could enlighten me. A situation I would welcome. I promise to not let the overwhelming amount of pride that seems to be clouding your vision do the same to me. Also, I agree that your "blanket policy" view of your ideoligy on this subject is the only way it could work. Specific scenarios are a tough thing to pin down. Oh, and sorry for making you sick. :wavey:

Geko45
08-04-2012, 10:20
I'm out and about celebrating my b-day with family this weekend. I'll come back to this later

dereklord
08-04-2012, 10:45
I'm out and about celebrating my b-day with family this weekend. I'll come back to this later

Roger that! Have fun and Happy Birthday to you! :wavey:

G23Gen4TX
08-04-2012, 18:27
EFF OFF MY THREAD!!!

http://i.imgur.com/z7PBo.jpg

G23Gen4TX
08-07-2012, 08:42
Back on track

http://i.imgur.com/e8ZcU.jpg

Roering
08-07-2012, 10:50
I'll play

http://t.qkme.me/35952n.jpg

Roering
08-07-2012, 11:00
http://us13.memecdn.com/atheism_o_225219.jpg

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 13:16
An embryo becomes a person when the brain develops.
Usually about the age of 19-25 years. Sometimes much younger; one indication is when a child understands/espouses conservative principles over liberal.

"If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a liberal when you're old, you have no brain."

Woofie
08-07-2012, 14:39
"If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a liberal when you're old, you have no brain."

I know this was a proofreading error, but I'm saving it to throw in your face some day.:supergrin:

Geko45
08-07-2012, 14:42
Usually about the age of 19-25 years. Sometimes much younger; one indication is when a child understands/espouses conservative principles over liberal.

So, for once we are in agreement. Abortion should be legalized in the first trimester of life.

:supergrin:

Geko45
08-07-2012, 14:43
http://us13.memecdn.com/atheism_o_225219.jpg

You got to many "magicals" in that definition of a term that generally refutes all things supernatural.

scccdoc
08-07-2012, 14:56
I see the "gang" is having a reunion, lol .......... DOC

Norske
08-07-2012, 15:32
You got to many "magicals" in that definition of a term that generally refutes all things supernatural.

If the Universe required a creator, who created God?

:dunno:

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 15:38
If the Universe required a creator, who created God?

:dunno:
The old 2nd-grade question.

Fact is, there NEEDS to be an "uncaused cause", something outside of our space-time something that is "non-contingent". That much we can arrive at by pure reason.

The First Cause Argument (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm)

Geko45
08-07-2012, 15:40
If the Universe required a creator, who created God?

:dunno:

He's transcendent... :upeyes:

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/138077796/Magic-wandA_bigger.png

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 15:43
He's transcendent... :upeyes:

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/138077796/Magic-wandA_bigger.png
Or material (energy) is.
Take your pick ... you can mock if you want to be adolescent about it, or you can try to actually understand if you want to be adult about it.

Lone Wolf8634
08-07-2012, 16:23
The old 2nd-grade question.

Fact is, there NEEDS to be an "uncaused cause", something outside of our space-time something that is "non-contingent". That much we can arrive at by pure reason.

The First Cause Argument (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm)

So because we do not yet know, it must have been a "God"?

Sorry, that logic doesn't flow for me.

Geko45
08-07-2012, 17:11
Or material (energy) is.


Show me where energy has ever gone against entropy in a closed system and I might reconsider my position.

Limedust
08-07-2012, 17:24
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is an unprovable metaphysical supposition, chosen by the believer to form the matrix in which all of reality is viewed. From that belief, or supposition, logical coralaries must follow. If there is no God, then there is no revelation from God. If there is not revelation from God, then there must logically be no morality. If there is no revelation, no morality, then there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, then there is no meaning. If there is no no purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been often termed, the philosophy of suicide.

You're fond of this particular paragraph . . . but it makes as little sense each time you post it as it did the first time.

Norske
08-07-2012, 17:55
It always amuses me that creationists insist that a creator had to to have created the universe, then cannot point to anything but the existence of the universe itself as "proof" that a creator even exists at all!

Never ending, circular tail chasing.

However, the time, wealth, blood and lives wasted chasing that tail does not amuse me and never will.

Geko45
08-07-2012, 18:01
So because we do not yet know, it must have been a "God"?

Sorry, that logic doesn't flow for me.

Or...

Because it is not possible to have an effect without a cause, there must have been a cause for the first effect that didn't have any other cause and that cause had to be god.

Makes sense, right? The supposed logical impossibility that applies to the universe somehow doesn't (a mere thought later) apply to god as well.

:upeyes:

Woofie
08-07-2012, 20:40
Or...

Because it is not possible to have an effect without a cause, there must have been a cause for the first effect that didn't have any other cause and that cause had to be god.

Makes sense, right? The supposed logical impossibility that applies to the universe somehow doesn't (a mere thought later) apply to god as well.

:upeyes:

Given that we don't understand the conditions of the universe prior to the Big Bang, is it possible that our understanding of quantum mechanics doesn't hold up and effects can precede their cause?

After all, it's still not fully understood what keeps time flowing like it is in today's universe, let alone how it was prior to expansion.

Geko45
08-07-2012, 20:47
Given that we don't understand the conditions of the universe prior to the Big Bang, is it possible that our understanding of quantum mechanics doesn't hold up and effects can precede their cause?

This was discussed at length several weeks (maybe a couple of months) ago. Several examples were cited of quamtum effects that bend (and even violate) causality. The theists, of course, discounted all such examples in favor of believing their discredited "first cause" argument.

Lone Wolf8634
08-08-2012, 07:27
Or...

Because it is not possible to have an effect without a cause, there must have been a cause for the first effect that didn't have any other cause and that cause had to be god.

Makes sense, right? The supposed logical impossibility that applies to the universe somehow doesn't (a mere thought later) apply to god as well.

:upeyes:

The illogical thought process makes my head hurt.:brickwall:

Schabesbert
08-08-2012, 15:52
So because we do not yet know, it must have been a "God"?

Sorry, that logic doesn't flow for me.
That's because you're not looking at it logically; you're trying to fit your ideology into it.

READ what I said: by REASON we can know that there HAS TO be a non-contingent cause.

Not "because we do not yet know" (where did you get that, other than from your preconceptions), but because LOGICALLY it needs to be that way.

Schabesbert
08-08-2012, 16:08
Show me where energy has ever gone against entropy in a closed system and I might reconsider my position.
All of the possibilities are represented. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, either matter/energy time/space is eternal, or something has to exist which transcends our matter/energy time/space universe.

What you're asking me to believe is that logic fails.

Schabesbert
08-08-2012, 16:12
This was discussed at length several weeks (maybe a couple of months) ago. Several examples were cited of quamtum effects that bend (and even violate) causality. The theists, of course, discounted all such examples in favor of believing their discredited "first cause" argument.
Bend, perhaps. Violate? Hasn't been shown.

Geko45
08-08-2012, 16:56
[U]What you're asking me to believe is that logic fails.

Or Aquinas got it wrong.

:whistling:

Geko45
08-08-2012, 16:58
Bend, perhaps. Violate? Hasn't been shown.

What is the cause for a specific elementary particle to suddenly escape it's atomic bonds in radioactive decay?

G23Gen4TX
08-08-2012, 17:16
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/283747_405273029536518_865961858_n.jpg

G23Gen4TX
08-08-2012, 17:18
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/251806_402099459853875_1359060345_n.jpg

G23Gen4TX
08-08-2012, 17:20
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/306427_403157456414742_718869915_n.jpg

Schabesbert
08-08-2012, 18:10
What is the cause for a specific elementary particle to suddenly escape it's atomic bonds in radioactive decay?
I don't know.
Are you going to tell me that you KNOW that it is entirely uncaused? Hmmm .... sounds remarkably similar to something that atheists are always claiming that fundamentalists do.

Actually, I've noticed the similarity between fundy arguments and atheist arguments.

Geko45
08-08-2012, 18:15
Edit: I'm mixing my threads...

Cavalry Doc
08-08-2012, 19:21
I don't know.
Are you going to tell me that you KNOW that it is entirely uncaused? Hmmm .... sounds remarkably similar to something that atheists are always claiming that fundamentalists do.

Actually, I've noticed the similarity between fundy arguments and atheist arguments.

You too?

G23Gen4TX
08-08-2012, 22:19
http://www.cavemancircus.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/august/jesus/jesus_lol_17.jpg

RC-RAMIE
08-09-2012, 07:52
I don't know.
Are you going to tell me that you KNOW that it is entirely uncaused? Hmmm .... sounds remarkably similar to something that atheists are always claiming that fundamentalists do.

Actually, I've noticed the similarity between fundy arguments and atheist arguments.

Why do theist on this board keep claiming atheist "know". Atheism does not offer a alternative creation story. You seem to be confusing atheism and science. Even science does not claim to "know" they offer the best explanation based on observable evidence.

The main thing that started my direction towards atheism was the fact I didn't know and was sure religions didn't know either.

A couple of theist on here keep insisting atheist believes certain things even though they have been told they are wrong numerous times by actual atheist here.

Schabesbert
08-09-2012, 08:41
Why do theist on this board keep claiming atheist "know".
Because he's presenting this as proof of non-causality.
You don't present a guess to show such a thing.

I'm saying that it might be evidence for non-causality, but that he can't possibly know it.

Why do atheists always resort to perfunctory arguments rather than addressing the facts at hand?

To wit:
Atheism does not offer a alternative creation story. You seem to be confusing atheism and science. Even science does not claim to "know" they offer the best explanation based on observable evidence.

Geko45
08-09-2012, 08:48
I'm saying that it might be evidence for non-causality, but that he can't possibly know it.

It would be logically impossible to know for absolute certainty that something happened without cause as there would always be the chance that you missed it somehow. The best that could ever be achieved would be to say that "we've looked very, very hard and can not find one". This is pretty much the case with all human knowledge. There is never certainty, just varying levels of likelihood.

Why do theists always want to discount everything we've learned to date just because there is a vanishingly small possibility that some future discovery will change our understanding?

Woofie
08-09-2012, 09:03
The bartender says "Hey! We don't allow faster than light travel in here!"

A tachyon walks into a bar

Woofie
08-09-2012, 09:04
Anyone want to hear a joke to lighten the mood?:rofl:

Schabesbert
08-09-2012, 09:25
The bartender says "Hey! We don't allow faster than light travel in here!"

A tachyon walks into a bar
:rofl:
That's one I'm gonna remember.

Schabesbert
08-09-2012, 09:26
It would be logically impossible to know for absolute certainty that something happened without cause as there would always be the chance that you missed it somehow.
THANK you for withdrawing your implied assertion that causality has been disproven.

Cavalry Doc
08-09-2012, 09:49
It would be logically impossible to know for absolute certainty that something happened without cause as there would always be the chance that you missed it somehow. The best that could ever be achieved would be to say that "we've looked very, very hard and can not find one". This is pretty much the case with all human knowledge. There is never certainty, just varying levels of likelihood.

Why do theists always want to discount everything we've learned to date just because there is a vanishingly small possibility that some future discovery will change our understanding?

Then let an agnostic offer an observation. Since it would be nearly impossible to prove non causality, why would someone offer a phenomina that we cannot discover the cause or lack of a cause for as evidence that ther has never been a deity. That defies logic. I do understand it wasn't your argument.

Geko45
08-09-2012, 09:55
THANK you for withdrawing your implied assertion that causality has been disproven.

Not withdrawn, it was always inductive. As is the case with alomst everything we know.

void *
08-09-2012, 11:50
Since it would be nearly impossible to prove non causality, why would someone offer a phenomina that we cannot discover the cause or lack of a cause for as evidence that ther has never been a deity.


It's not evidence there has never been a deity. It's evidence that we don't know whether or not everything has to have a cause, and if there are common classes of events that do not have to have a cause, that contradicts the first-cause argument. Basically, it's saying "we have observed things that look like they may violate what we call causality. It may turn out they don't, but until and unless we can show that it's a pretty good idea not to rely on arguments that demand causality".

Why haven't you objected to claims that everything must have a cause except for deities, when that cannot possibly be known and there are observable indications it might not be true, yet accuse atheists of claiming they know there are no deities in the face of those atheists directly telling you that this is not what they claim?

Schabesbert
08-09-2012, 16:26
It's not evidence there has never been a deity. It's evidence that we don't know whether or not everything has to have a cause, and if there are common classes of events that do not have to have a cause, that contradicts the first-cause argument. Basically, it's saying "we have observed things that look like they may violate what we call causality. It may turn out they don't, but until and unless we can show that it's a pretty good idea not to rely on arguments that demand causality".
ALL our lived experience demands that everything has a cause. You seem quite content to go against all evidence for your hypothesis. Interesting. :whistling:

Why haven't you objected to claims that everything must have a cause except for deities,
I haven't made that claim.

We have a disjunctive hypothesis, ONE OF WHICH MUST BE TRUE:
A - "there are no unconditioned realities in all reality
or
A' - There is at least one unconditioned reality in all reality

If A is false, then A' must be true, and vice versa.



when that cannot possibly be known and there are observable indications it might not be true, yet accuse atheists of claiming they know there are no deities in the face of those atheists directly telling you that this is not what they claim?
You're accusing us of being accurate and truthful? :wavey:

void *
08-09-2012, 16:40
ALL our lived experience demands that everything has a cause.

Sure, if "lived experience" means non-quantum events. That doesn't mean that *all* events have to have a cause.

I haven't made that claim.

I wasn't talking to you there.

You're accusing us of being accurate and truthful

No, I'm accusing people who use the first cause argument of ignoring evidence that there may in fact be events that don't have causes.

You also quoted the bit where I said "and there are observable indications it might not be true", claimed this means you're being accurate and truthful, yet also stated "ALL our lived experience demands that everything has a cause.". That looks just a little bit contradictory to me.

Cavalry Doc
08-09-2012, 17:53
It's not evidence there has never been a deity. It's evidence that we don't know whether or not everything has to have a cause, and if there are common classes of events that do not have to have a cause, that contradicts the first-cause argument. Basically, it's saying "we have observed things that look like they may violate what we call causality. It may turn out they don't, but until and unless we can show that it's a pretty good idea not to rely on arguments that demand causality".

Why haven't you objected to claims that everything must have a cause except for deities, when that cannot possibly be known and there are observable indications it might not be true, yet accuse atheists of claiming they know there are no deities in the face of those atheists directly telling you that this is not what they claim?



I see how you are stretching to connect the dots.

I'm pretty sure that most things happen as a result of what has happened before. There might be a few, or even a lot of things that happen without a cause. On the subatomic level, if something happened without a cause, I'm still gonna want something for lunch tomorrow, or not, depending on how busy I am.

Even if you could prove that subatomic particles are being generated all around us without an identifiable cause, is that a deficiency in your ability to perceive the cause, or proof that there was no cause?????

If there was no cause, does that rule out the possibility of a deity having existed?

I'm seeing a desire to support a conclusion and faith in this argument. With ardor too.

void *
08-09-2012, 19:03
On the subatomic level, if something happened without a cause, I'm still gonna want something for lunch tomorrow, or not, depending on how busy I am.

Wanting your lunch tomorrow, or not, is not an argument that relies on having a first cause.

If there was no cause, does that rule out the possibility of a deity having existed?

No, of course not. That doesn't mean that those that rely on a first cause argument aren't ignoring the potential for there being events that do not require causes. It also doesn't mean that you're not giving them a pass while pretending that pointing out that there may in fact be events with no causes (because it looks like things might be that way due to things we've actually tested) is somehow demanding that it absolutely has to be true.

I'm seeing a desire to support a conclusion and faith in this argument. With ardor too.

You're seeing what you want to see.

Cavalry Doc
08-09-2012, 20:02
Wanting your lunch tomorrow, or not, is not an argument that relies on having a first cause.





Actually, having lunch or not for me tomorrow will have a cause. I want to have lunch, but don't always get to have it based on the needs of others.

If you can prove that something, anything happened without an identifiable cause, why would you let that change your mind about what happened billyuns of years ago?

It's still a matter of faith for some.

G23Gen4TX
08-10-2012, 00:08
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/393390_151376638308058_293838235_n.jpg

G23Gen4TX
08-10-2012, 00:48
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/430673_158698687575853_541246630_n.jpg

Kingarthurhk
08-10-2012, 01:17
Back on track

http://i.imgur.com/e8ZcU.jpg

http://www.adra.org/site/PageServer

void *
08-11-2012, 08:43
Actually, having lunch or not for me tomorrow will have a cause. I want to have lunch, but don't always get to have it based on the needs of others.

Straw man. I didn't state that it wouldn't have a cause, I stated it doesn't depend on having a first cause.

If you can prove that something, anything happened without an identifiable cause, why would you let that change your mind about what happened billyuns of years ago?.

Another straw man. I didn't state that there being classes of events that happen without causes would show anything other than the first cause argument is not a basis to believe that a deity exists. In fact, when asked if I thought it would prove deities do not exist, I said of course not.

If you can't discuss something without using straw men and avoiding the point, why should anyone consider discussion with you at all constructive? Something for you to consider.

void *
08-11-2012, 08:51
http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/2614w20n17A17220r8Z7.jpg

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2012, 08:37
Straw man. I didn't state that it wouldn't have a cause, I stated it doesn't depend on having a first cause.


Whether I have lunch tomorrow or not, will have many causes, a few of them would even be before my birth. Whether the planet formed with different characteristics would also be a cause. Whether we can find the first cause or not has yet to be determined.


Another straw man. I didn't state that there being classes of events that happen without causes would show anything other than the first cause argument is not a basis to believe that a deity exists. In fact, when asked if I thought it would prove deities do not exist, I said of course not.

If you can't discuss something without using straw men and avoiding the point, why should anyone consider discussion with you at all constructive? Something for you to consider.

Maybe if you weren't so prone on fixating on tangential arguments, it would be easier to keep your position straight.

Chesafreak
08-17-2012, 09:23
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is an unprovable metaphysical supposition, chosen by the believer to form the matrix in which all of reality is viewed. From that belief, or supposition, logical coralaries must follow. If there is no God, then there is no revelation from God. If there is not revelation from God, then there must logically be no morality. If there is no revelation, no morality, then there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, then there is no meaning. If there is no no purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been often termed, the philosophy of suicide.

This thread is so full of fail that it's kinda sad. Christian logic is twisted to no end. Faith trumps logic, right?

Geko45
08-17-2012, 09:25
Here is how this goes...

1. Theists put forth the "first cause" argument as proof that there must have been an initiating event for everything else (possibly god, possibly something else, the argument is not specific on this point). This argument is based upon a classical understanding of causality where it is absolute and irrefutable. Cause must always precede effect.

2. Setting aside the internal contradiction (how can causality be absolute and there be an uncaused first cause at the beginning?), atheists point out that several observed phenomenon in quantum physics cast serious doubt on the absolute nature of causality. Certain events seem to occur without cause at this level.

3. Theists then counter by claiming that this research can not yet be considered absolute as there is a remote possibility that our understanding is incomplete.

4. Atheists concede this point, but also explain that as long as causality as an absolute is not a certainty then the "first cause" argument is also not a certainty as it may be fundamentally flawed as it is more likely that our current understanding is correct than it is incorrect.

5. Theists try to muddy the water by claiming that we are offering uncaused quantum effects as proof that there is no deity when in fact it was only ever offered as proof that their "first cause" argument is flawed. They also demand absolute evidence for uncaused quantum events (kind of ironic considering Heisenberg Uncertainty) while simultaneously avoiding the responsibility of showing evidence that proves causality as an absolute (i.e. show us how the quantum research is wrong on this).

6. Theists also continue to refuse to acknowledge the internal logic flaw that has always been present in their argument. If causality is absolute then there can't be an uncaused first cause. It is either absolute or it is not, you can't have it both ways.

7. Atheists become frustrated at the intellectual dishonesty and the petty manipulations that theists will employ in order to avoid having to confront their own cognitive dissonance.

Does that about sum it up?

Lone Wolf8634
08-17-2012, 10:01
Here is how this goes...

1. Theists put forth the "first cause" argument as proof that there must have been an initiating event for everything else (possibly god, possibly something else, the argument is not specific on this point). This argument is based upon a classical understanding of causality where it is absolute and irrefutable. Cause must always precede effect.

2. Setting aside the internal contradiction (how can causality be absolute and there be an uncaused first cause at the beginning?), atheists point out that several observed phenomenon in quantum physics cast serious doubt on the absolute nature of causality. Certain events seem occur without cause at this level.

3. Theists then counter by claiming that this research can not yet be considered absolute as there is a remote possibility that our understanding is incomplete.

4. Atheists concede this point, but also explain that as long as causality as an absolute is not a certainty then the "first cause" argument is also not a certainty as it may be fundamentally flawed as it is more likely that our current understanding is correct than it is incorrect.

5. Theists try to muddy the water by claiming that we are offering uncaused quantum effects as proof that there is no deity when in fact it was only ever offered as proof that their "first cause" argument is flawed. They also demand absolute evidence for uncaused quantum events (kind of ironic considering Heisenberg Uncertainty) while simultaneously avoiding the responsibility of showing evidence that proves causality as an absolute (i.e. show us how the quantum research is wrong on this).

6. Theists also continue to refuse to acknowledge the internal logic flaw that has always been present in their argument. If causality is absolute then there can't be an uncaused first cause. It is either absolute or it is not, you can't have it both ways.

7. Atheits become frustrated at the intellectual dishonesty and the petty manipulations that theists will go to avoid having to confront their cognitive dissonance.

Does that about sum it up?

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

In between those steps though, you have Theists accusing Atheists of being everything from close minded to the lowest scumbags in existence.

Geko45
08-17-2012, 10:17
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is an unprovable metaphysical supposition, chosen by the believer to form the matrix in which all of reality is viewed. From that belief, or supposition, logical coralaries must follow. If there is no God, then there is no revelation from God. If there is not revelation from God, then there must logically be no morality. If there is no revelation, no morality, then there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, then there is no meaning. If there is no no purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been often termed, the philosophy of suicide.

Atheism is a conclusion supported by evidence and inductive reasoning that it is highly probable that there is no god-like creator (at least no more likely than any other myth based system). From this conclusion, certain logical corollaries must follow. If there is no god, then there is no revelation from god. If there is no revelation from god then there is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality then morality can only ever be subjective. However, as a society we still need common rules to maintain order, so what should those rules be? Logically, they should be based solely on preventing one individual from infringing directly on the rights of another and that within that boundary the individual should be left alone to determine what is best for them. From this conclusion the atheist realizes that this one life is all they will ever have and that they should make the most of it. Theists, on the other hand, spend the majority of their lives trying to appease some imagined deity and view the realities of this life as somehow subordinate. This is why atheists view their worldview as freedom loving and life affirming in contrast to the restrictive dogmas associated with most religions.

G23Gen4TX
08-17-2012, 23:40
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/404058_408674589196362_1537026901_n.jpg

Kingarthurhk
08-18-2012, 00:03
Atheism is a conclusion supported by evidence and inductive reasoning that it is highly probable that there is no god-like creator (at least no more likely than any other myth based system).

If that were true, then most people would be an Atheist. Notice, I said most, not that there is a black crow, therefore all crows must be black logic. You are not operating based on evidence, but suposition. You cannot prove there isn't a God. You believe there isn't a God, which you are entitled to do, just as Theists are entitled by similar suposition that there is in fact a God.

Both of these presupositions in regard to the metaphysical defined the matrix on which you and I view reality.

[quoute]
From this conclusion, certain logical corollaries must follow. If there is no god, then there is no revelation from god. If there is no revelation from god then there is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality then morality can only ever be subjective.[/quote]

If you replace the worked conclusion with suposition, e.g. suposing, fi you will then you have the above correct.


However, as a society we still need common rules to maintain order, so what should those rules be? Logically, they should be based solely on preventing one individual from infringing directly on the rights of another and that within that boundary the individual should be left alone to determine what is best for them.

This is a concept of western society, and principally in the United States. The United States was formed on that concept based on Judeo-Christian principals. So, in essence, you are borrowing the morality, and then claiming it as your own as reasonable. When you look at the world as whole, you will find that this concept is fairly unique.


From this conclusion the atheist realizes that this one life is all they will ever have and that they should make the most of it.

Define: "Make the most of it" what precisely does that mean? To many people that can mean many things. For some, it is "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die," which is more of a hedonic principle. For others, it means serving your fellow man, and making the world a better place for you having been in. Again, that is more of a Judeo-Christian principle.



Theists, on the other hand, spend the majority of their lives trying to appease some imagined deity and view the realities of this life as somehow subordinate. This is why atheists view their worldview as freedom loving and life affirming in contrast to the restrictive dogmas associated with most religions.

I really depends on what Theism you are discussing. There is a whole host of them.

So, what I have gathered from your treatise is you like the Judeo-Christian view, you just don't like our God very much.

G23Gen4TX
08-18-2012, 00:04
http://memearchive.net/memerial.net/5220/the-creation-of-man-on-the-couch.jpg

Kingarthurhk
08-18-2012, 00:06
http://memearchive.net/memerial.net/5220/the-creation-of-man-on-the-couch.jpg

Poor guy has moobs.

Kingarthurhk
08-18-2012, 00:09
This thread is so full of fail that it's kinda sad. Christian logic is twisted to no end. Faith trumps logic, right?

No, sorry, that is just the philosophy of religion, of which there are three fundamental presupositions: A Personal God, a Non-Personal God, and an Non-Existant God. Of those, are comprised the whole of all religions of the world. It has nothing to do with Christian logic, sad or otherwise.

Geko45
08-18-2012, 10:55
If that were true, then most people would be an Atheist.

That conclusion relies on the very questionable assumption that most people make decisions based on reason rather than emotion. Anecdotal evidence is, of course, not conclusive, but it has been my experience that most people feel their way through life as opposed to thinking through it. Just look at the myriad of self-destructive behaviors we have in our society for proof of that concept.

You are not operating based on evidence, but supposition. You cannot prove there isn't a God. You believe there isn't a God, which you are entitled to do, just as Theists are entitled by similar supposition that there is in fact a God.

King, I have found you to be a refreshing example of intellectual honesty in this forum. Don't ruin it by parroting CavDoc's failed logic.

The constant claim that it is not possible to "prove" there is no god is simply a red herring for theists. Nothing concrete can be proven. Nothing... You can't even prove that you are typing posts on a computer on an internet forum. You could be imagining the whole thing. If we didn't make decisions on imperfect information, we quite literally would not be able to function day to day.

All we ever have to go on in this world is inductive reasoning based on observation and evidence and all available evidence is consistent with the inductive conclusion that there is no god. I can't prove god exists, I can't prove that he doesn't exist, but I can look at what I do know and make a determination on the likelihood of the competing possibilities and proceed accordingly.

The amount of evidence that must be ignored in order to maintain faith in a deity is so overwhelming as to approach the level of clinical denial. Faith is simply the abandonment of reason in favor of feeling and emotion (i.e. you "feel" that it is true). I have abandoned faith and followed where reason lead me.

This is a concept of western society, and principally in the United States. The United States was formed on that concept based on Judeo-Christian principals. So, in essence, you are borrowing the morality, and then claiming it as your own as reasonable. When you look at the world as whole, you will find that this concept is fairly unique.

This has also been called into question here a number of times. Many of our founding fathers were either openly atheist or at least skeptical of the idea of a supreme deity. That is why we have separation of church and state. This is not a judeo-christian principle as the bible puts forth the example of a divinely appointed benevolent monarch as the ideal form of government. No democracy, no bill of rights, no separation of church and state, but rather a just king appointed by god with the morality of the bible codified as law.

Don't forget, I have studied the bible in depth. You will not find scriptural support for our current form of government in the bible.

Define: "Make the most of it" what precisely does that mean? To many people that can mean many things. For some, it is "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die," which is more of a hedonic principle. For others, it means serving your fellow man, and making the world a better place for you having been in.

That's the great part, we get to decide for ourselves what this means for us (within the confines of not preventing someone else from pursuing their own happiness).

I really depends on what Theism you are discussing. There is a whole host of them.

True, but they are all equally false.

So, what I have gathered from your treatise is you like the Judeo-Christian view, you just don't like our God very much.

I've already pointed out that a democratic republic is not the judeo-christian example of government. If anything, it is more ancient Greece and Rome that served as examples for what we have here in the U.S.

Kingarthurhk
08-18-2012, 15:31
That conclusion relies on the very questionable assumption that most people make decisions based on reason rather than emotion. Anecdotal evidence is, of course, not conclusive, but it has been my experience that most people feel their way through life as opposed to thinking through it. Just look at the myriad of self-destructive behaviors we have in our society for proof of that concept.

True, but our society is now so pluralistic that it is a bit schizophrenic.


King, I have found you to be a refreshing example of intellectual honesty in this forum. Don't ruin it by parroting CavDoc's failed logic.

It isn't CavDoc's failed logic. I am simply presenting the philosophy of religion.


The constant claim that it is not possible to "prove" there is no god is simply a red herring for theists. Nothing concrete can be proven. Nothing... You can't even prove that you are typing posts on a computer on an internet forum. You could be imagining the whole thing. If we didn't make decisions on imperfect information, we quite literally would not be able to function day to day.

It is not red herring. There are three metaphysical assumptions, or preuspositions by all people on this earth.

1. A Non-Existant God
2. A Non-Personal God
3. A Personal God

These three unprovable positions define all of religious thought on this planet.

You cannot prove there isn't a God, I cannot prove to you there is a God, and the Panintheisms of item number two cannot prove to me that the Tao or Brahmin exist. However, all of these beliefs have their genesis with on of the three above options.


All we ever have to go on in this world is inductive reasoning based on observation and evidence and all available evidence is consistent with the inductive conclusion that there is no god.

You have presuposed there is no God, a position you cannot prove.


I can't prove god exists, I can't prove that he doesn't exist, but I can look at what I do know and make a determination on the likelihood of the competing possibilities and proceed accordingly.

Based upon the matrix in which you view all reality based upon your initial presuposition.


The amount of evidence that must be ignored in order to maintain faith in a deity is so overwhelming as to approach the level of clinical denial. Faith is simply the abandonment of reason in favor of feeling and emotion (i.e. you "feel" that it is true). I have abandoned faith and followed where reason lead me.

If true, why are you being unreasonable when it comes to philosophy and simple logical paradigms? As noted earlier, it is because it is the matrix in which you interpret everything around you, based on your original presuposition.


This has also been called into question here a number of times. Many of our founding fathers were either openly atheist or at least skeptical of the idea of a supreme deity. That is why we have separation of church and state. This is not a judeo-christian principle as the bible puts forth the example of a divinely appointed benevolent monarch as the ideal form of government. No democracy, no bill of rights, no separation of church and state, but rather a just king appointed by god with the morality of the bible codified as law.

Interesting assumption considering the following:

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


Don't forget, I have studied the bible in depth. You will not find scriptural support for our current form of government in the bible.

As have I. Matthew 20:24-28, "When the ten heard about this, they were indignant <sup class="crossreference" value='(W (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23817W))'></sup> with the two brothers. <sup class="versenum">25 </sup>Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. <sup class="versenum">26 </sup>Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, <sup class="crossreference" value='(X (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23819X))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">27 </sup>and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— <sup class="versenum">28 </sup>just as the Son of Man <sup class="crossreference" value='(Y (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23821Y))'></sup> did not come to be served, but to serve, <sup class="crossreference" value='(Z (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23821Z))'></sup> and to give his life as a ransom <sup class="crossreference" value='(AA (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23821AA))'></sup> for many.”

Luke 9:46-50, "An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. <sup class="crossreference" value='(AX (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-25348AX))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">47 </sup>Jesus, knowing their thoughts, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AY (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-25349AY))'></sup> took a little child and had him stand beside him. <sup class="versenum">48 </sup>Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. <sup class="crossreference" value='(AZ (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-25350AZ))'></sup> For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.” <sup class="crossreference" value='(BA (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-25350BA))'></sup>
<sup class="versenum">49 </sup>“Master,” <sup class="crossreference" value='(BB (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-25351BB))'></sup>said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

<sup class="versenum">50 </sup>“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

Joshua 24:15-16, "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AR (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-6492AR))'></sup> in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AS (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-6492AS))'></sup> we will serve the Lord.”


That's the great part, we get to decide for ourselves what this means for us (within the confines of not preventing someone else from pursuing their own happiness).

That is true. That is what the Kingdom of Heaven is based upon, choosing to accept or not. That is what this country was founded upon with the Judeo-Christian principal of a Bill of Rights, that included religious freedom.


I've already pointed out that a democratic republic is not the judeo-christian example of government. If anything, it is more ancient Greece and Rome that served as examples for what we have here in the U.S.

If this were trully so then Paul wouldn't have been beheaded after being imprisoned in the mamertine, and Christians wouldn't have had to hide in catacombs to worship while their brethern were being slaughtered in the arena and used as human torches. If this were trully so, Socrates wouldn't have been compelled drink hemlock.

There are aspects of these governments that were borrowed in establishing a representive republic that were adapted. A bicameral system from Rome, without an Emperor obviously, and some of the more democratic aspects of Greece.

Beyond that, however, the values were Judeo-Christian. Otherwise, there would be no First Amendment guaranteing religious liberty for all. I think you will be hard pressed to find many governments like the United States that guarantee religious freedom in a Bill of Rights.
That is a Christian principle.

As I said, you like our morality as it has been afforded to all, you just don't like our God.

ksg0245
08-18-2012, 17:38
No, sorry, that is just the philosophy of religion, of which there are three fundamental presupositions: A Personal God, a Non-Personal God, and an Non-Existant God. Of those, are comprised the whole of all religions of the world. It has nothing to do with Christian logic, sad or otherwise.

Sigh.

Atheism is the rejection of an unsupported assertion; it isn't a religion in any sense of the word, despite what some claim. Atheists don't "presuppose a non-existent deity;" they see no evidence leading them to conclude deities exist.

ksg0245
08-18-2012, 17:49
It is not red herring. There are three metaphysical assumptions, or preuspositions by all people on this earth.

1. A Non-Existant God
2. A Non-Personal God
3. A Personal God

These three unprovable positions define all of religious thought on this planet.

Who is trying to prove "a non-existent god"? How is rejecting an unsupported assertion a "metaphysical assumption, or presupposition"?

You cannot prove there isn't a God, I cannot prove to you there is a God, and the Panintheisms of item number two cannot prove to me that the Tao or Brahmin exist. However, all of these beliefs have their genesis with on of the three above options.



You have presuposed there is no God, a position you cannot prove.

There is no presupposition involved; the assertion is rejected due to lack of evidence.

Beyond that, however, the values were Judeo-Christian. Otherwise, there would be no First Amendment guaranteing religious liberty for all. I think you will be hard pressed to find many governments like the United States that guarantee religious freedom in a Bill of Rights.
That is a Christian principle.

Where in the bible is religious liberty guaranteed?

2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

As I said, you like our morality as it has been afforded to all, you just don't like our God.

I'm guessing Geko will dispute your claim.

Kingarthurhk
08-18-2012, 17:58
Who is trying to prove "a non-existent god"? How is rejecting an unsupported assertion a "metaphysical assumption, or presupposition"?

It is simple. You have an unprovable metaphysical position. You have chosen one three possible options.



There is no presupposition involved; the assertion is rejected due to lack of evidence.

Agaiin, you are making a metaphysical assumption, assertion, or presuposition that you cannot prove, yet it defines the matrix in which you view all things.



Where in the bible is religious liberty guaranteed?

2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

Yes, I don't plan on divorcing my wife and marrying a non-believer. Other than that, I fail to see your point.





I'm guessing Geko will dispute your claim.

He could, but his premise is that is operating from logic. My argument is philsophically logical.

Smacktard
08-18-2012, 18:03
As I said, you like our morality as it has been afforded to all, you just don't like our God.


I shall get down on my knees and thank you that I haven't been burned at the stake yet.

I fear no God, I fear believers.


....

Kingarthurhk
08-18-2012, 18:06
I shall get down on my knees and thank you that I haven't been burned at the stake yet.

I fear no God, I fear believers.


....

First, I don't want any man on his knees before me.
Second, I have never advocated anyone to be harmed based on their religious views. That is an anathema to me.

I am guessing because you have nothing to contribute to the discussion in a constructive or logical fashion that you have reduced yourself to hyperbole?

Geko45
08-19-2012, 10:35
It is not red herring. There are three metaphysical assumptions, or preuspositions by all people on this earth.

1. A Non-Existant God
2. A Non-Personal God
3. A Personal God

These three unprovable positions define all of religious thought on this planet.

Yes, those three propositions do cover the range of possibilities and they are all, ultimately, unprovable in any sort of deductive sense, but that doesn't mean that they are all equally valid or sound. There is evidence available for us to consider. It may be ultimately inconclusive, but it clearly supports one position more than the other two. We use inductive reasoning in every other facet of life, why should we not employ it here as well and follow what the evidence supports?

ksg0245
08-19-2012, 11:44
It is simple. You have an unprovable metaphysical position. You have chosen one three possible options.

My position is that no theist has provided compelling evidence for the existence of any deity. It isn't a choice, it's the rejection of the assertion of deities due to lack of evidence.

Agaiin, you are making a metaphysical assumption, assertion, or presuposition that you cannot prove, yet it defines the matrix in which you view all things.

Rejecting an unsupported assertion isn't "making a metaphysical assumption, assertion, or presuposition."

Yes, I don't plan on divorcing my wife and marrying a non-believer. Other than that, I fail to see your point.

I guess I missed the part where that passage specifically mentions marriage.

My point was "Where in the bible is religious liberty guaranteed?"

He could, but his premise is that is operating from logic. My argument is philsophically logical.

What logical argument? You made a couple of claims.

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 12:18
Yes, those three propositions do cover the range of possibilities and they are all, ultimately, unprovable in any sort of deductive sense, but that doesn't mean that they are all equally valid or sound. There is evidence available for us to consider. It may be ultimately inconclusive, but it clearly supports one position more than the other two. We use inductive reasoning in every other facet of life, why should we not employ it here as well and follow what the evidence supports?

Interesting, if you ask a Theist with a background in science, he will refute you with counter evidence. Once, again, you're position is merely a presuposed position, and you view everyththing around you from the matrix of that presupposition.

I am using a logical argument to explain the philsoophy of religion: yours, mine, and everyone else's.

There are three unprovable positions to take, you have chosen for youself one of them. I have chosen another, and yet another person has chosen yet another.

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 12:27
My position is that no theist has provided compelling evidence for the existence of any deity. It isn't a choice, it's the rejection of the assertion of deities due to lack of evidence.

You believe there is No God, and therefore you view any and all information you receive from that presuposed perspective. No Atheist has been able to prove to me there is no God either. However, no matter what I would present to you, you would reject God because you have a presuposed metaphysical position, namely there is no God. By your statement you have proven that argument.


Rejecting an unsupported assertion isn't "making a metaphysical assumption, assertion, or presuposition."

On the contrary, you reject any an all evidence that points toward a Personal God, and a Non-Personal God, because you have preconceived, or presupposed for yourself a Non-Existant God.


I guess I missed the part where that passage specifically mentions marriage.

That is excusable since your interest is not in Theism or Christianity.


My point was "Where in the bible is religious liberty guaranteed?"

The very fact that you continue to exist is at God's grace and mercy. He has decided to grant you life, even while you hate Him. Clearly, if there were no religious liberty, or choice, you would not longer exist. The fact that evil has been allowed to continue is once again about religious liberty or choice. As you accuse Theism so does Satan accuse God. Being a Good God, He has allowed the oposition to make its claim and case. Again, because there is free will or choice.



What logical argument? You made a couple of claims.

Negation of logic doesn't make it go away. Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, lal," does negate the sound logic of religious philosophy.

You have chosen a position, and based upon that position you view all information that his presented to you. This is no different for the Theist.

High-Gear
08-19-2012, 12:35
Interesting, if you ask a Theist with a background in science, he will refute you with counter evidence. Once, again, you're position is merely a presuposed position, and you view everyththing around you from the matrix of that presupposition.

I am using a logical argument to explain the philsoophy of religion: yours, mine, and everyone else's.

There are three unprovable positions to take, you have chosen for youself one of them. I have chosen another, and yet another person has chosen yet another.

The three positions are not of equal stature. If somone took the position that unicorns lived in the wilds of Canada, he would be laughed at. You cant disprove his position, but since there is absolutely no evidence for it, and arguably signifigant evidence against it, one would be silly to "believe" that position.

I could posit the sun will not rise tomorrow, but I'm sure without extraordinay evidence you would dismiss my position and go about your daily routine.

This is the position religion occupies. Religion makes extraordinary claims, but without extraordinary evidence how can they be taken seriously?:dunno:

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 12:39
The three positions are not of equal stature. If somone took the position that unicorns lived in the wilds of Canada, he would be laughed at. You cant disprove his position, but since there is absolutely no evidence for it, and arguably signifigant evidence against it, one would be silly to "believe" that position.

I could posit the sun will not rise tomorrow, but I'm sure without extraordinay evidence you would dismiss my position and go about your daily routine.

This is the position religion occupies. Religion makes extraordinary claims, but without extraordinary evidence how can they be taken seriously?:dunno:

Again, you are making an argument based on the matrix in which you view all information. This is based upon an initial presupposition.

Atheism makes extrodinary claims that cannot be proven either.

Besides my own personal experience, it is why I categorically reject Atheism.

I have studied all the world's major religions, including Atheism.

Based upon my personal experience and a study of all the claims presented Christianity is the only way for me to go.

Geko45
08-19-2012, 12:45
Interesting, if you ask a Theist with a background in science, he will refute you with counter evidence.

Interesting, that has not been my experience at all. It's been my experience that theists will bend over backwards to try to dismiss any evidence presented and offer nothing at all in return to support their claims.

Once, again, your position is merely a presupposed position, and you view everything around you from the matrix of that presupposition.

You forget King, I was a believer for most of my life. I wanted to believe and even choose a christian university so I could deepen my faith. My studies and research lead me in the opposite direction and I spent two years in denial not wanting to consciously acknowledge the unavoidable conclusion that I had reached. If I was committing confirmation bias as you suggest (selecting information that confirmed my beliefs) then how did I end up abandoning the worldview I held for most of my life?

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 13:03
Interesting, that has not been my experience at all. It's been my experience that theists will bend over backwards to try to dismiss any evidence presented and offer nothing at all in return to support their claims.



You forget King, I was a believer for most of my life. I wanted to believe and even choose a christian university so I could deepen my faith. My studies and research lead me in the opposite direction and I spent two years in denial not wanting to consciously acknowledge the unavoidable conclusion that I had reached. If I was committing confirmation bias as you suggest (selecting information that confirmed my beliefs) then how did I end up abandoning the worldview I held for most of my life?

Actually, your paradigm shift is more uncommon, it usually goes the other way. Blast is an example of that. He went from Atheism to Theism.

However, paradigm shifts are possible. You can go back up and choose one of three other possible positions. In your case, you switched from a Personal God to a Non-existant God.

Even more rare, and potentially interesting, people have had your paradigm shift and then shifted back once again.

Life is interesting. I may be wrong, but I suspect you will probably have yet another paradigm shift before your time on this earth concludes. But, I have a hunch you will.

Now, going back to the example of Blast, his is definately a polarity of extremes. From hardcore Atheist, or probably Anti-Theist to hardcore Anti-Atheist.

I have noticed that those who paradigm shift are typically, though not always, very opossed to the last paradigm they last held.

Geko45
08-19-2012, 13:24
Actually, your paradigm shift is more uncommon, it usually goes the other way. Blast is an example of that. He went from Atheism to Theism.

Ok, so can we at least agree that I (as in me personally) was not selecting information that confirmed my preexisting worldview? You can feel that I am mistaken or otherwise in error all you want, but being told you are doing something that you clearly aren't can be quite frustrating.

I have noticed that those who paradigm shift are typically, though not always, very opposed to the last paradigm they last held.

I have noticed that as well and can even understand why someone might think that of me if all they knew of me were my posts in this forum. I know I have argued my position quite strongly here.

But, this is really the only place I do that. In real life, I tend to take more of a live and let live approach and even take the position that any belief system is valid as long as it brings you happiness (and it is not forced on me in some way).

As for the more "militant" atheists you describe, just because I arrived here through reason doesn't mean that every atheist does. Some are escaping some sort emotional tragedy or hardship and are more angry at their previous worldview than anything else (and are also more likely to revert back later).

I don't see myself ever going back short of some sort of personal spiritual revelation like I've heard others here describe. I suppose if god actually spoke to me then that would do it. I'd really welcome that as its a beautiful story, but a story seems to be all it is.

High-Gear
08-19-2012, 14:22
Again, you are making an argument based on the matrix in which you view all information. This is based upon an initial presupposition.

Atheism makes extrodinary claims that cannot be proven either.

Besides my own personal experience, it is why I categorically reject Atheism.

I have studied all the world's major religions, including Atheism.

Based upon my personal experience and a study of all the claims presented Christianity is the only way for me to go.

What extraordinary claims do Atheists make?

We see no evidence for a god, therefore live out life as if a god does not exist. If further evidence arises we will examine it and act accordingly.

Geko45
08-19-2012, 14:54
What extraordinary claims do Atheists make?

Apparently, the claim that it is possible to assess the comparative validity of competing hypotheses and select the one that is most likely to be correct based solely on available (but not totally conclusive) evidence.

Lone Wolf8634
08-19-2012, 15:13
What extraordinary claims do Atheists make?

We see no evidence for a god, therefore live out life as if a god does not exist. If further evidence arises we will examine it and act accordingly.

The problem is the way King views the world.

Since he has a positive belief in the supernatural, and everyone he knows has the same positive belief (I'm fairly sure he posted that he " categorically reject Atheism." so I would imagine that he associates only with those that believes as he does). And since, in his eyes, the subject of religion, God and an afterlife is of tremendous importance and hugely profound, he mistakenly believes that, to an Atheist, the subject is of the same nature.

What he, and most other Theists, don't ever seem to understand is that it isn't. He equates the negative concept of "rejection of an assertion" with the positive concept of "belief of the lack of deities". He cannot, due to his own personal view, see the difference between (neg) dismissing something as possible, but extremely unlikely, and (pos)believing that it cannot be true.

King, (sorry to talk about you in the 3rd person like that.) I submit that your own personal "paradigm" or "matrix" precludes you from viewing the subject as High Gear or I do. You simply don't view reality the same as us. That's not to say you're crazy or "off" in any way. It's just that your view of religion and God in your life and the world in general, will not allow you to view the subject on the same level as an Atheist. Just as I cannot view religion and God as important or profound, you cannot dismiss them as superstition or myth. (And I'm not trying to be insulting)

I may as well be speaking in Japanese while trying to hold a conversation with you speaking German.

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 17:54
Apparently, the claim that it is possible to assess the comparative validity of competing hypotheses and select the one that is most likely to be correct based solely on available (but not totally conclusive) evidence.

No, the extordinary claim that nothing made a chaoic mess, and that mess somehow became ordred and made life. That is a pretty extrodinary claim.

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 17:58
The problem is the way King views the world.

Since he has a positive belief in the supernatural, and everyone he knows has the same positive belief (I'm fairly sure he posted that he " categorically reject Atheism." so I would imagine that he associates only with those that believes as he does). And since, in his eyes, the subject of religion, God and an afterlife is of tremendous importance and hugely profound, he mistakenly believes that, to an Atheist, the subject is of the same nature.

What he, and most other Theists, don't ever seem to understand is that it isn't. He equates the negative concept of "rejection of an assertion" with the positive concept of "belief of the lack of deities". He cannot, due to his own personal view, see the difference between (neg) dismissing something as possible, but extremely unlikely, and (pos)believing that it cannot be true.

King, (sorry to talk about you in the 3rd person like that.) I submit that your own personal "paradigm" or "matrix" precludes you from viewing the subject as High Gear or I do. You simply don't view reality the same as us. That's not to say you're crazy or "off" in any way. It's just that your view of religion and God in your life and the world in general, will not allow you to view the subject on the same level as an Atheist. Just as I cannot view religion and God as important or profound, you cannot dismiss them as superstition or myth. (And I'm not trying to be insulting)

I may as well be speaking in Japanese while trying to hold a conversation with you speaking German.

I also categorically reject Paninetheism, or a Non-Personal God.

You catetorgically reject both a Personal God and an Non-Personal God.

You are correct, I cannot view the world as an Atheist becuase I reject the presuposition of a Non-Existant God as well.

There are thre major presupositions that define all reigious thought, that define the paradgim or matrix in which all reality is interpreted.

Your unproven view point defines how you view all things.

The view point that I have, that I cannot prove to you as well defines how I view all things as well.

It is simple and logical.

High-Gear
08-19-2012, 18:17
No, the extordinary claim that nothing made a chaoic mess, and that mess somehow became ordred and made life. That is a pretty extrodinary claim.

Atheists do not make these claims. Science does NOT claim "nothing created something.". This is your misunderstanding.

If you are referring to the big bang, and expanding universe, there is a remarkable amount of extraordinary evidence for it. There is a substantial amount of evidence for the age of the earth, and for evolution and common ancestry of all life. Just because you choose to ignore it does not mean it does not exist.

ksg0245
08-19-2012, 18:30
You believe there is No God,

No. I reject the theist assertion deities exist. There is a difference, although some can't understand it.

and therefore you view any and all information you receive from that presuposed perspective.

Theist: My deity exists.
Atheist: I don't believe you.

Please identify the "presupposed perspective."

No Atheist has been able to prove to me there is no God either.

What atheist has tried?

However, no matter what I would present to you, you would reject God because you have a presuposed metaphysical position, namely there is no God.

I reject the assertion of deities because no objective, verifiable evidence has ever been presented.

Here it is again:

Theist: My deity exists.
Atheist: I don't believe you.

Please identify the "presupposed metaphysical position."

By your statement you have proven that argument.

My statement is "I reject the assertion of deities because I see no compelling evidence to convince me they exist." What argument are you claiming that statement proves?

On the contrary, you reject any an all evidence that points toward a Personal God, and a Non-Personal God, because you have preconceived, or presupposed for yourself a Non-Existant God.

What evidence is it you claim I'm rejecting? Personal testimony? Bible stories? I don't reject the assertion of deities because I have presupposed deities don't exist; I reject the assertion of deities because there's no evidence for them.

That is excusable since your interest is not in Theism or Christianity.

In fact I have quite a bit of interest in Christianity. I used to be Christian. I find the subject fascinating.

Another thing I find fascinating is that you still haven't identified where in the bible religious liberty is guaranteed.

The very fact that you continue to exist is at God's grace and mercy.

That's called "an unsupported assertion."

He has decided to grant you life, even while you hate Him.

Now you're taking the Cavalry Doc tactic of telling others what they actually think. Why do you presume I would hate your deity?

Clearly, if there were no religious liberty, or choice, you would not longer exist.

Really. How did you reach the astounding conclusion that I would cease to exist without religious liberty or choice?

The fact that evil has been allowed to continue is once again about religious liberty or choice.

"Allowed to continue" by who? What exactly do you mean by "evil"? And why would religious liberty or choice necessitate evil?

As you accuse Theism so does Satan accuse God.

What exactly have I accused Theism of?

Being a Good God, He has allowed the oposition to make its claim and case. Again, because there is free will or choice.

Another unsupported assertion.

Negation of logic doesn't make it go away.

Negation of WHAT logic? You made claims; making a claim isn't logic. Logic looks kind of like this:

1. All men are human.
2. Kingarthurk is a man.
3. Therefore, Kingarthurk is human.

Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, lal," does negate the sound logic of religious philosophy.

I'm asking you to identify the logical argument you've claimed to have made; the only person with his fingers in his ears is you.

You have chosen a position,

No, I haven't. As I've said in several other threads, I don't chose to disbelieve in the existence of deities any more than I chose to believe in gravity or that I was born. I examine the evidence, or lack thereof, and reach a conclusion. If you can present objective, verifiable evidence of your deity, I'll conclude it exists. Nobody's managed to do so yet.

and based upon that position you view all information that his presented to you.

No, I don't. The only time the question of the existence of deities concerns me is when it is used to influence things like the teaching of science in school or which consenting adults should be permitted to marry.

This is no different for the Theist.

Actually, it's completely different for the theist, who assumes the existence of their deity is a given, and can't comprehend that others might not see any reason to grant that assumption.

Dennisr1977
08-19-2012, 18:42
I love hearing the religious say no atheist has ever proven there is no god. An atheist isn't the one trying to sell their religion with a bunch of fairy tales, and it would be on the religious to prove their god exists, as they're the ones trying to say god created the universe. I've yet to see any proof of any god.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

High-Gear
08-19-2012, 19:58
You can't prove Hank doesn't exhist, let alone that he doesn't want you to kiss his arse.

Kissing Hank's Ass - YouTube


Since you can't disprove it, Hank is now on the same level, and deserves the same respect as the christian god, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (he Boiled for yout sins, R'Amen).

Geko45
08-19-2012, 20:37
Since you can't disprove it, Hank is now on the same level, and deserves the same respect as the christian god, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I bought Carl dinner.

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 20:46
I love hearing the religious say no atheist has ever proven there is no god. An atheist isn't the one trying to sell their religion with a bunch of fairy tales, and it would be on the religious to prove their god exists, as they're the ones trying to say god created the universe. I've yet to see any proof of any god.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

So, you have no contructive argument to contribute to the philosophical discourse. You are simply going on about your particular belief and your abhorence of all other belief. That has actually been convered.

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2012, 20:47
You can't prove Hank doesn't exhist, let alone that he doesn't want you to kiss his arse.

Kissing Hank's Ass - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy7JaQWwhF8&feature=youtube_gdata_player)


Since you can't disprove it, Hank is now on the same level, and deserves the same respect as the christian god, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (he Boiled for yout sins, R'Amen).

So, how is that whole Kansas City cultural sensitivity thing working for you?

Dennisr1977
08-19-2012, 20:49
So, you have no contructive argument to contribute to the philosophical discourse. You are simply going on about your particular belief and your abhorence of all other belief. That has actually been convered.

You're right, because I'm sure the theists arguments are so constructive.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Syclone538
08-19-2012, 22:27
...
Atheism makes extrodinary claims that cannot be proven either.
...

No

...
I have studied all the world's major religions, including Atheism.
...

No

Actually, your paradigm shift is more uncommon, it usually goes the other way. Blast is an example of that. He went from Atheism to Theism.
...

Well I guess since everyone is born atheist, atheist to theist is technically more common, but I think most atheists were raised theist. Many of us changed our minds as teenagers.

No, the extordinary claim that nothing made a chaoic mess, and that mess somehow became ordred and made life. That is a pretty extrodinary claim.

I don't know if matter/energy was created, and if so, how. I don't know how life started. I've never claimed to know any of this.

You believe there is No God,
...

Haven't we been through this enough yet?

...
On the contrary, you reject any an all evidence that points toward a Personal God, and a Non-Personal God, because you have preconceived, or presupposed for yourself a Non-Existant God.
...

We don't reject evidence, we've just never seen any.

...
The very fact that you continue to exist is at God's grace and mercy. He has decided to grant you life, even while you hate Him.
...

You hate leprechauns, the teapot in orbit (can't remember that guy's name) and Zeus. See how much sense that makes?

Anyone that claims atheists hate a god doesn't know what the word atheist means, or is just lying.



Posts 168 and 178 I think are pretty clear. I don't understand how you don't understand it.

High-Gear
08-19-2012, 22:30
So, how is that whole Kansas City cultural sensitivity thing working for you?

What are you talking about?:dunno:

Animal Mother
08-19-2012, 22:35
No, the extordinary claim that nothing made a chaoic mess, and that mess somehow became ordred and made life. That is a pretty extrodinary claim.Who is making that claim? If you could provide some references it would be great.

Geko45
08-19-2012, 22:38
No, the extordinary claim that nothing made a chaoic mess, and that mess somehow became ordred and made life. That is a pretty extrodinary claim.

This only seems extraordinary to you because it runs contrary to your theistic worldview (it's also an inaccurate summary of current scientific understanding).

G23Gen4TX
08-20-2012, 00:58
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/427247_357492117658613_953896520_n.jpg

G23Gen4TX
08-20-2012, 00:59
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/551616_357316327676192_1968404135_n.jpg

Kingarthurhk
08-20-2012, 05:23
You're right, because I'm sure the theists arguments are so constructive.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I am a Theist, making a constructive philosophical argument. But, your sarcasim is just too powerful for my logic.:supergrin: Because, as part of your world view, simply being a Theist automatically invalidates anything I say.

Geko45
08-20-2012, 06:57
I am a Theist, making a constructive philosophical argument. But, your sarcasim is just too powerful for my logic.:supergrin: Because, as part of your world view, simply being a Theist automatically invalidates anything I say.

Not everything (not directed at me, I know). I've been pleasantly surprised to find we agree on separation of church and state for instance and there have been a couple of other promising areas of agreement.

High-Gear
08-20-2012, 07:48
http://www.atheistcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/upisdown.jpg (http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?attachment_id=4557)

G23Gen4TX
08-20-2012, 08:22
Thank you high gear for understanding what this thread is about.

High-Gear
08-20-2012, 15:05
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U-J2BQUGtbk/TislYYa8jvI/AAAAAAAACik/zNG_iJPAoik/s1600/15.jpg

brokenprism
08-22-2012, 23:40
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin equivalent of the Greek agnostic, is ignoramus. It just means "Don't know." But it's cheating. An agnostic is an atheist without the courage of conviction.

muscogee
08-23-2012, 06:13
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin equivalent of the Greek agnostic, is ignoramus. It just means "Don't know." But it's cheating. An agnostic is an atheist without the courage of conviction.

You're mistaken.

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2012, 19:41
...



Now you're taking the Cavalry Doc tactic of telling others what they actually think. Why do you presume I would hate your deity?


...

Ahh, another staccato rebuttal and redirection at the same time.

Sorry, didn't want to spend any time on your other points.

I'm not saying that YOU believe that no deity has ever existed.

I'm saying, that according to definition, an ATHEIST believes no deity has ever existed.

You might believe something entirely differently. So I am not telling you what you believe, I'm just pointing out that if you don't believe that no deity has ever existed, you may not really be a real atheist. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2012, 19:49
King, I have found you to be a refreshing example of intellectual honesty in this forum. Don't ruin it by parroting CavDoc's failed logic.

.

Failed, that's funny. You have your opinion, that you wholeheartedly believe in.

You just don't have the cojones to post that here.

Be honest, or run from it, doesn't matter. You believe that there has never been a deity.

You hide behind the skirt and claim that you only lack evidence to believe otherwise, but it is clearly evidenced in your arguments that you hold beliefs that you do not feel strongly enough to declare.

No sweat, I've met many cowards. You don't owe me anything. You can continue to avoid admitting the truth as long as you want to.

Geko45
08-23-2012, 20:09
Failed, that's funny. You have your opinion, that you wholeheartedly believe in.

You just don't have the cojones to post that here.

Be honest, or run from it, doesn't matter. You believe that there has never been a deity.

