Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists deny logic ?

inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 8:44:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is the house that the Atheists built. But my question is why will they not dwell within ? Someone here told me that my observations are delusion. Atheists thrive on empirical evidence. So I hope you understand what that is. <
But isnt that why Atheists do not believe in God ? Your "reject" Him. The word reject means to dismiss as inadequate. This notion does not meet their standards or requirements only to leave them disatisfied. But is does meet mine. So I accept.
Who are you to say otherwise ? Obviously you have a reason for not believing in
The Almighty or else you would not be an Atheist in the first place. So again,
Atheism is irrelevent. You have rejected your own logic by disregarding the fact based on my own personal observations my ideology does not count. That is overtly subjective. Once again, you Atheists have been swallowed by your own logic.
Life is good isnt it.
MathieuVDB
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:08:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
" This notion does not meet their standards or requirements only to leave them disatisfied."

Yes. That's to say -for most atheists- we do not the evidence in favour of the proposition compelling enough to accept it.

" But is does meet mine. So I accept. "

Good for you.

": Who are you to say otherwise ? "

First of all, nothing about being an atheist implies that I necessarily want to deconvert you from your belief in God. Some do. I don't. So I have no "desire" to tell you otherwise, until you're going to tell me why I should also believe in what you believe.
Second, if your reasons for believing as you do are really bad, I have every reason and every right to question your reasons and your standards of evidence. Who am I to do that? A human being just like you are, who thinks you are wrong.

"Obviously you have a reason for not believing in The Almighty or else you would not be an Atheist in the first place. "

Actually the correct phrasing is that we don't have a reason for believing him in the first place. We do not need reasons to dismiss the existence of that which has not been established to exist.

"So again, Atheism is irrelevent. You have rejected your own logic by disregarding the fact based on my own personal observations my ideology does not count. That is overtly subjective. Once again, you Atheists have been swallowed by your own logic.
Life is good isnt it."

And the rest of that is a tangle of non-sequiturs. Try that again.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:11:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 8:44:09 AM, inferno wrote:
This is the house that the Atheists built. But my question is why will they not dwell within ? Someone here told me that my observations are delusion. Atheists thrive on empirical evidence. So I hope you understand what that is. <
But isnt that why Atheists do not believe in God ? Your "reject" Him. The word reject means to dismiss as inadequate. This notion does not meet their standards or requirements only to leave them disatisfied. But is does meet mine. So I accept.

You have chosen to use a specific word, and a specific narrow use of that word to strawman atheists.

Who are you to say otherwise ? Obviously you have a reason for not believing in
The Almighty or else you would not be an Atheist in the first place.

Some atheists do not believe because they do not sufficient evidence to believe. Some atheists do not believe because they have evidence against believing.
Some atheists are both.
Some atheists are neither on account on being stupid.

So again,
Atheism is irrelevent. You have rejected your own logic by disregarding the fact based on my own personal observations my ideology does not count. That is overtly subjective. Once again, you Atheists have been swallowed by your own logic.
Life is good isnt it.

I fail to see your argument.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:14:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:08:39 AM, MathieuVDB wrote:
" This notion does not meet their standards or requirements only to leave them disatisfied."

Yes. That's to say -for most atheists- we do not the evidence in favour of the proposition compelling enough to accept it.

" But is does meet mine. So I accept. "

Good for you.

": Who are you to say otherwise ? "

First of all, nothing about being an atheist implies that I necessarily want to deconvert you from your belief in God. Some do. I don't. So I have no "desire" to tell you otherwise, until you're going to tell me why I should also believe in what you believe.
Second, if your reasons for believing as you do are really bad, I have every reason and every right to question your reasons and your standards of evidence. Who am I to do that? A human being just like you are, who thinks you are wrong.

"Obviously you have a reason for not believing in The Almighty or else you would not be an Atheist in the first place. "

Actually the correct phrasing is that we don't have a reason for believing him in the first place. We do not need reasons to dismiss the existence of that which has not been established to exist.

"So again, Atheism is irrelevent. You have rejected your own logic by disregarding the fact based on my own personal observations my ideology does not count. That is overtly subjective. Once again, you Atheists have been swallowed by your own logic.
Life is good isnt it."

And the rest of that is a tangle of non-sequiturs. Try that again.

