Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2010, 05:43 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(15-11-2010 05:18 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  When I said "God is the source of the claim for God", what I meant is: that God is the source of evidence for claims for him. Same as water is the source of evidence for the existence of water. If there were no water, there would be no evidence.

Which is why we don't find any evidence of God.

Quote:We have finely honed evidence in multitudes of religious endeavour describing God and his/her/it's nature.

Which isn't evidence, just bare assertion.

Quote:We can test those with logic to see if anything is contradictory.

It doesn't matter if it's consistent if you can't prove that it's true.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 12:18 AM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
We don't find any natural evidence of God because there can't be any. We'd be idiots to try.

Bare assertion has no supporting logic. This does have supporting logic, therefore it cannot be 'bare'.

So because there can be no natural evidence, then something can't be true. We should also jettison a vast swathe of mathematical endeavour too then. Logic is irrelevant - says you.

To my mind, to be rational means considering all presented information, and not ignoring some. Ignoring information can only lead to a biased conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 01:34 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(16-11-2010 12:18 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  We don't find any natural evidence of God because there can't be any. We'd be idiots to try.

Are you arguing for a deist God?

Did I say that you must have natural evidence? No. You must have evidence of some kind, though, and so far you have presented none.

Quote:Bare assertion has no supporting logic. This does have supporting logic, therefore it cannot be 'bare'.

No, it doesn't. It has supporting fallacies. It is still bare.

Quote:So because there can be no natural evidence, then something can't be true.

Did I say that?

Quote:We should also jettison a vast swathe of mathematical endeavour too then.

No. Mathematics has supporting natural evidence - and even if it didn't, I never said that something must have natural evidence supporting it to be true. That's a repeated straw man on your part. It must have evidence, yes, but this evidence doesn't necessarily have to be natural. You've just failed to provide any evidence of either kind.

Quote:Logic is irrelevant - says you.

No.

Quote:To my mind, to be rational means considering all presented information, and not ignoring some. Ignoring information can only lead to a biased conclusion.

And what have I ignored, exactly?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 02:18 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
So what evidence of God would you consider as appropriate then Unbeliever? You make the bold request like it's impossible - which can only be made if you're insisting on empirical evidence in my understanding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 02:45 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(16-11-2010 02:18 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  So what evidence of God would you consider as appropriate then Unbeliever?

An argument that isn't circular or otherwise logically flawed.

Quote:You make the bold request like it's impossible - which can only be made if you're insisting on empirical evidence in my understanding.

What?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 04:59 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
No Unbeliever - give specific examples not weighted requests. " Look I set up your argument to fail: ah look you failed". Quit with the rhetoric already.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 05:47 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(16-11-2010 04:59 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  No Unbeliever - give specific examples not weighted requests.

Sorry. I can't give specific examples. As you've already stated that you don't have empirical evidence for God, the only thing which you could present to convince me is an argument without any logical flaws - and if I knew one, I wouldn't be an atheist.

I'm not going to make your arguments for you.

Quote:" Look I set up your argument to fail: ah look you failed".

Straw man. I've done nothing to "set up your argument to fail". If your arguments fail, it's because you failed to spot all the fallacies as you were composing it, not because of something that I did.

Quote:Quit with the rhetoric already.

I have not used rhetoric, unless you mean it in the sense of "effective use of language". If you mean it in another way, you either did not understand what I was writing or do not understand the definition of "rhetoric".

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 06:43 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Hey UB

So an example would be an argument without logical flaws. Thankyou for an unbiased answer. I'm really not in the business of prosthelytizing. All I'm doing is defending a world view that is different from your own. My view is rational (you'll have to trust me on that/ or mistrust - it's up to you). It just isn't yours. I thought this forum was a place for rational discussion having read some posts, but it's turning into the usual adolescent bash fest we're so bored of across the web.

I'm certainly up for rational discourse on any topic of religion if you'd like to discuss something fairly. Continuing with the witch hunt is more than dull to me, and I won't be partaking for much longer. There is no point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 07:40 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(16-11-2010 06:43 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  So an example would be an argument without logical flaws. Thankyou for an unbiased answer.

I've said this before.

Quote:My view is rational (you'll have to trust me on that/ or mistrust - it's up to you).

No.

Quote:It just isn't yours.

Yes.

Quote:I thought this forum was a place for rational discussion having read some posts, but it's turning into the usual adolescent bash fest we're so bored of across the web.

As long as you attempted to keep the discussion civil, we all refrained from insulting you as best we could. You threw the first stone here, fr0d0, and continue to throw them regularly. Don't feign innocence.

Quote:I'm certainly up for rational discourse on any topic of religion if you'd like to discuss something fairly.

The discussion here has been entirely fair. It is not the fault of the other posters that your arguments fail to hold water.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2010, 11:26 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
"God is the source of evidence for claims for him"

This is still highly circular logic.

Going back to the gravity example we don't have an example of gravity by gravity alone but by what gravity does to OTHER objects. Gravity cannot be seen, heard, or touched yet we believe in it.

Even if god himself is unforeseeable to the human eye and sense just like gravity what he DOES to other objects would be detectable. In other words things would happen that have no means to normally occur.

Every supernatural incident science has investigated it has been able to show demonstrably false. One of the best examples of the debunking of the supernatural has to be James Randi. The man has debunked all sorts of paranormal and supernatural claims. He's offered a million dollars for many years for anyone who can prove to him that a supernatural or physic phenomenon exists.

I'm sorry but we already believe in things other then god that we can't see hear or touch directly. Things that do influence real world objects and people. Your god has failed to show himself to us in any demonstrable way and thus does not exist.

You can go ahead and argue for a diest god if you wish. Such a god is within reason. Yahweh is not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Godless's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: