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.
Yes; it's on anyone making a claim. Theists are; atheists aren't. Theists Force a claim on us, and even if that was valid, disbelief in the face of a lack of persuasive prof either way would be logical. Theism would be illogical, even if their lie was true.
::Sigh::The only ones FORCING a claim are those who demand that the DEFAULT be "No God." That you pretend that is NOT forcing a claim is the most aggravating and annoying of your presumptuous and arrogant assertions about supposedly debunking everything theist without a shred of proof or even what you want to call evidence. Your lack of knowledge about what you do NOT know exposes your presumptuousness in pretending to know what has and has not been debunked. Your spurious claims to the contrary, you have YET to debunk anything of significance in ANY of the threads that do NOT involve absurd religious beliefs. Clearly, you believe that if you assert something untrue repeatedly it will be perceived as true. That is the true dishonesty here. Vic is exposing more and more of the unsupported premises in your unstated assumptions behind your assertions and it just frustrates you rather than enlightens you so you resort to ad hominems. Debating whether or not Vic is an atheist is a distraction from your inability even to know what he is trying to get you to see in your unspoken premises, also known as "givens."
Debating whether or not Vic is an atheist is a distraction from your inability even to know what he is trying to get you to see in your unspoken premises, also known as "givens."
Exactly! Thank you! I mean, I don't mind explaining myself to people if they're sincerely wondering why I defend theism, etc. But they're pretty much just ignoring the explanations just to keep this campaign of personal attacks going, and I do find it a pathetic attempt to distract from the actual topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Strange, I see plenty of evidence for strong atheism.
I await examples.
Quote:
But you keep on using anti-theist when you mean atheist,
Clearly not. I've no issue with someone not having a belief in god (obviously). I even said I don't think that someone believing "There is no god" has a burden of proof; it is only when a claim is made. I've been very explicit in saying that anti-theists are those who oppose theism and so they have a burden of proof, not atheists in general.
Quote:
because anti-theist implies a motive other than rational arguments.
I don't even agree with that (much less have I implied it). It doesn't matter to me what their motivations are. What matters is that they oppose theism and that they have no justifications for doing so.
Quote:
If theists had credible evidence, then they would present it. And if they have no evidence for a most improbable god, I have no reason to believe.
Having no reason to believe theism is true =/= having reason to believe theism is false. That is what you keep failing to understand.
Quote:
Which is why you are an atheist, remember?
I don't believe in a god because I don't know of any compelling evidence for theism and because I've not had one of these alleged personal experiences theists report having which has convinced them. However, I would not commit the fallacy of thinking that therefore there probably isn't a god. That doesn't follow, and so I don't think that way.
Quote:
Because this is what we would see if atheism was true.
That's just reasserting the claim. By what logic do we say "The size of the universe suggests there is no god"?
Quote:
You posted your WLC quote, I just pointed out (twice) where WLC took it out of context. I am not going to search the forum because you appear to have conveniently forgot one of your arguments.
I'm aware of no other cosmologist Craig has supposedly misrepresented, which is why I asked you to elaborate. If you can't do it, fine.
I laughed out loud at that. The basis of Theism is Knowing (being firmly convinced' on Faith) of the existence of a god.
You know, your answers are kinda getting weak and lame. A little disappointing too.
I have stated this many, many times that I don’t “know”. And so do you.
If I already “KNEW”, that God exists, then I wouldn’t be using faith.
Once you KNOW something then you can’t use faith anymore.
For example, you don’t need “faith” to find the answer of 2+2, why because? You already “know” the answer.
Neither theists have the evidence that God exists nor Atheists have an evidence that God does not exist - both camps are using FAITH in this game of probabilities. We don’t really know. We have used our intelligence and our logic to do our research, and we have formed our faith. We shall now wait, and we shall probably see.
Quote:
Better than you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nobody is going to demand evidence that you have a pet cat, but that you have a pet elephant (never mind a pet dragon) requires some more support. Have you noticed...(no, of course not) how Theist apologists have to fiddle their arguments in order to try to scrape some supportive points?
Saying that “I believe in the existence of God by faith” is NOT a claim. Remember?
“I know God exists”, <<~~~ that’s a claim
“I am Jesus Christ”, <~~~ Now that’s an extra ordinary claim.
And you can demand the evidence to support these claims.