Mat. You try again. Atheists have reason to believe in God, but they are skeptics.
Not to mention people who based things on empirical evidence. So because you claim NOT to have any substantial evidence this is your reason. If you had evidence,
then you would not be an Atheist. Did you get that ? Good. =)
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:16:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:11:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 8:44:09 AM, inferno wrote:
This is the house that the Atheists built. But my question is why will they not dwell within ? Someone here told me that my observations are delusion. Atheists thrive on empirical evidence. So I hope you understand what that is. <
But isnt that why Atheists do not believe in God ? Your "reject" Him. The word reject means to dismiss as inadequate. This notion does not meet their standards or requirements only to leave them disatisfied. But is does meet mine. So I accept.

You have chosen to use a specific word, and a specific narrow use of that word to strawman atheists.

Who are you to say otherwise ? Obviously you have a reason for not believing in
The Almighty or else you would not be an Atheist in the first place.

Some atheists do not believe because they do not sufficient evidence to believe. Some atheists do not believe because they have evidence against believing.
Some atheists are both.
Some atheists are neither on account on being stupid.

So again,
Atheism is irrelevent. You have rejected your own logic by disregarding the fact based on my own personal observations my ideology does not count. That is overtly subjective. Once again, you Atheists have been swallowed by your own logic.
Life is good isnt it.

I fail to see your argument.

Cerebal. The secularists define you as so. It was not the Christians who gave you
a label. Now you must wear it. You have to deal with you own logic. I am going
by definition of word. So you are your own worst enemy.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:18:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:14:38 AM, inferno wrote:

Mat. You try again. Atheists have reason to believe in God,

Such as?

Not to mention people who based things on empirical evidence.

Why are we not mentioning them?

So because you claim NOT to have any substantial evidence this is your reason.

For some atheists yes.

If you had evidence,
then you would not be an Atheist. Did you get that ? Good. =)

But we don't have evidence.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:19:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Atheism in a broad sense means the rejection of belief in a deity or God.
The narrow definition is that your notion is that there are no deities at all.
Yes, you must have a reason for why you are what you are.
To have no reason would be illogical.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:21:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:16:25 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:11:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 8:44:09 AM, inferno wrote:
This is the house that the Atheists built. But my question is why will they not dwell within ? Someone here told me that my observations are delusion. Atheists thrive on empirical evidence. So I hope you understand what that is. <
But isnt that why Atheists do not believe in God ? Your "reject" Him. The word reject means to dismiss as inadequate. This notion does not meet their standards or requirements only to leave them disatisfied. But is does meet mine. So I accept.

You have chosen to use a specific word, and a specific narrow use of that word to strawman atheists.

Who are you to say otherwise ? Obviously you have a reason for not believing in
The Almighty or else you would not be an Atheist in the first place.

Some atheists do not believe because they do not sufficient evidence to believe. Some atheists do not believe because they have evidence against believing.
Some atheists are both.
Some atheists are neither on account on being stupid.

So again,
Atheism is irrelevent. You have rejected your own logic by disregarding the fact based on my own personal observations my ideology does not count. That is overtly subjective. Once again, you Atheists have been swallowed by your own logic.
Life is good isnt it.

I fail to see your argument.

Cerebal. The secularists define you as so.

Which secularists... how do you they define me? How does that tally with your argument?

It was not the Christians who gave you
a label.

As language is a consensus I am sure my labels are derived from all manner of sources.

Now you must wear it. You have to deal with you own logic. I am going
by definition of word. So you are your own worst enemy.

I am happy to deal with my own logic, do you know what my logic is.

It's quite hard to understand you, the thing with logic is that it should be nice and simple to understand. Please break it down for us.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:23:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:18:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:14:38 AM, inferno wrote:

Mat. You try again. Atheists have reason to believe in God,

Such as?

Not to mention people who based things on empirical evidence.

Why are we not mentioning them?

So because you claim NOT to have any substantial evidence this is your reason.

For some atheists yes.

If you had evidence,
then you would not be an Atheist. Did you get that ? Good. =)

But we don't have evidence.

Christians and non Christians alike have empirical evidence.
Yes, based on our own personal observations, that is OUR proof.
Now how can an Atheist tell a person who has witnessed a supernatural event,
that he is delusional. I could say the exact same thing about your logic.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:23:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:19:47 AM, inferno wrote:
Atheism in a broad sense means the rejection of belief in a deity or God.
The narrow definition is that your notion is that there are no deities at all.

No, the two are the same.

Yes, you must have a reason for why you are what you are.
To have no reason would be illogical.

