Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Logic and Morality.
#76

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:14 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 09:12 PM)Link Wrote: The land before time lol, and world beyond north and south "there is no more north to north, but there is something required to beyond it to be a north or a south" to address Hawking analogy . That's what you got to focus on when it comes to cosmological argument. You are right, how Muslims argued with it, was wrong over the years. But there is a right way to prove it.

If you try to focus on only standard versions or presentations of arguments, yes, probably they will all be false haha. Also, it's not a fallacy of a whole to apply first cause to even a infinite chain (which makes it a paradox), but it's inductive reasoning that proves it has to come an end if non-time wise type causes.

Are you referring to mathematical induction, or an inductive argument by your term "inductive reasoning" here?

More towards the mathematic logical type induction. It's definitely not misapplication of parts to the whole. And no one does it by that method. It's applied to the whole by induction. You keep going and it will remain in need of something that is not dependent. I can show why it's more mathematical induction type reasoning. It in fact, I'm using mathematic induction as an analogy. It's by parable speaking exactly applied in the same way you apply mathematical induction.  There is no math involved however.

Also scientifically aside from this, infinite chain seems to problematic in there is so many scenarios of stand still universes (which many believe in fact, is probably the end of our universe eventually as well). In fact, this repeated universes maybe be impossible scientifically and it seems by what I read this is the case.

This is why Hawkings went more the "no more north to the north pole route" and didn't try to argue for infinite universes with infinite chains.
Reply
#77

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 09:55 PM)Chas Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 09:49 PM)Link Wrote: You need to know language and communication if you are going to argue I'm not making sense.  No body argued in premise form in the past. No one spoke or wrote books like that. No one went into a defining like crazy concepts agreed upon. And it's unnatural and sometimes does the opposite of being helpful. Because you ignore all that is said to support a premise, just to see over all structure of an argument.

There is no argument to be made.  There is no objective evidence of any gods and no philosophy can philosophize a god into existence.  

You really have gone beyond tiresome and should go away.

QFT.
[Image: giant%20meteor%202020.jpg]
Reply
#78

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:13 PM)Link Wrote: The thing is God by definition is a being that alone deserves that level of important and value giving that no one else deserves, such that if you give it to any on equal level to it, you've done a grave injustice to yourself, and to others, and you've chosen confusion and lost your way.

So you think your sky fairy is very important. Lovely. 
Here we have a mentally ill (which he admitted the last time here) person telling others they are confused and lost their way.  
How ironic is that ? He says (and thinks) not buying into this fairy-story is an injustice to others. LOL. 
Same believer delusion. They think belief is a choice. A fundamental error. 
Oh, the "magic" is preventing you from seeing what I know to be true. Uh-huh. 
Stomps foot. Believe my delusion, goddamn-it, or I'll call you names. 

Rule #1 of debate. "Know your audience". 
Clearly you know nothing of yours.
Reply
#79

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:15 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:13 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:08 PM)Dānu Wrote: At what point should one give up looking for Russell's teapot?  Your answer here appears to be never, which would be absurd and a distinctly harmful and costly proposition, contrary to your claim otherwise.

If Russel's teapot is by definition the most important thing you can know, than never. 

The thing is God by definition is a being that alone deserves that level of important and value giving that no one else deserves, such that if you give it to any on equal level to it, you've done a grave injustice to yourself, and to others, and you've chosen confusion and lost your way.

That and God would be a Guiding ally of humans who would guide us if we follow her guidance.

She is too beautiful to ignore, and his relevance too much to not strive for to who you are and who can be and not to mention our fates to come in the next life.

If religion is the single most important thing anyone can know, why do the gawds insist on sending ignorant assholes like you to spread their message? If you're the best they can do, they have nothing of importance to say to the world.

How we help God and his Messengers is part of the redeeming way of healing a chaotic fallen world and our trial as humans.  Of course, we have group related identity and identity as individuals. 

We humans still have a chance, and whoever contributes more good from humans at the end of it, there reward is higher in the next world with respect to God who is the greatest reward.

