Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2013, 04:31 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 04:37 PM by savedwheat.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 04:23 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Not having met a Scot without red hair doesn't prove that there isn't such a person, nor that such a person can never be born.

Think about what you are saying. There are trillions of cause and effects and nature, but because this is specific (I am not sure how you will find something general better than this) that it still holds out the possibility that something can come from non-existence. This is why I call this false humility on your part, because what is beyond a reasonable doubt and an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, we can conclude gravity is true because the apple falls and that non-existence can't bring into existence anything.

Let me know if you accept this yet and are ready to move to addressing infinite regress. Otherwise, you are the worst of all gamblers who is certain to lose rolling that 10 trillion sided die and hoping to come up with a 1.

Something can't come from nothing.

This law established by observing nature is a solid: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:41 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 04:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 04:02 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Nah, he definitely wants to "precede." Angel

Yeah. That's what Presuppositionists do. They precede analysis with belief.
It's called "confirmation bias". He NEEDS to believe in a deity, so he LOOKS to confirm his belief, in any way possible. (It's about psychology, more than anything else). That NEED to have an (explanatory) big-daddy. At the VERY most, even if one allows " necessary cause" the MOST one can conclude from that is "We don't know yet".

Actually, presuppositionalists begin with an axiomatic belief in some sort of divine, infallible revelation. That's not what this argument is doing. It's definitely some flavor of empirical argument, rather than presuppositional.

.... why do I feel all dirty and icky at being this familiar with the taxonomy of apologetics?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
20-12-2013, 04:43 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 04:47 PM by savedwheat.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
I'm an evidentialist. I go where the evidence takes me.

Atheists are presuppositionalists because they have no evidence for their claim, nor even try to supply any, God does not exist. I don't see any difference between an Atheist and Muslim because they both start from the presupposition, e.g. six centuries later claiming Jesus never event went to the cross without any evidence to try to support their claim. Crazy stuff!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:47 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 04:50 PM by Foxen.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 04:43 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I'm an evidentialist. I go where the evidence takes me.

Atheists are presuppositionalists because they have no evidence for their claim God does not exist.

You clearly do not understand burden of proof.

There is no evidence to support the existence of a deity; thus, to make the claim that a deity does not exist is reasonable.

Since theists are making the extraordinary claim that a deity does exist, the burden of proof rests with the theist to prove that the deity does exist

Something I wrote a while back in relation to burden of proof:

From the debates I have witnessed online, theists seem quite fond of continually shifting the burden of proof. This is also referred to as the "appealing to ignorance" fallacy. Theists fail to understand since they are making the positive claim that their deity exists, the burden of proof rests upon their shoulders to provide verifiable evidence supporting their deity's existence.

In most instances, after atheists have logically discounted the pseudo-evidence provided by theists, the religious believers resort to the typical last retort by stating, "Prove God does not exist."

If one is to remain on track, rather than fall for the fallacious tactic, one merely needs to inform the theist that the burden of proof is his.

Theists could state that making the claim "God does not exist" is a positive claim. They would be correct. However, the atheist would then refer the theist to the fallacy of attempting to prove a negative. Logically, one does not argue for the nonexistence of something. If there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence, it would be unreasonable to prove that it does not exist. The lack of evidence for its existence is sufficient enough for the claim of its nonexistence.

For example, consider unicorns. The lack of sufficient evidence for their existence does not mean that they could possibly exist. Where would they be hiding? Are they invisible? They are not real, plain and simple. They are mere concepts created by men. The lack of evidence to support their existence means they are not real.

If we can know that unicorns are not real due to the lack of evidence to support their existence, the same logic can be applied to the existence of a deity. If there is no evidence to support the existence of that deity, then that deity does not exist.

Theists can concoct all sorts of unreasonable notions to substantiate their faith, but in the end they are merely relying upon that which cannot be proven to exist. That is precisely what faith means, the veritable lack of evidence to support the belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Foxen's post
20-12-2013, 04:47 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 04:31 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Otherwise, you are the worst of all gamblers who is certain to lose rolling that 10 trillion sided die and hoping to come up with a 1.

Something can't come from nothing.

This law established by observing nature is a solid: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).

I see unsavedchaff came to preach and do Babble verses. How original. He asserts the meaningless drivel yet again. He's REALLY invested in this (one trick) pony. The "law" estabished by observing nature, is that we need EVIDENCE, to draw conclusions. Something comes from nothing all the time. Hes just too uneducated to get how that happens.

It must be the end times. Another troll hath descendeth upon us. Halleluiah. Amen.
(Delusions 1:1)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
20-12-2013, 04:48 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
If you make the extraordinary claim God does not exist, the burden of the proof is on you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:49 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 04:43 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  I'm an evidentialist. I go where the evidence takes me.

So far there is no evidence of that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
20-12-2013, 04:50 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
So far there is no evidence for being an atheist, so you should revert to being agnostic. This could hurt your pride muscle and turn your delusional world upside down, but that's part of humility.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:50 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 04:48 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  If you make the extraordinary claim God does not exist, the burden of the proof is on you.

I don't claim that no god exists. I just refuse to accept anyone else's claim that god does exist, because no one has provided any proof of one yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Losty's post
20-12-2013, 04:51 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
You are agnostic not atheist. It would be wrong then to call yourself atheist.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: