View Single Post
Old 11-07-2012, 22:05   #24
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
Geko45's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 16,426

Originally Posted by Berto View Post
It seems like the base fundamental to atheism always comes down to burden of proof for theist as opposed to general acceptance that we don't know one way or the other.
I don't rely on either. Instead, I rely on a strong inductive argument that meets or exceeds any practical definition proof that can reasonably be expected. None of the properties attributed to god are actually physically possible in this universe. Theists always claim transcendence, but there is nothing to indicate that this is a real phenomenon. Even if it were, god is also described as immanent which would still subject him to the basic laws of physics. Ignoring all that, you can't possess all the attributes described to god without logical paradoxes arising (fate/freewill, perfect creator/imperfect creation, etc.)

Nope, the whole idea of god is absurd on its face. Don't feel bad though, it took me 38 years to figure that out and I'm much smarter than most.

I don't care what others believe, I'd think it would be the same with atheist, but there seems to be an evangelical quality to atheism here.
The irony is that you are suggesting a property belongs more to atheism than theism when the name of the property itself implies a religious origin. I think most atheists here would gladly walk away from the debate if theists would stop trying to legislate their beliefs on others.
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 11-07-2012 at 22:08..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote