Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists have to trust in philosophy

Geneaux
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?
missmedic
Posts: 385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:49:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your philosophy is your worldview, which is a backdrop for all thought and a context for all knowledge. The decision about examining philosophy is between: 1) to make your philosophy explicit, or 2) to be a slave to the subconscious notions, principles, and other people's philosophies picked up throughout life. To ignore the topic of philosophy is to be doomed to the second choice. Examining your philosophy will allow you to discover and root out all errors and contradictions and allow you to more easily acquire knowledge and to think in concepts rather than concretes.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:50:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Unless you can explain what you mean by that in bold, your argument is based on a false premise. Atheism is a lack of belief in a philosophy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Geneaux
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:50:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Unless you can explain what you mean by that in bold, your argument is based on a false premise.

I mean you cannot prove a universal negative, like God, therefore some of the atheist belief must be borne by philosophical argument rather than data from reality.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a philosophy.

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 10:12:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Can you demonstrate that the atheists who wrote the works you describe dismiss philosophy?

After you accomplish that, can you explain how those particular atheists dismissing philosophy = atheism is a contradiction?

After you can do all of that then we can have a conversation.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 11:10:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:50:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Unless you can explain what you mean by that in bold, your argument is based on a false premise.

I mean you cannot prove a universal negative, like God,

No one is trying to p;rove any universal negatives, the burden of proof is not on the atheist, it is on YOU to show us God because YOU are the one telling us your God exists.

therefore some of the atheist belief must be borne by philosophical argument rather than data from reality.

There are no atheist beliefs, that is another false premise. You are just making up crap as you go along.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a philosophy.

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

That is just plain ridiculous. You don't even have a basic understanding of atheism and are incapable of arguing from other than the position of appealing to belief and confirmation bias.

So far, your argument is just a one dimensional fallacy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 11:14:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:10:58 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:50:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Unless you can explain what you mean by that in bold, your argument is based on a false premise.

I mean you cannot prove a universal negative, like God,

No one is trying to p;rove any universal negatives, the burden of proof is not on the atheist, it is on YOU to show us God because YOU are the one telling us your God exists.

therefore some of the atheist belief must be borne by philosophical argument rather than data from reality.

There are no atheist beliefs, that is another false premise. You are just making up crap as you go along.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a philosophy.

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

That is just plain ridiculous. You don't even have a basic understanding of atheism and are incapable of arguing from other than the position of appealing to belief and confirmation bias.

So far, your argument is just a one dimensional fallacy.

Atheism is definitely a philosophical position unless you use the term "lacking belief" to mean ignorance. Agnosticism and atheism that rejects God's existence makes a claim about the nature of existence. Therefore it is a philosophy.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:20:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 11:14:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:10:58 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:50:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Unless you can explain what you mean by that in bold, your argument is based on a false premise.

I mean you cannot prove a universal negative, like God,

No one is trying to p;rove any universal negatives, the burden of proof is not on the atheist, it is on YOU to show us God because YOU are the one telling us your God exists.

therefore some of the atheist belief must be borne by philosophical argument rather than data from reality.

There are no atheist beliefs, that is another false premise. You are just making up crap as you go along.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a philosophy.

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

That is just plain ridiculous. You don't even have a basic understanding of atheism and are incapable of arguing from other than the position of appealing to belief and confirmation bias.

So far, your argument is just a one dimensional fallacy.

Atheism is definitely a philosophical position unless you use the term "lacking belief" to mean ignorance. Agnosticism and atheism that rejects God's existence makes a claim about the nature of existence. Therefore it is a philosophy.

Hilarious, no matter how many times this has been explained, you continue to invoke your misinformed and disingenuous fallacies.

Sorry, but our lack of belief in your religious dogma is not based on ignorance, quite the contrary, it is based on being informed and understanding of the world around us.

We are not making claims of the nature of existence when it is nature itself that decides our existence based on the evidence and facts that nature presents us.

It is indeed YOU believers who make extraordinary claims of the nature and our existence, none of which has a shred of evidence.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:50:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:20:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:14:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/18/2015 11:10:58 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:50:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Unless you can explain what you mean by that in bold, your argument is based on a false premise.

I mean you cannot prove a universal negative, like God,

No one is trying to p;rove any universal negatives, the burden of proof is not on the atheist, it is on YOU to show us God because YOU are the one telling us your God exists.

therefore some of the atheist belief must be borne by philosophical argument rather than data from reality.