I'm flawed in so many ways, true, but your hostility towards me has never been justified.
Reply
#80

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:04 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:03 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 08:29 PM)Link Wrote: Anyone without bias, will see, it's you guys that have the greatest zeal on a stance that is just suppose to be nothing (a withdrawal of affirming God exists).

And you would know this how exactly?  Your grasp of some of the most basic epistemological issues is frighteningly inept and naive.

Observation over the years, you guys are over-hostile for something to you is just a withdrawal of belief. This should awaken you that something else is going on in the inward of who you are.

Observation is always with bias, so observation alone cannot tell you what anyone without bias would see. If you had even a reasonable grasp of the question, you would not have answered thusly. Since you did, you've provided excellent evidence that your confidence in your competence is not well founded. Care to take another shot at the question?
[Image: giant%20meteor%202020.jpg]
Reply
#81

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:26 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:15 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:13 PM)Link Wrote: If Russel's teapot is by definition the most important thing you can know, than never. 

The thing is God by definition is a being that alone deserves that level of important and value giving that no one else deserves, such that if you give it to any on equal level to it, you've done a grave injustice to yourself, and to others, and you've chosen confusion and lost your way.

That and God would be a Guiding ally of humans who would guide us if we follow her guidance.

She is too beautiful to ignore, and his relevance too much to not strive for to who you are and who can be and not to mention our fates to come in the next life.

If religion is the single most important thing anyone can know, why do the gawds insist on sending ignorant assholes like you to spread their message? If you're the best they can do, they have nothing of importance to say to the world.

How we help God and his Messengers is part of the redeeming way of healing a chaotic fallen world and our trial as humans.  Of course, we have group related identity and identity as individuals. 

We humans still have a chance, and whoever contributes more good from humans at the end of it, there reward is higher in the next world with respect to God who is the greatest reward.

I'm flawed in so many ways, true, but your hostility towards me has never been justified.

My hostility toward you is perfectly justified by your refusal to stop trying to convert me. You seeking converts is not the purpose of this forum. You invaded it and put it to use for a purpose for which it is not intended. Don't like the back lash? Too fucking bad.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 2 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Chas, Finite Monkeys
Reply
#82

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:26 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:15 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:13 PM)Link Wrote: If Russel's teapot is by definition the most important thing you can know, than never. 

The thing is God by definition is a being that alone deserves that level of important and value giving that no one else deserves, such that if you give it to any on equal level to it, you've done a grave injustice to yourself, and to others, and you've chosen confusion and lost your way.

That and God would be a Guiding ally of humans who would guide us if we follow her guidance.

She is too beautiful to ignore, and his relevance too much to not strive for to who you are and who can be and not to mention our fates to come in the next life.

If religion is the single most important thing anyone can know, why do the gawds insist on sending ignorant assholes like you to spread their message? If you're the best they can do, they have nothing of importance to say to the world.

How we help God and his Messengers is part of the redeeming way of healing a chaotic fallen world and our trial as humans.  Of course, we have group related identity and identity as individuals. 

We humans still have a chance, and whoever contributes more good from humans at the end of it, there reward is higher in the next world with respect to God who is the greatest reward.

I'm flawed in so many ways, true, but your hostility towards me has never been justified.

It is justified in many ways, not the least is that you fundamentally have no respect for non-belief, or those who have that position. 
You say it's the "result of magic". Are you serious ? 
Your failure to get that is part of your mental illness.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#83

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:28 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:04 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:03 PM)Dānu Wrote: And you would know this how exactly?  Your grasp of some of the most basic epistemological issues is frighteningly inept and naive.

Observation over the years, you guys are over-hostile for something to you is just a withdrawal of belief. This should awaken you that something else is going on in the inward of who you are.

Observation is always with bias, so observation alone cannot tell you what anyone without bias would see.  If you had even a reasonable grasp of the question, you would not have answered thusly.  Since you did, you've provided excellent evidence that your confidence in your competence is not well founded.  Care to take another shot at the question?

