Just because an argument exists, doesn't automatically make the argument valid. I could argue that millions of little gnomes engineered the universe, and would maintain the same level of intellectual honesty as William Lane Craig.
Many children "personally experience" the present of a boogie-man, that doesn't obviously count as proof of their existence. The title of this video is "William Lane Craig pwns Richard Dawkins", and this just shows how delusional certain people can be. Many atheists have already refuted all of his points. Creationism is a product of intelligent (using the word 'intelligent' loosely) design. The reality is that there is not a shred of evidence to show the complexity that exists cannot come about through natural processes. Supernatural causes cannot be assumed to exist without evidence. Atheists will always be right unless actual evidence comes about. Experiencing a "feeling" does not count as evidence (these feelings are created by the imagination, like when a child fears a boogie-man). If a person was told from birth that the sun is god, they would believe it. When people are young, they are incredibly vulnerable to nonsensical ideas.
As an Atheist, I'm ashamed of people like you. You are doing the exact same thing as the person who posted this video has done.
ReplyDelete"Many atheists have already refuted all of his points."
What you fail to recognize is that William Lane Craig has yet to actually lose a debate with an Atheist. Luke Muehlhauser does a phenomenal and FAIR assessment of Craig's accomplishments as a debater. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
It's comments like, "Atheists will always be right unless actual evidence comes about" that genuinely embarrass the Atheist community.
Please, for our sake, quit making public comments like, "just shows how delusional certain people can be." Use reason, and don't throw mud at evangelical idiots. We should be embarrassed that people like Richard Dawkins are too arrogant (more likely afraid) to debate Craig, or the fact the Sam Harris got slammed in his debate this past week.
I dont think your really an atheist, at least not an intelligent one.
Delete" "Atheists will always be right unless actual evidence comes about" that genuinely embarrass the Atheist community."
ReplyDeleteSays you.
Atheists are against the claim that God exist. There is no evidence that God exists. So in order to disprove atheism, proof of God (or any god/s) must be brought about. This hasn't happened yet, so an atheist cannot lose a debate by default. The side that is making the claim must provide evidence of that claim. You are a little slow if you believe the burden of proof is on the atheists (you cannot disprove a negative).
Sadly, you are a simple minded person that has become blinded by a well spoken pseudo-intellectual (referring to "Dr." William Lane Craig).
Richard Dawkins doesn't want to debate William Lane Craig because the debate would be very uninteresting. William Lane Craig would use his typical talking points; i.e. his standard circular arguments. I could take his arguments and argue for the existence any imaginary character just as effectively.
Let's say I was to claim that I have invisible unicorns in my basement. After I make this claim, a guy comes out that disagrees. Would it be up to the guy that disagrees to provide evidence that my invisible unicorns don't exist? Or is the burden of proof on me?
We obviously disagree over who is the true embarrassment in the atheist community. If you think the arguments William Lane Craig offers are valid in any way, shape, or form, then that shows how limited your intellectual capacity is (at least in my opinion).
That said, I do not believe you are actually an atheist. If you are, what argument does William Lane Craig present that is the most compelling to you? Keep in mind, if William Lane Craig is to defeat an atheist in a debate he must prove that God exists. Are you claiming that he has done this? As I said before, you do not seem like an atheist all, just a hypocrite.
Good day sir.
http://tinyurl.com/5srf8ov
ReplyDeleteWilliam Lane Craig IS Vizzini
LOL!
"Just because an argument exists, doesn't automatically make such arguments valid."
ReplyDeleteYou are correct! However, if you are asserting that an argument is, in fact, invalid, the burden of proof falls on you. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that the argument in question is invalid. You can do this in one of two ways. Either demonstrate the argument in question is invalid (the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises), or demonstrate that the argument is not sound (one of the premises are false). If the premises are true, and the argument is sound, then the conclusion must follow necessarily. If you choose to reject a sound argument, then you pay the price of intellectual suicide.
As far as your so-called gnome argument, even if you could create an valid argument in favor of gnomes under your bed, the argument would be fallacious since it would be all too easy to demonstrate that one or more of your premises are false or highly improbable. Also, personal experiences of "boogie-men", even if true, do not, and cannot "prove" existence of "boogie-men" anymore than you can prove that your experiences of your parents "prove" the existence of your parents.
As for your assertions of "delusional people", atheist refutations, and "Creationism is a product of Intelligent Design" are unfounded and, perhaps, delusional themselves.
"The reality is that there is not a shred of evidence to show the complexity that exists cannot come about through natural processes."
There is not a shred of evidence that shows that the complexity exists cannot come about through supernatural processes.
"There simply is no convincing evidence that Supernatural causes cannot be assumed to exist without evidence."
I agree. :)
"Atheists will always be right unless actual evidence comes about."
This is extremely presumptuous. 1. Unless you know everything (which you do not), how can you know that atheists will always be right? 2. What makes you think that evidence is the only way to know that you are right? How do you know that the evidence you perceive is, in fact, real - and not simply your own self-delusional?
"Experiencing a "feeling" does not count as evidence (these feelings are created by the imagination, like when a child fears a boogie-man)."
I agree, but I'm inclined to ask what type of psychological credentials you hold to make this assertion.
"If a person was told from birth that the sun is god, they would believe it. When people are young, they are incredibly vulnerable to nonsensical ideas."
Again, you unfounded assumptions are entirely without reason. I think you should take the advice from the atheist who posted above. It's probably best you say nothing at all, rather than make the rest of the atheist community look more foolish than they already do.
God Bless
"You are correct! However, if you are asserting that an argument is, in fact, invalid, the burden of proof falls on you. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that the argument in question is invalid."
ReplyDeleteI have made his claim invalid by pointing out that he provided no evidence for his claim. The burden of proof is on him to prove there is a God. If I was the claim that there are pink unicorns on the other side of the universe, shouldn't the burden of proof be on me? The guy that is making the claim?
"it would be all too easy to demonstrate that one or more of your premises are false or highly improbable"
Exactly, THAT IS THE POINT! There is just as much evidence backing the existence of God as there is for my gnome example.
"As for your assertions of "delusional people", atheist refutations, and "Creationism is a product of Intelligent Design" are unfounded and, perhaps, delusional themselves."
Explain why. Why are atheists deluded? To do this you need to provide some evidence that atheists are wrong (i.e. that a god/s exists).
"There is not a shred of evidence that shows that the complexity exists cannot come about through supernatural processes. "
There is not a shred of evidence that "supernatural processes" even exist, what the hell are you talking about? How can you make a claim, provide zero evidence, and believe that people should believe you? Were you a slippery baby? You need to provide evidence (your imagination, and twisted logic do not count as evidence for anything other than your own delusional world-view).
"This is extremely presumptuous. 1. Unless you know everything (which you do not), how can you know that atheists will always be right? 2. What makes you think that evidence is the only way to know that you are right? How do you know that the evidence you perceive is, in fact, real - and not simply your own self-delusional? "
You could say the same thing about ANY belief. This is mere word play, again, provide some evidence for your claim or gtfo.
"I agree, but I'm inclined to ask what type of psychological credentials you hold to make this assertion."
Just enough :)
"Again, you unfounded assumptions are entirely without reason. I think you should take the advice from the atheist who posted above. It's probably best you say nothing at all, rather than make the rest of the atheist community look more foolish than they already do. "
Nah, that guy wasn't even an atheist (agnostic or secret-theist). I feel sorry for you, a world-view that far off from objective reality can't be fun to maintain. If you want to keep your belief in God I would strongly recommend you stay off atheist sites like this. Atheists will always be winning the debate until believers (you) are able to provide some evidence for their claim. You are absolutely out of your mind to believe that atheists should believe in God because your little imagination believes such a thing exists.
I could claim that anything exists, and the mere fact that I believe it does not make it true in itself, evidence is what validates claims (this isn't a new concept).
Your failure to understand theistic arguments does not, in itself, invalidate theistic arguments. Theistic arguments are neither designed to (nor are they required to) “prove” God’s existence – they are merely designed to argue that (as Craig has repeated several times) “God provides the best explanation for…” so and so phenomena. At no point does Dr. Craig claim that his arguments “prove” God exists; his arguments only serve to demonstrate that theism (God in his view) provides the best explanation for the world as we know and understand it.
ReplyDeleteLet’s be clear, philosophy does not make any scientific claims. Since philosophy makes no scientific claims, it is not required to provide “evidence” to back up their inferences – their arguments (which are open to challenge) are their “evidences”. Philosophers need only demonstrate - through sound argumentation - that their conclusions are “more probable” than their alternatives. Philosophy makes no attempt to “prove” that God or any god exists – the existence of a god is self-evident to anyone with an open heart and mind. Philosophy (more specifically natural theology) only attempts to demonstrate that, given what do know about the world, belief in a God is just as reasonable (if not more so) than the belief that life is the product of time+matter+chance (The metaphysical worldview of scientific naturalism). Individually, theistic arguments do not “prove” the existence of God, but collectively, they make a cumulative case that God is the best explanation (given the alternatives) for what we know about the world.
Unlike natural theology, scientific naturalism has yet to demonstrate (philosophically or scientifically) that scientific naturalism is more (or even modestly) reasonable than it’s alternative (theism). Since scientific naturalism has yet to philosophically justify it’s own naturalistic worldview, it follows that naturalists are just as religious (if not more religious) as theists. Furthermore, since scientific naturalism is the foundation of atheism, it also follows that atheists (proponents of scientific naturalism) are just as religious (if not more so) as theists.
So I say again, if you have an argument you would like to refute, the burden of proof IS on you to demonstrate that the argument is unsound (a premise is false, or more improbable than an alternative) or invalid (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premises).
"Your failure to understand theistic arguments does not, in itself, invalidate theistic arguments."
ReplyDeleteI perfectly understand their arguments, and I see the problems with them.
"“God provides the best explanation for…” so and so phenomena."
The origin of the universe is unknown, how can anything be an explanation for an unknown? How can you claim that God is responsible for an unknown, when we don't even know that God exists. You must first prove that this being exists to be able to claim that the being is responsible for something. This is such basic logic, I really hope you are not that stupid. You cannot use ignorance to explain ignorance. This is a very real hole in your argument, and I find it hilarious that you refuse to except it.
"Let’s be clear, philosophy does not make any scientific claims. "
Of course it does, philosophy makes claims about the way things are. Philosophy is the religion of the pseudo-intellectual. Sociology, psychology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. is where real truth is found. In other words, truth can only be found utilizing observation.
"Philosophers need only demonstrate - through sound argumentation - that their conclusions are “more probable” than their alternatives. "
This shows a failure in the reasoning ability of such philosophers. You cannot access how probable an unknown is - something that is unknown is unknown. There is no probability with past events, only with unknown future events (that which quantum physics is concerned with). If we knew it all, there would be no probability, probability is a reflection of human ignorance.
"Philosophy makes no attempt to “prove” that God or any god exists – the existence of a god is self-evident to anyone with an open heart and mind."
Nice contradiction. Do you mean the same people that believe in talking snakes and virgin births? Yeah, real open minds, lol (irony at its finest).
" Individually, theistic arguments do not “prove” the existence of God, but collectively, they make a cumulative case that God is the best explanation (given the alternatives) for what we know about the world. "
Not at all :)
Why do you think most scientists are atheists? Those that actually know the most about the world do not typically believe in God.
"scientific naturalism has yet to demonstrate (philosophically or scientifically) that scientific naturalism is more (or even modestly) reasonable than it’s alternative (theism). "
In YOUR opinion.
"Furthermore, since scientific naturalism is the foundation of atheism, it also follows that atheists (proponents of scientific naturalism) are just as religious (if not more so) as theists. "
There is a clear difference between observable reality and imagined reality. You probably have zero idea of what I am referring to. But science (or more specifically the scientific method) is based on observation. The theistic realm is based on the imaginations of the ignorant (those that don't understand the big questions).
"if you have an argument you would like to refute, the burden of proof IS on you to demonstrate that the argument is unsound (a premise is false, or more improbable than an alternative) or invalid (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premises)."
Backwards logic. As I said, I do not believe you are truly this unintelligent. Sadly, you will warp logic to maintain an illogical belief. God only exists in your imagination, if you want to keep him there, I would avoid objective reality.
"I perfectly understand their arguments, and I see the problems with them..."
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to play your "circular YouTube quote-game." If you are incapable of engaging in logical arguments - preferably in coherent, thoughtful, and well-articulated paragraphs - I'm not going to waste my time debating this issue with you.
It is clear that you have some deeply rooted, religious beliefs - that no argument will sway you from. Your so-called arguments are nothing more than incoherent, one-line responses, ad hominem attacks, and straw man arguments. I'm afraid that until you learn to set aside your emotional issues and religious bias, the future of your debating life may be short lived. Seriously, nobody wants to argue with a religious fanatic who is completely closed off to the possibility of being wrong. An argument with you would more than likely prove to be very uninteresting.
Good luck and God Bless.
"It is clear that you have some deeply rooted, religious beliefs - that no argument will sway you from. Your so-called arguments are nothing more than incoherent, one-line responses, ad hominem attacks, and straw man arguments. I'm afraid that until you learn to set aside your emotional issues and religious bias, the future of your debating life may be short lived. Seriously, nobody wants to argue with a religious fanatic who is completely closed off to the possibility of being wrong. An argument with you would more than likely prove to be very uninteresting.
ReplyDeleteGood luck and God Bless."
i·ro·ny
noun /ˈīrənē/ /ˈiərnē/
ironies, plural
The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect
- “Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony
A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result
- the irony is that I thought he could help me
A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character
I don't argue against religion because I am open to the idea of it being true. I argue against religion because it is a cheap source of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteDance monkey dance! =D
Tell me more about how I can't possibly know God doesn't exists so that makes it highly probable that he does.
You probably have no idea how entertaining people like you are to me. To be perfectly honest I think you are dumber than a box of rocks. You argue for the existence of a being, but provide no evidence backing the claim... yet you see no problem with this. You're just a hypocritical moron.
If you actually think that this debate is interesting to me scientifically or philosophically then you are mistaken. I am interested in these sorts of debates from a psychological and sociological perspective only.
Trust me, I know exactly how entertaining this is for you! I spent 20 years of my life aggressively confronting and arguing with anyone who so much as uttered the word "God" to me. I took great pride in the number of "Christians" that I managed to convert to atheism. I was so ruthless, my mother stopped bringing her friends home from church - out of fear I would talk them out of their religion.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't until I stripped away all the rhetoric, strawmen, and ad hominem attacks that I realized that the arguments I arrogantly used to bring down the faith of Christians, in all actuality, held no water. They were, and are, nothing more than rhetorical smoke and mirrors - carefully designed to manipulate weak minded Christians into accepting a worldview they know less about than their own (atheism).
I guess it was easier for them to cling to the the ignorance required of atheism, than become educated Christians capable of defending their faith from the my assaults. So believe me when I tell you that I emphatically understand how enjoyable this is for you. As much as I enjoyed it tormenting Christians (and pulling the legs off of ants) I had to grow up - and some day, so will you.
God Bless - Oh how I enjoy knowing how much you hate me saying that...lol
"Oh how I enjoy knowing how much you hate me saying that"
ReplyDeleteNot at all. We obviously have a different world-view. I am very aware of why I believe the things that I do. You were never a true atheist. You hated your god for whatever reasons, and hated those that thought positively towards him/her/it. My atheism is not based in hatred/resentment. You should be careful to draw false connections. I was always very interested in science (even when I was a young Catholic), and I would always have waves of skepticism pass through my mind.
Atheism itself is not a world-view, it is the denial of a world-view. If there was no belief in a god/s there would be no use of the word 'atheist'.
You went back to Christianity (it was your base) out of fear (aging people are drawn to their conservative upbringing due to rapid cultural changes that make them feel uncomfortable). When people are afraid they naturally cling to deeply held world-views, you never lost your Christianity to begin with.
I have good reason to believe I will never become a Christian again. The amount of reflection I have done on the subject is much too intensive.
Your world-view demands that you look very hard for your "creator", I suggest looking in a photo album, you may find her picture there. Try to understand the relationship between the world-view you hold and the brain responsible for its creation/perpetuation, and then ask yourself who your true creator is. A thought is just a thought in the same way that a world-view is just a world-view. However, while everyone has their own world-view, some world-views match up closer to objective-reality than others.
You worship your ideas. Imagine that we have a devout Christian. The Christian gets hit in the head very hard, and forgets all memories (retains the ability to understand words and speak). If you were to ask this person about their religious beliefs they would not know. You cannot deny that people's memories/world-views can be destroyed by head injuries. Death is the ultimate destruction of the brain. Death will remove all the bullshit and reveal to us what we truly are - a self-replicating pattern that exists in the sea of energy.
You claim I hated “your (my) god” and was never a “true atheist”. This assertion begs the question of how you define “true atheism”. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “atheism” is defined as “a disbelief in the existence of deity” or “the doctrine that there is no deity”. It seems to me that your claim to have a superior form of atheism would best fit the latter definition – making your form of atheism more dogmatic, and religiously intolerant, than other forms of atheism. If you are claiming this dogmatic variant of atheism, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your religious form of atheism is more logically sound than the more defensible, traditional form.
ReplyDeleteThe former definition of atheism (disbelief in the existence of a deity) is the most defensible, and is the most widely accepted by the majority of educated atheists.
So, when I say I was an atheist, I am adhering to this version of atheism. I disbelieved in God, not out of hatred/resentment as you have claimed, but out of logic, reason, and my understanding of the world. The fact that I took joy in converting Catholics to atheism was merely a by-product of my atheism. A kid has to have a hobby, doesn’t he?
You claim that we have different worldviews, which implies atheism is your worldview, and then contradict yourself a few sentences later by claiming that atheism is not a worldview. So, which is it? You claim that atheism is a denial of a worldview, but I think you are mistaken here as well. Atheism is not simply a denial of a worldview, it is the disbelief in a deity. Disbelief in P is the same as belief in Not P. In other words, to disbelief in God (P) is a belief in no God (P).
The Merriam-Webster definition of a worldview is “the way someone thinks about the world “. Correct me if I’m wrong, but as an atheist, I am assuming you think, and more specifically, you think about the world. If you agree that you think about the world, then your belief that no God (P) exists is a worldview. Since you clearly have a worldview, and subsequently a belief that no God (P) exists, your belief needs to be philosophically justified. The burden of proof IS on you. It is your intellectual responsibility to provide sound arguments in support of your belief that no God (P) exists.
You are correct in stating that some worldviews match up closer to objective reality than others. As a Christian, I have weighed the evidence and followed it to its logical conclusion – even though that conclusion makes me uncomfortable. The conclusion my rational mind has led me to, after years of deep reflection, is theism. The evidence in the world around me seems to offer greater support for theism than for atheism.
To respond to your amnesia analogy, I would not wake up as an atheist if I incurred a head injury and lost my memories. In all probability, I would wake up having no memories or religious beliefs at all. When confronted about my belief in God, my initial response would likely be “I don’t know” - I would not know what I believed. If allowed a little time for reflection, I would most likely come to the conclusion that God’s existence is more probable than not. Since the victim would not know if God exists, he would most likely default to a form of agnosticism. Furthermore, since the existence of God would be self-evident to anyone with clean canvas on which to paint, an amnesia victim would more than likely lean towards theism. Thus, it follows logically from these two premises that the victim would most probably become an agnostic, theist.
"seems to me that your claim to have a superior form of atheism would best fit the latter definition – making your form of atheism more dogmatic, and religiously intolerant, than other forms of atheism."
ReplyDeleteWell, you are wrong.
My point was that I don't believe you totally lost your disbelief in God (perhaps there was a struggle, and in the end theism won?).
"You claim that we have different worldviews, which implies atheism is your worldview, and then contradict yourself a few sentences later by claiming that atheism is not a worldview."
Atheists have world-views, but that doesn't mean atheism is a world-view in itself. The word 'atheist' is just a label for those that don't possess a belief in a deity. I don't understand how you are unable to pick up on this. It is definitely not a contradiction.
You claim that God's existence is more probable than not. Based on what? Your all-encompassing world-view? No scientist has proven that God exists, apparently you have access to evidence they don't.
Either way you believe God's existence is up in the air (using the word 'probability'). Does this mean you are an agnostic? I suppose some people feel they need to hedge their bets (borderline OCD in my opinion). I wonder how gullible this god of yours is. To force yourself to believe something for the small chance that you may be rewarded for doing so seems very ingenuine (like a bratty child around Christmas). You realize Christians are suppose to base their belief in God on faith, not on "probability", right?
"The evidence in the world around me seems to offer greater support for theism than for atheism."
If this evidence is so incredible, why don't you share it? :)
An idea is just an idea, perhaps you should reflect more on the actual source of your ideas. You come here trying to argue for the existence of a god, and failed at doing so. Provide some evidence for your claim! Real evidence, not "wow, the human eye looks too complicated for me to understand, some all-powerful god that loves me must have done it...".
I’m not going to have a semantic argument with you. It makes no difference how or why the word “atheism” was created. It remains, nevertheless, a word used to describe a person with a certain belief – namely that there is no God. Cognitive beings, such as you and I, use words to label everything in our lives, as well as to communicate ideas. The creation of the label “atheist” was an inevitable consequence to the label of “theist” was created. Atheism is the label used to communicate the concept of a person who possesses a worldview that encompasses a disbelief in P (belief in no P). I don’t know how you’re not able to pick up on this – I even spelled it out for you in caps.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the fact remains, atheism is not merely a word used to communicate the concept of a person who “lacks a belief in God”; by that ad-hoc definition, there would be no way to distinguish between an atheist, such as yourself, and the atheist rocks in my back yard. Are you really going to accept an ad-hoc definition that equates you to the rocks in my back yard? I think it better you stick to the accepted definitions offered in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, or the Oxford English Dictionary.
Atheist don't believe in a god, this is not a belief, this is a non-belief. I'm not understanding why you are unable to understand this very basic concept. To believe in a god is to possess a belief that a god exists - to not possess this belief makes an individual an atheist. You're just trolling me, right? How are you unable to grasp this?
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand why atheists are so adamant in their denial of their belief that no God or gods exist. Perhaps if I spell it out for you, you’ll have a better grasp of your own theology.
ReplyDeleteDefinitions: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Worldview: "A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group."
Naturalism: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
Atheism: a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Religious: : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
Now, with the semantics out of the way, let’s see how atheism fits into these “scholarly accepted” definitions.
First, try to understand that a disbelief in the existence of a deity (P) is the belief that said deity does not exist (no P). Put in pure logical form, “Disbelief in P, implies belief in ‘no P’.”
Second, atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God; it does not exist in a vacuum. The foundational “worldview” of atheism’s is naturalism. Naturalism is a worldview that is defined as “a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically the ‘doctrine’ that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena”. Since atheism is based on the unscientific philosophical worldview of naturalism, it follows that naturalism, and subsequently atheism, both manifest “faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality” (no God). From this it follows, that not only is atheism not simply a lack of belief in God, but that it is, in fact, a religious belief that God does not exist.
I don't believe in Santa Claus either, but I wouldn't say my beliefs are shaped by this non-belief.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, you first must prove that God exists before you can give him credit for doing something. Prove God exists first, then show me what this being is responsible for. I'm all ears :)
As far as the "naturalism" thing, I guess you could say I'm a naturalist. Here are a few of my "beliefs"...
ReplyDelete-I believe all things have causes. I don't believe things can just magically come into existence from nothing.
-I believe energy is eternal. There is no reason to believe that energy is not eternal. We are eternal because we are energy (all things are, but take different forms throughout time).
-All that we believe exists is product of our imagination. We tend to all agree that objectivity is "real" because our observation of it tends to be reliable.
-World-views are formed by belief in believable ideas. I don't believe in a god simply because I don't find the idea to be believable.
-All that we believe exists "out there" is a product of our imagination.
-We are able to imagine the flow of time, even though there is only one moment we actually exist in (ask a rock how long it has been a rock), our imaginations are powerful enough to create this delusion.
-Everyone is delusional (even atheists), but some people's delusions are more useful/reliable than others.
It’s funny you should mention your disbelief in Santa Claus. Isn’t it odd that you don’t see any people, who simply lack a belief in Santa Claus, creating websites advocating their disbelief in Santa Claus? Your disbelief in Santa Claus is due to the fact that we lack posteriori and a priori knowledge of his existence – there is simply no evidence or reason for us to believe he exists. Unlike Santa Claus, however, there are strong a priori evidences that give us good reasons to believe that God exists.
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, your demand for posteriori evidence to support an a priori truth commits the fallacy known as a category mistake. By demanding an observable proof for an unobservable being, you are making an ontological error in which things of one kind are presented as if they belong to another. Since God is, by definition, a supernatural deity, he is outside the scope of observable, testable, and repeatable science. The obvious limitations of science, as your only source of knowledge, should cause a reasonable person to reconsider his epistemological assumptions.
It is apparent that you have many beliefs – many of which seem inconsistent with your naturalistic worldview. Your belief that all things have causes is justified by our observations of contingent relationships between observable objects in the natural world. However, to claim that ALL THINGS have causes, based on the few things we have observed, is an a priori claim, not a posteriori (naturalistic) one. In order for us to meet the posteriori requirements of naturalism, we must first observe ALL THINGS - which is impossible. Even if it were true that ALL THINGS have causes, it does not follow that an omnipotent being could not be the cause that brought the universe into existence – even if he did create it from nothing. Compared to the Big Bang Theory, which holds to the belief that the universe brought itself into existence out of nothing, I think the God hypothesis is much more consistent and less magical.
I’m not sure what you mean by the term “energy”, but it seems that your a priori belief that energy is eternal contradicts your naturalistic assumption that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena. So, if by “energy” you mean the observable energy evident in stars, electricity, and explosions, there is simply no naturalistic reason to believe that energy is eternal - or that there is any such thing as eternality. All the scientific evidence we have points to a finite universe that began approx. 14.7 billion years ago in the finite past. There is no eternality in science. The belief that energy is eternal is a faith-based assumption, often proposed by new age spiritualists.
All that we believe exists is as a product of our a priori and posteriori knowledge. We all tend to agree that our posteriori knowledge is “real” because we can all reach a consensus on what we observe. If what we observed to be “real” were simply part of our individual imaginations, then we would never reach a consensus on what we observe. Since we would all imagine different things, there could never be any such thing as "objectivity". All that we believe exists “out there” is a product of our a priori knowledge – not our imaginations. Nobody believes anything without reasons – even if the believer rarely articulates those reasons sufficiently. We are hardwired to use logic and reason to understand the world around us.
If, as you claim, worldviews are formed by beliefs in believable ideas, then ALL WORLDVIEWS are, by definition, believable ideas; this assertion would seem to include the believable ideas of atheism and theism, as well as many unbelievable ideas such as pantheism, and polytheism.
ReplyDeleteIf everyone is as delusional as you propose, then there is no reason anyone should listen to anyone else’s delusional ideas – much less your own. To claim otherwise is to succumb to your own delusional idea that one person’s delusions are more useful or reliable than your own. By what delusional standard does a delusional person measure how useful or reliable another person's delusions are – appeal to authority? You clearly have many inconsistent, contradictory beliefs. If you are seriously considering pushing your own delusional ideology on others, I suggest you take some time to reflect on what sort of justification you really have for accepting what it is you really believe. It seems that it takes more faith to believe what you believe than it takes to believe what I believe. At least I can say that I've given a lot of thought to the reasons behind my beliefs - I'm not sure you can honestly say the same.
"One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs." – Philip Johnson
I'm not pushing my ideas onto anyone :)
ReplyDeleteThis is my little spot on the internet, you are coming to me. Unfortunately for you, I don't find the existence of your god to be believable, it's as simple as that. What I said isn't exactly anything new, many philosophers have came to similar conclusions when it comes to this topic.
"By what delusional standard does a delusional person measure how useful or reliable another person's delusions are – appeal to authority? "
I can't speak for all people, but I personally value self-awareness (the only true awareness I believe exists). I value that which I can observe both subjectively and objectively (i.e. my senses), and I am not a very trusting in other people (most people are idiots and/or have an agenda). I have faith in the scientific method because it works.
I agree completely with your quote. But, as I have said, those that have put their trust in science have been shown results. What have those that have put faith in religion been shown? Other than...
-war
-bigotry
-ignorance
-sexual assault
-close-mindedness
-hatred
-fear
-shame
-domination
-exploitation
I believe your religion exploits fear and ignorance. For me, the idea that your religion is false is highly believable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm merely presenting my atheistic perspective.
I'm going to go grab some food, I'll respond to your other post (the first of the two) later :)
So you don’t find belief in God believable based on the authority of “many philosophers who came to similar conclusions?” Simply because many philosophers arrived at similar conclusions does not make their conclusions true; your logic is guilty of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. You believe the conclusions of atheist philosophers because they are atheist philosophers. Many theist philosophers arrived at similar conclusions as myself, but I don’t base my beliefs on their conclusion, I base my beliefs on my own ability to reason and understand their arguments. It seems we both agree on a lot of points; we have senses, we believe we exist, and we believe that most people are idiots and/or have an agenda. Most of all, we both value the scientific method because it works in helping us understand the natural world. I fail to see how any of these beliefs helps your argument that God does not exist, and that the natural world is all that exists.
ReplyDeleteAs for results, I can’t vouch for the “results” of anyone’s beliefs – religious or otherwise – but I don’t see any reason to believe that “results” should be a necessary requisite of belief. Why should a belief offer results? Isn’t it enough to believe something because that’s what the evidence suggests? I believe a lot of things that offer me no results in return. For example, I believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe, yet I have not received any “results” for this belief. Based on your reasoning, I should abandon all belief in life elsewhere in the universe. Or how about my belief that the earth has an electromagnetic field? Although I may benefit from the electromagnetic field, my belief in it offers me no results – I would be protected by from the Sun regardless of weather I believe in the EM field or not. Should I abandon my belief in the EM Field as well?
I believe your religion exploits fear and ignorance as well. In fact, based on the historical track records of the atheistic regimes such as that of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, the idea that your religion is false is not only highly believable, it is highly probable. History offers verifiable evidence that shows that atheism has killed more people in the 20th century than the all the world’s religions combined over the previous 19 centuries.
Don't start throwing mud; you'll only lose ground.
"So you don’t find belief in God believable based on the authority of “many philosophers who came to similar conclusions?”"
ReplyDeleteI never said my stance was based on the conclusions of others. My journey to atheism was very subjective.
"your logic is guilty of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. "
Says the Christian *rolls eyes*
"Many theist philosophers arrived at similar conclusions as myself, but I don’t base my beliefs on their conclusion, I base my beliefs on my own ability to reason and understand their arguments. "
That's great, I hope it is true.
"I fail to see how any of these beliefs helps your argument that God does not exist, and that the natural world is all that exists."
