A Thought for Atheists

[InDoctriNation]

Damn.

Science has evidence that dark matter and dark energy exists. There is not a single scientists anywhere that can tell you what either of these things are because they are terms coined to name an observed phenomena. There is not enough matter in the universe to hold it together, yet it is not falling apart. Something is doing it, why not call it dark matter? Established theory and proven observation has proven how much energy is being emitted by all the source of energy there are in the universe. We know exactly what that energy will add up to, and can measure it. Another problem, there is more energy out there than we can account for. A lot more. Dark energy.

You are holding me to a standard that is higher than the standard that science imposes on itself. Me being honest and admitting I do not understand something is proof that I am approaching this rationally, and examining the evidence.

Most of the evidence is, as you said, subjective. That does not, however, make it invalid. It does, however, make it harder to objectify, which is why I rarely try.

You seem to be saying you have very little understanding of what god is, yet you think a specific event like you mentioned is evidence of god. I'm not understanding the connection. Using the dark matter example, scientists look at what we know of the universe and say, "This doesn't make sense, there should be more matter" and so come up with the term dark matter, is that a reasonable if extremely simplistic version of events as you described? If so, would the Christmas cease-fire be evidence in a similar fashion, i.e. - "People aren't able to put aside their differences, especially in the middle of such violence, there must be some reason for it. Let's call it god."?

I was going to say more but suddenly I find myself getting ready to take a small trip, so I'll just end here for now.

I see your problem, and it actually makes sense. My faith is based on numerous events over my entire life, some things that happened to other people I know, a study of the historical evidence, and looking at as much of the universe I can see. I consider the Christmas Truth to be evidence of God, bit, by itself, it is not enough to convince me, or anyone else. I know that, so have no problem with people who say it is not enough. I know they are willing to admit that there might be evidence of God, and I can encourage them to look around. I even encourage them to ask God for help, because God is seemingly willing to help people find Him.

I do, however, see it as a test of how open people are to discussing the evidence of God. Anyone who rejects it out of hand has already made up their mind that there is no evidence that God exists. Not much use talking to them, as I have no proof, whatever that is, that God is real.

None of that means I can actually define him, and I am not arrogant enough to try.

But you have finally started to define God in a way, with the bolded statement you made above. You claim that God is aware of people on this planet as he is willing to help people find him. This goes a long way in defining your version of God, as your statements indicate that God is conscious and interested in the lives of humans. He is a personal God who listens to and responds to prayers. Is this correct, or would you like to retract your statement and have your version of God remain nebulous and easily defendable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You seem to be saying you have very little understanding of what god is, yet you think a specific event like you mentioned is evidence of god. I'm not understanding the connection. Using the dark matter example, scientists look at what we know of the universe and say, "This doesn't make sense, there should be more matter" and so come up with the term dark matter, is that a reasonable if extremely simplistic version of events as you described? If so, would the Christmas cease-fire be evidence in a similar fashion, i.e. - "People aren't able to put aside their differences, especially in the middle of such violence, there must be some reason for it. Let's call it god."?

I was going to say more but suddenly I find myself getting ready to take a small trip, so I'll just end here for now.

I see your problem, and it actually makes sense. My faith is based on numerous events over my entire life, some things that happened to other people I know, a study of the historical evidence, and looking at as much of the universe I can see. I consider the Christmas Truth to be evidence of God, bit, by itself, it is not enough to convince me, or anyone else. I know that, so have no problem with people who say it is not enough. I know they are willing to admit that there might be evidence of God, and I can encourage them to look around. I even encourage them to ask God for help, because God is seemingly willing to help people find Him.

I do, however, see it as a test of how open people are to discussing the evidence of God. Anyone who rejects it out of hand has already made up their mind that there is no evidence that God exists. Not much use talking to them, as I have no proof, whatever that is, that God is real.

None of that means I can actually define him, and I am not arrogant enough to try.

But you have finally started to define God in a way, with the bolded statement you made above. You claim that God is aware of people on this planet as he is willing to help people find him. This goes a long way in defining your version of God, as your statements indicate that God is conscious and interested in the lives of humans. He is a personal God who listens to and responds to prayers. Is this correct, or would you like to retract your statement and have your version of God remain nebulous and easily defendable?

I think you are confusing my impression of how to find God with me defining Him. If I told you cars are sometimes parked in driveways you would not have any idea what a car is, but you would know where to look for them.

I said seems because my experience is that, when someone asks God for help in finding Him, he seems to respond. That could because He is what you described, or it could be that doing so taps into a code hidden in our brain that unlocks a previously hidden sense. I do not know, and have no way to test either position.

 

[LOki]

Sigh.

Can you show me where I am bagging for approval?

You believe I said you're "begging for approval"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "begging for approval." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

You believe I said you're "demanding that believe in God"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "demanding that believe in God." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

I am saying that you said this:Your belief that God exists is unfounded in evidence; it is faith. You are demanding that your faith is valid evidence--it is not.

You say you test your faith against valid evidence, and your stoic denial of valid evidence is the measure of the validity of your "evidence"--i.e. your faith.

Your belief in God is not even a working hypothesis. You provided a link to a definition of the notion; you should really give it a good read.

The only acceptable "evidence" for the faithful is faith. Which is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I am saying you're question-begging, and the evidence is verifiable.

And your denial of that evidence will just strengthen your faith that I'm wrong.

The problem here is not that I am being disingenuous, it is that you are being close minded. Why else resort to strawman arguments?

You believe I am making strawman arguments; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not do this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I made strawman arguments. Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

It is disingenuous. It is intellectually invalid. Your position from faith is closed-minded. The evidence of that closed-mindedness is made manifest by the means by which faith is validated--by the stoic denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Your denial of the verifiable evidence will strengthen your faith that I am wrong.

So you can't have belief founded in fact?

Interesting viewpoint. Incorrect of course but interesting you should say that.

What?

Do you want to reconsider this retarded accusation?

 

[Marie888]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this? Do you think most atheists assuage the problem or fan those flames of distrust and hatred?

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear. Let's say it's love. So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "Love is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in love?
What if posts from the anti-lovers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group? I think many atheists have exacerbated the problem they complain about.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what? So does atheism. Do children pray in school anymore? Nope. Federal policy. how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles arond the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet. It goes both ways.
So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?
Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith? They whine about people not liking them, and then go out of their way to attack something they know is important to others. That's like spitting on people, telling them they're idiots... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!".

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right? Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Just a thought.

1.) Most describe me as an atheist, I'm not persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or hated.
2.) If someone thinks being an atheist is a stupid thing to be, so be it, I think religions are stupid, and the ppl I love most in the world belong to a religion.
3.) Belief a god(s) or no belief in any god isn't kept completley private, by either side, nor should it be.
4.) Atheists are constantly attacked by religious people, being labeled as hellbound heathens essentially, and atheists attack religious views, so this happens on both sides. However saying you know someone is going to sent to hell for all eternity and face infinite torture is the worse insult and attack I think any human can provide.


Lots of silly generalizations and victim talk in there.

I don't understand your post #4. If someone is an Atheist, how does it offend them about going to hell for eternity? Because if an Atheist claims they know there isn't a God, then what anything else someone says about them being in hell for eternity, would be null and void...wouldn't it? Write us off as crazy lunies?

Do you know what I mean? It's like if someone says to me, I believe that aliens are gonna come into your home tonight and abduct you. And I don't believe it. How could it "offend" or "insult" me? Rather I'd just ignore that person, or not listen to them.

Or are you talking about Agnostics? Those who do not know if there is a God or not?
Perhaps rather you are Agnostic "atheist"?


What is the difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist


.

.

 

[LOki]

Actually, begging the question is the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly, or explicitly, in the premise.

Right. Such proposition is the assertion that your belief in the existence of God is evidence of the existence of God.

Since I am not building a logical argument to prove that God exists, ...

Correct. You are not building a logical argument. That it is not logical us abundantly clear as i have pointed out, but you ARE making an argument. You said:

My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Of course your denial of the evidence that you're building a (logically and intellectually invalid) argument will be the measure of your faith in the assertion you aren't, but that is the intellectually fatal symptom of your illness.

I do not have a premise, ...

According to you, you most certainly do: Your premise = God exists. At least that's what you're claiming as you "examine all the evidence available, test it against [your] faith, and see what happens."

You will, of course, deny this evidence too.

... and am not supporting it with propositions, so I am not begging anything.

You are supporting your faith-based proposition with denials of the evidence, and denials of valid logic. Just as I have been telling you.

Feel free to totally reject my belief, and my statements.

I am accepting them for what they objectively are ... baseless in fact of evidence, denials of verifiable reality, and logical fallacies.

My ability to present evidence to support my statements is not predicated on anything.

Ok, but the "evidence" you claim supports your statements regarding the existence of God have been nothing but statements of your faith that God exists ... so your "evidence" is predicated upon belief that god exists.

Of course, this evidence too will also be denied.

You, on the other hand, have a premise that is built on the proposition that no evidence of God exists because faith is not based on evidence.

None of this is the least bit true.

I do not propose that no evidence of God exists. I have not brought this proposition. I am just making the (entirely open to refutation) assertion that evidence supporting the assertion of God's existence is currently absent. And as far as faith not being based on evidence is concerned--the lack of basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, its denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic being its validating principle--well, that's what faith unambiguously is.

Does that clear up your confusion about who is begging the question?

I wasn't confused in the first place, and secondly ... you're still applying the typical faith-based question-begging appeal to faith required by those who insist that there is evidence of God's existence.

But feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong: just produce this "evidence" you have that does not require that I first accept the existence of God to believe what you are presenting is evidence of the existence of God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, begging the question is the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly, or explicitly, in the premise.

Right. Such proposition is the assertion that your belief in the existence of God is evidence of the existence of God.

Since I am not building a logical argument to prove that God exists, ...

Correct. You are not building a logical argument. That it is not logical us abundantly clear as i have pointed out, but you ARE making an argument. You said:Of course your denial of the evidence that you're building a (logically and intellectually invalid) argument will be the measure of your faith in the assertion you aren't, but that is the intellectually fatal symptom of your illness.

According to you, you most certainly do: Your premise = God exists. At least that's what you're claiming as you "examine all the evidence available, test it against [your] faith, and see what happens."

You will, of course, deny this evidence too.

You are supporting your faith-based proposition with denials of the evidence, and denials of valid logic. Just as I have been telling you.

I am accepting them for what they objectively are ... baseless in fact of evidence, denials of verifiable reality, and logical fallacies.

Ok, but the "evidence" you claim supports your statements regarding the existence of God have been nothing but statements of your faith that God exists ... so your "evidence" is predicated upon belief that god exists.

Of course, this evidence too will also be denied.

You, on the other hand, have a premise that is built on the proposition that no evidence of God exists because faith is not based on evidence.

None of this is the least bit true.

I do not propose that no evidence of God exists. I have not brought this proposition. I am just making the (entirely open to refutation) assertion that evidence supporting the assertion of God's existence is currently absent. And as far as faith not being based on evidence is concerned--the lack of basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, its denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic being its validating principle--well, that's what faith unambiguously is.

Does that clear up your confusion about who is begging the question?

I wasn't confused in the first place, and secondly ... you're still applying the typical faith-based question-begging appeal to faith required by those who insist that there is evidence of God's existence.

But feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong: just produce this "evidence" you have that does not require that I first accept the existence of God to believe what you are presenting is evidence of the existence of God.

Wow, you really are confused.

Logic is a tool used for reasoning, it is not evidence. You have attempted to refute my position by arguing that my logic is flawed, even though I am not using it. Then, when I point out the fact that I am not using it, you insist my evidence is not logic.

No shit Sherlock. Are you going to point out that the sun is hot next?

I have no premise, I have no propositions, I am not making an argument. I am stating that I believe God exists. End of discussion.

 

[Jackson]

Why is there a Herman Cain wikipedia - End of America tag line at the end of this thread?

 

[LOki]

Wow, you really are confused.

Not at all.

But let's just see who is confused here ...

Logic is a tool used for reasoning, it is not evidence.

You are certainly confused if you think I said otherwise.

You have attempted to refute my position by arguing that my logic is flawed, even though I am not using it.

You are confused. Although the logic you are using has no informative or argumentative value--it is equivalent to using no logic--you ARE applying logic, it's flawed logic and you correctly state I am identifiying it as such.

Then, when I point out the fact that I am not using it, you insist my evidence is not logic.

No shit Sherlock. Are you going to point out that the sun is hot next?

You are confused. I did not make the (valid) assertion that your evidence is not logic.

I am pointing out that your evidence is invalid. It is invalid because, in order to validate it you are required to accept its validiy as a (the?) premise of the argument whose conclusion asserts that your evidence is valid.

It's a question-begging argument, and you are confused Sherlock, if you think you're not trying to make it.

