Quote from: string on 2013-12-02, 09:22:43Well I'm agnostic, which accepts that neither religion nor atheism can prove they are right.That's not exactly Agnosticism...Agnosticism it's different and consists in realizing that the ultimate truths, as the existence or not of God, are inaccessible to the human spirit. It realizes perfectly the paradox of God's definition (in the sense of a total and global human mental comprehension) and basically adopts a posture of "denial of knowledge" - A-Gnosis, therefore the word. An agnostic knows that he can't ever know.It's the maximum expression of Man's finitude and insignificance and a refusal and disbelief about the possibility of Man's divine origin and soul.A very different thing from what I see people normally using it, which is just a form of dismissal attitude - I don't know and I find it futile to know.
Well I'm agnostic, which accepts that neither religion nor atheism can prove they are right.
Quote from: StringOf the two, the atheist viewpoint has logic on its side.OK, being empirical evidence back then was impossible to glean, explain the logic in how: Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. Planets and stars formed from space dust. Matter created life by itself. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). None of the above proves that God exists, but as an Agnostic the proposition of His existence should pose stronger than the doubt of His existence.
Of the two, the atheist viewpoint has logic on its side.
.... why would I want to believe in your god?.......... So does Vishnu. Why should I believe in your god instead of Vishnu?
.......The first is interesting because it is not obvious that it is a valid question. The concept of things having a beginning and an end is essentially anthropermorphic...........
......Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.......
Quote from: Macallan .... why would I want to believe in your god?.......... So does Vishnu. Why should I believe in your god instead of Vishnu?Who, or what you personally believe in is between you & yourself. I don't seek to affect any of your beliefs, even if I could.
The only thing I requested from you was to disprove the existence of God........period.
You chose not to for 2 reasons.......because you didn't want to, & because I didn't fulfill your prerequisites, which I contend, you inserted because you figured it was a clever way of avoiding the proposition to disprove the unprovable......the existence of God.
You pretend that belief in your god is somehow the default, that there's plenty evidence to support it
You make an outlandish claim
We know your favourite strawman by now since you drag his poor ass out every other post.
Quote from: An earlier post by Macallan You make an outlandish claimWhat in your words "outlandish claim" was that --- regarding what?
Now that's a silly question ........ figure it out.
Quote from: An earlier post by String.......The first is interesting because it is not obvious that it is a valid question. The concept of things having a beginning and an end is essentially anthropermorphic...........Quote from: An earlier post by Me ......Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.......Firstly, how is that first item specifically describing a concept of a beginning coupled with an end, & secondly how in the world do you derive anthropomorphism from it?
The amount of stupid that comes from Christianity and Islam speaks for its self.
Quote from: An earlier post by Macallan Now that's a silly question ........ figure it out.Cute, but non-productive to the discussion.
So, based by your response, there wasn't any "outlandish claim" was there then.
It's obvious that in no way the problem you raised (how is it possible that Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves) has any connection with anthropomorphism or some sort of beginning/end vision.
The sort of atheism represented by the Forum atheists uses a simple strategy of discussion for answering your question (as any other you may raise).1. One answers something totally unrelated with your arguments.
2. Another, will accuse you of circular logic.
3. Another one, will accuse you of intellectual fallacy. If inspired, he can mention something related to Cutchu Cutchu...
4. Another one will start babbling about the big bang.
5. The last one will accuse you of ignorance.
Since they posted five times while you posted once, they believe to have "demonstrated" that you are wrong.
This was supposed to be about atheism [...]
The Problem with Atheism .... Nice subject, with a very simple answer.The Problem with Atheism is that they can never disprove the existence of God, so they attack everyone of faith with hate.The Problem with Atheism is that hate is the only answer they have to the existence of God.
......As long as this situation continues, I personally see little purpose to these kind of discussions beyond throwing dust in the air and shouting at the top of your lungs to get your aggressions out. It may vent your spleen but beyond that it seems to me to be pointless.
Then, some atheist doesn't argue what is believed, rather the validity of the arguments.
Yes... the validity of the arguments, indeed...How much does your God weights? One kilogram? two kilograms? a tonne? can't be weighted? he doesn't exist. The cumulus of "valid" thinking.
Quote from: Belfrager on 2013-12-11, 13:23:40Yes... the validity of the arguments, indeed...How much does your God weights? One kilogram? two kilograms? a tonne? can't be weighted? he doesn't exist. The cumulus of "valid" thinking.How much does God weigh?Hmm, hard to answer taking into consideration the lack of gravity in His habitat.
Page created in 0.089 seconds with 42 queries.