You hide behind the skirt and claim that you only lack evidence to believe otherwise, but it is clearly evidenced in your arguments that you hold beliefs that you do not feel strongly enough to declare.

No sweat, I've met many cowards. You don't owe me anything. You can continue to avoid admitting the truth as long as you want to.

Ad hom nonsense. :wavey:

I was a theist for the first 38 years of my life. I read the bible cover to cover and found it lacking. I then began following the evidence and realized it was just us here and nothing else. Not sure what you think I'm supposedly afraid to declare. I'm an atheist. If anything then I've been more certain on that point then most here.

:dunno:

Chill out man. Have a beer. I know it can be frustrating to engage in a battle of wits and come up wanting. Next time you feel the need to be intellectually dominated just drop me a line.

:beer:

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2012, 20:15
Ad hom nonsense. :wavey:

I was a theist for the first 38 years of my life. I read the bible cover to cover and found it lacking. I then began following the evidence and realized it was just us here and nothing else. Not sure what you think I'm supposedly afraid to declare. I'm an atheist. If anything then I've been more certain on that point then most here.

:dunno:

Chill out man. Have a beer. I know it can be frustrating to engage in a battle of wits and come up wanting. Next time you feel the need to be intellectually dominated just drop me a line.

:beer:


Gek,

You have been all ad hom all the time. You are simply frustrated that I'm right, and you cannot admit it. Your arguments for atheism being the only correct choice are way to strong to come from a passive lack of belief.

You have a mightily high opinion of your own intellect, and that is obvious too.

But you cannot accept that there are other valid opinions than your own.

I find that humorous.


Don't you have a test you should be studying for?

Geko45
08-23-2012, 20:28
Your arguments for atheism being the only correct choice are way to strong to come from a passive lack of belief.

All this time and you still don't even know what my argument is. I never claimed a passive lack of belief. I claimed a belief supported by inductive reasoning, not faith.

But you cannot accept that there are other valid opinions than your own.

When it comes to defining what I believe for myself, you're damn right your opinion is irrelevant. This has got to be one of the most hypocritical things I have ever read here. You've spent over a hundred pages in various threads trying to shove your opinion of what atheism is down the throats of atheists themselves and you think you are entitled to the moral high ground? Please... You're the one that can't accept an opinion other than your own.

Don't you have a test you should be studying for?

4.0 and holding. :wavey:

Kingarthurhk
08-23-2012, 21:19
All this time and you still don't even know what my argument is. I never claimed a passive lack of belief. I claimed a belief supported by inductive reasoning, not faith.



When it comes to defining what I believe for myself, you're damn right your opinion is irrelevant. This has got to be one of the most hypocritical things I have ever read here. You've spent over a hundred pages in various threads trying to shove your opinion of what atheism is down the throats of atheists themselves and you think you are entitled to the moral high ground? Please... You're the one that can't accept an opinion other than your own.



4.0 and holding. :wavey:

Doing better than I did back in the day. I always held a 3.9 average.

Lone Wolf8634
08-24-2012, 00:11
Failed, that's funny. You have your opinion, that you wholeheartedly believe in.

You just don't have the cojones to post that here.

Be honest, or run from it, doesn't matter. You believe that there has never been a deity.

You hide behind the skirt and claim that you only lack evidence to believe otherwise, but it is clearly evidenced in your arguments that you hold beliefs that you do not feel strongly enough to declare.

No sweat, I've met many cowards. You don't owe me anything. You can continue to avoid admitting the truth as long as you want to.


:rofl::rofl:

After several hundred posts, you still can't get it right and you still insist on informing others of what they believe.

Ah well, Gecko schooled you well enough, and I am glad to see you fell of that high horse you've been clinging to.

Now that yer down here in the dirt with the rest of us, would ya like to vent some (more) frustration since no Atheist has accepted your failed logic? Maybe call a few more names? :tongueout:

ksg0245
08-24-2012, 03:39
Ahh, another staccato rebuttal and redirection at the same time.

Sorry, didn't want to spend any time on your other points.

I'm not saying that YOU believe that no deity has ever existed.

I'm saying, that according to definition, an ATHEIST believes no deity has ever existed.

You might believe something entirely differently. So I am not telling you what you believe, I'm just pointing out that if you don't believe that no deity has ever existed, you may not really be a real atheist. :wavey:

I've told you what I believe (or actually don't) and why I'm an atheist; in this very post you're telling me I'm wrong about myself and don't know what I believe while claiming to not be telling me that, all based on your irrational need for atheism to be something other than what it is.

Geko45
08-24-2012, 08:21
Doing better than I did back in the day. I always held a 3.9 average.

Yeah, my undergrad was a 3.93. Never got a B, but got an A- in two classes. grrr!

Norske
08-24-2012, 18:07
If I'm not mistaken, the Latin equivalent of the Greek agnostic, is ignoramus. It just means "Don't know." But it's cheating. An agnostic is an atheist without the courage of conviction.

In my book, a theist believes in the existence of God with no proof thereof.

An atheist belives in the non-existence of God with no proof thereof.

Both are going too far.

I see myself as an agnostic; one who sees no proof of God one way or the other but admits the possibility that one of the other is fact.

And waiting for unmistakeable proof that God does exist. :wavey:

And in the meantime, not allowing Theists to dictate my life based on their non-provable rants about how "God" wants us to think and what "God" wants us to do with our lives.

When as often as not, it is really some man trying to control our minds and lives for his own benefit while only claiming to act on behalf of "God". :steamed:

High-Gear
08-24-2012, 19:50
In my book, a theist believes in the existence of God with no proof thereof.

An atheist belives in the non-existence of God with no proof thereof.

Both are going too far.

I see myself as an agnostic; one who sees no proof of God one way or the other but admits the possibility that one of the other is fact.

And waiting for unmistakeable proof that God does exist. :wavey:

And in the meantime, not allowing Theists to dictate my life based on their non-provable rants about how "God" wants us to think and what "God" wants us to do with our lives.

When as often as not, it is really some man trying to control our minds and lives for his own benefit while only claiming to act on behalf of "God". :steamed:

Are you equally agnostic about the existance of Dragons, Unicorns, Pixies, Trolls, and Banshees? I must assume so according to your logic? I admit there is no evidence for them, but you can't disprove them.

I however think they are tales made up to entertain, or frighten children and dullards...much like religion.

Does it go too far not to believe in these unproveable beings as well? I think not.

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2012, 09:49
All this time and you still don't even know what my argument is. I never claimed a passive lack of belief. I claimed a belief supported by inductive reasoning, not faith.



When it comes to defining what I believe for myself, you're damn right your opinion is irrelevant. This has got to be one of the most hypocritical things I have ever read here. You've spent over a hundred pages in various threads trying to shove your opinion of what atheism is down the throats of atheists themselves and you think you are entitled to the moral high ground? Please... You're the one that can't accept an opinion other than your own.



4.0 and holding. :wavey:

And you still don't see the faith required by coming to your conclusion through inductive reasoning. You have no examined all possibilities, and based on the limited direct knowledge you have, and what others have told you, you have chosen to believe something.

There's faith involved there, whether you can see it or not.

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2012, 09:50
I've told you what I believe (or actually don't) and why I'm an atheist; in this very post you're telling me I'm wrong about myself and don't know what I believe while claiming to not be telling me that, all based on your irrational need for atheism to be something other than what it is.

I'm telling you that you may be using an incorrect label.

Self examination is important in personal growth.

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2012, 09:53
In my book, a theist believes in the existence of God with no proof thereof.

An atheist belives in the non-existence of God with no proof thereof.

Both are going too far.

I see myself as an agnostic; one who sees no proof of God one way or the other but admits the possibility that one of the other is fact.

And waiting for unmistakeable proof that God does exist. :wavey:

And in the meantime, not allowing Theists to dictate my life based on their non-provable rants about how "God" wants us to think and what "God" wants us to do with our lives.

When as often as not, it is really some man trying to control our minds and lives for his own benefit while only claiming to act on behalf of "God". :steamed:

Uh oh, you've gone too far now.

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2012, 09:55
Are you equally agnostic about the existance of Dragons, Unicorns, Pixies, Trolls, and Banshees? I must assume so according to your logic? I admit there is no evidence for them, but you can't disprove them.

I however think they are tales made up to entertain, or frighten children and dullards...much like religion.

Does it go too far not to believe in these unproveable beings as well? I think not.

You still cannot grasp that none of those probable myths have anything at all to do with the profound question of how we all came to be here.

Science may not have all the answers yet, recently the big bang theory received a major overhaul, and might soon be known as the big chill.

we are here, how? Heck if I know how or why. But we are still here. Theists and Atheists believe they know details about the how and why, and that is simply a matter of faith.

High-Gear
08-25-2012, 10:59
You still cannot grasp that none of those probable myths have anything at all to do with the profound question of how we all came to be here.

Science may not have all the answers yet, recently the big bang theory received a major overhaul, and might soon be known as the big chill.

we are here, how? Heck if I know how or why. But we are still here. Theists and Atheists believe they know details about the how and why, and that is simply a matter of faith.

I understand they do not answer the question you pose, but I hold them in equal regard. Just because one fairy tale has to do with how we got here, does not make less absurd, it is still a fairy tale.

Religion use to answer many of life's questions. That was when we were in our infancy of understanding the natural world. Over the years it has explained less and less as our knowledge of the world has grown. One day we will understand the physical reason we are here, rendering the metaphysical story moot.

Kingarthurhk
08-25-2012, 13:56
Yeah, my undergrad was a 3.93. Never got a B, but got an A- in two classes. grrr!

I got one B in graduate school. Apparently, I wasn't made out to be an archivist. Oh, well. It was a pointless course anyway, the professor was never there.

steveksux
08-25-2012, 14:32
You still cannot grasp that none of those probable myths have anything at all to do with the profound question of how we all came to be here. Show us your proof that unicorns did NOT create the universe and humanity.

Hoisted on your own petard.

Randy

Altaris
08-25-2012, 15:24
I'm telling you that you may be using an incorrect label.