If you look at where the idea of your God comes from (the bible), it has been shown to be inaccurate scientifically and historically. Simply put, the bible has been shown time and time again as being a poor source of accurate information. Even outside of that, given the information in front of me, I find it highly unlikely that an "all-powerful" being just *poofed* it "all" into existence from nothing. I believe that the forces that have led us to this point have developed over a very very very long period of time. I believe complexity takes time to arise.
"the idea that your religion is false is not only highly believable, it is highly probable"
I find it interesting that you leave the possibility open in your mind. Of course you find atheism to be false and not believable. I hope you understand that probability is a product of ignorance, there either is a God or there isn't. .
If you want to believe my beliefs are irrational and false, do so as much as you need to, and I hope you enjoy the ride :)
You clearly have a lot of beliefs, and I applaud you for your unyielding faith. As for the universe “poofing” itself into existence, both atheism and theism hold to this view. The key distinction between the two is that theism is justified, whereas atheism is not. Atheism believes the universe poofed itself into existence, and theism believes God poofed it into existence. If the former sounds more plausible to you, then you have more faith than I ever could.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, as unbelievable as God may sound to you, unbelief does not refute theism, nor does it justify atheism. I think I have justified my position adequately enough. I’ve sufficiently demonstrated the logical inconsistencies of atheism, and gave several good reasons for believing that theism is more logically consistent and coherent than atheism. As for your unfounded claims against the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible, that’s another argument, and I won’t go chasing that red herring here.
I don’t believe all your beliefs are irrational, but I do believe you haven’t thoroughly analyzed your reasons behind your beliefs – you have not followed your reasons to their logical conclusions. I believe that you believe that you are right, but this is most likely due to your own cognitive dissonance – you believe what you believe because you want your beliefs to be true. I guess I can’t fault you for that; we all want to be happy and enjoy our lives. Perhaps it is true that ignorance is bliss; you seemly might blissful in your worldview. Anyways, I wish you luck with your site and hope you enjoy the ride as well – at least while it lasts.
"Atheism believes the universe poofed itself into existence, and theism believes God poofed it into existence"
ReplyDeleteAtheism itself has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. I don't believe the universe just "poofed" itself into existence. We don't know where the universe came from (the energy). You can think that some all-powerful being did it all you want, but there is no evidence of this, and it is a completely unsatisfying explanation for many of us.
"As for your unfounded claims against the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible, that’s another argument, and I won’t go chasing that red herring here. "
---------------
"He said to them, "Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to all people. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. Believers will be given the power to perform miracles: they will drive out demons in my name; they will speak in strange tongues; if they pick up snakes or drink any poison, they will not be harmed; they will place their hands on sick people, and these will get well."" -Mark 16:15-18 GNB
---------------
While the Amorites were running down the pass from the Israelite army, the LORD made large hailstones fall down on them all the way to Azekah. More were killed by the hailstones than by the Israelites. On the day that the LORD gave the men of Israel victory over the Amorites, Joshua spoke to the LORD. In the presence of the Israelites he said, "Sun, stand still over Gibeon; Moon, stop over Aijalon Valley." The sun stood still and the moon did not move until the nation had conquered its enemies. This is written in The Book of Jashar. The sun stood still in the middle of the sky and did not go down for a whole day. Never before, and never since, has there been a day like it, when the LORD obeyed a human being. The LORD fought on Israel's side! -Joshua 10:11-14 GNB
---------------------------------
The storm was getting worse all the time, so the sailors asked him, "What should we do to you to stop the storm?" Jonah answered, "Throw me into the sea, and it will calm down. I know it is my fault that you are caught in this violent storm." Instead, the sailors tried to get the ship to shore, rowing with all their might. But the storm was becoming worse and worse, and they got nowhere. So they cried out to the LORD, "O LORD, we pray, don't punish us with death for taking this man's life! You, O LORD, are responsible for all this; it is your doing." Then they picked Jonah up and threw him into the sea, and it calmed down at once. This made the sailors so afraid of the LORD that they offered a sacrifice and promised to serve him. At the LORD's command a large fish swallowed Jonah, and he was inside the fish for three days and three nights. -Jonah 1:11-17
---------------------------
"I don’t believe all your beliefs are irrational, but I do believe you haven’t thoroughly analyzed your reasons behind your beliefs – you have not followed your reasons to their logical conclusions."
I've thought about it for years as a Christian. Atheism is the logical conclusion, at least for me.
Where do you believe God came from? Did he just "poof" himself into existence? Do you believe that he always existed? I understand that you want there to be an all-powerful being to protect and to take care of you. You cannot deny that you want theism to be true. Being that no evidence exists to justify theism, it seems obvious why you believe what you do. You want theism to be true, and I don't see any reason to believe it is true.
That said, enjoy your religion, don't worry about those that don't share your beliefs.
Either the contingent universe "poofed" into existence "out of nothing" (Big Bang Theory) or some other non-contingent "God" or "Energy" "poofed" it into existence. Which is it? You can think of some all-powerful "Energy" all you want, but there is no evidence of this, and it is completely unsatisfying explanation for many of us.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I don't believe you're a "real atheist". Real atheists don't make the sort of metaphysical claims that you so often do. It seems to me that the concept of God isn't that difficult for you to grasp - it's only the terminology you are struggling with. If I rewrote everything you've said up to this point, and replaced every instance of the word "Energy" with "God" you would be a bona fide deist.
"Mark 16:15-18 GNB
Joshua 10:11-14 GNB
Jonah 1:11-17"
I've already told you that I'm not chasing your red herrings here. This is not a theological discussion, this is a philosophical and scientific one.
"I've thought about it for years as a Christian. Atheism is the logical conclusion, at least for me."
Considering that most Christians don't really think, I find it hard to believe that you did any thinking as a Christian. It's more likely that you rejected Christianity due to your ignorance of Christian theology, and, consequently, fell into some form of pseudo-atheism - most likely due to some seemingly intuitive, rhetorical arguments pedaled by some articulately, influential atheists.
"Where do you believe God came from? Did he just "poof" himself into existence? Do you believe that he always existed?"
The question "Where did God come from" is a non-nonsensical question; it is the same as asking "What caused the first cause?". The "FIRST CAUSE", by it's very definition, IS the "FIRST CAUSE". If something else CAUSED the FIRST CAUSE, then the FIRST CAUSE would no longer be the FIRST CAUSE. Your question is logically incoherent. Logically incoherent questions have no answers, making your question a non-question. Questions such as "What caused God?" are riddles designed to confuse impressionable theists, and sway them into embracing atheism - probably due to some fear of being an ignorant theist along with the acceptance of being an ignorant atheist.