Bias exists in almost all humans, doesn't mean, they can't observe and know true things.  In my case, you observed me over the years on the other forums. I even became an Atheist for 1 week and half and you guys witnessed it.

I was never this assertive till everyone told me that I seem like I don't even believe what I'm saying by the words I pick like "I feel like..." and since I said "I feel..." to not be hostile and be less assertive, I noticed, people dismissed it simply because of that.

I decided to be more assertive, but it should be still understood all the time, I understand some things I say, you don't accept, but other things I'm saying, I'm making use of what I you do accept.

You are right bias exists. We humans don't care to defeat to the extent even Theists don't give any ounce of non-apathy to uniting on truth. We've agreed upon settling in our own shadow, dismissing other perspectives, and everyone their own way of getting lost.

Who cares for truth is the Monto of who we are as humans. And I understand you see me like that too.

But if there is any chance, we going to have hold our assumptions about each other away and look for the truth then find it's authorities and the people who follow.
Reply
#84

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:33 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:28 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:04 PM)Link Wrote: Observation over the years, you guys are over-hostile for something to you is just a withdrawal of belief. This should awaken you that something else is going on in the inward of who you are.

Observation is always with bias, so observation alone cannot tell you what anyone without bias would see.  If you had even a reasonable grasp of the question, you would not have answered thusly.  Since you did, you've provided excellent evidence that your confidence in your competence is not well founded.  Care to take another shot at the question?

Bias exists in almost all humans, doesn't mean, they can't observe and know true things.  In my case, you observed me over the years on the other forums. I even became an Atheist for 1 week and half and you guys witnessed it.

I was never this assertive till everyone told me that I seem like I don't even believe what I'm saying by the words I pick like "I feel like..." and since I said "I feel..." to not be hostile and be less assertive, I noticed, people dismissed it simply because of that.

I decided to be more assertive, but it should be still understood all the time, I understand some things I say, you don't accept, but other things I'm saying, I'm making use of what I you do accept.

You are right bias exists. We humans don't care to defeat to the extent even Theists don't give any ounce of non-apathy to uniting on truth. We've agreed upon settling in our own shadow, dismissing other perspectives, and everyone their own way of getting lost.

Who cares for truth is the Monto of who we are as humans. And I understand you see me like that too.

But if there is any chance, we going to have hold our assumptions about each other away and look for the truth then find it's authorities and the people who follow.

Monto?  Consider 

You misunderstand the purpose of this forum, the members of this forum, the actual meaning of atheism, and the reasons people are atheists. 
And you seem unwilling to try to understand.

You don't belong here.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
Reply
#85

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You say it's the "result of magic". Are you serious ?

Yes he is. He's even posted about dark sorcerers over at AF. Rofl2
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#86

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:29 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:26 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:15 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: If religion is the single most important thing anyone can know, why do the gawds insist on sending ignorant assholes like you to spread their message? If you're the best they can do, they have nothing of importance to say to the world.

How we help God and his Messengers is part of the redeeming way of healing a chaotic fallen world and our trial as humans.  Of course, we have group related identity and identity as individuals. 

We humans still have a chance, and whoever contributes more good from humans at the end of it, there reward is higher in the next world with respect to God who is the greatest reward.

I'm flawed in so many ways, true, but your hostility towards me has never been justified.

My hostility toward you is perfectly justified by your refusal to stop trying to convert me. You seeking converts is not the purpose of this forum. You invaded it and put it to use for a purpose for which it is not intended. Don't like the back lash? Too fucking bad.

If you guys didn't speak against Theism or Mohammad (s) or any particular religion. You would have a case.  But talking about religion or God was never forbidden in this forum, rather, to talk about the issue with Theists was welcome.

If the people owning this site change their mind about it, it's up to them.

If you don't mention God or Theists or religion or Quran or Islam or Mohammad (s) or anything about us, okay, then no need to reply and dialogue. Everyone talk about other things.

But this is not the case at all. In a gaming forum, I don't talk about God for example. For example, MechWarrior online forums, I talk about the game or things for fun. Because the purpose is not to talk about religion, politics, etc.

But this forum is directly tied and does talk about this issue.
Reply
#87

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:42 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You say it's the "result of magic". Are you serious ?

Yes he is. He's even posted about dark sorcerers over at AF. Rofl2

It's seriously tragic he actually bought that crap from some mullah or other. 
It's amazing in 2020 anyone is still talking about magic. 
But I guess that's about all they have to explain to themselves why people just won't accept the rubbish they are so convinced is real.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#88

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:45 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:29 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 10:26 PM)Link Wrote: How we help God and his Messengers is part of the redeeming way of healing a chaotic fallen world and our trial as humans.  Of course, we have group related identity and identity as individuals. 

We humans still have a chance, and whoever contributes more good from humans at the end of it, there reward is higher in the next world with respect to God who is the greatest reward.

I'm flawed in so many ways, true, but your hostility towards me has never been justified.

My hostility toward you is perfectly justified by your refusal to stop trying to convert me. You seeking converts is not the purpose of this forum. You invaded it and put it to use for a purpose for which it is not intended. Don't like the back lash? Too fucking bad.

If you guys didn't speak against Theism or Mohammad (s) or any particular religion. You would have a case.  But talking about religion or God was never forbidden in this forum, rather, to talk about the issue with Theists was welcome.

If the people owning this site change their mind about it, it's up to them.

If you don't mention God or Theists or religion or Quran or Islam or Mohammad (s) or anything about us, okay, then no need to reply and dialogue. Everyone talk about other things.

But this is not the case at all. In a gaming forum, I don't talk about God for example. For example, MechWarrior online forums, I talk about the game or things for fun.  Because the purpose is not to talk about religion, politics, etc.

But this forum is directly tied and does talk about this issue.

To discuss, yes. Assholes like you aren't interested in discussion. All you're interested in is conversion and to do that you will break as many of the rules as you feel are necessary. You're the one in the wrong here MK. As I've already said, if you'd just fucking relax and quit trying to convert us, the hostility toward you would quickly go away. But, you're not content to discuss, you're intent on conversion, so go fuck yourself, with a cactus, sideways.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#89

Logic and Morality.
Convert who? All of you or in hope maybe one or two (and if any hope in that little hope).

I don't delude myself that one day you guys all come together and say oh MK was right all this time.

But giving up and not discussing with people who are discussing this issue, I don't agree with this apathy towards truth.

I don't believe to each their own way either. I believe in humans uniting on truth. That said, if one human benefits, even guests watching these forums, it's worth.
Reply
#90

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:55 PM)Link Wrote: Convert who? All of you or in hope maybe one or two (and if any hope in that little hope).

I don't delude myself that one day you guys all come together and say oh MK was right all this time.

But giving up and not discussing with people who are discussing this issue,  I don't agree with this apathy towards truth.

I don't believe to each their own way either. I believe in humans uniting on truth. That said, if one human benefits, even guests watching these forums, it's worth.

You've admitted more that once that your purpose here is to convince people of (your version of) the truth. That's attempted conversion, even if it fails. Please, just go the fuck away. You'll never enjoy your time here and we'll never be convinced by your bullshit. Go spend your time more wisely.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#91

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:55 PM)Link Wrote: Convert who? All of you or in hope maybe one or two (and if any hope in that little hope).

I don't delude myself that one day you guys all come together and say oh MK was right all this time.

But giving up and not discussing with people who are discussing this issue,  I don't agree with this apathy towards truth.

I don't believe to each their own way either. I believe in humans uniting on truth. That said, if one human benefits, even guests watching these forums, it's worth.

Atheists want evidence, end of sentence.  You provide no evidence.   Proselytizing isn't evidence.  Reading from an old book isn't evidence. Confirmation bias isn't evidence.  What you need is unbiased falsifiable evidence of which there is none.  You may as well believe an invisible donut orbits Jupiter. We don't care.  Untill you provide evidence it's a waste of keystrokes.
                                                         T4618
The following 3 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Alan V, brunumb, Chas
Reply
#92

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 11:06 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Atheists want evidence, end of sentence.