But I do...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:24:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:20:52 AM, inferno wrote:
Cerebal. That is my point. You cannot be an Atheist just because.
That does not make sense.

Just because what? Clear simple sentences that explain your position would be best.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:27:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:21:44 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:16:25 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:11:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 8:44:09 AM, inferno wrote:
This is the house that the Atheists built. But my question is why will they not dwell within ? Someone here told me that my observations are delusion. Atheists thrive on empirical evidence. So I hope you understand what that is. <
But isnt that why Atheists do not believe in God ? Your "reject" Him. The word reject means to dismiss as inadequate. This notion does not meet their standards or requirements only to leave them disatisfied. But is does meet mine. So I accept.

You have chosen to use a specific word, and a specific narrow use of that word to strawman atheists.

Who are you to say otherwise ? Obviously you have a reason for not believing in
The Almighty or else you would not be an Atheist in the first place.

Some atheists do not believe because they do not sufficient evidence to believe. Some atheists do not believe because they have evidence against believing.
Some atheists are both.
Some atheists are neither on account on being stupid.

So again,
Atheism is irrelevent. You have rejected your own logic by disregarding the fact based on my own personal observations my ideology does not count. That is overtly subjective. Once again, you Atheists have been swallowed by your own logic.
Life is good isnt it.

I fail to see your argument.

Cerebal. The secularists define you as so.

Which secularists... how do you they define me? How does that tally with your argument?

It was not the Christians who gave you
a label.

As language is a consensus I am sure my labels are derived from all manner of sources.

Now you must wear it. You have to deal with you own logic. I am going
by definition of word. So you are your own worst enemy.

I am happy to deal with my own logic, do you know what my logic is.

It's quite hard to understand you, the thing with logic is that it should be nice and simple to understand. Please break it down for us.

Which secularists ? The people who proclaim Atheism to be only a state of mind
based on the lack of evidence. You have no experience with the supernatural so you have no observations. Therefore you do not have empirical evidence
as it is defined either. You cannot be an Atheist if you have made an observation that is non delusional. If it is seen with the naked eye, then that is your proof.
So why would you contradict yourself by saying that is absurd or delusion.
You are a victim of your own logic. Your logic is that if it is not seen, then it cannot be real. But if it is seen and witnessed, then there is complete validation.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:28:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:24:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:20:52 AM, inferno wrote:
Cerebal. That is my point. You cannot be an Atheist just because.
That does not make sense.

Just because what? Clear simple sentences that explain your position would be best.

You cannot be an Atheist just because of nothing. Or no reason. That does not
make sense.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:29:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:23:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:19:47 AM, inferno wrote:
Atheism in a broad sense means the rejection of belief in a deity or God.
The narrow definition is that your notion is that there are no deities at all.

No, the two are the same.

Yes, you must have a reason for why you are what you are.
To have no reason would be illogical.

But I do...

What is YOUR reason for being an Atheist ?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:31:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:23:11 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:18:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:14:38 AM, inferno wrote:

Mat. You try again. Atheists have reason to believe in God,

Such as?

Not to mention people who based things on empirical evidence.

Why are we not mentioning them?

So because you claim NOT to have any substantial evidence this is your reason.

For some atheists yes.

If you had evidence,
then you would not be an Atheist. Did you get that ? Good. =)

But we don't have evidence.

Christians and non Christians alike have empirical evidence.
Yes, based on our own personal observations, that is OUR proof.

Empirical evidence must be demonstrable. Simply claiming to have felt God, or heard his voice is not sufficient.

Now how can an Atheist tell a person who has witnessed a supernatural event,
that he is delusional.

Or rather you mean how could such an atheist justify such a statement. Well it generally appears more likely than not that a given supernatural event is no such thing at all, and that natural explainations exist.

For instance lets say an India guru claims to have not eaten for 12 years because he is communion with God.

This could be true, this could be false. A million people could believe it.

How given our empirical knowledge we know that as a general rule such a thing is very, very unlikely. It seems more likely, given what we currently know that the man is a fraudster.

Does that make any sense to you?

I could say the exact same thing about your logic.

You could say anything you want to, but logic is self-evident.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:32:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:28:24 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:24:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:20:52 AM, inferno wrote:
Cerebal. That is my point. You cannot be an Atheist just because.
That does not make sense.

Just because what? Clear simple sentences that explain your position would be best.

You cannot be an Atheist just because of nothing. Or no reason. That does not
make sense.