"I understand that you want there to be an all-powerful being to protect and to take care of you. You cannot deny that you want theism to be true."
Not at all! In fact, I hope for all our sakes atheism turns out to be true. If Christianity is true, over two-thirds of the world's population - past, present, and future - are going to spend eternity in hell, including many who truly believe they are Christians! Considering that even I fall short of what it means to be a true Christian, I am most likely going to hell along with you. At least if atheism were true, the prospect of death would seem less worrisome - we would all face annihilation upon death. Annihilation sounds much more appealing than the thought of judgement and eternal existence in either heaven or hell.
I don't believe Christianity is true because I want it to be true; I believe it is true because logic and reason suggest that it is. If I based my beliefs on ignorance or what I want to be true, I would no doubt be an atheist like you. I simply don't believe that specified complexity can arise from random chaos, nor do I believe that life arose from rocks. I simply don't have enough faith to be an atheist like you. I don't see any reason to believe that atheism is true.
Fortunately, through atheists like yourself, the day may come where all blind followers of logic and reason may one day be saved, and finally come to believe in your "Energy".
I stopped reading when I got to this:
ReplyDelete"The origin of the universe is unknown, how can anything be an explanation for an unknown?"
Seriously? "How can anything be an explanation for an unknown?"
"Anything" cannot be an explanation for an unknown. Some explanations are more probable than others. Given what we do know, however, we can arrive at an explanation that best accounts for the phenomenon we observe - that the universe exists, and that it had a beginning in the finite past.
ReplyDeleteSince the universe had a beginning, it follows that it must be contingent on something else for it's existence. Since it is illogical to think that things can pop in and out of existence, uncaused by nothing, it is more reasonable to believe that some other _______ brought the universe into existence.
Since there cannot be an infinite series of contingent causes, it follows that there must be a cause that is, itself, non-contingent, or uncaused. This uncaused, first cause is what Jeremy calls "Energy", and theists call "God". Both explanations require a degree of faith, but the former requires more than the latter.
Energy is an inadequate explanation for the universe, since energy is a property of the universe, and there is no reason to believe that it exists outside of it. Further, believing that energy caused the universe only pushes the problem back further. Energy requires an explanation for it's existence. Since it is illogical to believe in an infinite series of contingent causes, the best explanation for the contingent universe is to believe in a non-contingent, uncaused, first cause - what theists call God.
Logos777 is just a hypocrite. A Christian troll.
ReplyDeleteRichard I’m a fan, but this is all so embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteThe faith-heads think we are cowards.
WLC’s arguments are baseless – why doesn’t Richard get up and blow him away?
So what if he has a sick interpretation of certain whack passages in the bible – even the more to get up and shove the embarrassment in his face.
All these “excuses” for not destroying his arguments are getting me down. I’m not interested in name calling; I’m interested in his arguments being destroyed in public debate. Each premise being logically defeated.
Hat’s off to Stephen Law, Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris – come on Richard get some balls.
Why don't you grow some balls, and blow him away yourself? If Craig's arguments are so bad, then even a troll like yourself should be able to refute them without breaking a sweat. We are all waiting....
ReplyDeleteI'd be glad to refute any of Craig's arguments. Just pick one and I'll reply.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify and get away from some of the more penis-measuring type of things you guys have gotten into. Atheism is not a faith or a belief system. Claiming so as an Atheist or a Theist is a perversion of the word. We do not believe in god because there is no reason to, no evidence or logical argument for it. That's it, it requires no proof or backup. I'd argue that there are more reasons to believe in Santa Claus, because at least he does not have silly scriptures that disprove him while attempting to do the opposite.
"Atheism is not a faith or a belief system. Claiming so as an Atheist or a Theist is a perversion of the word."
ReplyDeleteBe so as it may, the argument that atheism is a faith or belief system is an argument based on the internal inconsistencies of the atheist worldview itself. Since atheism denies the existence of God, it actually affirms the opposite, or no God. Atheism affirms a negative! By affirming the non-existence of God (P) based on "apparent" non-existence of evidence (No Q) implies that there really is no evidence--when in fact, you have yet to be exposed to the evidence you seek. Without possessing absolute omniscience yourself, it is more rational to renounce your atheism and accept the neutrality of agnosticism.
Even if we chose to ignore the majority of dictionaries that have defined atheism as "a belief or doctrine that there is no god or gods," and instead hold to the "lack of belief" definition found only in the Oxford English Dictionary--no doubt edited and published by Richard Dawkins--atheism, as a proper philosophical worldview, is grossly incoherent.
Since you will undoubtedly cling to the "lack of belief" definition for atheism, let me just point out that my dog, and the shrubs and rocks in my backyard are also atheists--according to the Oxford definition. Surely, the philosophical worldview you are attempting to express is grounded in an IQ higher than the IQ of the rocks in my backyard.
Regardless of which definition you chose to accept, atheism is unequivocally a faith-based belief.
Logos777, as one who is currently in college, it is so reassuring to see that someone else has gone through the various swings and increasing depths of understanding as I have, and perhaps even more so.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posts. Though it's unlikely Jeremy will be convinced of what you say (because at the very core we believe what we believe more so because of some emotional attachment to the belief than full reasoning--much like what you said about cognitive dissonance), your comments will be of great benefit to those who are willing to criticize their own way of thinking.
I just want you to know that your efforts are in no way wasted and that you have influence onto the audience of this blog.
This leads me to a principle I have recently become aware of in life. The ultimate way of acquiring understanding is this: Assume that your current view is wrong and do your best to come up with reasons why. If you cannot come up with anything then your original view was correct, however, I would say that if you did not come up with some new problem to wrestle with, you did not think deeply enough. Once you discover this problem, assume that there is a solution to the problem and seek it. If you find no solution, then the problem you have becomes your new view on things and you have shifted from your original position to this new view. Once the new view becomes comfortable, it should signal to you that it's time to repeat this process and assume that it is wrong. Each time you do this process you will come away with a greater level of understanding than before, and eventually you will arrive at an ultimate conclusion, or a point where it is just impossible to keep asking why.