Do they really want it? Or do they want to convince themselves that is all they are asking regarding this issue?

Maybe they don't want it.
Reply
#93

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 09:57 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 12:16 PM)Reltzik Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: And so morality must command doubt to only yell when it has a foundation, and follow truth even if from a child, and accept proofs be in from an ancient human of a thousand years back before technology we have today.


MAYBE doubt has a position to be expressed (yelled) if its only foundation is "Hey you haven't actually proven that yet", and there are quite a few "proofs" from long ago (and also quite a few from the present day) that are so flawed that they shouldn't be accepted.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.  In fact, some of the most elegant and respectable proofs I know were compiled by Euclid, roughly a thousand years before Islam was founded.

I think I understand you here and agree.  The only disagreement is with the "maybe."  The doubter's sole obligations are to satisfy any burden of proof which the skeptic himself is obligated to shoulder, and to rest once the claimant has satisfied his burden of proof to a reasonable standard.  Going beyond this leads to an unjustified shifting of the burden of proof in the direction of the skeptic and is unacceptable.  I can see several likely scenarios that might invite this.  First, if the claimant believes the skeptic has a larger burden of proof than the skeptic has accepted.  This is quite common in religious debates, leading to formations like the " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" trope.  Another common scenario is when the claimant believes that their share of the burden of proof is less than it reasonably should be.  And finally, often the claimant may feel that the skeptic is employing a standard regarding acceptance that is unreasonable and therefore inappropriately unyielding.  Many times unrecognized assumptions or biases in the claimant can lead to such disputations.

I think we are in agreement.  The qualification I was trying to make with the maybe is that there can come a point where the evidence for a proposition is overwhelming, and someone can still stick their fingers in their ears and chant "Hey you haven't actually proven that yet".  See evolution denial, climate denial, Holocaust denial, etc.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
Reply
#94

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 08:55 PM)Link Wrote: Sufis are fools that jump to the sky only to come down feeling water that can't fill any foundational garden or building built, and aren't grounded to deal with reality and they really idolize their local leaders as well as past leaders neither of which do they have proof are authorities pertaining to spirituality or religion nor do they have proof they are spiritual heirs of the Prophet (s) like they affirm. What has Quran said about them for example? How has it refuted their structure?  What you said doesn't real address my suggestion. You are repeating that you weren't guided at a point and so have given up. I'm saying go again and again and again and keep researching. Go to China and seek knowledge there even if you have to. Might even learn magic powers for all you know. Keep searching.

I see you are not properly informed about Sufi philosophy.  No, I was not talking about the imitators and performers.

See for instance The Way of the Sufi.
Reply
#95

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:54 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Fail yet again. YOU started with as assertion, which you STILL have not supported. 
All your conclusions are assumed, (thus actually illogical). You failed to name the system you're using. There are many ... obviously you know nothing about that. The height of incompetence. You assume "morality" which you fail to define and name, and you FAIL to say how you arrived at YOUR definition of morality. (I thought you said once you studied Ethics. Obviously that was not true. In short, you're not up to this, and you are not prepared to discuss this. 

As Vera said, (and you have been told many times), get help.

Doesn't matter, I am working with common ground understanding of  logic and morality. We don't have to agree on all the details for this argument to work.

There is no such thing as "common ground" anything ... obviously you are an ignoramus operating WAY over your head. 
Where did you get this "common ground" understanding ? Where is you evidence it's "common ground" ? 
You have none. You want to shove your preconceptions down our throats. Not gonna work Link. 
You're always failed here. You just did again.
If you had actually taken Ethics, you would know there is no one moral system for everyone.

The thing is Link, we're on to your game. You come here when you want attention.
You're attention seeking. You need attention.
Try getting a dog.

