Magical thinking.

jimmymccready said:
If there is one, Kudzu, he will agree that human language, symbols, and logic cannot disprove objectively the existence of God.
Click to expand...

Atheism isn't a religion, Jimmy..

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

So just what do you think they are worshiping?
 
Kudzu, never put words in my mouth I did not say. Leave that for the toids, please, which you are not.

Faith belief is theism is similar to faith belief in atheism. One believes even if one cannot prove. It has nothing to do with worshiping. Where do you get that concept?
 
Anarchon said:
That proof was meant for the guy that asked for it, it was written in that language because of his criteria. That was big of you to apologize, and I accept it.

The premises used in it, translated to English, are as follows:
1. Natural entities have a physical effect on the universe.
2. Supernatural is disjoint from natural.
3. Gods are supernatural entities.
4. Existence requires objective reality or being.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
Last edited:
kudzu said:
Atheism isn't a religion, Jimmy..

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

So just what do you think they are worshiping?
Click to expand...
their own warped logic.....by the way, only the latter meets the unmutilated definition of atheist......atheists like to think they can "broaden" the definition because they hate being the only idiots in the room.....
 
Frank Apisa said:
Okay...I'm sorry I'm not up to the notation.

Let's try this another way:

Are you saying there are things that exist...that are not part of nature?
Click to expand...

No.

This is important because I maintain that if any gods exist...they are not supernatural.

They are a part of nature.
Click to expand...

This is rational. The problem is that gods are defined as being supernatural entities. As I mentioned before, the proof of the non-existence of a god hinges on the definition of god. Without a theist offering a definition for what it is they believe in (something they conveniently refuse to do), I chose the most common, all-inclusive attribute of all gods, which is that they are supernatural. If any theist doesn't like that attribute, they are free to define god for us, and I will address that definition as well.

In fact, the term "supernatural being" seems like an incongruity to me.
Click to expand...

This is very astute.

How can a thing exist and not be a part of nature...of "what is?"
Click to expand...

It cannot.

They may be a part of nature that we do not understand (we puny humans)...but IF they (or anything) exist(s)...they ARE a part of nature.
Click to expand...

If these entities exist, they must be.
 
Anarchon said:
You're free to point out any problems with the premises. You haven't done that.
Click to expand...

????.....post #164.....#1 does not preclude the supernatural from being capable of having an effect on the universe....and #4 either a natural or supernatural being could exist.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????.....post #164.....#1 does not preclude the supernatural from being capable of having an effect on the universe....and #4 either a natural or supernatural being could exist.....
Click to expand...

You don't understand the difference between a premise and an argument. We can't make progress until you rectify that.

To repeat myself, you are correct that #1 doesn't preclude that. The arguments made later in the proof preclude that. Premise #1 doesn't mention the supernatural. And, premise #4 doesn't mention natural nor supernatural entities. Again, the arguments do.

To repeat myself, you still have not pointed out any problems with the premises.
 
jimmymccready said:
Kudzu, never put words in my mouth I did not say. Leave that for the toids, please, which you are not.

Faith belief is theism is similar to faith belief in atheism. One believes even if one cannot prove. It has nothing to do with worshiping. Where do you get that concept?
Click to expand...

Why is it necessary for you to identify atheiism as a religion?
 
jimmymccready said:
If there is one, Kudzu, he will agree that human language, symbols, and logic cannot disprove objectively the existence of God.
Click to expand...

Agreeing with you on that matter is another thing that is not a requirement for being an atheist. You keep making all kinds of claims about atheists that aren't true. Why is that? Are you a habitual liar? That would fit, seeing how you support religion the way you do.
 
Anarchon said:
Agreeing with you on that matter is another thing that is not a requirement for being an atheist. You keep making all kinds of claims about atheists that aren't true. Why is that? Are you a habitual liar? That would fit, seeing how you support religion the way you do.
Click to expand...

Atheism doesn't require "faith"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top