Self examination is important in personal growth.


Why are you so stuck on labels?

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2012, 20:26
Why are you so stuck on labels?

Try passing an anatomy class without them.

ksg0245
08-26-2012, 08:26
I'm telling you that you may be using an incorrect label.

I've clearly explained to you many times why atheist applies. You keep telling me I'm wrong. You've done that with virtually every atheist here.

Self examination is important in personal growth.

Self-examination and understanding the definitions is how I determined I was an atheist, and I suspect that's also true of most other atheists. It wasn't a spontaneous, frivolous, random event.

But you'll continue to tell atheists you know better what they think than they do. You're obsessed.

Kingarthurhk
08-26-2012, 09:35
I've clearly explained to you many times why atheist applies. You keep telling me I'm wrong. You've done that with virtually every atheist here.[/quoute]

So, you are postulating that Atheists can do that, but no one should dare tell an Atheist they are wrong? Sounds rather dogmatic to me, on order of fanaticism.

[quote]
But you'll continue to tell atheists you know better what they think than they do. You're obsessed.

Again, Atheists regularly tell people they are wrong in GTRI, but can't handle it in return? Where is the intellectual honest in that?

steveksux
08-26-2012, 10:14
I've clearly explained to you many times why atheist applies. You keep telling me I'm wrong. You've done that with virtually every atheist here.

So, you are postulating that Atheists can do that, but no one should dare tell an Atheist they are wrong? Sounds rather dogmatic to me, on order of fanaticism.



Again, Atheists regularly tell people they are wrong in GTRI, but can't handle it in return? Where is the intellectual honest in that?Apples and oranges. Atheists are telling believers their beliefs are wrong, as believers tell atheists they are wrong.

Atheists are not telling believers that they are wrong in what they think they believe.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
08-26-2012, 10:18
Apples and oranges. Atheists are telling believers their beliefs are wrong, as believers tell atheists they are wrong.

Atheists are not telling believers that they are wrong in what they think they believe.

Randy

It happens pretty often here, actually.

RC-RAMIE
08-26-2012, 10:44
It happens pretty often here, actually.

Example please.


....

ksg0245
08-26-2012, 11:17
So, you are postulating that Atheists can do that, but no one should dare tell an Atheist they are wrong?

You misunderstood what I wrote.

If I'm wrong about a fact, please tell me; I want to know when I'm wrong. It's possible for my belief about something to be wrong; do you think it's possible for me to be wrong about whether or not I believe something?

Sounds rather dogmatic to me, on order of fanaticism.

I object to being told I don't know what I believe when it's clear I do. How is that dogmatic?

Again, Atheists regularly tell people they are wrong in GTRI, but can't handle it in return? Where is the intellectual honest in that?

Where are you getting this idea atheists can't handle being informed when they're wrong?

ksg0245
08-26-2012, 11:19
It happens pretty often here, actually.

I'd also like to see an example of atheists telling theists they're incorrect about what their beliefs actually are.

Kingarthurhk
08-26-2012, 12:44
I'd also like to see an example of atheists telling theists they're incorrect about what their beliefs actually are.

Do you actually read these forums? Because, if you are missing it, then you are missing a large portion of the posts.

Geko45
08-26-2012, 12:54
Do you actually read these forums? Because, if you are missing it, then you are missing a large portion of the posts.

He's not talking about thinking that theists are wrong about whether or not there is a deity. He's talking about telling theists that they don't really believe what they say they believe. For instance, telling a christian that they are really a polytheist as opposed to a monotheist because the trinity is really three deities. That's the same kind of argument that is being employed here against atheists.

It is an intellectually dishonest ploy no matter which side it comes from with possible exceptions being for obvious satire or sarcasm.

Syclone538
08-27-2012, 09:15
Do you actually read these forums? Because, if you are missing it, then you are missing a large portion of the posts.

Then could you pick one example and post it?

Every atheist knew exactly what ksg was saying in #222, because CD has done it to all of us, with the probable exception of Geko, who CD probably thinks is the only atheist here.

Geko45
08-27-2012, 09:49
Every atheist knew exactly what ksg was saying in #222, because CD has done it to all of us, with the probable exception of Geko, who CD probably thinks is the only atheist here.

Do I win a prize?

:supergrin:

Syclone538
08-27-2012, 09:57
Do I win a prize?

:supergrin:

Yeah, but you won't like it... :steamed:




:rofl:

Altaris
08-27-2012, 11:01
Do I win a prize?

:supergrin:


You win an eternity of suffering for not worshiping the correct flying spaghetti monster!

We all know the correct god has meatballs in it. My cookbook clearly states meatballs, and states that it is the accurate and infallible cookbook.

muscogee
08-27-2012, 11:12
Then could you pick one example and post it?
He may be thinking about me. I have repeatedly told Christians that they don't believe the Bible any more than I do. That usually happens when I point out some absurdity that no one can believe and they start doing the Christian 2 step around the issue. That's somewhat different than telling Christians what they believe.

The only logical position to take on the existence of God, or gods, is that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of either so neither probably exists. If someone wants too take it faith, go ahead but don't say you have proof because you don't. Before someone writes, "You can't prove there is lo God", let me ask, so what? That doesn't mean there is. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't change anything. It certainly does not mean the probability of God existing is equal to the probability of God not existing.

muscogee
08-27-2012, 11:12
Do I win a prize?

:supergrin:

You get the Ben Dover award.

Geko45
08-27-2012, 11:43
Before someone writes, "You can't prove there is no God", let me ask, so what? That doesn't mean there is. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't change anything. It certainly does not mean the probability of God existing is equal to the probability of God not existing.

Exactly, I can't (deductively) prove that UFOs, sasquatch or chupacabra aren't real either, but at the same time it would be foolish of me to consider them as valid possibilities.

Geko45
08-27-2012, 11:44
Yeah, but you won't like it... :steamed:

You win an eternity of suffering for not worshiping the correct flying spaghetti monster!

You get the Ben Dover award.

:devildance:

Harper
08-27-2012, 12:42
"You can't prove a negative" is one I've heard many times though not so much lately. I imagine the correction has finally made it's way to the masses.

Geko45
08-27-2012, 13:32
"You can't prove a negative" is one I've heard many times though not so much lately. I imagine the correction has finally made it's way to the masses.

Indeed.

You Can Prove a Negative (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf)

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.

If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.

Steven Hales is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania.

Harper
08-27-2012, 16:03
Indeed.

You Can Prove a Negative (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf)

It should also be stated you can deductively prove a negative.

Norske
08-27-2012, 16:12
Are you equally agnostic about the existance of Dragons, Unicorns, Pixies, Trolls, and Banshees? I must assume so according to your logic? I admit there is no evidence for them, but you can't disprove them.

I however think they are tales made up to entertain, or frighten children and dullards...much like religion.

Does it go too far not to believe in these unproveable beings as well? I think not.

I see no evidence for the existence of Dragons, Unicorns, Pixies, Trolls, Banshees, God, or any other "supernatural" creature.

It is incumbent upon the belivers of such things to prove their existence. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove their existence.

It is certainly not incumbent upon me to live my life in accordance with what they SAY such unprovable supernatural beings want of me.

Norske
08-27-2012, 16:25
Uh oh, you've gone too far now.

Not sure what you mean by that, but since Eric did not throw a "violation" message at me this time, I guess not.

:upeyes:

Geko45
08-27-2012, 16:35
It should also be stated you can deductively prove a negative.

In certain circumstances, yes. The short paper I posted gave a couple of examples at the beginning.

Altaris
08-27-2012, 16:47
I see no evidence for the existence of Dragons, Unicorns, Pixies, Trolls, Banshees, God, or any other "supernatural" creature.

It is incumbent upon the believers of such things to prove their existence. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove their existence.

It is certainly not incumbent upon me to live my life in accordance with what they SAY such unprovable supernatural beings want of me.

And that imo, is the biggest issue with all of religious arguments. If I make some outlandish claim, it is up to Me to provide the evidence for it. I can't just run around making stuff up and saying you have to prove me wrong or else it must be true.

Without a single bit of proof(which no religion has any), the existence of god is just as believable as unicorns, and dragons, and spiderman, and the 7 legged mummy fish that came to my house and told me to bet on the Giants in last years Superbowl.

Geko45
08-27-2012, 17:30
It is incumbent upon the believers of such things to prove their existence. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove their existence.


If I make some outlandish claim, it is up to me to provide the evidence for it. I can't just run around making stuff up and saying you have to prove me wrong or else it must be true.

And even when we (as atheists) accept the burden of proof that rightfully belongs to the theists making the extraordinary claims, the overwhelming evidence that we provide is dismissed without due consideration or even counter-evidence simply because it's not 100% definitive.

Harper
08-27-2012, 17:58
In certain circumstances, yes. The short paper I posted gave a couple of examples at the beginning.

oh sorry, didn't read the paper. I also forgot to mention "You can't prove a negative" is a negative! It's the negative of "You can prove a negative".

I'll try to read your link later.

imSteve
08-27-2012, 17:59
has anyone converted anyone to the opposing viewpoints, either way?

this is getting to be as bad as the 1911 guy's commenting on a Glock website.

yea, there are 1911 websites, I don't see anyone changing anyone's mind!

Altaris
08-27-2012, 18:09
has anyone converted anyone to the opposing viewpoints, either way?

this is getting to be as bad as the 1911 guy's commenting on a Glock website.

yea, there are 1911 websites, I don't see anyone changing anyone's mind!

Yay! Another Round Rock guy in the house :supergrin::wavey:



We almost have snowbird convinced. Just a few more examples from us and he will finally see the error in his ways. :rofl:

muscogee
08-27-2012, 19:50
has anyone converted anyone to the opposing viewpoints, either way?

this is getting to be as bad as the 1911 guy's commenting on a Glock website.

yea, there are 1911 websites, I don't see anyone changing anyone's mind!

Two that I know of have left the faith. Another started questioning his faith and the theists started pounding on him. Last I heard he was on a spiritual journey. Hope he finds his way back here. He was a thoughtful person.