But when a claim is not made, it’s an oxymoronic notion to demand an evidence.
With the amount of miles you have on you, I thought you’d knew what’s a claim and what’s not a claim. But oh well! It’s good to have reminders sometimes.
Quote:
Btw - you couldn't even put the wrong argument correctly. We are the ones who say that we arrived on foot (evolved naturally) and you are demanding that we prove that we didn't arrive in an airliner, which is more irrational than asking that we show an airticket. You are just making up an incoherent wordsalad that sounds vaguely like as argument.
I think discussion of Darwinism and human evolution is not permitted here but you keep bringing it in your replies as a last resort.
Let’s put an end to this by saying,
You are free to believe in the work of others. And so am I.
There is a pretty large and well qualified population of scientists and biologists who do not believe that we came from a chimp. And I choose to believe in their work.
Quote:
This is why the evidence is pretty much all against the Theist and religious claims - the theists claims almost never are sound. Theism works by crossing it's fingers that the opposition won't be smart enough to see the fallacy. That is rarely working, these days.
Read above again. (Second reply)
No claim is made, so no evidence is required.
Quote:
Then your disbelief is just as irrational as your belief. And atheism can expect that you incorrectly assume that you think atheists disbelieve as irrationally as you do.
What is rational to you, may not be rational to me. And whats irrational to you may not irrational to me. And vice a versa.
Our minds may work differently, we may have different life experiences and different ways of perceiving things. And hence we may arrive at different conclusion while assessing the same scenario.
We are simply standing firm on our ground, waiting till the truth is revealed to us.
Quote:
because there is no evidence for a Ganesh outside of human imagination.
This is where Atheists shoot themselves in the foot.
You don’t need an evidence to support the existence of Ganesh.
Ask a Hindu person to provide the evidence of the existence of Ganesh.
He will put a statute of half human half elephant in front of you, and will say, “Forget the evidence of Ganesh’s existence! Here is Ganesh in front of you”.
Being an Atheist, now you tell me, would you have any choice left to NOT believe in the existence Ganesh? You wanted to see the evidence of god, here you go, god is right in front of you.
You now have no choice but to believe in god Ganesh.
Looks like you won’t be an Atheist anymore.
Quote:
That the stories fly in the face of science.
That there is no decent evidence that this god does anything beyond what would occur naturally,
that there are other gods so there is no reason to believe in that one.
That what we know about the world does not require any god.
That is the rationale for not accepting the claims for Ganesh or any other god. That is enough reason to not accept the claim. Atheism, despite the persistent theist fallacy, does not have to disprove any god conclusively; just give sound reasons not to believe.
What this Ganesh god does, or does not do, is a different story.
You are already trapped in believing in the existence of this god. You wanted the evidence. He showed himself to you on the spot.
Quote:
You will never have a sound case when you persist in presenting fallacious logical constructs.
Whom I am presenting any case and why? That’s news to me. Plz enlighten me.
::Sigh::The only ones FORCING a claim are those who demand that the DEFAULT be "No God." That you pretend that is NOT forcing a claim is the most aggravating and annoying of your presumptuous and arrogant assertions about supposedly debunking everything theist without a shred of proof or even what you want to call evidence. Your lack of knowledge about what you do NOT know exposes your presumptuousness in pretending to know what has and has not been debunked. Your spurious claims to the contrary, you have YET to debunk anything of significance in ANY of the threads that do NOT involve absurd religious beliefs. Clearly, you believe that if you assert something untrue repeatedly it will be perceived as true. That is the true dishonesty here. Vic is exposing more and more of the unsupported premises in your unstated assumptions behind your assertions and it just frustrates you rather than enlightens you so you resort to ad hominems. Debating whether or not Vic is an atheist is a distraction from your inability even to know what he is trying to get you to see in your unspoken premises, also known as "givens."
I've been here several times before. To start with a cosmos of No claims is Not a claim. It is a blank slate start. We then go with what we can validate. The god claim cannot, despite all the First Cause arguments. This is very, very simple, but Godfaith prevents you from seeing even the simple basics. It's why you expertise and an undoubtedly good mid does not help you; Godfaith is screwing it all up.
Denial of the many many debunks helps you no more than harping on the sideline question of whether Vic is lying about being an atheist. It just makes you look dishonest as well as irrational.
You know, your answers are kinda getting weak and lame. A little disappointing too.
I have stated this many, many times that I don’t “know”. And so do you.
If I already “KNEW”, that God exists, then I wouldn’t be using faith.
Once you KNOW something then you can’t use faith anymore.
For example, you don’t need “faith” to find the answer of 2+2, why because? You already “know” the answer.
Neither theists have the evidence that God exists nor Atheists have an evidence that God does not exist - both camps are using FAITH in this game of probabilities. We don’t really know. We have used our intelligence and our logic to do our research, and we have formed our faith. We shall now wait, and we shall probably see.
Saying that “I believe in the existence of God by faith” is NOT a claim. Remember?
“I know God exists”, <<~~~ that’s a claim
“I am Jesus Christ”, <~~~ Now that’s an extra ordinary claim.
And you can demand the evidence to support these claims.
But when a claim is not made, it’s an oxymoronic notion to demand an evidence.
With the amount of miles you have on you, I thought you’d knew what’s a claim and what’s not a claim. But oh well! It’s good to have reminders sometimes.
I think discussion of Darwinism and human evolution is not permitted here but you keep bringing it in your replies as a last resort.
Let’s put an end to this by saying,
You are free to believe in the work of others. And so am I.
There is a pretty large and well qualified population of scientists and biologists who do not believe that we came from a chimp. And I choose to believe in their work.
Read above again. (Second reply)
No claim is made, so no evidence is required.
What is rational to you, may not be rational to me. And whats irrational to you may not irrational to me. And vice a versa.
Our minds may work differently, we may have different life experiences and different ways of perceiving things. And hence we may arrive at different conclusion while assessing the same scenario.
We are simply standing firm on our ground, waiting till the truth is revealed to us.
This is where Atheists shoot themselves in the foot.
You don’t need an evidence to support the existence of Ganesh.
Ask a Hindu person to provide the evidence of the existence of Ganesh.
He will put a statute of half human half elephant in front of you, and will say, “Forget the evidence of Ganesh’s existence! Here is Ganesh in front of you”.
Being an Atheist, now you tell me, would you have any choice left to NOT believe in the existence Ganesh? You wanted to see the evidence of god, here you go, god is right in front of you.
You now have no choice but to believe in god Ganesh.
Looks like you won’t be an Atheist anymore.
What this Ganesh god does, or does not do, is a different story.
You are already trapped in believing in the existence of this god. You wanted the evidence. He showed himself to you on the spot.
Whom I am presenting any case and why? That’s news to me. Plz enlighten me.
I doubt that anyone can enlighten you because you don't listen. But someone may get something from this.
I think I do know what#s a claim and what isn't, and saying that you believe that a god exists is accepting the claim that it exists. Not accepting it is is not. This is your first irrationality.
Using faith as a validation of that belief is your second; Faith validates nothing at all; evidence does.
Ganesh, what it does or does not, and whether it requires evidence or not is exactly the same claim as Biblegod in any of its manifestations. Pretending that it is something else, is you third irrationality.
But you shoot yourself in the foot by saying that atheists use evidence for their case, and that is their faith. But you already said that without evidence, you don't need faith, which I agree with. Faith is useless and validates nothing; evidence does. Indeed religious apologists use evidence all the time and only revert to Faith when it fails to stand up.
When you argue here. you are presenting a case; the person you address the post to (at least) is whom. As a trick to score a cheap irrelevant point, that didn't come anywhere near working.
I'll leave it to the Mods - not you - to tell me what I can an cannot discuss. But you ask for evidence of why we discount the Theist claims. Origins of life and the species are 'evidence' put forward by Theists, very often. The evidence of evolution refutes that. It cannot be helped to refer to it, and the Mods understand that very well.
Yes, what it rational to you may not be rational to me, and vice versa. That is why we appeal to validated evidence and sound logic. There are agreed Rules about what is rational and what is not. You irrationality has been succinctly demonstrated in this post and i gladly leave you to appeals to irrational faith.
::Sigh::The only ones FORCING a claim are those who demand that the DEFAULT be "No God."
::sigh:: Of course it is the default... in the same way that no unicorns, no trees growing inside my car, no human beings who can run faster than the speed of sound, no carrots larger than a football field, no babies born with gold teeth, no tooth fairies, and no sandy beaches in Antarctica... are all default positions. Some of those are more possible than others, not all of them involve supernatural phenomena, but none of them have been seen to date. Each is a starting point, based on what we know of how the world works, and then we build on that starting point with evidence, as it becomes available. It is reasonable to stay with that default until evidence to the contrary becomes available.
