The confusion about faith (America, Adam, virtual, American)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

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?

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

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 validate the god - claim.

We do NOT make a claim. We state a belief. YOU do. "No God" is a God claim when you demand it be the default for our ignorance of what our Reality IS. Your refusal to understand this obvious CLAIM must be deliberate obfuscation to instantiate your atheism as the preferred position. THAT is dishonest!

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.

I do not belittle your intelligence, Arq. Your biblical scholarship (while unconventional) is creative and quite thought-provoking. But your lack of knowledge in critical areas combined with your inordinate overconfidence in your understanding of the issues just annoys.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

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.

Extremists often see themselves as the Norm and all those who disagree as the extremists.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

We do NOT make a claim. We state a belief. YOU do. "No God" is a God claim when you demand it be the default for our ignorance of what our Reality IS. Your refusal to understand this obvious CLAIM must be deliberate obfuscation to instantiate your atheism as the preferred position. THAT is dishonest!

Mystic that is totally confused. Your'belief' is a claim 'A god exists'. Non belief in that claim is not a claim Forcing a 'no god' claim as a knowledge position (when axiomatically, agnosticism is the basis of atheism) is simply -as you say - dishonest, especially when it has been pointed out to you several times.

You make this even worse by trying to hook your beef with the materialist default through the utterly irrelevant not knowing what the Reality is, never mind the leapfrogging of non- sequiturs to "Our reality". Mystic, it's obvious that you have completely lost the plot and are just stringing irrelevancies to together to get to where you want - Godfaith is right and atheism is wrong. You certainly haven't substantiated you case here.

I do not belittle your intelligence, Arq. Your biblical scholarship (while unconventional) is creative and quite thought-provoking.

That's for sure. I could be talking complete crap, but so far..nobody has shown that to be so.

But your lack of knowledge in critical areas combined with your inordinate overconfidence in your understanding of the issues just annoys.

Nobody is within a light year of you for over -confidence, but the fact is that your faith -based errors are so obvious and glaring that it is hard to be in doubt. It is your faith -based lack of rationality that is screwing you, not your lack of knowledge.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Mystic that is totally confused. Your belief' is a claim 'A god exists'. Non-belief in that claim is not a claim Forcing a 'no god' claim as a knowledge position (when axiomatically, agnosticism is the basis of atheism) is simply -as you say - dishonest, especially when it has been pointed out to you several times.
You make this even worse by trying to hook your beef with the materialist default through the utterly irrelevant not knowing what the Reality is, never mind the leapfrogging of non- sequiturs to "Our reality". Mystic, it's obvious that you have completely lost the plot and are just stringing irrelevancies to together to get to where you want - Godfaith is right and atheism is wrong. You certainly haven't substantiated your case here.

That is the point you keep missing. NEITHER of us can substantiate our beliefs as CLAIMS. You have repeated your semantic jiggery so often you probably actually believe it. We are BOTH free to BELIEVE that our reality is God or that it is not God using whatever evidence we consider probative. But you can NOT demand that we use the "Not God" as default and demand OTHER evidence for God without implicitly asserting YOUR belief as a defacto CLAIM requiring no evidence or proof. You seem to believe that if you confuse and conflate the definitions of atheist/agnostic sufficiently you can keep your default as atheism and annoy the theists with demands for proof OTHER than what is already extant.

That's for sure. I could be talking complete crap, but so far..nobody has shown that to be so.

Yes, you have a remarkable talent for ingenious crap.

Nobody is within a light year of you for overconfidence, but the fact is that your faith-based errors are so obvious and glaring that it is hard to be in doubt. It is your faith-based lack of rationality that is screwing you, not your lack of knowledge.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that my BELIEFS are based on personal experiences. They are just buttressed by extensive plausible scientific hypotheses (NOT validated). You have always had a problem parsing the two facets of my views and focus almost exclusively on my BELIEFS and faith in the Christ narrative. I suspect that is because it is easiest to rebut.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Extremists often see themselves as the Norm and all those who disagree as the extremists.



Mystic that is totally confused. Your'belief' is a claim 'A god exists'. Non belief in that claim is not a claim Forcing a 'no god' claim as a knowledge position (when axiomatically, agnosticism is the basis of atheism) is simply -as you say - dishonest, especially when it has been pointed out to you several times.

You make this even worse by trying to hook your beef with the materialist default through the utterly irrelevant not knowing what the Reality is, never mind the leapfrogging of non- sequiturs to "Our reality". Mystic, it's obvious that you have completely lost the plot and are just stringing irrelevancies to together to get to where you want - Godfaith is right and atheism is wrong. You certainly haven't substantiated you case here.



That's for sure. I could be talking complete crap, but so far..nobody has shown that to be so.




Nobody is within a light year of you for over -confidence, but the fact is that your faith -based errors are so obvious and glaring that it is hard to be in doubt. It is your faith -based lack of rationality that is screwing you, not your lack of knowledge.

you do see yourself as totally rational and your belief system will save us. hence you preponderance in clinging to "personal practical reasons", "feeling religion is so dangerous", and things like "apologetics" to make your case in you knowing what's best for the public to follow.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I await examples.

Post 156 is part of the evidence for atheism, (which includes strong atheism).

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

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.

Yes, you do seem to have an inability to think Bayesian.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

That's just reasserting the claim. By what logic do we say "The size of the universe suggests there is no god"?

Because a large, old universe supports atheism because it is a requirement for us to have the chance to evolve. The fact that I need to explain this is amusing.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

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.

As your memory appears to be short, John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 442. This third time is enough.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That is the point you keep missing. NEITHER of us can substantiate our beliefs as CLAIMS. You have repeated your semantic jiggery so often you probably actually believe it. We are BOTH free to BELIEVE that our reality is God or that it is not God using whatever evidence we consider probative. But you can NOT demand that we use the "Not God" as default and demand OTHER evidence for God without implicitly asserting YOUR belief as a defacto CLAIM requiring no evidence or proof. You seem to believe that if you confuse and conflate the definitions of atheist/agnostic sufficiently you can keep your default as atheism and annoy the theists with demands for proof OTHER than what is already extant.

As usual, your accusations work very well when applied to yourself. If you don't want to treat what is known about the world as the default, that is your problem. When you start abusing others because they do accept the 'default', it becomes a nuisance.

Yes, you have a remarkable talent for ingenious crap.

You have a remarkable talent for cheap cracks.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that my BELIEFS are based on personal experiences. They are just buttressed by extensive plausible scientific hypotheses (NOT validated). You have always had a problem parsing the two facets of my views and focus almost exclusively on my BELIEFS and faith in the Christ narrative. I suspect that is because it is easiest to rebut.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that I KNOW that your beliefs are based on personal experiences. I know this, even when you roll up plonking these beliefs down as claims that we should apparently accept, and I know how abusing and deprecating you can get when anyone disagrees with Your Beliefs.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

As usual, your accusations work very well when applied to yourself. If you don't want to treat what is known about the world as the default, that is your problem. When you start abusing others because they do accept the 'default', it becomes a nuisance.

You have a remarkable talent for cheap cracks.



I have repeatedly acknowledged that I KNOW that your beliefs are based on personal experiences. I know this, even when you roll up plonking these beliefs down as claims that we should apparently accept, and I know how abusing and deprecating you can get when anyone disagrees with Your Beliefs.

yeah, our team doesn't do that You know, to keep that "springboard" that our team so clearly understands from public eyes.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Post 156 is part of the evidence for atheism, (which includes strong atheism).

Okay, well let's have a look at it...

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

When we go outside, we do not see gods with elephant heads, or monkeys flying on clouds, or people walking on water.

Which doesn't even address belief in the Christian god, or any other god which is said to be immaterial, the creator of the universe, etc., much less refute it.

When we look at science, we always find it was never a god that did it. We keep on finding that we do not need a god to explain things.

Which would refute a sort of "god-of-the-gaps" mentality. One cannot assume that just because we don't know the answer to a question, that therefore god did it. That doesn't, however, mean one cannot use god as a hypothesis for explaining things in the world (or else you're just stacking the deck).

And of course, it doesn't follow from here that god doesn't exist at any rate.

The fact that there are thousands of god beliefs is evidence that people invent gods.

Which doesn't issue in the conclusion that all gods are invented...

The fact that those who are desperate to defend their beliefs have to lie, or use fallacies is evidence they have no evidence for their claims.

Doesn't suggest anything about the god's existence/non-existence either.

We have a whole universe of evidence that atheism is most probably true (whether it is or not).

Such as?

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Because a large, old universe supports atheism because it is a requirement for us to have the chance to evolve.

Doesn't in any way suggest we weren't created and then evolved (or that god didn't "use evolution" as some Christians say) to create us.

As your memory appears to be short, John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 442. This third time is enough.

And how did he misrepresent them?

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Okay, well let's have a look at it...

Cue irrelevant posts, an 'ability' to not understand the obvious, goal post moving, etc.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Which doesn't even address belief in the Christian god, or any other god which is said to be immaterial, the creator of the universe, etc., much less refute it.

So zombies walking on water exist? Of course it addresses it, as we do not see angels, miracles, etc. and no evidence for gods is evidence for atheism.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Which would refute a sort of "god-of-the-gaps" mentality. One cannot assume that just because we don't know the answer to a question, that therefore god did it. That doesn't, however, mean one cannot use god as a hypothesis for explaining things in the world (or else you're just stacking the deck).

Irrelevant, it is still evidence for atheism. But yes, evidence does tend to stack the deck.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

And of course, it doesn't follow from here that god doesn't exist at any rate.

Irrelevant, it is still evidence for atheism. Are those goal posts heavy?

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Which doesn't issue in the conclusion that all gods are invented...

It is overwhelming evidence that they probably are.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Doesn't suggest anything about the god's existence/non-existence either.

Then I would study 1) probability, and 2) cognitive bias if I was wearing your shoes.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Such as?

Not one god any where, and none required.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Doesn't in any way suggest we weren't created and then evolved (or that god didn't "use evolution" as some Christians say) to create us.

Irrelevant, it is still evidence for atheism. And yes, evolution also stacks the deck.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

And how did he misrepresent them?

He alleged they were confirming Hawking's was talking about creation from absolutely nothing when they were pointing out that is the flaw in the argument if Hawking's if he did not take quantum mechanics into consideration.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Post 156 is part of the evidence for atheism, (which includes strong atheism



.

What’s the difference between atheism and ‘strong atheism’? (Sorry, I wasn’t clear - which just can’t be differentiated by atheism or agnosticism rather than adding ‘strong’ or ‘very’).