Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are Theists Rational?

Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2018 12:15:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since theists cannot use reason or logic to justify the existence of their particular Creator, Is it reasonable and logical to assume that theists tend not to use reason or logic in everyday decision-making?
anonthegreat
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2018 8:47:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No. The first choice to be an atheist of theist is emotional. The theists can see this truth and accept the feeling-based decision, But you cannot, And you reject all and any evidence you do not want to see because that is how your mind was created to work. The mind justifies whatever you want to believe, Using reason and cherry-picking the evidence to make you feel you are right. That is how your mind justifies wanting to be an atheist.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2018 10:11:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
anonthegreat wrote:
No. The first choice to be an atheist of theist is emotional. The theists can see this truth and accept the feeling-based decision, But you cannot, And you reject all and any evidence you do not want to see because that is how your mind was created to work. The mind justifies whatever you want to believe, Using reason and cherry-picking the evidence to make you feel you are right. That is how your mind justifies wanting to be an atheist.

A better question would be: Do theists remain rational?

Your own conversion was very difficult and consumed most of your adult life. You admit you are mentally ill and found company in Jesus.
Misery loves company! Jesus was crucified because he was a blasphemous liar and a lunatic.

You said you were a happy child before your mental illness. In your case you should have been treated for your mental illness and not lectured to.
You spent 43 years to make sense of the bible. Then you corrected that to 40 years.

Read your posts below:

You said:" After being a happy little child, I became mentally ill by the world matrix and got lost in my thoughts, Feelings, And deeds. I am finally free. I KNOW who I am in Christ's righteousness. I found myself again.

You said:" It took me 43 years to finally make sense of the Bible. Then I have to deal with people like Harikrish, Who is not who he claims to be, Chasing me around and lying to discredit me as a person. His purpose on the board is to create confusion and put other people down. "

You said:" I spent 40 years getting the correct Biblical paradigms in place, And then I entered the first heaven when I was 57. I did not stand on the sea of glass until I was age 60 about 5 months ago. For example, I know about Paul's writing about God is not the author of confusion but I said God "causes" the confusion. The words author and causes are two different words. "
1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV - For God is not the author of confusion, "

What you missed is the 43 or 40 years of mind control you were under that reduced you to a functioning idiot.

God is in the business of mind control " bringing the nations against Israel in battle for their destruction (Deut 2:30; Josh 11:20) " but causing them to overlook all the men leaving their homes to worship God in Jerusalem Gen 35:5; Ex 34:24; II Chr 17:10.

For further examples of mind control, Which God can use for various ends, Consider what God did to or for Eli's sons I Sam 2:25), Saul I Sam 16:14-16, David II Sam 24:1; I Chr 21:1; II Sam 16:10, Solomon I Kgs 11:14, Rehoboam I Kgs 12:15, Jehoshaphat II Chr 18:31, Hezekiah II Chron 32:31, Etc.
anonthegreat
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2018 10:48:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why do you keep posting the same questions I answered on the other thread? Why do keep plagiarizing others?
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2018 10:40:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
anonthegreat wrote:
No. The first choice to be an atheist of theist is emotional. The theists can see this truth and accept the feeling-based decision. . . . . . . . . . .

"Feeling-based decision" eh?

Is that the latest euphemism for "delusion"?
Harikrish
Posts: 28,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2018 3:46:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
anonthegreat wrote:
Why do you keep posting the same questions I answered on the other thread? Why do keep plagiarizing others?

If it is the truth what does it matter who said it.

Read your posts below: How you became mentally ill.

You said:" After being a happy little child, I became mentally ill by the world matrix and got lost in my thoughts, Feelings, And deeds. I am finally free. I KNOW who I am in Christ's righteousness. I found myself again.

You said:" It took me 43 years to finally make sense of the Bible. Then I have to deal with people like Harikrish, Who is not who he claims to be, Chasing me around and lying to discredit me as a person. His purpose on the board is to create confusion and put other people down. "

You said:" I spent 40 years getting the correct Biblical paradigms in place, And then I entered the first heaven when I was 57. I did not stand on the sea of glass until I was age 60 about 5 months ago. For example, I know about Paul's writing about God is not the author of confusion but I said God "causes" the confusion. The words author and causes are two different words. "
1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV - For God is not the author of confusion, "

What you missed is the 43 or 40 years of mind control you were under that reduced you to a functioning idiot.

God is in the business of mind control " bringing the nations against Israel in battle for their destruction (Deut 2:30; Josh 11:20) " but causing them to overlook all the men leaving their homes to worship God in Jerusalem Gen 35:5; Ex 34:24; II Chr 17:10.

For further examples of mind control, Which God can use for various ends, Consider what God did to or for Eli's sons I Sam 2:25), Saul I Sam 16:14-16, David II Sam 24:1; I Chr 21:1; II Sam 16:10, Solomon I Kgs 11:14, Rehoboam I Kgs 12:15, Jehoshaphat II Chr 18:31, Hezekiah II Chron 32:31, Etc.
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2018 4:16:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Willows wrote:
Since theists cannot use reason or logic to justify the existence of their particular Creator, Is it reasonable and logical to assume that theists tend not to use reason or logic in everyday decision-making?

The question in itself is illogical since it presumes the analysis of decisions is intrinsically personal rather than consequential. And the presumption that belief in the existence of a "particular creator" is illogical is an unsubstantiated assertortic argument. There's a logic to God's existence; whether you subscribe to it is your personal issue.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2018 4:56:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:
Since theists cannot use reason or logic to justify the existence of their particular Creator, Is it reasonable and logical to assume that theists tend not to use reason or logic in everyday decision-making?

The question in itself is illogical since it presumes the analysis of decisions is intrinsically personal rather than consequential. And the presumption that belief in the existence of a "particular creator" is illogical is an unsubstantiated assertortic argument. There's a logic to God's existence; whether you subscribe to it is your personal issue.

Decision making is both intrinsically personal and consequential. The belief in the existence of a "particular creator" is illogical when it is unsubstantiated by scientific evidence and unsubstantiated assertortic argument.
To argue there is a logic to God's existence; whether you subscribe to it is your personal issue is why the question was raised: Are Theists Rational?
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2018 6:45:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Harikrish wrote:
Decision making is both intrinsically personal and consequential. The belief in the existence of a "particular creator" is illogical when it is unsubstantiated by scientific evidence and unsubstantiated assertortic argument.
To argue there is a logic to God's existence; whether you subscribe to it is your personal issue is why the question was raised: Are Theists Rational?

Sorry, I have no interest in debating you. Respond to my comments as you please, But I will not engage you. Have a nice day, Sir.
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2018 7:53:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:
Since theists cannot use reason or logic to justify the existence of their particular Creator, Is it reasonable and logical to assume that theists tend not to use reason or logic in everyday decision-making?

The question in itself is illogical since it presumes the analysis of decisions is intrinsically personal rather than consequential. And the presumption that belief in the existence of a "particular creator" is illogical is an unsubstantiated assertortic argument. There's a logic to God's existence; whether you subscribe to it is your personal issue.

It may well be a personal issue to believe but does that exonerate one from the fact that one is believing in something that is false?
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2018 10:37:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Athias wrote:
Harikrish wrote:
Decision making is both intrinsically personal and consequential. The belief in the existence of a "particular creator" is illogical when it is unsubstantiated by scientific evidence and unsubstantiated assertoric argument.
To argue there is a logic to God's existence; whether you subscribe to it is your personal issue is why the question was raised: Are Theists Rational?

Sorry, I have no interest in debating you. Respond to my comments as you please, But I will not engage you. Have a nice day, Sir.

I think that what Harikrish argued was that one cannot assert a logical conclusion without scientific or matter-of-fact evidence.

Surely, It is a valid, If not reasonable argument worthy of discussion, Don't you think?
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2018 2:17:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Willows wrote:
It may well be a personal issue to believe but does that exonerate one from the fact that one is believing in something that is false?

Is it false? I've seen this argument proffered, But there's never any substantiation. Sure, Logically, One is not required to prove a negative, But theists have never sought to prove God's existence to atheists; atheists have always sought to disprove God's existence to the entire populace. And all affirmative arguments--even ones which assert a negative--require substantiation.

And "exonerate"? It's neither a crime nor a wrong-doing to believe in something allegedly false. That would insinuate that individuals are obligated to others for that which they believe. And they patently are not.

Willows wrote:
I think that what Harikrish argued was that one cannot assert a logical conclusion without scientific or matter-of-fact evidence.

Surely, It is a valid, If not reasonable argument worthy of discussion, Don't you think?

I do not take issue with the argument; I take issue with its arguer; hence, My refusal to engage him. It is worthy of discussion, And if you wish to assume its proxy, Then I have no issue engaging you on the point. The argument operates on the non sequitur: the meaning of decision making. I specifically stated "analysis of decisions. " The former is personal; the latter is consequential. Your argument is premised on the attempt to negatively correlate the logic in spirituality and the logic in rational utility. When analyzing a decision, One starts with the goal and the action. How the action produces or does not produce the goal determines its logic. Production comes after the fact, Or in the other words, Production is the consequence of the a goal-oriented action. Essentially, The nature of the decision is determined by the ends--good decisions produce good utility, Bad decisions produce bad utility; therefore, The logic of a decision is determined by its consequence.

You're attempting to associate (more like project) your misconception about spirituality to rational decision making. That's the reason I stated it's a "you problem. " And this thread is just a roundabout way of labeling theists fundamentally irrational.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2018 7:20:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:
It may well be a personal issue to believe but does that exonerate one from the fact that one is believing in something that is false?

Is it false? I've seen this argument proffered, But there's never any substantiation. Sure, Logically, One is not required to prove a negative, But theists have never sought to prove God's existence to atheists; atheists have always sought to disprove God's existence to the entire populace. And all affirmative arguments--even ones which assert a negative--require substantiation.

And "exonerate"? It's neither a crime nor a wrong-doing to believe in something allegedly false. That would insinuate that individuals are obligated to others for that which they believe. And they patently are not.

Willows wrote:
I think that what Harikrish argued was that one cannot assert a logical conclusion without scientific or matter-of-fact evidence.

Surely, It is a valid, If not reasonable argument worthy of discussion, Don't you think?

I do not take issue with the argument; I take issue with its arguer; hence, My refusal to engage him. It is worthy of discussion, And if you wish to assume its proxy, Then I have no issue engaging you on the point. The argument operates on the non sequitur: the meaning of decision making. I specifically stated "analysis of decisions. " The former is personal; the latter is consequential. Your argument is premised on the attempt to negatively correlate the logic in spirituality and the logic in rational utility. When analyzing a decision, One starts with the goal and the action. How the action produces or does not produce the goal determines its logic. Production comes after the fact, Or in the other words, Production is the consequence of the a goal-oriented action. Essentially, The nature of the decision is determined by the ends--good decisions produce good utility, Bad decisions produce bad utility; therefore, The logic of a decision is determined by its consequence.

You're attempting to associate (more like project) your misconception about spirituality to rational decision making. That's the reason I stated it's a "you problem. " And this thread is just a roundabout way of labeling theists fundamentally irrational.

Is it rational to believe a Jewish bastard (Jesus) born of a virgin mother (Mary) who was gang raped by God and the Holy Spirit and masturbated on by the two had to died to forgive the sins of Christians and to bring salvation to the Gentiles at the expense of Jews.
1. The promise.
Luke 1:30 and the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, Behold, Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, And bring forth a son, And shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, And shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

2. The gang rape of Mary in her sleep.
Luke 1:34 "How will this be, " Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin? "

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, And the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God.

3. The betrayal.
Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, Lema sabachthani? " which means, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me? "

Can anyone arrive at a rational decision given the incredulous nature of the prameters? One can only conclude Theists are not Rational.
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2018 8:54:01 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:
It may well be a personal issue to believe but does that exonerate one from the fact that one is believing in something that is false?

Is it false? I've seen this argument proffered, But there's never any substantiation.
Yes, It is false.
Because the existence of of a supernatural presence such as God has never been proven.
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2018 2:13:36 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:
Yes, It is false.
Because the existence of of a supernatural presence such as God has never been proven.

It's quite ironic given this thread's subject: the reasoning for your assertion, "yes, It is false, " is textbook illogical. Your reason, "because the existence of a supernatural presence such as ['God'] has never been proven, " denotes an informal fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium. That is, It's an argument which suggests a proposition false because it has not been or has yet to be proven true. If your logic holds, The inverse of the argument would also be true: "Yes, It is [true]; Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as ['God'] has never been [disproved. ]" It's a false dichotomy which can be easily rebutted by the aphorism, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "

You see, Even an atheist like yourself is capable of illogical thought. And according to this thread's subject, It would be reasonable to assume that this capacity for illogical thought translates to your every-day decisions. Luckily, The logic of that proposition is erroneous, Too.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2018 6:45:44 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:
Yes, It is false.
Because the existence of of a supernatural presence such as God has never been proven.

It's quite ironic given this thread's subject: the reasoning for your assertion, "yes, It is false, " is textbook illogical. Your reason, "because the existence of a supernatural presence such as ['God'] has never been proven, " denotes an informal fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium. That is, It's an argument which suggests a proposition false because it has not been or has yet to be proven true. If your logic holds, The inverse of the argument would also be true: "Yes, It is [true]; Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as ['God'] has never been [disproved. ]" It's a false dichotomy which can be easily rebutted by the aphorism, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "

You see, Even an atheist like yourself is capable of illogical thought. And according to this thread's subject, It would be reasonable to assume that this capacity for illogical thought translates to your every-day decisions. Luckily, The logic of that proposition is erroneous, Too.

Theists and atheists are on opposite sides of the argumentum ad ignorantium argument.
Jesus on the cross lamented:
Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, Lema sabachthani? " which means, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me? "

Is that evidence for God or non evidence for God who didn't show up to save Jesus? Or is it a lesson from Jesus be careful what you believe.
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2018 11:41:39 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:
Yes, It is false.
Because the existence of of a supernatural presence such as God has never been proven.

It's quite ironic given this thread's subject: the reasoning for your assertion, "yes, It is false, " is textbook illogical. Your reason, "because the existence of a supernatural presence such as ['God'] has never been proven, " denotes an informal fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium. That is, It's an argument which suggests a proposition false because it has not been or has yet to be proven true. If your logic holds, The inverse of the argument would also be true: "Yes, It is [true]; Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as ['God'] has never been [disproved. ]" It's a false dichotomy which can be easily rebutted by the aphorism, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "

You see, Even an atheist like yourself is capable of illogical thought. And according to this thread's subject, It would be reasonable to assume that this capacity for illogical thought translates to your every-day decisions. Luckily, The logic of that proposition is erroneous, Too.

You could keep going around in circles and divert from the subject by pointing out the technicalities (in which case I could apply the same to your false argument) but the point I am making is that you have no evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God.

Therefore, If you maintain the existence of such an entity, How can your everyday rationale for making informed decisions not be adversely affected?

You would know very well that it is ludicrous to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.

. . . And quite ridiculous to imply that because an absurd proposition has not been disproven, That somehow there is some sort of validity to such an absurd proposition, I. E. The existence of God.

To place the shoe on the other foot. . . .

How would you like it if I arrogantly asserted that there are green flying pigs in existence?
Then, Come across with the sort of reasoning that you just came up with?
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2018 12:46:50 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:
You could keep going around in circles

There has been absolutely nothing circular about my arguments, I. E. My conclusions are identical to my premises.

and divert from the subject by pointing out the technicalities (in which case I could apply the same to your false argument)

Oh no, There's no diversion at all. Actually, My statements are quite relevant. This thread is after all questioning the rationality of those who believe in something allegedly illogical; therefore, Logical consistency is pertinent, Even essential, In the discussion of rationality. Your "technicality" (logical inconsistency) provides context to the subject.

Or is this as I suspected, And this thread is merely a platform for a hit-piece arguing toward the "pathology" of theists?

but the point I am making is that you have no evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God.

Yes, And you've argued that this lack of evidence is in itself evidence of God's nonexistence. That is textbook illogical.

Therefore, If you maintain the existence of such an entity, How can your everyday rationale for making informed decisions not be adversely affected?

Once again, You're presuming a lack of logic in spirituality. You have not substantiated this assertion. You're assuming it to be true and arguing non sequiturs. You believe that lack of evidence proves God to not exist; that is illogical; does that "adversely" affect your rationale for making informed decisions?

You would know very well that it is ludicrous to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.

True, Logically, You are not required to disprove when the onus is to prove; by that very same token, One is not required to prove when the onus is to disprove. The logical position is to remain agnostic until either burden is met. But atheists like yourself, At least from what I've estimated, Have taken a Gnostic opposition. In other words, The agnostic position would be, "No evidence of God's existence has been discovered; therefore, The existence of God has yet to be proven. " This is a logical argument, In which the conclusion logically follows the premise. The Gnostic opposition is, "No evidence of God's existence has been discovered; therefore, God does not exist. " This is quite illogical since the conclusion is assertortic and assumes the burden of proof has been met by the lack of proof of its inverse rather than providing proof which affirms itself.

. . . And quite ridiculous to imply that because an absurd proposition has not been disproven, That somehow there is some sort of validity to such an absurd proposition, I. E. The existence of God.

I made no such proposition. In fact I made sure to include it when citing argumentum ad ignorantium:

Athias wrote:
. . . " denotes an informal fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium. That is, It's an argument which suggests a proposition false because it has not been or has yet to be proven true. If your logic holds, The inverse of the argument would also be true: "Yes, It is [true]; Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as ['God'] has never been [disproved. ]" It's a false dichotomy which can be easily rebutted by the aphorism, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "

I didn't insinuate that one was illogical and the other wasn't. Both propositions are illogical--that's the point. They both are false dichotomies. The point I insinuated was that if you were going to accept one to be true, "Yes, It is false. Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as God has never been proven, " then you have to accept the other as true, "Yes, It is [true. ] Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as God has never been [disproved. ]"

To place the shoe on the other foot. . . .

How would you like it if I arrogantly asserted that there are green flying pigs in existence?

Your arrogance would be irrelevant. And if you assert that green flying pigs exist, I would not conclude this to affect the logic of your every-day decision making. As I argued above, The logic of your decisions is determined by their consequences, Not the utility you find in the spirituality of believing green flying pigs exist.

Then, Come across with the sort of reasoning that you just came up with?

It would be in the best interest of any discussion of logic to remember the importance of logical consistency, And not to dismiss it as a "technicality" because it doesn't serve the notions of one's argument or even one's self-image.
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2018 10:48:08 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:
You could keep going around in circles

There has been absolutely nothing circular about my arguments, I. E. My conclusions are identical to my premises.

and divert from the subject by pointing out the technicalities (in which case I could apply the same to your false argument)

Oh no, There's no diversion at all. Actually, My statements are quite relevant. This thread is after all questioning the rationality of those who believe in something allegedly illogical; therefore, Logical consistency is pertinent, Even essential, In the discussion of rationality. Your "technicality" (logical inconsistency) provides context to the subject.

Or is this as I suspected, And this thread is merely a platform for a hit-piece arguing toward the "pathology" of theists?

but the point I am making is that you have no evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God.

Yes, And you've argued that this lack of evidence is in itself evidence of God's nonexistence. That is textbook illogical.

Therefore, If you maintain the existence of such an entity, How can your everyday rationale for making informed decisions not be adversely affected?

Once again, You're presuming a lack of logic in spirituality. You have not substantiated this assertion. You're assuming it to be true and arguing non sequiturs. You believe that lack of evidence proves God to not exist; that is illogical; does that "adversely" affect your rationale for making informed decisions?

You would know very well that it is ludicrous to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.

True, Logically, You are not required to disprove when the onus is to prove; by that very same token, One is not required to prove when the onus is to disprove. The logical position is to remain agnostic until either burden is met. But atheists like yourself, At least from what I've estimated, Have taken a Gnostic opposition. In other words, The agnostic position would be, "No evidence of God's existence has been discovered; therefore, The existence of God has yet to be proven. " This is a logical argument, In which the conclusion logically follows the premise. The Gnostic opposition is, "No evidence of God's existence has been discovered; therefore, God does not exist. " This is quite illogical since the conclusion is assertortic and assumes the burden of proof has been met by the lack of proof of its inverse rather than providing proof which affirms itself.


. . . And quite ridiculous to imply that because an absurd proposition has not been disproven, That somehow there is some sort of validity to such an absurd proposition, I. E. The existence of God.

I made no such proposition. In fact I made sure to include it when citing argumentum ad ignorantium:

Athias wrote:
. . . " denotes an informal fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium. That is, It's an argument which suggests a proposition false because it has not been or has yet to be proven true. If your logic holds, The inverse of the argument would also be true: "Yes, It is [true]; Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as ['God'] has never been [disproved. ]" It's a false dichotomy which can be easily rebutted by the aphorism, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "

I didn't insinuate that one was illogical and the other wasn't. Both propositions are illogical--that's the point. They both are false dichotomies. The point I insinuated was that if you were going to accept one to be true, "Yes, It is false. Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as God has never been proven, " then you have to accept the other as true, "Yes, It is [true. ] Because the existence of a supernatural presence such as God has never been [disproved. ]"

To place the shoe on the other foot. . . .

How would you like it if I arrogantly asserted that there are green flying pigs in existence?

Your arrogance would be irrelevant. And if you assert that green flying pigs exist, I would not conclude this to affect the logic of your every-day decision making. As I argued above, The logic of your decisions is determined by their consequences, Not the utility you find in the spirituality of believing green flying pigs exist.


Then, Come across with the sort of reasoning that you just came up with?

It would be in the best interest of any discussion of logic to remember the importance of logical consistency, And not to dismiss it as a "technicality" because it doesn't serve the notions of one's argument or even one's self-image.

You may not wish to conclude the belief of green flying pigs is not symptomatic of someone going off the deep end but most people would.

Similarly, Someone who believes in anything spiritual is a sandwich short of a picnic.

In each case, It is very telling that believers of such absurdities tend to avoid the reality of their affliction by questioning facts and assertions without ever stating a fact or assertion themselves.
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2018 3:01:19 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:
You may not wish to conclude the belief of green flying pigs is not symptomatic of someone going off the deep end but most people would.

All this argument infers is that your assertion is allegedly popular; it does not inform veracity of any sort. Using the popularity of an assertion to infer "truth" is a logically fallacious form of argument known as argumentum ad populum. In other words, It doesn't matter at all that most would conclude that the belief is "symptomatic of someone going off the deep end. " It is either true or false, Number of those believing it notwithstanding.

Most people would conclude a God exists. Yet, You've argued against it. So why have you cited the value of "most people" when it holds no weight in your opposition?

Similarly, Someone who believes in anything spiritual is a sandwich short of a picnic.

I don't quite understand the metaphor: are you suggesting that they're illogical or crazy? Because they're different concepts.

In each case, It is very telling that believers of such absurdities tend to avoid the reality of their affliction by questioning facts and assertions without ever stating a fact or assertion themselves.

Okay, So you were insinuating that they're crazy. And this pretty much sums up the extent of this thread. I've since demonstrated twice that you are capable of illogical thought, And you've dismissed this either out of ignorance or obliviousness--who knows? You have claimed "facts" but haven't demonstrated any. You've asked for "reciprocity" when the burden of proof fell on you, At least in this particular discussion. I've rationalized the logic of decisions being borne out of consequence. I've given you the opportunity several times to substantiate the connection between spirituality and irrationality, And thus far, It has produced more assertions and logical inconsistency.

You want someone to prove that God exists, But this will never happen. Your standards, Your particular standards, Aren't rooted in logical consistency; they're not even rooted in the scientific method; they're rooted in dogma. The rational position for an atheist is agnosticism. Because scientists know as a matter of protocol, That there's no knowledge of nonexistence; there's only knowledge that has yet to be discovered. I have no intention of delving in to your ire by substituting a discussion over logic for a discussion over crazy. If anything changes, I'll offer more commentary.
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2018 8:46:04 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:
You may not wish to conclude the belief of green flying pigs is not symptomatic of someone going off the deep end but most people would.

All this argument infers is that your assertion is allegedly popular; it does not inform veracity of any sort. Using the popularity of an assertion to infer "truth" is a logically fallacious form of argument known as argumentum ad populum. In other words, It doesn't matter at all that most would conclude that the belief is "symptomatic of someone going off the deep end. " It is either true or false, Number of those believing it notwithstanding.

Most people would conclude a God exists. Yet, You've argued against it. So why have you cited the value of "most people" when it holds no weight in your opposition?

Similarly, Someone who believes in anything spiritual is a sandwich short of a picnic.

I don't quite understand the metaphor: are you suggesting that they're illogical or crazy? Because they're different concepts.

In each case, It is very telling that believers of such absurdities tend to avoid the reality of their affliction by questioning facts and assertions without ever stating a fact or assertion themselves.

Okay, So you were insinuating that they're crazy. And this pretty much sums up the extent of this thread. I've since demonstrated twice that you are capable of illogical thought, And you've dismissed this either out of ignorance or obliviousness--who knows? You have claimed "facts" but haven't demonstrated any. You've asked for "reciprocity" when the burden of proof fell on you, At least in this particular discussion. I've rationalized the logic of decisions being borne out of consequence. I've given you the opportunity several times to substantiate the connection between spirituality and irrationality, And thus far, It has produced more assertions and logical inconsistency.

You want someone to prove that God exists, But this will never happen. Your standards, Your particular standards, Aren't rooted in logical consistency; they're not even rooted in the scientific method; they're rooted in dogma. The rational position for an atheist is agnosticism. Because scientists know as a matter of protocol, That there's no knowledge of nonexistence; there's only knowledge that has yet to be discovered. I have no intention of delving in to your ire by substituting a discussion over logic for a discussion over crazy. If anything changes, I'll offer more commentary.

The burden of proof does not fall upon the refuting of a positive assertion but so what anyway.
You can keep on diverting going on about the whys and wherefores of non-existence but the fact remains that there is not one single shred of evidence to support the absurd notion of any spiritual presence whatsoever.

My mental state is not in question however, Those who maintain an absurd, Completely unsubstantiated belief are deluded.

delusion | di'lu:z(e)n |
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, Typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
anonthegreat
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 2:07:25 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows, Athias is correct and his rational thoughts are running circles around a blind man. Believers can see white grace, Black grace, And no grace by no belief as they examine the evidence of God with reason.

Atheists only see the black grace associated with the body and are blinded by their emotional choice to be atheists. There is no condemnation on you, But it is just the way the emotions and mind were designed to work.

You cannot love God because religions are so absurdly irrational creating such absurd gods. It is far more easier and rational to stay away from all of them, And for good reason, All of them are wrong.

However, One must separate God from religions to make a leap of faith and love toward the Creator who has nothing to do with religions but dwells in our hearts privately.

If we want to live with objectivity and not emotional subjectivity, Then agnosticism is the way to go. But the mind and will were made to believe something, And agnosticism turn a person into a lukewarm dead zombie about God. The agnostic does not care passionately about the truth about God because the subjective emotions are removed in the decision to follow scientific method and its man-made rules of excluding emotions, And as such, God cannot use him in the battle of truth and error about God, But spits him out of His mouth.

However, The agnostic has the advantage of living a life away from the truth and error about God and enjoy a social life free of not talking about God around the dinner table and live life without the confusion created by the Satanists about religions that control us. The agnostic will also be resurrected into an immortal body and receive the eternal light body he or she asked for.
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 2:58:32 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:

The burden of proof does not fall upon the refuting of a positive assertion but so what anyway.

We've already established that there's no burden in refuting positive assertions. No one is asking you to. The discussion requires that you substantiate your positive assertion that the "irrationality" of spirituality translates into every day decision making. After all, That is the reason you created this thread, Right?

You can keep on diverting going on about the whys and wherefores of non-existence but the fact remains that there is not one single shred of evidence to support the absurd notion of any spiritual presence whatsoever.

I have not diverted. This discussion doesn't require me to--not that I'm familiar with such backhanded tactics. And once again, You're attempting to shift your burden and indulge the tangent, "does God exist? " Perhaps you're quite comfortable with that subject since all it requires you to do is repeat your mantra. But I'm not interested in tautologies and redundancies. I've conveyed that you have twice now expressed illogical thought. By your reasoning, It would be logical to assume that you're an illogical decision maker. Are you ready to concede that this logic is inconsistent--and therefore the logic of your O. P. Is inconsistent--or will you concede that yes, You are an illogical decision maker?

My mental state is not in question however

Who questioned your mental state? Weren't you the one questioning the mental state of theists?

Those who maintain an absurd, Completely unsubstantiated belief are deluded.

I agree. So when are you going to let go of your delusion? If your interest is truly the pursuit and maintenance of logically sound knowledge, Then you must adhere to all the rules of logic, And not just the ones you want because you have an emotional attachment to a concept, I. E. God does not exist. If I were to guess, You're a rather young individual who's caught up in a phase of contrarianism and a bit of rebellion. Now this in no way qualifies your argument, But it does provide context and information to your development as a curator and purveyor of knowledge. Creating numerous threads attempting to argue some pathology to theism and/or superiority of atheism doesn't convey certainty; it conveys the search for validation.

Pursue knowledge in all its forms; don't stray from the areas which you might find offensive; embrace skepticism and be critical, Even of your own views. Study the rules of logic so that you can break any argument down to its most fundamental premise. And then delusion will never find you again.
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 6:12:02 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Athias wrote:
Willows wrote:

The burden of proof does not fall upon the refuting of a positive assertion but so what anyway.

We've already established that there's no burden in refuting positive assertions. No one is asking you to. The discussion requires that you substantiate your positive assertion that the "irrationality" of spirituality translates into every day decision making. After all, That is the reason you created this thread, Right?

You can keep on diverting going on about the whys and wherefores of non-existence but the fact remains that there is not one single shred of evidence to support the absurd notion of any spiritual presence whatsoever.

I have not diverted. This discussion doesn't require me to--not that I'm familiar with such backhanded tactics. And once again, You're attempting to shift your burden and indulge the tangent, "does God exist? " Perhaps you're quite comfortable with that subject since all it requires you to do is repeat your mantra. But I'm not interested in tautologies and redundancies. I've conveyed that you have twice now expressed illogical thought. By your reasoning, It would be logical to assume that you're an illogical decision maker. Are you ready to concede that this logic is inconsistent--and therefore the logic of your O. P. Is inconsistent--or will you concede that yes, You are an illogical decision maker?

My mental state is not in question however

Who questioned your mental state? Weren't you the one questioning the mental state of theists?

Those who maintain an absurd, Completely unsubstantiated belief are deluded.

I agree. So when are you going to let go of your delusion? If your interest is truly the pursuit and maintenance of logically sound knowledge, Then you must adhere to all the rules of logic, And not just the ones you want because you have an emotional attachment to a concept, I. E. God does not exist. If I were to guess, You're a rather young individual who's caught up in a phase of contrarianism and a bit of rebellion. Now this in no way qualifies your argument, But it does provide context and information to your development as a curator and purveyor of knowledge. Creating numerous threads attempting to argue some pathology to theism and/or superiority of atheism doesn't convey certainty; it conveys the search for validation.

Pursue knowledge in all its forms; don't stray from the areas which you might find offensive; embrace skepticism and be critical, Even of your own views. Study the rules of logic so that you can break any argument down to its most fundamental premise. And then delusion will never find you again.

Alright, Now we are getting somewhere regarding the ground rules.

So, Now it gets down to my validating the irrationality of theists, Even though I did not make the assertion in the first place. . . I merely posed the question which should give rise to the audience giving their bob's worth of opinions and ideas.

But then, There is always one in every crowd who will never participate in the game but is in his comfort zone just standing on the sidelines making snide observations and trying to pick fault with the participants without ever daring to step over the line and play ball. Probably (I logically assume) because he is reluctant to show his colours or which side he supports.

Actually, I suspect he would be happy sitting on the fence, But after a while, It must get really painful on the fundamental orifice, Don't you think?

One more time, Let me state the following:
The belief in any supernatural presence is purely speculative. There is not one single iota of evidence to confirm such. No anecdotal account of supernatural beings has ever been verified and the fact that millions of naive, Gullible nitwits have believed so for centuries gives not one ounce of credence to such nuttiness.

Therefore, Anyone who believes there is a God or any other oogidy boogidy thing out there somewhere is off his or her rocker. And, Trying to make out that spiritual thingies belong to some sort of exclusive domain, Privy to those who have faith is even more ludicrous.

delusion | di'lu:z(e)n |
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, Typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

The existence of God is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.

Since believers in God allow their nutty thoughts to permeate through all facets of their daily life one can reasonably conclude that their everyday decision making will be influenced by such idiocy.

Now, Do share with us, If you dare, What your valued opinion on the subject happens to be.
anonthegreat
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 7:38:20 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Harikrish, My decision to believe in God is emotionally-based because my parents believe in God. From that foundation, I use evidences and facts to JUSTIFY my original decision from the day I was born and have NEVER wavered from t. However, My belief in Yahweh has gotten greater and greater as the Logos Word of Reason puts all the pieces together for me. It took 43 years because the paradigms the Satanist moles created IN THE WORLD are so deep and ubiquitous. Read for yourself the spiritual dynamics of the wheat and tares inside us:

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares

Another parable He put forth to them, Saying: "The [INNER] kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed [IDEAS] in his field; 25 but while men slept, His enemy came and sowed tares [IDEAS] among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, Then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, "Sir, Did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares? " 28 He said to them, "An enemy [SATANISTS]has done this. " The servants said to him, "Do you want us then to go and gather them up? " 29 But he said, "No, Lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, And at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers [ANGELS IN OUR SOULS], "First gather together the tares [BAD IRRATIONAL FALSE IDEAS] and bind them in bundles to burn them, But gather the wheat [IDEAS] into my barn. " (Matt 13;24-39)

The Parable of the Tares Explained

Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, Saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field. " 37 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed [IDEAS] is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world [NOT THE CHURCH], The good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, But the tares are the sons of the wicked one [SATANISTS]. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil [CREATED IN THEM BY YAHWEH GEN 1:1-2), The harvest is the end of the age, And the reapers are the angels [WHEN SOMEOME WANTS TO REPENT AND ENTER HEAVEN TO END TIME AND LIVE MOMENT BY MOMENT IN THE LIGHT TO BE TRANSLATED]. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, So it will be at the end of this age [MOTAT TIME BY TRANSLATION OR THE RESURRECTION]. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels [INNER], And they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, And those [IDEAS] who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth [IT HURT LIKE HELL TO GIVE UP DUMB IDEAS WE LOVE, ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS ONES]. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun [INNER LIGHT] in the kingdom of their Father. He who has [INNER] ears to hear, Let him hear!
Willows
Posts: 11,592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 7:57:44 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
anonthegreat wrote:
Harikrish, My decision to believe in God is emotionally-based because my parents believe in God. From that foundation, I use evidences and facts to JUSTIFY my original decision from the day I was born and have NEVER wavered from. . . . . . . .

What? . . . . . . . . . . You mean that you have used the evidence of what nitwits have told you and the fact that you believe such ludicrous evidence?
anonthegreat
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 8:32:27 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows, Facts, Reason, And evidences you perceive as true justify what you want to believe emotionally. You can resist and deny that truth of how the emotions, Will, And reason works inside you and believe genetics is the cause of everything, But it is only half-true because we are stuck in a mortal frequency of atoms, Not an immortal frequency of a spiritual body the Bible references to be in the future.

Fact: The polls vary, But atheists in the US are 17% to 25% of the population. The stats for the world is only 16%.

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

So atheism is in the far minority. Are you claiming that the majority of people do not know how to reason and make rational adult choices? The facts point to an emotionally biased question you are asking, Don't they?

Fact: Einstein believed in God, But did not like to discuss what he believed, But liked to keep it private to his own heart and soul. Your question implies he made irrational choices.

Maybe you should think through the question and post a better one that more clearly formulates what you are asking everyone to think about. As you think through this question, Consider the possibility everyone is rational. The trouble is the initial emotional beliefs they base their reasoning on contradict the emotionally-based beliefs of others.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 11:22:26 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Since theists cannot use reason or logic to justify the existence of their particular Creator, Is it reasonable and logical to assume that theists tend not to use reason or logic in everyday decision-making?

the fact that you reject other people's reason or logic does not ipso facto prove that your they are not reasonable or logical. It only demonstrates that you and they are coming at it from different presumptions.

Theists are reasonable and logical. Atheists on the other hand are self contradictory. They consistently cannot use logic because logic implies absoluteness. Absoluteness is however rejected by evolution and by post modernism. Hence atheists consistently must reject logic and reason. Thankfully though, Atheists are consistently inconsistent between their philosophy and the way they conduct life in general. This is something we can thank God for. The atheist who is consistent looks like Adolph Hitler or Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Pol Pot. Or Mao. And even they are not perfectly consistent, Thank the Good Lord.
Harikrish
Posts: 28,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 4:45:48 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
anonthegreat wrote:
Harikrish, My decision to believe in God is emotionally-based because my parents believe in God. From that foundation, I use evidences and facts to JUSTIFY my original decision from the day I was born and have NEVER wavered from t. However, My belief in Yahweh has gotten greater and greater as the Logos Word of Reason puts all the pieces together for me. It took 43 years because the paradigms the Satanist moles created IN THE WORLD are so deep and ubiquitous. Read for yourself the spiritual dynamics of the wheat and tares inside us:

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares

Another parable He put forth to them, Saying: "The [INNER] kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed [IDEAS] in his field; 25 but while men slept, His enemy came and sowed tares [IDEAS] among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, Then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, "Sir, Did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares? " 28 He said to them, "An enemy [SATANISTS]has done this. " The servants said to him, "Do you want us then to go and gather them up? " 29 But he said, "No, Lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, And at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers [ANGELS IN OUR SOULS], "First gather together the tares [BAD IRRATIONAL FALSE IDEAS] and bind them in bundles to burn them, But gather the wheat [IDEAS] into my barn. " (Matt 13;24-39)

The Parable of the Tares Explained

Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, Saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field. " 37 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed [IDEAS] is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world [NOT THE CHURCH], The good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, But the tares are the sons of the wicked one [SATANISTS]. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil [CREATED IN THEM BY YAHWEH GEN 1:1-2), The harvest is the end of the age, And the reapers are the angels [WHEN SOMEOME WANTS TO REPENT AND ENTER HEAVEN TO END TIME AND LIVE MOMENT BY MOMENT IN THE LIGHT TO BE TRANSLATED]. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, So it will be at the end of this age [MOTAT TIME BY TRANSLATION OR THE RESURRECTION]. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels [INNER], And they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, And those [IDEAS] who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth [IT HURT LIKE HELL TO GIVE UP DUMB IDEAS WE LOVE, ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS ONES]. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun [INNER LIGHT] in the kingdom of their Father. He who has [INNER] ears to hear, Let him hear!

Jesus was incoherent most of his life. He spoke in parables that no one understood. Even at his trial he failed to convince anyone he was the Christ. He was tried, Convicted and crucified.

Matt 13:34 "All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitude in PARABLES; and without a parable spoke He not unto them. "

Mark 4:34 "But without a PARABLE spoke He not unto them""

John 10:6 "This PARABLE spoke Jesus unto them; but they understood not what things they were which He spoke unto them. "

Many Christians believe that Jesus taught in parables to make His message clear, But that is not biblical. Even His disciples were in the dark and did not understand. Repeatedly, They asked Jesus to explain the parables to them.

You on the other hand internalize what you read. You believe the wheat and tares were sown in your head. The demons, ETs, Satan you are fighting are inside you.

"Internalizing is a symptom of several mental disorders, Including borderline personality disorder (BPD). If you are internalizing, This means you are keeping your feelings or issues inside and do not share your concerns with others.

"If you frequently find yourself internalizing, You may show signs of low self-esteem, Self-harm, And social isolation. Internalizing emotions can make you feel lonely and depressed, Without anyone to relate to. For many, People who internalize for a long time can make the issues larger, Causing you to burst into a tirade or contemplate suicidal actions. "

You are a pathological liar. The bible never made sense to you. You only converted when you were 57-60 years old by your own confession.
You wrote:" It took me 43 years to finally make sense of the Bible.
I spent 40 years getting the correct Biblical paradigms in place, And then I entered the first heaven when I was 57. I did not stand on the sea of glass until I was age 60 about 5 months ago. For example, I know about Paul's writing about God is not the author of confusion but I said God "causes" the confusion. The words author and causes are two different words.
Athias
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2018 5:13:18 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Willows wrote:
Alright, Now we are getting somewhere regarding the ground rules.

So, Now it gets down to my validating the irrationality of theists, Even though I did not make the assertion in the first place. . . I merely posed the question which should give rise to the audience giving their bob's worth of opinions and ideas.

Hold on to this thought.

Willows wrote:
Since theists cannot use reason or logic to justify the existence of their particular Creator, Is it reasonable and logical to assume that theists tend not to use reason or logic in everyday decision-making?

That's the question you posed. You then went on to state:

Willows wrote:
You may not wish to conclude the belief of green flying pigs is not symptomatic of someone going off the deep end but most people would.

Similarly, Someone who believes in anything spiritual is a sandwich short of a picnic.

In each case, It is very telling that believers of such absurdities tend to avoid the reality of their affliction by questioning facts and assertions without ever stating a fact or assertion themselves.

And in this very comment, You state:

Willows wrote:
Since believers in God allow their nutty thoughts to permeate through all facets of their daily life one can reasonably conclude that their everyday decision making will be influenced by such idiocy.

So how "inquisitive" was your question really?

But then, There is always one in every crowd who will never participate in the game but is in his comfort zone just standing on the sidelines making snide observations and trying to pick fault with the participants without ever daring to step over the line and play ball.

You may choose to characterize my observations as "snide, " but it does not make them any less accurate. You take issue with my picking "faults" with participants; then, Stop making them.

Probably (I logically assume) because he is reluctant to show his colours or which side he supports.

I don't support "sides. " I support truth.

Actually, I suspect he would be happy sitting on the fence, But after a while, It must get really painful on the fundamental orifice, Don't you think?

Are you curious about my anus? Perhaps if we were on more friendlier terms, I'd tell you all about it. However, Since this is a debate, I think anuses and fences best be left where they belong--in your head.

One more time, Let me state the following:
The belief in any supernatural presence is purely speculative. There is not one single iota of evidence to confirm such. No anecdotal account of supernatural beings has ever been verified and the fact that millions of naive, Gullible nitwits have believed so for centuries gives not one ounce of credence to such nuttiness.

Therefore, Anyone who believes there is a God or any other oogidy boogidy thing out there somewhere is off his or her rocker. And, Trying to make out that spiritual thingies belong to some sort of exclusive domain, Privy to those who have faith is even more ludicrous.

And your reasoning as has been demonstrated to you a few times is illogical. But now you've combined two fallacies: argumentum ad ignorantium and argumentum ad lapidem. In other words, Your premise and your conclusion do not connect logically. You've insinuated yourself to be governed by logic and reason but you've not used it once in this debate. You've been logically inconsistent in fact. (And now that's three times, I've demonstrated that you're capable of illogical thought. )

The existence of God is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument.

Which rational argument contradicts the existence of God? If you're referencing your argument above, Or any past argument you've made in this thread, Then I'm sorry to disappoint you: they're not rational. Rational arguments are logically consistent; your arguments have yet to demonstrate a capacity for logical consistency. Here's your opportunity. Provide a logically consistent (rational) argument against the existence of God? (And arguing lack of evidence proves he doesn't exist doesn't suffice. )

Since believers in God allow their nutty thoughts to permeate through all facets of their daily life one can reasonably conclude that their everyday decision making will be influenced by such idiocy.

You've made illogical arguments three times in this thread alone. Would it be reasonable to assume that your everyday decision making has been influenced by this irrationality?

Now, Do share with us, If you dare, What your valued opinion on the subject happens to be.

I have. You've just been more preoccupied with the God Does Not Exist argument. Here, Let me remind you of that which I've already stated:

Athias wrote:
The question in itself is illogical since it presumes the analysis of decisions is intrinsically personal rather than consequential. And the presumption that belief in the existence of a "particular creator" is illogical is an unsubstantiated assertortic argument. There's a logic to God's existence; whether you subscribe to it is your personal issue.

Athias wrote:
The argument operates on the non sequitur: the meaning of decision making. I specifically stated "analysis of decisions. " The former is personal; the latter is consequential. Your argument is premised on the attempt to negatively correlate the logic in spirituality and the logic in rational utility. When analyzing a decision, One starts with the goal and the action. How the action produces or does not produce the goal determines its logic. Production comes after the fact, Or in the other words, Production is the consequence of the a goal-oriented action. Essentially, the nature of the decision is determined by the ends--good decisions produce good utility, Bad decisions produce bad utility; therefore, The logic of a decision is determined by its consequence.

You're attempting to associate (more like project) your misconception about spirituality to rational decision making. That's the reason I stated it's a "you problem. " And this thread is just a roundabout way of labeling theists fundamentally irrational.

And when you sniffed my question about the falsehood of God, You harped upon that tangent of the argument, Where I pointed out technicalities like logical inconsistency. Did I leave anything out?

If your position is capable of being defended, Then you should take no issue defending it. If my arguments inquiring into your logical consistency leave the impression of insult or vexation, Then your problem isn't with me; It's with logic.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.