Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

If you say so. As far as the thread being "opinion and personal philosophy", guess what? Everyone's moral code is opinion and personal opinion. The fact that some of those opinions, and philosophies are spoon-fed to people who prefer not to think for themselves doesn't make it any less so.

Spoon fed philosophy? Do you mean like Socrates and Aristotle?

Well, if one bases their entire world view off of Socrates, or Aristotle, rather than using them as tools for learning how to examine life, and discover one's world views for one's then yeah. More typically, however, it has been my experience that it is theosophists who allow themselves to be spoon-fed their moral, and philosophical views, and then act as if they have some superior understanding that everyone else is missing.

Good thing those ideas weren't spoon fed or anything. No doubt they spontaneously manifested themselves in your mind and just happen to coincide with existing philosophy.

You need to make up your mind. Either atheism has no core belief system on which all adherents conform, or theists have a moral, and ethical framework that they are all taught, and to which they all conform. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or morally uniform?

How does this response in any way even begin to address the post?

Because your post implies that my moral position is one that was taught to me, presumably by other atheists. Yet, your position is that there is no uniform moral code associated with atheism, and it is, therefore "bankrupt" (your word). Those two positions are incompatible. Either there is no codified morality attached to atheism, or atheism contains its own moral code that is "taught" to all atheists. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or containing a set of moral teachings with which you just happen to disagree?

 

[Mudda]

It is called faith and it exists for good reason.

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

But you have incredibly low standards.

 

[Czernobog]

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

One would think the "virtues" of atheism would be self-evident: self-determination, self-reliance, a desire to do all that one can to make this world a better place - after all, it is all we get. You see, us atheists share many of the same moral principles as theists, only for different reasons. Rather than trying to curry favour with some imaginary cosmic score keeper, we do what we can to make this life as fulfilling as possible, because it is the only one we get. And, to be clear, "fulfilling": doesn't mean self-gratifying. Contrary to the misconception of theists, atheists are not mindless hedonists. No. You see, we are well aware that there is no "next". This is it. The only chances at "immortality" that we have is through our family, and our legacy. So we have a very good reason to live a healthy, productive life. It is all that will be left behind when we are gone. If we live our lives in hedonistic, mindless pleasure, then when we are gone, no one will ever remember us. Our lives will have been a waste. But, if we can make something, create something, make a difference in someone's life while we are here. Well! Then our name and memory will live on long after we are dust.

We also have more incentive to actually live by our moral code. After all, most theists - particularly monotheists - have this whole elaborate system of "forgiveness" in some "great beyond" that they have convinced themselves exists, so that their lack of living by their own moral codes are given a pass. We atheists know there are no "do-overs", so we have the incentive to do our best to get it right the first time.

Laughable to imagine that atheism has a moral code of any kind. Atheists are entirely defined by what they don't believe. There is no affirmative atheistic argument.

That presumes that a moral code is dependent on religion. Following your logic, theists are capable of an ehtical, and moral code, solely because they believe in a deity. You get the bankruptcy of that position, right? That means that humanity, in your opinion, is incapable of independent, ethical thought. What a low opinion of human beings you have.

Your presumption doesn't logically follow.

How do you figure that?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[mamooth]

Comparing belief in a higher power to belief in santa clause is a logical fallacy strawman.

As both God and Santa are clearly higher powers, that's clearly just your usual special pleading fallacy.

No. I only have one definition.

Faith = complete trust in something

And other people don't share your bad definitions. Hence, it's senseless for you to declare what others really believe based only on your own bad use of language.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

.

The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs.

... on countering the idea of religious beliefs.


the OP makes no mention of countering the idea of religious beliefs as you now allege, which idea of the religious beliefs are those that are so perplexing to you .... as you claim atheists are -

Are they spiritually dumb?

the truth of who is Spiritually bankrupt include the 4th century christians that represent a political agenda disguised as a religion for the very purpose to prevent Free Spirits from exercising their God given rights.


what then are your religious beliefs to back up your opening statement based on.

 

[mamooth]

Notice how none of you fucking dummie

We notice how you're the only person here screaming insults at people. Looks like a way to deflect from how badly you're flailing.

can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism.

Looks like another deflection. What is "virtue"? Define it exactly. Tell us how to measure it in the real world. And do it in a way other than your usual "I automatically define what I do as virtuous". That's getting old.

The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own.

Same thing. Define "intrinsic value", without resorting to your usual "I define myself as perfect" tactic.

Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

Of course they do. "Don't believe in things without evidence" does not require that religion exist. You're really bad at the basics here.

 

[sealybobo]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

I don't think we should be required to make an argument for the virtures of atheism. Maybe it isn't virtuous?

goodness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, worthiness, purity;
principles, ethics


Atheism doesn't have to be good. It's just not believing in god.

Atheism has nothing to do with my morality. Neither does god other than maybe when I was a kid I was scared into being nice instead of naughty because some wacked out Christians told me this crazy story how if I believe them then I'll be a god after I die.

I just don't buy it. I wanted to but belief isn't something you do because you want to. I believe the Lions are going to win a Superbowl in my lifetime but that doesn't make it true.

And I have honor, show decency, respect, principles, ethics...all without god

 

[ding]

That's not a material point. Three headed unicorn with laser coming out of its butt theology is nonexistent. To argue the premise that Judea/Christianity or any other major religion is flawed because something else is flawed is idiotic.

All our other experiences don't tell us that it is impossible. Quite the opposite, they tell us it is. In fact, I don't see how it can be any other way.

Doesn't matter, he's right. The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

It is the only solution to the first cause.

I find wisdom and knowledge in them.

He more than covered this in his four points. His literal rebuttal would be to re-paste his original four points.

The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

No it is not. To claim a thing exists is a positive claim that requires evidence to support it. To refute that t thing exists is just that - the refutation of the positive claim. You are trying to turn logical debate on its ear to justify belief in a thing that has no objective evidence of its existence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no more objective evidence of your mythical god than there is of your three-headed unicorn.You have repeatedly been offered to present the objective evidence supporting the existence of God. The one time you tried, you first required that God be presumed to exist, in order for the evidence to fit your hypothesis. That isn't evidence, that's confirmation bias. After that, you just refused to even try.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There was no evidence of relativity until the eclipse but it was still believed.

Wrong. Relativity was presented as a hypothesis (and still is only theory, incidentally), and then objectively tested that hypothesis sufficiently that it became a working theory. You present divinity as a fact, and then attempt to arrange observations to fit your presumption.

In short you actively engage in confirmation bias, and call it "proof".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Call it whatever you want the point stands. First comes observation. Then comes the idea and then comes the test. That's how it works.

 

[ding]

It is called faith and it exists for good reason.

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.

No. there's way more to it than that. I wouldn't expect a humanist to understand.

 

[ding]

Notice how none of you fucking dummie

We notice how you're the only person here screaming insults at people. Looks like a way to deflect from how badly you're flailing.

can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism.

Looks like another deflection. What is "virtue"? Define it exactly. Tell us how to measure it in the real world. And do it in a way other than your usual "I automatically define what I do as virtuous". That's getting old.

The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own.

Same thing. Define "intrinsic value", without resorting to your usual "I define myself as perfect" tactic.

Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

Of course they do. "Don't believe in things without evidence" does not require that religion exist. You're really bad at the basics here.

You have evidence. You just don't accept it.

 

[sealybobo]

You're quite right. Absolute atheism is intellectually bankrupt - as is absolute theism.
After all, there is no more evidence to support absolute theism, than there is absolute atheism, now is there.

That is rather the point of rational atheism - that the default position of "There is no God" is the rational position, until such time as objective evidence is presented to make such a position no longer tenable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh I get it now. It's all those Absolute atheists who sound like complete fucking idiots all the time. Good thing you can make such a clear distinction between them and you.

I find this interesting maybe you can explain. They say the bible was written around 1600 years ago. The old testament was written supposedly 7000 years ago. Now we know the ancients found fossels and told stories of dragons monsters and other mythical beasts but it wasn't until 1824 that we knew dinosaurs once roamed and how they got here and disappeared. None of that is in the old testament. God left that part out of the 7 day creation story.

I call bullshit!

Before you can understand any particular faith you would first have had to had faith in God and then have faith in a faith. You have done neither. You shouldn't be expected to understand.

I once had faith

I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith. I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed. But I could be wrong. Either way it does not change my point. You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.

I always had a problem with the story. Even if it was deep down. I never believed enough to get sucked in. I couldn't rationally make sense of the allegories when people said they were real stories.

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” – Ken Ham

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Spoon fed philosophy? Do you mean like Socrates and Aristotle?

Well, if one bases their entire world view off of Socrates, or Aristotle, rather than using them as tools for learning how to examine life, and discover one's world views for one's then yeah. More typically, however, it has been my experience that it is theosophists who allow themselves to be spoon-fed their moral, and philosophical views, and then act as if they have some superior understanding that everyone else is missing.

Good thing those ideas weren't spoon fed or anything. No doubt they spontaneously manifested themselves in your mind and just happen to coincide with existing philosophy.

You need to make up your mind. Either atheism has no core belief system on which all adherents conform, or theists have a moral, and ethical framework that they are all taught, and to which they all conform. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or morally uniform?

How does this response in any way even begin to address the post?

Because your post implies that my moral position is one that was taught to me, presumably by other atheists. Yet, your position is that there is no uniform moral code associated with atheism, and it is, therefore "bankrupt" (your word). Those two positions are incompatible. Either there is no codified morality attached to atheism, or atheism contains its own moral code that is "taught" to all atheists. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or containing a set of moral teachings with which you just happen to disagree?

You make a whole lot of presumptions based on nothing.

 

[Czernobog]

No it is not. To claim a thing exists is a positive claim that requires evidence to support it. To refute that t thing exists is just that - the refutation of the positive claim. You are trying to turn logical debate on its ear to justify belief in a thing that has no objective evidence of its existence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no more objective evidence of your mythical god than there is of your three-headed unicorn.You have repeatedly been offered to present the objective evidence supporting the existence of God. The one time you tried, you first required that God be presumed to exist, in order for the evidence to fit your hypothesis. That isn't evidence, that's confirmation bias. After that, you just refused to even try.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There was no evidence of relativity until the eclipse but it was still believed.

Wrong. Relativity was presented as a hypothesis (and still is only theory, incidentally), and then objectively tested that hypothesis sufficiently that it became a working theory. You present divinity as a fact, and then attempt to arrange observations to fit your presumption.

In short you actively engage in confirmation bias, and call it "proof".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Call it whatever you want the point stands. First comes observation. Then comes the idea and then comes the test. That's how it works.

That's not how it works. Your "hypothesis" (and I use that term losely" is that "God exists". Okay. Now. How do you test that hypothesis? And you cannot use the universe as your "evidence". Because that presumes that your hypotheitical God created the universe. Unfortunately, you have not even tested, and proven, with objective evidence, that your hypothetical God even exists. Berfore you can presume thatt this hyptheitcal God created the universe, you must first prove that it even exists. So? Go. Demonstrate for us your "test' for the existence of God.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, if one bases their entire world view off of Socrates, or Aristotle, rather than using them as tools for learning how to examine life, and discover one's world views for one's then yeah. More typically, however, it has been my experience that it is theosophists who allow themselves to be spoon-fed their moral, and philosophical views, and then act as if they have some superior understanding that everyone else is missing.

Good thing those ideas weren't spoon fed or anything. No doubt they spontaneously manifested themselves in your mind and just happen to coincide with existing philosophy.

You need to make up your mind. Either atheism has no core belief system on which all adherents conform, or theists have a moral, and ethical framework that they are all taught, and to which they all conform. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or morally uniform?

How does this response in any way even begin to address the post?

Because your post implies that my moral position is one that was taught to me, presumably by other atheists. Yet, your position is that there is no uniform moral code associated with atheism, and it is, therefore "bankrupt" (your word). Those two positions are incompatible. Either there is no codified morality attached to atheism, or atheism contains its own moral code that is "taught" to all atheists. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or containing a set of moral teachings with which you just happen to disagree?

You make a whole lot of presumptions based on nothing.

Funny. I was thinking the same about you. You seem to be talking in circles. You claim that atheism is an "intellectual dead end" because it has no "value" intrinsic to itself. I demonstrate the value of atheism, and you simply dismiss the demonstration out of hand, and continue with your presumption.

 

[ding]

Christians, Jews, Muslims, they all need to realize that they are not original in their holy books. They were copied from and changed from more ancient texts that spoke about totally different things. Each one of those religions claim that they are superior, and 100% right. Yet, their factual basis is a book(s).

A book that was plagiarized from far more ancient Mesopotamian texts, and each of these religions claim that their version was an original writing straight from the mouth of God!

And they all want to kill each other over it, because each one thinks they're better than everyone else, and people who think differently should not be allowed...

OMG, what a farce!!!

What lunacy!!!

You would think that after so much time that rational thinking would take over and we could all live peacefully. But apparently, we can't. Because you all want to kill each other over your imaginary gods and made-up books.

And the reason that you think so, is that you were brainwashed from birth. None of you has studied the world and its history and science, and then came to the conclusion that Judaism or Christianity or Islam was the only way to go, and then chose to believe in that religion as the superior one. You just believe it because you were born into it, brainwashed from birth, and that is all you will ever accept or consider!!!

You're all a big part of the problem in this world, due to your ignorance and fanatical beliefs.

You religious fanatics are honestly... disgusting... to me in your words and actions.

Open your minds, and realize that you can have your faith that makes you feel good, while still accepting the reality that you should work with others to reach a mutual benefit for humanity and the world. Not hate and/or kill each other based on a possible lie you were born into...

There's still hope for you. Read things, and try stepping outside the box. While keeping your faiths, explore what's important for this world.

Do you write all of your paragraphs in sentence form?

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

Do you also have a problem with the way I write?

So you don't like the way I think, or write? Wow...

Again, you provided a reflex link that was not properly thought out or researched, that contradicts what you say about your religion. Just stuff you link from a random list when provided with an argument you cannot respond to... This is what, 4 or 5 times so far, just with me??

The Old Testament was written approximately 3500 years ago. So your Babylonian date of 4500 years ago (and they took it from the Sumerians, so it is older still) is still 1000 years older than the biblical texts. And the Enuma Elish 4500 years ago, tells a vastly different story about our "gods" than the OT 3500 years ago, and was changed to suit the monotheist Jewish religion that started 1000 years later.

The OT was a copy of older texts. Including the Enuma Elish, and others such as Atrahasis and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Written long before the OT.

The NT is also plagiarism of many older stories:

Your writing is Ok. Look this is pretty simple, if you don't want to believe in God don't. I don't have a horse in the game. I don't get commissions. If you don't want to accept the reality that the account of Genesis was written as symbols in the Chinese language 4500 years ago or that they describe the great migration of people or that they worshiped the God of Abraham, I'm cool with that too. It doesn't change the fact that the Bible correctly tells the account of the great migration. Even if you didn't understand that was what it was doing.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Good thing those ideas weren't spoon fed or anything. No doubt they spontaneously manifested themselves in your mind and just happen to coincide with existing philosophy.

You need to make up your mind. Either atheism has no core belief system on which all adherents conform, or theists have a moral, and ethical framework that they are all taught, and to which they all conform. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or morally uniform?

How does this response in any way even begin to address the post?

Because your post implies that my moral position is one that was taught to me, presumably by other atheists. Yet, your position is that there is no uniform moral code associated with atheism, and it is, therefore "bankrupt" (your word). Those two positions are incompatible. Either there is no codified morality attached to atheism, or atheism contains its own moral code that is "taught" to all atheists. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or containing a set of moral teachings with which you just happen to disagree?

You make a whole lot of presumptions based on nothing.

Funny. I was thinking the same about you. You seem to be talking in circles. You claim that atheism is an "intellectual dead end" because it has no "value" intrinsic to itself. I demonstrate the value of atheism, and you simply dismiss the demonstration out of hand, and continue with your presumption.

My presumption? Which presumption was that? I can hardly wait for your next clairvoyant prediction.

 

[ding]

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no more objective evidence of your mythical god than there is of your three-headed unicorn.You have repeatedly been offered to present the objective evidence supporting the existence of God. The one time you tried, you first required that God be presumed to exist, in order for the evidence to fit your hypothesis. That isn't evidence, that's confirmation bias. After that, you just refused to even try.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There was no evidence of relativity until the eclipse but it was still believed.

Wrong. Relativity was presented as a hypothesis (and still is only theory, incidentally), and then objectively tested that hypothesis sufficiently that it became a working theory. You present divinity as a fact, and then attempt to arrange observations to fit your presumption.

In short you actively engage in confirmation bias, and call it "proof".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Call it whatever you want the point stands. First comes observation. Then comes the idea and then comes the test. That's how it works.

That's not how it works. Your "hypothesis" (and I use that term losely" is that "God exists". Okay. Now. How do you test that hypothesis? And you cannot use the universe as your "evidence". Because that presumes that your hypotheitical God created the universe. Unfortunately, you have not even tested, and proven, with objective evidence, that your hypothetical God even exists. Berfore you can presume thatt this hyptheitcal God created the universe, you must first prove that it even exists. So? Go. Demonstrate for us your "test' for the existence of God.

No. I made observations before I made a hypothesis. You don't think Einstein made any observations? For starters Einstein observed that it was impossible for Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations to both be right. I have observed that we live in a self referential universe which most likely did have a beginning. Both of these conditions are supported by the physical laws of science. Any problems so far?

 

[ding]

At least mudda isn't falling for your con. You know he's right don't you? I don't know there's no God and you don't know either. No one knows. Christians are believing the story told in their neck of the woods, Muslims in the middle East do the same, Mormons story seems to be popular in Utah and Hindu and Budda are popular in other parts of the world. Besides your cult do you buy the other cult stories?

I'm curious to see if you are capable of intelligently responding to this or will you do what theists do and change the subject

You are an amazingly stupid little person. When will dummies like you understand that whatever I believe has no relevance to the argument? When will people like you stop being so fucking dim witted?

Constructive Douchebag is too afraid to say that he believes in invisible superheroes.

And at least I am open and honest enough to admit technically you are right. No one has ever met God so no one knows. And no one knows if anyone has ever met God. Maybe con douche has met God. But if you ask me if I believe con douche met God the answer is no. I'm not agnostic about that. Are you?

You better say yes because you can't know for sure, right?

Anything you can't falsify or disprove you are agnostic about. Like my invisible dragon. You are on the fence on her right?

Yes, God is taken on faith, but so is not believing in God. Not believing in God is taken on faith too. Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it. I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.

Stick with faith because you can't prove anything.
Faith=Wishful thinking

That's funny because I believe I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me.

 

[ding]

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no such thing as a Judeo/Christian God.

Jews do not believe in an edible triune mangod, only Christians do.

There is only one Creator whose nature is beyond our comprehension, however you choose to represent that Supreme Being is ok by me. You can call Him whatever the fuck you want. I won't piss on your belief. I suggest you not piss on mine. In fact, I would be more than happy for you to tell me about your God. I hope your love and admiration for Him shines through in what you write.

 

[ding]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent). First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

It is not rational, by definition,* to assume the supernatural. And under any interpretation of "current data" the Christian god is no more likely to exist than a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt.

That's not a material point. Three headed unicorn with laser coming out of its butt theology is nonexistent. To argue the premise that Judea/Christianity or any other major religion is flawed because something else is flawed is idiotic.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Save that belief in the supernatural requires accepting the occurrence of that which all our other experience tells us is impossible.

All our other experiences don't tell us that it is impossible. Quite the opposite, they tell us it is. In fact, I don't see how it can be any other way.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

It is normally presented as a supposition: "I do not believe any gods exist". Or, more lexicologically, "I do not believe", or "I reject", "theism".

Doesn't matter, he's right. The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

You claim your god always existed. We claim the universe always existed.

It is the only solution to the first cause.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement.

Yet you find such stimulation in 2,000 year old fantasy stories?

I find wisdom and knowledge in them.

What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

You started this diatribe with the nonsensical contention that an acceptance of your god was a rational conclusion. That doesn't really speak all that well for your judgement. Could we please have the Reader's Digest explanation as to how atheism undermines all rational thought and science?

He more than covered this in his four points. His literal rebuttal would be to re-paste his original four points.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

That's awfully nice of you. I consider a belief in god(s) to be a delusion stemming from a failure to very justifiably question authority.

The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

No it is not. To claim a thing exists is a positive claim that requires evidence to support it. To refute that t thing exists is just that - the refutation of the positive claim. You are trying to turn logical debate on its ear to justify belief in a thing that has no objective evidence of its existence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no more objective evidence of your mythical god than there is of your three-headed unicorn.You have repeatedly been offered to present the objective evidence supporting the existence of God. The one time you tried, you first required that God be presumed to exist, in order for the evidence to fit your hypothesis. That isn't evidence, that's confirmation bias. After that, you just refused to even try.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The Bible nailed the Great Migration

The Bible nailed the great flood

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.

The Bible nailed evolution.

The Bible nailed DNA.

The Bible nailed that we came from dust.

The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.

The Bible nailed the morality progression.

The Bible nails an internal locus of control.

The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.

The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.

The Bible nails successful behaviors.

The Bible nails failed behaviors.

Now tell me what three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt has got as a justification to be taken seriously? Your problem is that you don't take it seriously. You have got it in your head that you can't be wrong about anything. I don't have a problem with your non-belief. I have a problem with your attitude and behavior towards my belief.