3 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhat excuses have you made, lets see,
I read your waffle sir, where is your substance?
I harbour a non believe of pink elephants. Does that make it a religion? 🙄
And what excuses have I made? My values have nothing to do with your God or my perceived rejection of your God, a God I see no rational evidence for. If you have any rational evidence, bring it on! If not, get off my doorstep.
1. The onus is not on me because I am a manchild and don't need to have evidence for my beliefs or non beliefs???
2. I don't have to prove the non existence of something I just need to believe it doesn't exist???
3. Because I see no rational evidence means that God doesn't exist???
need I go on or shall you admit your stance is pure religious fruitcake?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAhh, but therein lies the rub.
Ok, fair play. Let's pretend it was a painting of the eiffel tower or the Niagara falls would you say that could be formed by rust, mold and happenstance?
We are of course in Paley's Watchmaker Argument territory or a teleological argument...
You walk along a beach and see a watch lying on the ground and from examining it you determine that
it's complexity and intricacy implies and requires a designer...
Except that you know watches are designed be people, they are man made things, and that
watch stands out on the beach because it is a designed man made thing surrounded by natural
non-man-made [or designed] things.
A painting requires a painter [human, robot, or other] and that is implied in the very word... painting,
which is both a descriptor of an object and the action of creating it.
A picture or an image on the other-hand may or may not have any intelligent creator.
The beautiful fern patterns on a frosty window were created by nothing but the laws of physics playing out
with no intelligent intervention at all.
The way we can tell that these things [watches, paintings, cars, coca-cola cans] are non-natural designed
objects is that A) we have lots of evidence that these things are designed and built [by us] and B) by contrasting
those designed items with the natural UN-Designed world around us.
But according to the Intelligent Design [hypothesis] EVERYTHING is designed... So the designed watch is lying
on designed sand next to designed plants on a designed beach by a designed sea... At which point there is
no contrast and the watch doesn't stand out. The fact that it does is because of the contrast that exists between
that which is intelligently designed and that which came about via natural processes [such as evolution].
A painting has a painter, a creation a creator... But simply calling the universe a creation is begging the question and
assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove... It's simple word play and nothing more.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes because that's a totally accurate description of his position... not.
What excuses have you made, lets see,
1. The onus is not on me because I am a manchild and don't need to have evidence for my beliefs or non beliefs???
2. I don't have to prove the non existence of something I just need to believe it doesn't exist???
3. Because I see no rational evidence means that God doesn't exist???
need I go on or shall you admit your stance is pure religious fruitcake?
The neutral position on any truth claim is lack of belief until presented with evidence sufficient to justify
belief one way or another. There is no evidence for the existence of gods, and thus no justification for
belief in their existence. Therefore the rational position is not to believe in their existence.
You are the one claiming that a god exists, and thus it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence to
justify that claim. You have not done so [nor has any theist of any denomination any-time ever in history]
and thus it is not rational to accept your claim and indeed required by rationality to not believe your claim.
need I go on or shall you admit your stance is pure religious fruitcake?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence". Different religions may contain various elements, ranging from "the belief in spiritual beings", the "divine", "sacred things", "faith", a "supernatural being or supernatural beings" such as angels, or "...some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life."
His position [right or wrong] does not come even remotely close to the definition of a religion.
All world views are not necessarily religious just because yours is.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow, by offering up large quantities of false arguments to practice on? You'll have to step it up a bit as your usual fare is to easy and he won't learn anything worthwhile debunking it.
LOL thats funny, send your boy along and I shall give him a lesson in logic, deductive reasoning and how to subject a premise to falsification.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkLike Thor's hammer, it can only be wielded by a select few.
Strange that TWhitehead would say sarcasm doesn't work well on these forums.
Do you by the way believe in Thor or can you logically disprove his existence? (And are you defined by your rejection of Thor, if you do indeed reject him?)
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeEvidently there is ample evidence for you to believe in Thor and his hammer. No tharcathm intended there, tho thorry.
Like Thor's hammer, it can only be wielded by a select few.
Do you by the way believe in Thor or can you logically disprove his existence? (And are you defined by your rejection of Thor, if you do indeed reject him?)
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAtheism does require an opinion on the subject of theism.
Atheism does not require an opinion on the subject of theism. A theist just wants an atheist to have an opinion on the subject of theism....Why is that?[/b]
From All About Philosophy
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm
Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man.
Atheism is a belief. Strong atheism is the belief that theism is wrong. Weak atheism is belief that theism is unconvincing. Agnosticism, btw, is the belief that the truth (or lack of truth) of theism is unknowable by us.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
2 edits
Originally posted by apathist
Atheism does require an opinion on the subject of theism.
From All About Philosophy
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm
[quote]Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the ...[text shortened]... Agnosticism, btw, is the belief that the truth (or lack of truth) of theism is unknowable by us.
Atheism is a belief
NO! it is not.
How many bloody times do we have to go through this nonsense?
Did you not read any of my posts? [or my bio]
EVERY SINGLE MAJOR ATHEIST ORGANISATION DEFINES ATHEISM SIMPLY AS LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS.
Period. End of story.
No poncey philosophers get to tell us what atheism is. [EDIT: turns out they were not philosophers, but Christians pretending]
A theist is a person that believes in the existence of a god or gods.
An atheist is a person who is not a theist and thus simply lacks a belief in the existence of any gods.
An agnostic is a person who claims not to know or that it cannot be known if a god or gods exist or not, and can be either a
theist or an atheist. They do not occupy a middle position between theist and atheist because there is NO middle position.
The labels atheist and theist are exhaustive and exclusive.
This is necessarily the case because atheist literally means ~theist. And anyone with pretensions to philosophy should
understand that.
Theism and atheism are about the question "do you believe a god exists?"
Gnosticism and agnosticism are about the separate question "do you claim to KNOW that a god exists? [or if it can be known]"
The range of options goes thus.
Gnostic theist: A person who claims to know that a god or gods exist.
Agnostic theist: A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods but doesn't claim to know that that god or gods
exist or that it's impossible to know if that god or gods exist.
Agnostic weak atheist: A person who lacks belief in the existence of gods and claims not to know if gods exist or that it
cannot be known if gods exist. [this includes people who haven't heard of the concept of gods or are otherwise incapable
of understanding the concept. e.g. babies]
Agnostic strong atheist: A person who believes in the lack of existence of a god or gods but claims not to know if gods exist
or that it cannot be known if gods exist.
Gnostic atheist: A person who claims to know that a god or gods do not exist.
Agnostic weak atheist... or simply atheist, IS the default position as it is the lack of belief one way or the other.
And requires no beliefs of any kind.
EDIT: From earlier in this thread... my post, page 10, 3rd one down.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/why-are-you-are-an-atheist.168681/page-10
http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/10/10/8419/
http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
Dictionaries, don't 'dictate' the meaning of words, they are records of what the words are being used to mean.
As usage changes, so the possible meanings are changed or added to.
Dictionaries have also for a long time been written by theists, Christians in the case of english language dictionaries
and when it comes to atheism and atheists those writers were biased.
Which is why dictionaries often to this day still refer to atheism as disbelief in the existence of "God" with a capital G
as if atheism was only about whether or not you believe in the Christian god.
It's easier to argue against that straw man definition of atheism because it declares that all atheists must believe that
gods don't exist and thus gives atheism a burden of proof that it does not in reality actually have. Which is why many
theists still try to insist on telling us atheists what we do or do not believe and playing word games with the definitions.
You're done.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by apathistOh goody... Lets see where you got your 'definition' from...
Atheism does require an opinion on the subject of theism.
From All About Philosophy
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm
[quote]Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the ...[text shortened]... Agnosticism, btw, is the belief that the truth (or lack of truth) of theism is unknowable by us.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/common/aboutus.htm
ABOUT US
We believe the pursuit of truth is the highest calling of humanity. We are a collection of people who have wandered many paths, but all discovered that same truth. We are passionate about sparking authentic life journeys and sharing compelling content with skeptics, seekers, believers, and a hurting world.
We seek to be non-threatening, practical, and informative, using the technology of the Internet to pose tough questions and seek candid answers about God, Creation, Life, Humanity, Thought, History, and Truth.
Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys.
This information is offered by AllAboutGOD.com, which is structured as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. If you would like to support our efforts, you can make a tax-deductible contribution here. Thanks!
What was I saying about Christians and other theists making up straw man definitions because it makes fighting atheists easier for them?
Game set match you moron.