I have no premise, I have no propositions, I am not making an argument. I am stating that I believe God exists. End of discussion.

Really? You're definitely confused.

I am simply saying that I believe in God, and that there is evidence to support that belief.

See? You're confused.

You are a making an argument regarding the validity of your "evidence," and the complaint you level at those who question the validity of your "evidence" is:

Requiring verification, whatever you think that means, is a way to reject any evidence anyone presents.

You seem to be in denial that the validity of the evidence you have regarding the existence of God should have some bearing upon the validity of your assertion regarding the existence of God. It's not surprising--considering the nature of faith--that you hold this position.

Yet you cling to the intellectual validity of your argument by laying out this indicting (and argumentative BTW) admission:

I know of no single piece of evidence that exist that proves God is real, what proves it is everything I know about the subject.

That makes it a working hypothesis, aka science.

This is just a fatuous denial of reality, as is your assertion regarding evidence of God's existence.

And its patently invalid nature is made manifest in this complaint of yours:

I am then pointing out to specific posters that their insistence on being given verifiable evidence that God actually exists is holding me to a standard that they do not hold themselves, or even science, to.

Christ! You have this so wrong, you actually have it entirely BACKWARDS!

Your assertion is actually being held to the precise standard they hold themselves to, and that which the scientific community holds itself to. Yet you would never accept on faith an assertion from faith that God does not exist to be sufficiently valid to change your certainty that God exists.

You wouldn't, and you know it. You are in fact holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow, you really are confused.

Not at all.

But let's just see who is confused here ...

Logic is a tool used for reasoning, it is not evidence.

You are certainly confused if you think I said otherwise.

You are confused. Although the logic you are using has no informative or argumentative value--it is equivalent to using no logic--you ARE applying logic, it's flawed logic and you correctly state I am identifiying it as such.

You are confused. I did not make the (valid) assertion that your evidence is not logic.

I am pointing out that your evidence is invalid. It is invalid because, in order to validate it you are required to accept its validiy as a (the?) premise of the argument whose conclusion asserts that your evidence is valid.

It's a question-begging argument, and you are confused Sherlock, if you think you're not trying to make it.

Really? You're definitely confused.See? You're confused.

You are a making an argument regarding the validity of your "evidence," and the complaint you level at those who question the validity of your "evidence" is:You seem to be in denial that the validity of the evidence you have regarding the existence of God should have some bearing upon the validity of your assertion regarding the existence of God. It's not surprising--considering the nature of faith--that you hold this position.

Yet you cling to the intellectual validity of your argument by laying out this indicting (and argumentative BTW) admission:

I know of no single piece of evidence that exist that proves God is real, what proves it is everything I know about the subject.

That makes it a working hypothesis, aka science.

This is just a fatuous denial of reality, as is your assertion regarding evidence of God's existence.

And its patently invalid nature is made manifest in this complaint of yours:

I am then pointing out to specific posters that their insistence on being given verifiable evidence that God actually exists is holding me to a standard that they do not hold themselves, or even science, to.

Christ! You have this so wrong, you actually have it entirely BACKWARDS!

Your assertion is actually being held to the precise standard they hold themselves to, and that which the scientific community holds itself to. Yet you would never accept on faith an assertion from faith that God does not exist to be sufficiently valid to change your certainty that God exists.

You wouldn't, and you know it. You are in fact holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself.

Once again, I am not making an argument. I am making two separate statements.

1. I believe there is a God.
2. There is evidence that God exists.

I have no requirement that you accept either of these statements, and the only reason they are linked in an argument is you are linking them and they share a common theme.

If you were not so insistent about proving statement 1 wrong you might be able to address statement 2 in a reasonable manner. Instead, you insist on linking them, and have invented my argument in support of 1, which never existed, to disprove 2.

 

[LOki]

Wow, you really are confused.

Not at all.

But let's just see who is confused here ...

You are certainly confused if you think I said otherwise.

You are confused. Although the logic you are using has no informative or argumentative value--it is equivalent to using no logic--you ARE applying logic, it's flawed logic and you correctly state I am identifiying it as such.

You are confused. I did not make the (valid) assertion that your evidence is not logic.

I am pointing out that your evidence is invalid. It is invalid because, in order to validate it you are required to accept its validiy as a (the?) premise of the argument whose conclusion asserts that your evidence is valid.

It's a question-begging argument, and you are confused Sherlock, if you think you're not trying to make it.

Really? You're definitely confused.See? You're confused.

You are a making an argument regarding the validity of your "evidence," and the complaint you level at those who question the validity of your "evidence" is:You seem to be in denial that the validity of the evidence you have regarding the existence of God should have some bearing upon the validity of your assertion regarding the existence of God. It's not surprising--considering the nature of faith--that you hold this position.

Yet you cling to the intellectual validity of your argument by laying out this indicting (and argumentative BTW) admission:This is just a fatuous denial of reality, as is your assertion regarding evidence of God's existence.

And its patently invalid nature is made manifest in this complaint of yours:

I am then pointing out to specific posters that their insistence on being given verifiable evidence that God actually exists is holding me to a standard that they do not hold themselves, or even science, to.

Christ! You have this so wrong, you actually have it entirely BACKWARDS!

Your assertion is actually being held to the precise standard they hold themselves to, and that which the scientific community holds itself to. Yet you would never accept on faith an assertion from faith that God does not exist to be sufficiently valid to change your certainty that God exists.

You wouldn't, and you know it. You are in fact holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself.

Once again, I am not making an argument. I am making two separate statements.

1. I believe there is a God.
2. There is evidence that God exists.

I have no requirement that you accept either of these statements, and the only reason they are linked in an argument is you are linking them and they share a common theme.

If you were not so insistent about proving statement 1 wrong you might be able to address statement 2 in a reasonable manner. Instead, you insist on linking them, and have invented my argument in support of 1, which never existed, to disprove 2.

You are confused.

I have not been trying to prove your statement 1 wrong. I have fully accepted that you take God's existence on faith, and I have no need to prove faith-based beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence or valid logic, or that such beliefs are validated by denials of verifiable evidence or valid logic. I have been consistent in this, and have made no argument or assertion to invalidate your position on this topic. NONE.

You are, however making arguments regarding statement 2, and I have quoted them directly to provide with reference points in the objective and verifiable reality you are denying about it. You are making arguments regarding the validity of your "evidence" and the relationship that being verifiable and or verifiable has on its validity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not at all.

But let's just see who is confused here ...

You are certainly confused if you think I said otherwise.

You are confused. Although the logic you are using has no informative or argumentative value--it is equivalent to using no logic--you ARE applying logic, it's flawed logic and you correctly state I am identifiying it as such.

You are confused. I did not make the (valid) assertion that your evidence is not logic.

I am pointing out that your evidence is invalid. It is invalid because, in order to validate it you are required to accept its validiy as a (the?) premise of the argument whose conclusion asserts that your evidence is valid.

It's a question-begging argument, and you are confused Sherlock, if you think you're not trying to make it.

Really? You're definitely confused.See? You're confused.

You are a making an argument regarding the validity of your "evidence," and the complaint you level at those who question the validity of your "evidence" is:You seem to be in denial that the validity of the evidence you have regarding the existence of God should have some bearing upon the validity of your assertion regarding the existence of God. It's not surprising--considering the nature of faith--that you hold this position.

Yet you cling to the intellectual validity of your argument by laying out this indicting (and argumentative BTW) admission:This is just a fatuous denial of reality, as is your assertion regarding evidence of God's existence.

And its patently invalid nature is made manifest in this complaint of yours:Christ! You have this so wrong, you actually have it entirely BACKWARDS!

Your assertion is actually being held to the precise standard they hold themselves to, and that which the scientific community holds itself to. Yet you would never accept on faith an assertion from faith that God does not exist to be sufficiently valid to change your certainty that God exists.

You wouldn't, and you know it. You are in fact holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself.

Once again, I am not making an argument. I am making two separate statements.

1. I believe there is a God.
2. There is evidence that God exists.

I have no requirement that you accept either of these statements, and the only reason they are linked in an argument is you are linking them and they share a common theme.

If you were not so insistent about proving statement 1 wrong you might be able to address statement 2 in a reasonable manner. Instead, you insist on linking them, and have invented my argument in support of 1, which never existed, to disprove 2.

You are confused.

I have not been trying to prove your statement 1 wrong. I have fully accepted that you take God's existence on faith, and I have no need to prove faith-based beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence or valid logic, or that such beliefs are validated by denials of verifiable evidence or valid logic. I have been consistent in this, and have made no argument or assertion to invalidate your position on this topic. NONE.

You are, however making arguments regarding statement 2, and I have quoted them directly to provide with reference points in the objective and verifiable reality you are denying about it. You are making arguments regarding the validity of your "evidence" and the relationship that being verifiable and or verifiable has on its validity.

There you go again.

I did not make an argument about statement 2. I posted evidence that supported it, and you rejected it. I then called you an idiot because you rejected and insisted that evidence presented in support of a statement amounts to an argument in defense of it. You then tried to force me to engage in circular reasoning by insisting I was doing it, and challenging me to defend your circular reasoning.

It doesn't, and I haven't.

 

[Montrovant]

Hey! You never discuss issues this nicely and intelligently with me! I'm hurt! How are we ever going to be BFF's?

Because you are an idiot, and Montrovant is a polar bear.

LOL! Okay THAT'S IT! You are NOT getting mailed fruitcake and meatloaf for Christmas!

Never underestimate the power of the fuzzy bear!!!

 

[LOki]

There you go again.

I did not make an argument about statement 2.

This is denial of reality; one of the hallmarks of faith.

I posted evidence that supported it, and you rejected it. I then called you an idiot because you rejected and insisted that evidence presented in support of a statement amounts to an argument in defense of it.

You are confused.

I am pointing out that your evidence is invalid. It is invalid because, in order to validate it you are required to accept its validity as a (the?) premise of the argument whose conclusion asserts that your evidence is valid.

You then tried to force me to engage in circular reasoning by insisting I was doing it, and challenging me to defend your circular reasoning.

It doesn't, and I haven't.

This is nonsense. You are engaged in you own circular reasoning without any help from me. I am just identifying it for you, and (consistent with the hallmarks of faith) you are denying you are doing so.

You see Quantum Windbag, due to your certainty in faith--which requires no evidence, no valid logic, no agreement with reality for validation--your mind is closed shut.

You simply believe your evidence is valid, based entirely on nothing but your belief that it is valid. It's circular reasoning. That is all you pal. All you.

 

[Lokiate]

I don't understand your post #4. If someone is an Atheist, how does it offend them about going to hell for eternity? Because if an Atheist claims they know there isn't a God, then what anything else someone says about them being in hell for eternity, would be null and void...wouldn't it? Write us off as crazy lunies?

Because many use it as a statement of denigration and slander. It's their special little way of telling us that we're inferior, while keeping up the appearance of 'concern' to their little "sunday friends".

It doesn't personally bother me, but I can understand how it affects others.

Why is there a Herman Cain wikipedia - End of America tag line at the end of this thread?

It's a sign that Herman Cain is the antichrist, and the apocalypse will begin with his election to office in 2012.

 

[Photonic]

You believe I said you're "begging for approval"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "begging for approval." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

You believe I said you're "demanding that believe in God"; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not say this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I said you were "demanding that believe in God." Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

I am saying that you said this:Your belief that God exists is unfounded in evidence; it is faith. You are demanding that your faith is valid evidence--it is not.

You say you test your faith against valid evidence, and your stoic denial of valid evidence is the measure of the validity of your "evidence"--i.e. your faith.

Your belief in God is not even a working hypothesis. You provided a link to a definition of the notion; you should really give it a good read.

The only acceptable "evidence" for the faithful is faith. Which is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I am saying you're question-begging, and the evidence is verifiable.

And your denial of that evidence will just strengthen your faith that I'm wrong.

You believe I am making strawman arguments; this is your belief unfounded in evidence--it is your faith.

The evidence demonstrates I did not do this; your denial of that evidence will validate your faith.

The strength of your denial of the evidence is your "evidence" that your faith in the assertion you made is valid.

In order to argue your case, others must first believe I made strawman arguments. Only then can your "evidence" be brought to validate your point.

This is question-begging. Is is the demand that others accept your conclusion to be true, as a premise of your argument.

It is disingenuous. It is intellectually invalid. Your position from faith is closed-minded. The evidence of that closed-mindedness is made manifest by the means by which faith is validated--by the stoic denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Your denial of the verifiable evidence will strengthen your faith that I am wrong.

So you can't have belief founded in fact?

Interesting viewpoint. Incorrect of course but interesting you should say that.

What?

Do you want to reconsider this retarded accusation?

Check who you are talking too, Sir. I agree with you for the most part. Though perhaps not with your way of putting it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm still confused.

The Christmas truce was evidence of God (the specific christian god I'm sure too), however what about the day before Christmas and the day after when they were shooting each other's heads off? What's that evidence of? God? Satan?

You should study history a little.

The Christmas truce was not a single day even, and both sides ended up transferring front line units that refused to fire on each other after playing soccer together.

It is also telling that you are still resorting to stawmen in an attempt to defend your position.

My apologies, allow me to make incredibly minor changes to my post in order to get an actual response out of you.

Before the Christmas truce was thought up, and after it ended, when these guys were trying to shoot each other's heads off what was that evidence of? God? Satan?

You're telling ppl not to use strawmen arguments (sunshine, pretty baby, etc) then you're using those exact arguments yourself.

 

[LOki]

So you can't have belief founded in fact?

Interesting viewpoint. Incorrect of course but interesting you should say that.

What?

Do you want to reconsider this retarded accusation?

Check who you are talking too, Sir.

You're the one telling me I hold an "interesting viewpoint" in that I "can't have belief founded in fact." I have that absolutely correct, yes?

If so, it is you who should check into who you're talking to because it is manifestly clear that I was illustrating and critiquing QW's faith-based belief paradigm.

I agree with you for the most part.

If by agreeing, you mean I share your notion that I (or someone, I suppose) "can't have belief founded in fact," then we don't agree at all.

I can most certainly have a belief founded in verifiable facts of reality, and valid logic; those kinds of beliefs are the ones I consider to be valid, useful, and worth holding.

It is also most certainly possible to hold all sorts of beliefs that are unfounded in any verifiable sense, that are denials of verifiable facts of reality, and depend entirely upon invalid logic to establish/maintain "validity." These kinds of beliefs--if genuinely held--are all faith; I consider them to be benignly useless at best, and dangerously disinformative at worst.

Though perhaps not with your way of putting it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't understand your post #4. If someone is an Atheist, how does it offend them about going to hell for eternity? Because if an Atheist claims they know there isn't a God, then what anything else someone says about them being in hell for eternity, would be null and void...wouldn't it? Write us off as crazy lunies?

Because many use it as a statement of denigration and slander. It's their special little way of telling us that we're inferior, while keeping up the appearance of 'concern' to their little "sunday friends".

It doesn't personally bother me, but I can understand how it affects others.

Why is there a Herman Cain wikipedia - End of America tag line at the end of this thread?

It's a sign that Herman Cain is the antichrist, and the apocalypse will begin with his election to office in 2012.

I agree with your response about religion. It's a way of saying "I know I'm right and since I'm SO right I DESERVE an eternity of peace and love with my friends and family in heaven" and "I know you're wrong and since you're SO wrong you DESERVE an eternity of fire and torture with demons and heathens in hell."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm still confused.

The Christmas truce was evidence of God (the specific christian god I'm sure too), however what about the day before Christmas and the day after when they were shooting each other's heads off? What's that evidence of? God? Satan?

You should study history a little.

The Christmas truce was not a single day even, and both sides ended up transferring front line units that refused to fire on each other after playing soccer together.

It is also telling that you are still resorting to stawmen in an attempt to defend your position.

My apologies, allow me to make incredibly minor changes to my post in order to get an actual response out of you.

Before the Christmas truce was thought up, and after it ended, when these guys were trying to shoot each other's heads off what was that evidence of? God? Satan?

You're telling ppl not to use strawmen arguments (sunshine, pretty baby, etc) then you're using those exact arguments yourself.

It was evidence that governments are not responsive to the will of the people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't understand your post #4. If someone is an Atheist, how does it offend them about going to hell for eternity? Because if an Atheist claims they know there isn't a God, then what anything else someone says about them being in hell for eternity, would be null and void...wouldn't it? Write us off as crazy lunies?

Because many use it as a statement of denigration and slander. It's their special little way of telling us that we're inferior, while keeping up the appearance of 'concern' to their little "sunday friends".

It doesn't personally bother me, but I can understand how it affects others.

Why is there a Herman Cain wikipedia - End of America tag line at the end of this thread?

It's a sign that Herman Cain is the antichrist, and the apocalypse will begin with his election to office in 2012.

I agree with your response about religion. It's a way of saying "I know I'm right and since I'm SO right I DESERVE an eternity of peace and love with my friends and family in heaven" and "I know you're wrong and since you're SO wrong you DESERVE an eternity of fire and torture with demons and heathens in hell."

And to think I got in this thread because I though atheists did not think this way, I might owe Illogical an apology.