I have a dragon in my garage, a real dragon. Flying, firebreathing. His name is George.

Do you believe me?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:35:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:32:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:28:24 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:24:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:20:52 AM, inferno wrote:
Cerebal. That is my point. You cannot be an Atheist just because.
That does not make sense.

Just because what? Clear simple sentences that explain your position would be best.

You cannot be an Atheist just because of nothing. Or no reason. That does not
make sense.

I have a dragon in my garage, a real dragon. Flying, firebreathing. His name is George.

Do you believe me?

I dont know ? Do you ? Dragons were said to have existed at one point.
It is possible.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:36:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:29:00 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:23:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:19:47 AM, inferno wrote:
Atheism in a broad sense means the rejection of belief in a deity or God.
The narrow definition is that your notion is that there are no deities at all.

No, the two are the same.

Yes, you must have a reason for why you are what you are.
To have no reason would be illogical.

But I do...

What is YOUR reason for being an Atheist ?

It is the default position and is yet to be challenged by contrary evidence. (I have other positive arguments for atheism but they are weaker and I can't be bothered with them right now).

Unless you constantly worry that your fingers are live nuclear warheads or unless you believe my claims about a dragon in my garage your objections to atheism on the grounds that it is a lack of belief are invalid.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:38:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:35:05 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:32:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:28:24 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:24:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:20:52 AM, inferno wrote:
Cerebal. That is my point. You cannot be an Atheist just because.
That does not make sense.

Just because what? Clear simple sentences that explain your position would be best.

You cannot be an Atheist just because of nothing. Or no reason. That does not
make sense.

I have a dragon in my garage, a real dragon. Flying, firebreathing. His name is George.

Do you believe me?

I dont know ? Do you ? Dragons were said to have existed at one point.
It is possible.

So are you an agnostic with regards George.

Do you think it is a 50/50 chance that George exists? How likely do you rate his existence.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:39:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:31:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:23:11 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:18:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:14:38 AM, inferno wrote:

Mat. You try again. Atheists have reason to believe in God,

Such as?

Not to mention people who based things on empirical evidence.

Why are we not mentioning them?

So because you claim NOT to have any substantial evidence this is your reason.

For some atheists yes.

If you had evidence,
then you would not be an Atheist. Did you get that ? Good. =)

But we don't have evidence.

Christians and non Christians alike have empirical evidence.
Yes, based on our own personal observations, that is OUR proof.

Empirical evidence must be demonstrable. Simply claiming to have felt God, or heard his voice is not sufficient.

Now how can an Atheist tell a person who has witnessed a supernatural event,
that he is delusional.

Or rather you mean how could such an atheist justify such a statement. Well it generally appears more likely than not that a given supernatural event is no such thing at all, and that natural explainations exist.

For instance lets say an India guru claims to have not eaten for 12 years because he is communion with God.

This could be true, this could be false. A million people could believe it.

How given our empirical knowledge we know that as a general rule such a thing is very, very unlikely. It seems more likely, given what we currently know that the man is a fraudster.

Does that make any sense to you?

I could say the exact same thing about your logic.

You could say anything you want to, but logic is self-evident.

My empirical evidence is based on my own personal observation. It can be demostrated only when the supernatural comes into play. You cannot predict
when certain things will happen, so it is hard to do that. I admit it.
BUT ! I am giving you logic which is known as testamonial. There are different
aspects to the argument about the existence of God. So since you have so many people who have witnessed the supernatural. Your job as a human being is to use
common sense. And your intuition. If it happened, it happened. It does not
matter if it defies logic or the laws of nature. God is the ruler of the universe.
So His Powers will not be seen in a way that fits your secular definition of
evidence. It is evidence, but it cannot be manually demonstrated. That is the
way it is.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:40:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:38:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:35:05 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:32:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:28:24 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:24:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:20:52 AM, inferno wrote:
Cerebal. That is my point. You cannot be an Atheist just because.
That does not make sense.

Just because what? Clear simple sentences that explain your position would be best.

You cannot be an Atheist just because of nothing. Or no reason. That does not
make sense.

I have a dragon in my garage, a real dragon. Flying, firebreathing. His name is George.

Do you believe me?

I dont know ? Do you ? Dragons were said to have existed at one point.
It is possible.

So are you an agnostic with regards George.

Do you think it is a 50/50 chance that George exists? How likely do you rate his existence.

