Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No Viz, it means nothing of the sort. What it does mean is that you are willfully obtuse, and like playing with strawmen. This has been discussed ad nauseum, atheism is a position about belief in a deity, agnosticism is a position about knowledge. I do not believe it is possible to know that there is or is not a deity (at least based on a transcendent, supernatural sort of deity) therefor I am an agnostic. Based on the exisiting evidence, I do not believe that such a deity exists, therefore I am an atheist.
I use atheist as a label, simply becasue far to many people think agnostic means wishy-washy or open to proselytization, which I am not.
So, you have failed to make anyone backslide. Or indeed, change or rethink their position in any way. Do you honestly think the majority of us are that unfamiliar with logic and apologetics 101? Come on, Viz, that was just weak.
Thanks for proving my point. You are simply unwilling to concede the point. Proof is not the same as persuasion.
Quote:
That's because you have not proven anything. The Cosmological argument requires special pleading for an uncreated eternal creator. You simply skip that part... Ignoring rebuttals or counter arguments does not miraculously make an assertion into a proof.
-NoCapo
Of course I have proven it. No special pleading required, as the creator is by nature, not part of creation and does not require a creator. But as noted...proof is not persuasion.
Honestly...if I said water was wet...you'd likely argue. It's what you do.
NoCapo, Mordant....and me.....Vizio already knew all that. He's just being purposely obtuse.
It's one more time when I have to wonder if he is even honestly presenting himself or just being as outrageous as possible for the amusement.
For them, everything is either right or wrong and determined by a certain interpretation of a certain edition of a certain compilation of ancient pamphlets. They don't even have to bother reading it and getting that gist for themselves!
Nossir!
They just need to squeeze themselves into a jacket and tie once a week and regurgitate what the guy droning at the lectern said.
At least the parts they caught between naps.
In other words -- they relieve themselves of the painful task of self-examination -- in favour of what some desert-dwellers told them to think a few thousand years ago.
And this is why Christianity is so maligned and criticized today. Because it seems EVERYONE has a stereotypical image of Christians ("fundies" as they like to refer to them as) today. Because Christians follow certain ancient prescripts, not unlike what Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists or other religious sects do. But when they try to "live their faith" they are called intolerant, hateful and downright ignorant because they "don't change with the times" and accept every new social doctrine that comes along. And yes, there are a LOT of "fundies" that are very well versed in their scriptures and do examine their consciences' but don't change them on a whim just because of societal pressures. But there again, you posted this just to be critical, didn't you.
Thanks for proving my point. You are simply unwilling to concede the point. Proof is not the same as persuasion.
Viz, proof is not the same thing as your own opinion. Why should I concede (to give up, surrender) the point, you have not proven anything! You simply made a strawman, you know a false representation of your opponent, and proceeded to attempt to whip the stuffing out of that.
The fact of the matter is that I am both an atheist and agnostic. I have very clearly explained the rationale, and demonstrated that your two questions did not make me backslide or change my belief in any way. If anything your attempt at a "clever' question showed your own lack of understanding, not a failing on anyone else's part.
To sum up, you claimed ot be able to make an atheist backslide with two questions. You failed. I can answer both questions honestly and consistently with my lack of belief in a deity.
Score: Pastor Viz, the elect of "GOD" - 0 , Atheists - 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Of course I have proven it. No special pleading required, as the creator is by nature, not part of creation and does not require a creator.
But if a creater can be eternal, so can anything else. You really should walk through the proof, because you are mangling it badly. It isn't very sound even when a real apologist does it, but your attempt doesn't hold together at all... Try again, Viz.
Allow me to help you here. Borrowing one of the better formulations of the argument from Craig:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Even if we assume 1), which may not be true at all given our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics, we have no resaon to assume 2). It appears that our observable universe originated with the singularity before the Big Bang, but we cannot say that the entirely of reality, of the natural "began" then. We simply don't know that. The universe, reality, could be eternal.
So even if we assume 1) (which is questionable), we cannot assume 2, therefore 3) is not proven.
Now, we can dig further into this if you wish, as I recognize that this is my (or rather Craig's) formulation of the cosmological argument, not yours. If you want to try to prove your point go right ahead.
Otherwise, I will just count that one provisionally.
Score: Pastor Viz, the elect of "GOD" - 0 , Atheists - 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
But as noted...proof is not persuasion.
Of course, too bad you offer neither...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Honestly...if I said water was wet...you'd likely argue. It's what you do.
If you made as poor an argument for it, as you have for god, I would certainly critique it. Even if I disagree with your idea, I respect a good logical argument. I don't, however, have a lot of patience for bad logic dressed up in hubris.
Viz, proof is not the same thing as your own opinion. Why should I concede (to give up, surrender) the point, you have not proven anything! You simply made a strawman, you know a false representation of your opponent, and proceeded to attempt to whip the stuffing out of that.
The fact of the matter is that I am both an atheist and agnostic. I have very clearly explained the rationale, and demonstrated that your two questions did not make me backslide or change my belief in any way. If anything your attempt at a "clever' question showed your own lack of understanding, not a failing on anyone else's part.
To sum up, you claimed ot be able to make an atheist backslide with two questions. You failed. I can answer both questions honestly and consistently with my lack of belief in a deity.
Oh....ok
Quote:
Score: Pastor Viz, the elect of "GOD" - 0 , Atheists - 1
But if a creater can be eternal, so can anything else. You really should walk through the proof, because you are mangling it badly. It isn't very sound even when a real apologist does it, but your attempt doesn't hold together at all... Try again, Viz.
But we know the universe is not eternal.
Quote:
Allow me to help you here. Borrowing one of the better formulations of the argument from Craig:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Even if we assume 1), which may not be true at all given our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics, we have no resaon to assume 2). It appears that our observable universe originated with the singularity before the Big Bang, but we cannot say that the entirely of reality, of the natural "began" then. We simply don't know that. The universe, reality, could be eternal.
I don't have enough faith to make that jump in logic. Sorry.
Quote:
So even if we assume 1) (which is questionable), we cannot assume 2, therefore 3) is not proven.
We not only assume 1....we cannot disprove it. If you can...knock yourself out.
Quote:
Now, we can dig further into this if you wish, as I recognize that this is my (or rather Craig's) formulation of the cosmological argument, not yours. If you want to try to prove your point go right ahead.
Otherwise, I will just count that one provisionally.
You better go with "provisionally".
Quote:
Score: Pastor Viz, the elect of "GOD" - 0 , Atheists - 2
You haven't scored 1, much less 2 points.
Quote:
Of course, too bad you offer neither...
If you made as poor an argument for it, as you have for god, I would certainly critique it. Even if I disagree with your idea, I respect a good logical argument. I don't, however, have a lot of patience for bad logic dressed up in hubris.
Why? Do you think that only ungifted or bad preachers are in small country churches?
Nope. (You pulled that one out of your nether regions. I've listened to a couple of gifted preachers in Podunk churches. Obviously no one but your congregants know if YOU are an ungifted or bad preacher.) I think someone who can prove God exists, can convert atheists with just a few questions and knows how God thinks should be sharing what he knows with the world.
Seems kind of odd God would call such a person to be in Podunk when He could place that person in a position where billions of people would come to know Him. But then, that doesn't fit in with your theory that only some people get saved.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 03-10-2015 at 03:51 PM..
One of the more epic fails in a long list of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
