I need to be an atheist to set myself free
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2016, 08:20 PM
RE: I need to be an atheist to set myself free
(12-10-2016 03:37 PM)SuperMarioGamer Wrote:  But we also have William Lane Craig who puts up good debating points against atheists as well.
He does absolutely no such thing. When he is not being patently and blatantly dishonest, he's just...asserting things. You can't talk a thing into existence, you either have evidence for it or you do not. And if you don't have evidence your belief is irrational. He does not, and is irrational.


(12-10-2016 03:37 PM)SuperMarioGamer Wrote:  I always remain open to both possibilities presented by both sides of the debate.
Right but that's only helpful if the debaters are on equal ground. WLC is not on equal ground with anyone he has ever debated, he relies on dishonesty, misrepresentation, and baseless assertion.

you can find several posts on this forum where WLC and his assertions have been utterly DISMANTLED. He's a fraud and a conman.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
12-10-2016, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2016 11:26 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: I need to be an atheist to set myself free
(12-10-2016 04:03 PM)SuperMarioGamer Wrote:  So the fact that this is not the case with him means that the existence of God and hell are at least far more plausible than that winged creature.
You got any math to show which one is more probable? 'Cause from where I'm sitting "creatures" "Winged creatures" and "hot coals" are things that can be shown to ACTUALLY exist. With actual evidence and stuff. Which is a LOT more than a god or a hell can say.

(12-10-2016 03:37 PM)SuperMarioGamer Wrote:  The way I see it, God, heaven, and hell is all something philosophical.
Just labeling something "philosophical" doesn't in anyway remove the burden of proof on those saying it exists. You still have to have actual demonstrable evidence of a thing to justify the belief in it's existence.'
Belief comes AFTER evidence, or else it's irrational.


(12-10-2016 03:37 PM)SuperMarioGamer Wrote:  It is no different than the mind-body problem.
There is no mind body problem. The mind, such as it is, is an emergent property of of a sufficiently advanced brain. This is why damage to the brain can damage the mind.

(12-10-2016 03:37 PM)SuperMarioGamer Wrote:  We have debating points from both sides who are very intelligent and who am I to conclude which side is correct since I am one of far less intelligence?
With evidence. Obviously.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
17-10-2016, 12:46 PM
RE: I need to be an atheist to set myself free
(12-10-2016 08:13 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:41 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Most atheists are open to the possibility of the existence of a god. Atheism is usually a provisional position, not a dogmatic one. [...]

From my own perspective as a life-long atheist, I'd have to disagree with these claims about atheism.

I am most definitely not open to the possibility of the existence of gods. The illogical notion of supernatural entities is just a fiction perpetrated by ill-educated, superstitious, and fearful people thousands of years ago. No empirical evidence of even a suggestive nature has been found in the past 2,500 years supporting the notion of gods existing in the real world. That's good enough for me.

And there's no way I'd describe my atheism as "provisional". I've accepted it for more than half a century without wavering, and there's nothing that anybody can present to alter that. Nor is atheism a dogmatic position. It's nothing more than a state of mind—no dogma needed.

If you (apparently) accept that there could be extant gods, then I'm guessing your true position is agnostic?

I am almost in complete agreement.

When I use the term "provisional", I am not in any way implying that there is any wavering in my atheist position. But since I propose that absolute certainty on any subject, with exception of esoteric ones (the logical absolutes, for example), is not possible, that is where my provisional position resides.

I do not, however, currently think there is any rational reason to consider the existence of gods, and my certainty in this is asymptotically close absolute.

Yes, under some definitions, I could be considered an agnostic-atheist, in that I hold that the existence of gods is possibly unknowable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2016, 02:04 PM
RE: I need to be an atheist to set myself free
To add to the above,

The only place the provisionality of my atheism resides, is in the impossibility of absolute certainty.

On a day to day, colloquial use of the term, I am certain that gods do not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: