Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn reality, you simply fell back to not having any good evidence that Santa does exist. You have no more reason to believe that he does not exist than we do that God does not exist.
yes Santa was a mistake and i remembered that i had a rational basis for his non existence, but you need not get offended, relax, its ok, but i would prefer if the argument did not get personal, its not about me or my beliefs, its about theism and atheism and the claims that they make and i would be pleased if it stayed that way. You may search the forums far and wide if you like.
The fact that you caught your parents sneaking presents under the tree simply means that on that occasion those presents were not delivered by Santa.
Maybe you were just on his naughty list.
--- Penguin.
3 edits
Originally posted by PenguinIf I look at the observable universe and discern harmony and design am I not entitled to make inferences from that with regard to what may have been behind such harmony and design? If I hold that as a personal belief as some kind of evidence for the existence of a designer will you tell me that its not? what evidence will you use to dissuade me? that harmony does not exist? hardly, that complex process is not evidence of design? that function is not beautiful? really? Will you resort to attempting to tell me that your view of the universe is superior to my personal beliefs? On what basis will you proffer up evidence? That i dont know what beauty or harmony is? This is the folly of the atheist ( or theist) determined to attempt to state personal belief as empirical fact and its arrogant.
In reality, you simply fell back to not having any good evidence that Santa does exist. You have no more reason to believe that he does not exist than we do that God does not exist.
The fact that you caught your parents sneaking presents under the tree simply means that on that occasion those presents were not delivered by Santa.
Maybe you were just on his naughty list.
--- Penguin.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou only see design because you are closed-minded and ignorant and are too scared to read books which explain how these process occur.
If I look at the observable universe and discern harmony and design am I not entitled to make inferences from that with regard to what may have been behind such harmony and design? If I hold that as a personal belief as some kind of evidence for the existence of a designer will you tell me that its not? what evidence will you use to dissuade me? t ...[text shortened]... ( or theist) determined to attempt to state personal belief as empirical fact and its arrogant.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiemost of the words you use are emotive. you find the universe beautiful, i find the universe beautiful but that means diddly squat when looking for evidence. beauty is not proof,
If I look at the observable universe and discern harmony and design am I not entitled to make inferences from that with regard to what may have been behind such harmony and design? If I hold that as a personal belief as some kind of evidence for the existence of a designer will you tell me that its not? what evidence will you use to dissuade me? t ...[text shortened]... ( or theist) determined to attempt to state personal belief as empirical fact and its arrogant.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFor me, you would have to define what you mean by 'God'. The literal fundamentalist God of the Bible which you believe in, I would say quite categorically does not exist. I base that on an evaluation of the evidence.
It depends on what form your atheism takes, you may very well be guilty of both, then again, you might not. Are you claiming the belief that God does not exist or are you claiming that in actuality, there is no God?
1. The universe was not produced according to the Genesis account.
2. The literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is not borne out by the evidence.
3. The Flood story. See above.
4. The time frame for which you believe humans have existed is not possible.
So on those four quick points i dismiss the notion that the God you believe in exists.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll I can say is WOW! What a mess of an article. Wouldn't know where to begin....
A popular argument among philosophers and pseudo-philosophers is the existence or nonexistence of God. Even though many philosophers have long pointed out the futility of having the debate, in certain circles it rages on. A circle is the proper analogy for that debate, because it has neither beginning nor end and never gets beyond itself.
Standing ...[text shortened]... f free of any attempt to coerce or condemn different beliefs.
http://philosophyotb.com/w/?p=5
I'm sure we're all a bit dumber for your having brought it to our attention. So, thanks robbie.
4 edits
I'm a little late to the thread, but still...
I wonder, is it also arrogant to boldly assert that Sherlock Holmes, or Captain James T. Kirk, or Dumbledore, etc. are fictional characters?
It's not just a question of evidence for or against their existence. It's that I know human beings like to invent and tell stories, and I have evidence that these people are the products of the imagination of Conan Doyle, Roddenberry, Rowling, etc. who are, or were, real.
So why is it suddenly arrogant to assert the same of the fictional character God / YHWH? (And don't forget that there are plenty of obviously fictional deities in literature...)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can state that given my present level of knowledge I do not believe in the existence of a god,however should compelling evidence arise to the contrary ,I would change that view. As I understand it,a religious person cannot take this position,because it would introduce an element of doubt into their belief system.Therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest religion brings about a restriction on the thinking process.
It certainly easy for the theist to answer quite the contrary that those who deny place for the existence of the supernatural have limited their quest for truth to unintelligent agencies, and which is more limiting? Never the less attacking the weaknesses of the other side, as is pointed out, is a logical fallacy, for it does nothing to provide evidence for our own position, it merely seeks to negate that of the opposing view.
Originally posted by Proper Knobad hominem, attempting to substantiate your claims on the basis of an attack on the person proposing the argument.
You only see design because you are closed-minded and ignorant and are too scared to read books which explain how these process occur.
Originally posted by Proper Knobagain seeking to point out weaknesses in the case of theism is a logical fallacy, for it fails to provide any evidence for your own case.
For me, you would have to define what you mean by 'God'. The literal fundamentalist God of the Bible which you believe in, I would say quite categorically does not exist. I base that on an evaluation of the evidence.
1. The universe was not produced according to the Genesis account.
2. The literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is not borne ...[text shortened]... ble.
So on those four quick points i dismiss the notion that the God you believe in exists.
Originally posted by SwissGambitbecause you are assuming that God is fictional, its an assumption and without substantiating evidence to support the premise, its arrogance.
I'm a little late to the thread, but still...
I wonder, is it also arrogant to boldly assert that Sherlock Holmes, or Captain James T. Kirk, or Dumbledore, etc. are fictional characters?
It's not just a question of evidence for or against their existence. It's that I know human beings like to invent and tell stories, and I have evidence that these ...[text shortened]... WH? (And don't forget that there are plenty of obviously fictional deities in literature...)
Originally posted by OdBodagain this is a logical fallacy, pointing out the deficiencies of theism is not providing any evidence for your own claims, that being, that God does not exist.
I can state that given my present level of knowledge I do not believe in the existence of a god,however should compelling evidence arise to the contrary ,I would change that view. As I understand it,a religious person cannot take this position,because it would introduce an element of doubt into their belief system.Therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest religion brings about a restriction on the thinking process.