Muslims don't like dogs, which is one of the many reasons I could never be one (a Muslim that is, not a dog)
Justaminute   The whole point of having cake is to eat it! 
The following 1 user Likes adey67's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#96

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 09:34 PM)Link Wrote: Also there is also the Burhanal Sadiqeen (@Alan V ) which is long dialogue shifting from ontological and cosmological or somewhat of hybrid or both, it's hard to label it. Read that one and we can have discussion on it. Some people even see it as purely ontological but appeals to what we know of the opposite of necessary being to prove the Necessary being. Labels unimportant to categorize. Just read into it, and I find this a robust argument.

As I said, I understand truth is necessary, but that truth doesn't have all the attributes of a God.  In fact, it seems clear that the universe as we see it today could have self-organized and evolved from some relatively simple physics.  One contingent being can come from another all the way back to when life got its start in a series of chance events.  High numbers of chance events make that possible, as I think I mentioned in my essay of quotes.

What I think irritates other atheists about your stance is that you think you know things which you obviously do not.  You are arguing from a much weaker position than you assume, and they find that condescending and even insulting.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • julep
Reply
#97

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 11:08 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 11:06 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Atheists want evidence, end of sentence.

Do they really want it? Or do they want to convince themselves that is all they are asking regarding this issue?

Maybe they don't want it.

If you think you know us better than we know ourselves, you are mistaken. (See the post directly above.)
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#98

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 10:55 PM)Link Wrote: Convert who? All of you or in hope maybe one or two (and if any hope in that little hope).

I don't delude myself that one day you guys all come together and say oh MK was right all this time.

But giving up and not discussing with people who are discussing this issue,  I don't agree with this apathy towards truth.

I don't believe to each their own way either. I believe in humans uniting on truth. That said, if one human benefits, even guests watching these forums, it's worth.

No one really cares what you agree with or don't agree with. 
This forum was not set up so you can RIP OFF those who support it by USING it for your dishonest personal ends. 
You don't "discuss" anything. You pronounce and preach, (badly). 
You're nothing but the typical closed minded religious zealot, just like all the other thousands of zealots who, just like you, 
thought they had a corner on the truth. You're all the same ... blinded by your zealotry. You should have been born in the 10th Century.
Reply
#99

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 11:08 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 11:06 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Atheists want evidence, end of sentence.

Do they really want it? Or do they want to convince themselves that is all they are asking regarding this issue?

Maybe they don't want it.

I'm up for it, fuck yeah I want it.  I don't want to have to face the fact that this life means nothing, nothing means nothing, we live briefly and then die and in 100 years no one will remember anything about us.  You think we yearn for that?  You don't think we would want to believe some supernatural alternative?  We yearn for that supernatural alternative because it is in our genes and in our instincts, but having bitten the forbidden fruit we will not lie to ourselves.  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not lying to yourself, that you don't sincerely question whether we're right and you're wrong.  But your hoping and wishing and believing doesn't mean you aren't wrong.  That said I have no problem with your presence here trying to convince us you're worldview is correct.  If you believe it strongly I say go for it, people have the option of ignoring your posts as long as it's not multi-thread spamming.  We also have the right to tease and laugh at you a bit.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 11:08 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 11:06 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Atheists want evidence, end of sentence.

Do they really want it? Or do they want to convince themselves that is all they are asking regarding this issue?

Maybe they don't want it.

You show unbiased falsifiable evidence your god exists and without question no atheist would deny it's existance.  The problem is you need to define your god in a way that it can be falsified and tested and that's the tricky part because everyone's definition of their supernatural god is too vague, subjective and subject to all sorts of interpretations. You see, if you want to find out if something is really true you make every effort to falsify it, only then will you know if it's true or not.  Your supernatural god is as unfalsifiable as my invisible donut, magical pixies, Lord Vishnu, bigfoot or any supernatural thing.  

If you say, "But....but..... is says so in this book"  it proves nothing.  You're using a circular reasoning fallacy. 

[Image: 3157856_facebook20151206050129_jpegf9ac5...ab298eff0c]
                                                         T4618
The following 3 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • jerry mcmasters, brunumb, Finite Monkeys
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)