Look at all the pseudo-intellectuals commenting on my blog, gives me that warm fuzzy feeling :)
ReplyDeleteBTW Drago, your delusions of grandeur are showing. A lot of idiots go to college, I see them every day. If you think JUST attending college means anything, that says just about EVERYTHING about you :)
Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteDid you have any new insights to include in our previous argument? Or do you just pop in from time to time to launch ad-hominem attacks against those who you, yourself, can not argue effectively with?
Also, what exactly is a pseudo-intellectual? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary an "Intellectual" is defined as:
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c : requiring use of the intellect
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect
Given the preceding definition, it seems that anyone who ponders a question with their minds--as opposed to their faith--are intellectuals. This definition would seem to include theists and, yes, even atheists.
As for the term "pseudo-intellectual," the term does not seem to exist in any scholarly dictionary. The only definition I have found is located in a lay dictionary located at dictionary.com. Here, a "pseudo-intellectual" is defined as "a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship."
Since the term "pseudo-intellectual" has no basis in sound scholarship, it follows that anyone who would use such a non-word is, in fact, manifesting a characteristic in others that they themselves possess. If "pseudo-intellectuals" do exist, we would know who they are by their use of terms like "pseudo-intellectual."
atheism is atheism. what is atheism? without gods right? so therefore if you can rationalize things without gods then your atheist. or is there more than that? what is a god? what are gods? consciousce containers of changeable energys. if an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, then somewhere human consciousce has gathered together to its supreme point.whats so complex about that. move on. yabder aka wapapa.
ReplyDelete"what is atheism?"
ReplyDelete[Atheism]: a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
"what is god?"
[God] capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
"if an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, then somewhere human consciousce has gathered together to its supreme point.whats so complex about that."
Other than the fact that you just used your own misunderstanding of Newton's Laws of Motion to fabricate your own religious ideology, a lot, actually.
Newton's Laws of Motion are used to describe the behavior of physical objects in the physical universe. In light of the latest scientific discoveries, there is no hypothesis, or theory that supports the belief that human consciousness is, in fact, a physical object--much less that it should obey Newton's Laws of Motion.
Since Newton's Laws of Motion are describe physical objects, and there is no rational reason to believe that human consciousness is a physical object, it follows that the belief that human consciousness will ultimately gravitate towards any "supreme point" is highly fallacious and overly presumptuous (Anonymous).
If human consciousness can continue to exist outside the physical body--and thereby gravitate towards a "supreme point"--then its continued immaterial existence would be strong evidence for the existence of the supernatural, and God.
its like if i can make an artificial heart? what do i need a heart for. im pretty sure it doesnt work like that. is a naturally evolved body supposed to cope with an inferior technology, whose superficial understanding will ultimatly cause its own demise? thats atheism. the quantum physics experiments seem to hint that when you make something unchangeable it stays unchangeable. if your mind cant rationalize how it will change then you are limited to that understanding. however if you dont try to figure everything out and have a basic understanding of how to make use of things, then theres still room for change.
ReplyDeletealso regarding faith. even if atheists arent using faith_ something is. the rock must be under the impression its going to stay a rock, unless your the one who wants it to be a rock. technically if it wasnt for the human mind filtering the unpleasant things, by faith, we should probably be less comfortable. either the mind is making reality-- which is god,
or there is some strange coincidence that this existence is so "stable"_
ockhams razor__ singularity- humanmind genetically programmed to separarate singularity- cause and effect- displacement theory-
no consciousce vs super consciousce-
super consciouscegets gets scared trys to distract from scary stuff- organizes things into logical cause and effect situation- supervises cause and effect situations, but remains distanced and trys to stay distracted.
god as superhuman would have the best of everything, the best enjoyment,_the best pain, the best happyness, _the best fears. why would anyone want to be god. why would god even want to be god. its better to have a low profile. think of what hed have to deal with.
theory- ockhams razor is the only true science.
Huh...? You just said a whole lot without saying much of anything at all. Do everyone a favor and try to organize your thoughts into complete, concise, and coherent sentences. Maybe through the process of organizing your own thoughts, you will recognize how incoherent and flawed your thoughts really are.
ReplyDeleteLogos777, why are you such a saaaaaaad panda? :(
ReplyDeleteAs always, Jeremy, you contribute little to no arguments, rebuttals, or constructive thought to a subject based on nothing more than your own blind misconceptions. Its actually pretty sad, considering that the Atheist Perspective is your website.
ReplyDeleteOne would think that a website offering an atheist perspective, might actually offer an actual atheists' perspective. The only perspective I have seen on your website thus far is the false perspective that atheists are petty, immature, and ignorant. This website may lead many to falsely believe that atheists are more interested in slinging poo than actually engaging people in intelligent conversation.
As opposed to your tactic of slinging poo, civilized conversation removes prejudices, clears up misconceptions, and opens minds. Rather than proliferating these barriers to communication, why not use your soon-to-be-expiring freedom of speech as an opportunity to share your knowledge with others, while you still can? You never know, you might even increase your knowledge and sharpen your own understanding.
Ultimately, we all desire to know the truth. Rather than squabbling over our petty differences, why not build our knowledge and understanding on the common ground of our similarities? Doing so will improve our collective knowledge and improve everyone's understandings of our world and the human condition.
My two cents, spend it wisely...
"As always, Jeremy, you contribute little to no arguments, rebuttals, or constructive thought to a subject based on nothing more than your own blind misconceptions"
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that I ALWAYS did that. I must be a real asshole. Anyways, this whole thing is silly. At the end of the day, we have things we can sense and powerful imaginations (delusion is often caused by the mixing of these two things...a blurring of the lines so-to-speak). I believe that this "God" thing is a product of the imagination (which is obviously a very powerful thing). I don't believe people can "sense" God (I obviously am limited to my own senses and beliefs). When people imagine this all-amazing being, the emotional states which are created can be very very powerful (similar to the grandiose euphoria of bipolar disorder). Belief is a very powerful mechanism, but it is also a product of the imagination ALWAYS (imagination based on reality or not). I prefer to see my world through my eyes, not my imagination. The case people make for God is not compelling. The best they have is that the universe exists, so there MUST be a God...let's just say, such a claim would never hold up in court for the same reason rainbows being proof of leprechauns wouldn't.
"why not use your soon-to-be-expiring freedom of speech as an opportunity to share your knowledge with others"
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by this btw? Where is my freedom to speak going?