There are no atheist beliefs, that is another false premise. You are just making up crap as you go along.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a philosophy.

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

That is just plain ridiculous. You don't even have a basic understanding of atheism and are incapable of arguing from other than the position of appealing to belief and confirmation bias.

So far, your argument is just a one dimensional fallacy.

Atheism is definitely a philosophical position unless you use the term "lacking belief" to mean ignorance. Agnosticism and atheism that rejects God's existence makes a claim about the nature of existence. Therefore it is a philosophy.

Hilarious, no matter how many times this has been explained, you continue to invoke your misinformed and disingenuous fallacies.

Sorry, but our lack of belief in your religious dogma is not based on ignorance, quite the contrary, it is based on being informed and understanding of the world around us.

We are not making claims of the nature of existence when it is nature itself that decides our existence based on the evidence and facts that nature presents us.

It is indeed YOU believers who make extraordinary claims of the nature and our existence, none of which has a shred of evidence.

If you aren't making claims about the nature of existence you aren't claiming that God doesn't exist.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:51:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:08:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 3:01:24 PM, mrsatan wrote:

At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.

If there was no evidence for God, I would be agnostic.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:22:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 3:08:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:01:24 PM, mrsatan wrote:

At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.

If there was no evidence for God, I would be agnostic.

How does that have anything to do with what I said?
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:33:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 3:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:08:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:01:24 PM, mrsatan wrote:

At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.

If there was no evidence for God, I would be agnostic.

How does that have anything to do with what I said?

your example is to show that if you have no knowledge of any evidence or information to make an educated guess than the logical response should be "I don't know"

great example for your shirt, and about not making a claim. The analogy breaks down when it comes to God and making a reasonable statement about God.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 4:07:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 3:33:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:08:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:01:24 PM, mrsatan wrote:

At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.

If there was no evidence for God, I would be agnostic.

How does that have anything to do with what I said?

your example is to show that if you have no knowledge of any evidence or information to make an educated guess than the logical response should be "I don't know"


No, that is not what my example is meant to show. It's meant to show that a person can lack belief in God without believing there is no God.

"I don't know" is not even an appropriate response to the questions, unless you mean "I don't know if I believe it".

great example for your shirt, and about not making a claim. The analogy breaks down when it comes to God and making a reasonable statement about God.

Point being...? The analogy isn't about statements about God, so why do you expect it to apply to statements about God? There are two questions and answers the analogy is supposed to reflect:

Do you believe God exists? I do not
Do you believe God does not exist? I do not.

The only point I'm making here is that replying as such to both of these questions is not illogical.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 4:28:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 4:07:53 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:33:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:08:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:01:24 PM, mrsatan wrote:

At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.

If there was no evidence for God, I would be agnostic.

How does that have anything to do with what I said?

your example is to show that if you have no knowledge of any evidence or information to make an educated guess than the logical response should be "I don't know"


No, that is not what my example is meant to show. It's meant to show that a person can lack belief in God without believing there is no God.

"I don't know" is not even an appropriate response to the questions, unless you mean "I don't know if I believe it".

great example for your shirt, and about not making a claim. The analogy breaks down when it comes to God and making a reasonable statement about God.

Point being...? The analogy isn't about statements about God, so why do you expect it to apply to statements about God? There are two questions and answers the analogy is supposed to reflect:

Do you believe God exists? I do not
Do you believe God does not exist? I do not.

The only point I'm making here is that replying as such to both of these questions is not illogical.

Not illogical in the face of no evidence, observations, or logical arguments.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 5:14:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 4:28:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 4:07:53 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:33:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:08:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:01:24 PM, mrsatan wrote:

At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.

If there was no evidence for God, I would be agnostic.

How does that have anything to do with what I said?

your example is to show that if you have no knowledge of any evidence or information to make an educated guess than the logical response should be "I don't know"


No, that is not what my example is meant to show. It's meant to show that a person can lack belief in God without believing there is no God.

"I don't know" is not even an appropriate response to the questions, unless you mean "I don't know if I believe it".

great example for your shirt, and about not making a claim. The analogy breaks down when it comes to God and making a reasonable statement about God.

Point being...? The analogy isn't about statements about God, so why do you expect it to apply to statements about God? There are two questions and answers the analogy is supposed to reflect:

Do you believe God exists? I do not
Do you believe God does not exist? I do not.

The only point I'm making here is that replying as such to both of these questions is not illogical.

Not illogical in the face of no evidence, observations, or logical arguments.

Perhaps illogical is not the right word. I suppose 'not contradictory' would have been more accurate.

As for evidence, observations and argumentation... I know of no evidence, haven't seen anything for which God is the only possible explanation, and have never seen a good argument in favor of God.

I do, however, very much believe it is possible some sort of God exists. So if you think you can provide any of the aforementioned, then please do.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:09:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 5:14:03 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 4:28:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 4:07:53 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:33:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:22:48 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:08:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/18/2015 3:01:24 PM, mrsatan wrote:

At 1/18/2015 9:54:09 AM, Geneaux wrote:

And the only logical way you can lack belief in God is by not believing in his existence, and therefore having a belief.

Now that's some funny s*** right there!

But, in case you're being serious, I'll demonstrate why you are mistaken.

Do you believe I'm wearing a yellow shirt?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt that's not yellow?
Do you believe I'm wearing a shirt, period?
Or, do you believe I'm shirtless?

Those are all possibilities, but since you don't know me, you couldn't even make an educated guess as to what I'm wearing. You can answer 'No' to all of those questions, even though they are opposing beliefs. Furthermore, logically speaking, it's the appropriate answer for you to give for each one.

If there was no evidence for God, I would be agnostic.

How does that have anything to do with what I said?

your example is to show that if you have no knowledge of any evidence or information to make an educated guess than the logical response should be "I don't know"


No, that is not what my example is meant to show. It's meant to show that a person can lack belief in God without believing there is no God.

"I don't know" is not even an appropriate response to the questions, unless you mean "I don't know if I believe it".

great example for your shirt, and about not making a claim. The analogy breaks down when it comes to God and making a reasonable statement about God.

Point being...? The analogy isn't about statements about God, so why do you expect it to apply to statements about God? There are two questions and answers the analogy is supposed to reflect:

Do you believe God exists? I do not
Do you believe God does not exist? I do not.

The only point I'm making here is that replying as such to both of these questions is not illogical.

Not illogical in the face of no evidence, observations, or logical arguments.

Perhaps illogical is not the right word. I suppose 'not contradictory' would have been more accurate.

As for evidence, observations and argumentation... I know of no evidence, haven't seen anything for which God is the only possible explanation, and have never seen a good argument in favor of God.

There is no evidence that guarantees any conclusion. This should be obvious from science having tentative conclusions and is considered an inductive method. The evidence is there and if you so wish you can explain it with other hypothesis. Theories that are just as transcendental as God, just as untestable, just as based on presuppositions.

Evidence or observations are no good without an argument to infer the conclusion from the evidence.


I do, however, very much believe it is possible some sort of God exists. So if you think you can provide any of the aforementioned, then please do.

In my life I make decisions. I solve problems and I go with plans. I work in the real world and not in a laboratory. So the way I shape my world view is from information from sources, witnesses, personal experience, observations, experiments, scientific knowledge, a priori knowledge, abductive reasoning, ect...

So I find the cosmological argument convincing. I find the implausibility of abiogensis a convincing negative proof, my own personal experience give me a basis to trust in God.

My justifications maybe laughed off by you, may not be very convincing to you. I am confident I can answer any contentions to my justifications, and that my beliefs are as reasonable as any of my decisions.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:35:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

atheist have nothing to trust in. The best they can do is go on and on and on in a neverending futility trying to prove something they cannot prove.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 10:17:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Christianity is based on Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman philosophy mixed with stolen knowledge from God's saints.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 12:15:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 10:17:51 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Christianity is based on Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman philosophy mixed with stolen knowledge from God's saints.

C'mon, BoG, its hardly 'stolen' if the saints are giving it away...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 2:33:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:37:20 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Atheism is self-negation, by which a person willfully propells themself into Hell.

Hell doesn't exist, so I'm willfully propelling myself to a non-existent place. Jeebers. I miss Bulproof ;) He probably would have responded to this so that I didn't have to.

Seriously though, do you really think there is a hell? Never mind. Don't answer that. -.- I already know what you're going to say. Save those fingertips.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 2:56:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Atheism has nothing to trust in. The best an atheist can trust in is themselves or other people or nature or some invisible and impersonal force which really cannot be trusted because it could maim or kill the atheist at any time. The atheist themself or anything else they trust can at any time be damaged or destroyed, so the atheist has nothing to trust for and can only hope that their is no Hell.

Evolution trusts in philosophy. Evolution trusts in the concept of life continuing in death through the recycling of organic components as one's body decomposes.
Atheists deny all philosophical dogmas because they are likely to leave room for the possibility that death does not end life, and atheists are much too afraid of Hell so they must insist they believe in nothing and they must insist they cannot possibly be wrong.
Classified
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 4:33:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 2:33:04 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:37:20 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Atheism is self-negation, by which a person willfully propells themself into Hell.

Hell doesn't exist, so I'm willfully propelling myself to a non-existent place. Jeebers. I miss Bulproof ;) He probably would have responded to this so that I didn't have to.

Seriously though, do you really think there is a hell? Never mind. Don't answer that. -.- I already know what you're going to say. Save those fingertips.

There is no point in a story that just stops in the middle of nowhere. A true story is a story that has a beginning to everything, an end to everything, and an epilogue.
I chopping words. Not using fingertips.
Classified
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 4:44:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 2:33:04 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:37:20 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Atheism is self-negation, by which a person willfully propells themself into Hell.

Hell doesn't exist, so I'm willfully propelling myself to a non-existent place. Jeebers. I miss Bulproof ;) He probably would have responded to this so that I didn't have to.

Seriously though, do you really think there is a hell? Never mind. Don't answer that. -.- I already know what you're going to say. Save those fingertips.

There is no point in a story that just stops in the middle of nowhere. A true story is a story that has a beginning to everything, an end to everything, and an epilogue.
I am chopping words. Not using fingertips.

As LMGIG has said, Atheism is not proportional to the world. It doesn't fit into the world.
We couldn't just be like a story. The setting was the universe, and poof! We are the characters. It isn't proportional.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 8:27:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 12:15:51 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/18/2015 10:17:51 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Christianity is based on Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman philosophy mixed with stolen knowledge from God's saints.

C'mon, BoG, its hardly 'stolen' if the saints are giving it away...

The saints were used by God to testify to the knowledge and share this knowledge with God's chosen believers. Chosen believers didn't start Christianity by mixing religious ideas with what they heard from us saints. Antichrists were religious people who rejected the knowledge of God but found it to be attractive to God's believers. They used some of this knowledge with their religious beliefs and started Christianity. Christianity was being formed by antichrists while the saints were preaching the gospel during the first three centuries after the first saint's execution. The saints were warning their believers about the Christian false gospels.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 8:45:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?
One us a study,the other is a belief/disbelief.

Philosophy definition: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

Atheism definition: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 9:13:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 9:44:18 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Atheism is a philosophical position, and yet many popular atheist works (eg. the God Delusion, God is Not Great, The Pale Blue Dot) dismiss philosophy as basically done for. Is this not a contradiction in their belief?

Have you actually looked up the term Atheism? It's really quite simple, it's a lack of belief in any deity, yours included. You're an atheist to all other deities but yours. The term 'infidel' might as well mean 'atheist to my god'. Get over yourself and stop tying to paint us with the brush of 'belief' when it's a lack of belief, non-acceptance of the claim that theists make that defines an atheist. That is the sole common denominator, not any dogma or defined philosophy.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 12:14:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 4:44:27 AM, Classified wrote:
At 1/19/2015 2:33:04 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/18/2015 9:37:20 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
Atheism is self-negation, by which a person willfully propells themself into Hell.

Hell doesn't exist, so I'm willfully propelling myself to a non-existent place. Jeebers. I miss Bulproof ;) He probably would have responded to this so that I didn't have to.

Seriously though, do you really think there is a hell? Never mind. Don't answer that. -.- I already know what you're going to say. Save those fingertips.

There is no point in a story that just stops in the middle of nowhere. A true story is a story that has a beginning to everything, an end to everything, and an epilogue.
I am chopping words. Not using fingertips.

As LMGIG has said, Atheism is not proportional to the world. It doesn't fit into the world.
We couldn't just be like a story. The setting was the universe, and poof! We are the characters. It isn't proportional.

Your too young to have any clue what fits into the world and doesn't. The bible gives you no authority sweetie. All but one of my children are older than you and you're lucky I have patience for kids.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."