Magical thinking.

Anarchon said:
It takes you 5 lines to describe your position. It takes me one word. That's why people create words. These two theists are using every form of fallacy they can to avoid arguing their point, because it's so easily assailable. That they'd want to devolve into arguing semantics is not surprising.
Click to expand...

You use one word to describe something...but it is not YOUR position. It is a word to describe a variety of positions...some antithetical to each other.

If you do not get that...you will see the valid arguments I am making as "arguing semantics"...which is what people on the Internet do when they do not want to argue valid considerations.

I don't know if you're familiar with Venn diagrams or not, but they are specifically avoiding allowing parts of the diagram via their definitions, because they destroy their arguments. The definitions I've used here allow every different viewpoint to be represented and discussed. The bias is plain to see.
Click to expand...

I used my first Venn diagram in an argument back in the 1960's. The balance of what you said here is, unfortunately, mostly bullshit.
If I were to ask what classification a newborn baby would be, they'd be unable to answer it. A newborn baby knows nothing of god, and therefore lacks a positive belief in it. Their viewpoint maintains that you either believe in god, or you have faith that god doesn't exist. This baby doesn't have faith that god doesn't exist, because it isn't aware of the concept of god (fyi, that's called implicit atheism, as opposed to explicit).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, more bullshit.

These terms are all useful and important.
Click to expand...

They mean almost nothing...and are virtually useless. That is why atheists go through all that implicit, explicit, strong, weak nonsense.

YOU do not know if any gods exist or not.

I do not know if any gods exist or not.

If you are so enamored of your intelligence and abilities to suppose YOU have done what some of the greatest minds that have ever existed on planet Earth have been unable to do...

...and that you have done it in a rather small, obscure Internet forum...

...fine with me.

I can laugh at stuff like that with the best of people.

If you want to come back to Earth and actually discuss the topic, I would enjoy it. It is an issue I have been discussing in depth for almost 50 years...and never ceases to fascinate me.
 
Anarchon said:
Ok, you are now free to use your definition of atheism. Now, which word can we agree on to use to describe someone who lacks a positive belief of a god or gods?
Click to expand...

There is NO valid reason to even use the word.

State your position.

Do any gods exist?

HINT: The only valid response to this question is: I do not know. One can add, "It is my blind guess that a) yeah, at least one god exists...or b) "It is my blind guess that no gods exist."

One can also add, "And I can prove my blind guess to be correct"...but only if one is attempting to add a bit of humor to a sometimes over-serious discussion.
 
Frank Apisa continues to whip Anarchon before him down the road to lost discussions.

Atheists can believe there is no deity, but, as Anarchon so aptly demonstrated, they cannot prove it.
 
jimmymccready said:
Frank Apisa continues to whip Anarchon before him down the road to lost discussions.

Atheists can believe there is no deity, but, as Anarchon so aptly demonstrated, they cannot prove it.
Click to expand...


That is just so weird. There is no evidence for God so WHY would you believe? Do you believe in Leprechauns? Can you prove they don't exist?

If someone chooses to believe without evidence, what's the harm?

Atheism simply is NOT a religion.. The snake cult that dominated Egypt, Canaan, the Indus Valley and the Arabian peninsula BEFORE Genesis were a religion..
 
Why I believe, kudzu, is not your concern or business.

You may believe as you choose, although logic, language, and symbols cannot support competently that there is no God.
 
jimmymccready said:
Why I believe, kudzu, is not your concern or business.

You may believe as you choose, although logic, language, and symbols cannot support competently that there is no God.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Jimmy.

There is no way one can arrive at "There are no gods" using logic, reason, science, or math.

In fact, there is no way one can even arrive at, "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" using logic, reason, science, or math.

People who assert "there are no gods" or who express a "belief" there are no gods...are doing the same thing theists are doing...except in reverse.
 
kudzu said:
That is just so weird. There is no evidence for God so WHY would you believe? Do you believe in Leprechauns? Can you prove they don't exist?

If someone chooses to believe without evidence, what's the harm?

Atheism simply is NOT a religion.. The snake cult that dominated Egypt, Canaan, the Indus Valley and the Arabian peninsula BEFORE Genesis were a religion..
Click to expand...
those who have never experienced the presence of God cannot understand the evidence it provides.....it is there for all who choose it.....
 
kudzu said:
Can you be more specific? I know many, many practicing Christians who have never experienced the presence of God that you speak of.
Click to expand...

lol.....if I have to be more specific how would you know if they have or not...........that knowledge is not something that can be shared with unbelievers, but I am sure that if you really have friends who believe, they will tell you they have felt the presence of God.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
could be an agnostic if they have considered the issue.......apathetic, if they haven't.......
Click to expand...

We will continue to use your definitions. Just fill in the blanks...

A ______ knows god exists.
A ______ believes god exists, but lacks knowledge of its existence.
A ______ knows god does not exist.
A ______ lacks belief that god exists, and is unaware of the concept of god.
A ______ lacks belief that god exists, and is aware of the concept of god.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
post 164
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
meaningless.....#1 does not preclude the supernatural from being capable of having an effect on the universe....and #4 either natural a natural or supernatural being could exist.....
Click to expand...

I've already pointed out that what you say are flaws aren't in the premises. You've ignore this. You're wittingly intellectually dishonest. Does your god like liars?

1. Natural entities have a physical effect on the universe.
4. Existence requires objective reality or being.

As explained, premise 1 doesn't claim to preclude the supernatural from being capable of having an effect on the universe. The arguments made in the proof do that. Premise 1 only claims that natural entities have a physical effect on the universe. You have to find fault in that for your claims that the premises are flawed to be true.

Similarly, premise 4 doesn't claim to preclude any entities, be they natural or supernatural from existence. The arguments made in the proof do that. Premise 4 only claims that existence requires objective reality or being. You have to find fault in that for your claims that the premises are flawed to be true.

You are also free to find fault in any of the arguments of the proof, but understand that they are separate from a "faulty premise."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top