Who is George ? I have heard of him, but what is he about ?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:52:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:39:41 AM, inferno wrote:
My empirical evidence is based on my own personal observation. It can be demostrated only when the supernatural comes into play. You cannot predict
when certain things will happen, so it is hard to do that. I admit it.

That is not empirical evidence, that is anecdotal evidence. The anecdotal evidence for God, or for specific religions is not in my opinion strong enough to convince a rational person who did not receive the experience.

BUT ! I am giving you logic which is known as testamonial. There are different
aspects to the argument about the existence of God. So since you have so many people who have witnessed the supernatural. Your job as a human being is to use
common sense. And your intuition. If it happened, it happened. It does not
matter if it defies logic or the laws of nature. God is the ruler of the universe.

Many people have claimed to have witnessed the supernatural. But we know that some are frauds and some are deluded. You have to accept this, because to do otherwise you would have to accept the claims of every single prophet, and psychic, even if they contradict. Which would be irrational.

So His Powers will not be seen in a way that fits your secular definition of
evidence. It is evidence, but it cannot be manually demonstrated. That is the
way it is.

If God exists then why is there this distinction between 'secular evidence' and spiritual evidence.

After the attack on the Pentagon during 9-11 conflicting eye witness testimony emerged concerning the attack. Some claimed it was a large boeing that struck the building, some claimed it was a missile, some claimed it was a car bomb, some claimed it was a missile.

We can't believe all these people can we? Someone must be right, someone must be wrong.

Thats why all claims should be subjected to empirical evidence, you can look at the damage, analyse the wreckage, run computer simulations.

Why can't we subject religious claims to the same scrutiny?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:54:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:40:25 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:38:35 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:35:05 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:32:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:28:24 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:24:04 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:20:52 AM, inferno wrote:
Cerebal. That is my point. You cannot be an Atheist just because.
That does not make sense.

Just because what? Clear simple sentences that explain your position would be best.

You cannot be an Atheist just because of nothing. Or no reason. That does not
make sense.

I have a dragon in my garage, a real dragon. Flying, firebreathing. His name is George.

Do you believe me?

I dont know ? Do you ? Dragons were said to have existed at one point.
It is possible.

So are you an agnostic with regards George.

Do you think it is a 50/50 chance that George exists? How likely do you rate his existence.

Who is George ? I have heard of him, but what is he about ?

George is a dragon that lives in my garage. He is generally apathetic, he just wants to be left alone. He likes to collect stamps and coins.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 9:59:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:52:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:39:41 AM, inferno wrote:
My empirical evidence is based on my own personal observation. It can be demostrated only when the supernatural comes into play. You cannot predict
when certain things will happen, so it is hard to do that. I admit it.

That is not empirical evidence, that is anecdotal evidence. The anecdotal evidence for God, or for specific religions is not in my opinion strong enough to convince a rational person who did not receive the experience.

BUT ! I am giving you logic which is known as testamonial. There are different
aspects to the argument about the existence of God. So since you have so many people who have witnessed the supernatural. Your job as a human being is to use
common sense. And your intuition. If it happened, it happened. It does not
matter if it defies logic or the laws of nature. God is the ruler of the universe.

Many people have claimed to have witnessed the supernatural. But we know that some are frauds and some are deluded. You have to accept this, because to do otherwise you would have to accept the claims of every single prophet, and psychic, even if they contradict. Which would be irrational.

So His Powers will not be seen in a way that fits your secular definition of
evidence. It is evidence, but it cannot be manually demonstrated. That is the
way it is.

If God exists then why is there this distinction between 'secular evidence' and spiritual evidence.

After the attack on the Pentagon during 9-11 conflicting eye witness testimony emerged concerning the attack. Some claimed it was a large boeing that struck the building, some claimed it was a missile, some claimed it was a car bomb, some claimed it was a missile.

We can't believe all these people can we? Someone must be right, someone must be wrong.

Thats why all claims should be subjected to empirical evidence, you can look at the damage, analyse the wreckage, run computer simulations.

Why can't we subject religious claims to the same scrutiny?

Cerebal. Do you know why people know that 9/11 was an inside job. If you knew
about the agenda of The New World Order, then you would know that yes it is true.
9/11 was a religious propaganda proned terrorist attack. And if you dont know that by now, then you are way behind sir. I think the message is clear now.
If you dont get it, then that is your problem. I dont see how you cant, with everything that has happened between now and September the 11th.
But anyway.