To say otherwise is just playing games with words. Either that, or you have evidence that moves us away from the default.
I've been here several times before. To start with a cosmos of No claims is Not a claim. It is a blank slate start.
But that is NOT what you want to do. You want to pretend that your preferred claim is that what "we don't know what it IS" is NOT God. That is NOT a blank slate! That is a claim.
Quote:
We then go with what we can validate. The god claim cannot, despite all the First Cause arguments. This is very, very simple, but Godfaith prevents you from seeing even the simple basics. It's why your expertise and an undoubtedly good mind does not help you; Godfaith is screwing it all up.
You want to pretend we start with what we can NOT validate (No God) that is NOT the same as "No Claim."
Quote:
Denial of the many many debunks helps you no more than harping on the sideline question of whether Vic is lying about being an atheist. It just makes you look dishonest as well as irrational.
In what reality can someone who does NOT have the knowledge involved in a debate or does NOT comprehend the issues in the arguments get to decide who has debunked whom?
::Sigh::The only ones FORCING a claim are those who demand that the DEFAULT be "No God." That you pretend that is NOT forcing a claim is the most aggravating and annoying of your presumptuous and arrogant assertions about supposedly debunking everything theist without a shred of proof or even what you want to call evidence. Your lack of knowledge about what you do NOT know exposes your presumptuousness in pretending to know what has and has not been debunked. Your spurious claims to the contrary, you have YET to debunk anything of significance in ANY of the threads that do NOT involve absurd religious beliefs. Clearly, you believe that if you assert something untrue repeatedly it will be perceived as true. That is the true dishonesty here. Vic is exposing more and more of the unsupported premises in your unstated assumptions behind your assertions and it just frustrates you rather than enlightens you so you resort to ad hominems. Debating whether or not Vic is an atheist is a distraction from your inability even to know what he is trying to get you to see in your unspoken premises, also known as "givens."
Its so one sided that I honestly think trans is paid. I mean no way could he think his logic has held up.
But that is NOT what you want to do. You want to pretend that your preferred claim is that what "we don't know what it IS" is NOT God. That is NOT a blank slate! That is a claim. You want to pretend we start with what we can NOT validate (No God) that is NOT the same as "No Claim." In what reality can someone who does NOT have the knowledge involved in a debate or does NOT comprehend the issues in the arguments get to decide who has debunked whom?
That is not what I (and we) do, and I'll thank you not to tell me how I think. You are still thinking that God is a thing to be assumed until we can disprove it. That is not how we start. We start with No claim A blank slate. And You have to vaildate the god - claim.
This is simple and you Godfaith is screwing you up, this why You are the one who fails to understand the issues, You are the one who - even if you have the knowledge, cannot use it properly, because of Godfaith. So your attempt to belittle my intelligence simply rebounds on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Its so one sided that I honestly think trans is paid. I mean no way could he think his logic has held up.
You are so biased against me (as a representative of the liberal atheism you hate so much) that you are incable of being honest with yourself, let alone anyone else.
That is not what I (and we) do, and I'll thank you not to tell me how I think. You are still thinking that God is a thing to be assumed until we can disprove it. That is not how we start. We start with No claim A blank slate. And You have to vaildate the god - claim.
This is simple and you Godfaith is screwing you up, this why You are the one who fails to understand the issues, You are the one who - even if you have the knowledge, cannot use it properly, because of Godfaith. So your attempt to belittle my intelligence simply rebounds on you.
You are so biased against me (as a representative of the liberal atheism you hate so much) that you are incable of being honest with yourself, let alone anyone else.
lmao ... I am a liberal atheist, you are not. You are fundy think sect of atheism. I am bias against fund-think thinking. and dern proud of it.
I am biased against your reasoning to side with bad people.
You don't get that shunning, changing, minimizing valid science in the name of "stop all religion" is wrong. So you are not being honest. I claim bad people are bad people. bad people express bad beliefs. I focus on bad people's beliefs. You think its ok to side with anti-god no matter what.
so its you that is dishonest. basing how the universe works on "practical to me", "don't give theist anything", and "use what sells atheism." is not honest. By definition, following that dogma can't be honest.
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.