Yes, there are some people who are delusional and are frauds. Then there are those who have seen the real thing and are not frauds. Let us focus on the latter here. For the ones who have witnessed a supernatural even, including myself,
we use what you call spiritual evidence. Now let me ask you this question.
If you saw a supernatural event with your own two eyes, and you were absolutely
sure that you, Cerabal Narcissus saw the real thing.
Would you then believe in God or not ? Simple question.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:00:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Fellow atheists - I implore you to ignore this thread. There is no gratifying exchange to be had. CN, whatever you're trying to prove (tl;dr) I'm sure is a valid point but there is no light at the end of this tunnel.
President of DDO
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:05:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 10:00:47 AM, Danielle wrote:
Fellow atheists - I implore you to ignore this thread. There is no gratifying exchange to be had. CN, whatever you're trying to prove (tl;dr) I'm sure is a valid point but there is no light at the end of this tunnel.

Danielle. They can talk about whatever they choose to. Be a MAN and stop
hating on others.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:05:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 9:59:56 AM, inferno wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:52:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/3/2011 9:39:41 AM, inferno wrote:
My empirical evidence is based on my own personal observation. It can be demostrated only when the supernatural comes into play. You cannot predict
when certain things will happen, so it is hard to do that. I admit it.

That is not empirical evidence, that is anecdotal evidence. The anecdotal evidence for God, or for specific religions is not in my opinion strong enough to convince a rational person who did not receive the experience.

BUT ! I am giving you logic which is known as testamonial. There are different
aspects to the argument about the existence of God. So since you have so many people who have witnessed the supernatural. Your job as a human being is to use
common sense. And your intuition. If it happened, it happened. It does not
matter if it defies logic or the laws of nature. God is the ruler of the universe.

Many people have claimed to have witnessed the supernatural. But we know that some are frauds and some are deluded. You have to accept this, because to do otherwise you would have to accept the claims of every single prophet, and psychic, even if they contradict. Which would be irrational.

So His Powers will not be seen in a way that fits your secular definition of
evidence. It is evidence, but it cannot be manually demonstrated. That is the
way it is.

If God exists then why is there this distinction between 'secular evidence' and spiritual evidence.

After the attack on the Pentagon during 9-11 conflicting eye witness testimony emerged concerning the attack. Some claimed it was a large boeing that struck the building, some claimed it was a missile, some claimed it was a car bomb, some claimed it was a missile.

We can't believe all these people can we? Someone must be right, someone must be wrong.

Thats why all claims should be subjected to empirical evidence, you can look at the damage, analyse the wreckage, run computer simulations.

Why can't we subject religious claims to the same scrutiny?

Cerebal. Do you know why people know that 9/11 was an inside job. If you knew
about the agenda of The New World Order, then you would know that yes it is true.
9/11 was a religious propaganda proned terrorist attack. And if you dont know that by now, then you are way behind sir. I think the message is clear now.
If you dont get it, then that is your problem. I dont see how you cant, with everything that has happened between now and September the 11th.
But anyway.

You are missing the point... I am not trying to argue about 9-11... my point was anecdotal evidence is crap evidence. It was an analogy.

Yes, there are some people who are delusional and are frauds. Then there are those who have seen the real thing and are not frauds.

Thank you, that is why we turn to logic and evidence to separate the two.

Let us focus on the latter here. For the ones who have witnessed a supernatural even, including myself,
we use what you call spiritual evidence. Now let me ask you this question.
If you saw a supernatural event with your own two eyes, and you were absolutely
sure that you, Cerabal Narcissus saw the real thing.
Would you then believe in God or not ? Simple question.

It entirely depends,
What is the nature of the event, is this a repeated phenomana, did anyone else see it, did it leave any physical evidence behind. For a rational person it is not a simple yes/no question.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2011 10:22:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/3/2011 10:05:07 AM, inferno wrote:
Danielle. They can talk about whatever they choose to. Be a MAN and stop
hating on others.

Oh I get it... cuz I'm a woman so you're implying that women are inferior... wow that's so funny, and very original! You're so clever. Why hasn't anyone else on this site made similar remarks? You're definitely the first person to do so, and it was definitely SO hilarious! Omg I can't stop laughing. You're right I should totally be a man. Men are sooo awesome. I'm glad you agree, and I'm glad you're finally being open about your preference for men. I promise I'm not judging you (well, for that).
President of DDO