Why do you not believe in God?

[Cyberman]

He reminds me of the caller to The Atheist Experience who insisted that the bible was the very first book because in the beginning was the word...

[Jeffonthenet]

Good point, just because I can't prove you don't suck doesn't mean you don't. And from your premise, your conclusion doesn't follow. Is your problem elementary logic?

---

There are many other ways in which the bible has been crosschecked such as the lists of names and places. (for example, the city of Ninevah and Nimrod (from all the way back in Genesis were always claimed fictional because of the absence of evidence until they were discovered which is probably all I need to carry my point about the evidence of absence) But regardless, even if those stories were filled with fictional events it wouldn't follow that God doesn't exist or that Jesus not Lord. It could follow that God is just not what Christian fundamentalists (perhaps modern day pharisees) want him to be.

Crosscheck? I didn't know we were engaged in a battle of downs and accrosses. If I were you, I wouldn't use the city/term of Nimrod as an example (nimrod, he he, ho ho, ha ha, meh).

Why exactlty was it that your all-knowing cunt couldn't locate the only man on Earth in the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:9 for your ignorant reference)?

I wait patiently for your excuse. Why your at it; why do you have to give an excuse for a fucking god?

I don't see what's wrong with the example of Nimrod? Did I get the name wrong? 3:9 I would explain as probably an anthropomorphism.

---

That is untrue. Logic is a method, not a thing. We have plenty of evidence to suppot the efficacy of logic and reason and the consideration of evidence; there are tried and true. Unicorns and gods are not.

You must assume logic in order to argue for logic's reliability. Likewise it is with the reality of the past.

By rejecting logic and reason, you forfeit your right to (in your case PRETEND TO) use them in discussion with reasonable people, which means you really have nothing useful or interesting to say.

I share the attitude with many atheistic philosophers that certain things cannot be argued for yet we all consider people rational for accepting them. I'll look for a quote since I assume you won't believe me.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You must assume logic in order to argue for logic's reliability. Likewise it is with the reality of the past.

We do not blindly assume it, and that is what you're disingenuously arguing. We have gained confidence in it because it is tried and true. No one is fooled by your attempts to gain permission to play fast and loose with reason and logic. You are trying to cheat. This sort of tomfuckery is precisely what I was referring to when I pointed out that you are incapable of honest debate.

[KnockEmOuttt]

You must assume logic in order to argue for logic's reliability.

Am I correct in thinking you are arguing against the use of logic? If that's the case, your past arguments make perfect sense to me now.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You must assume logic in order to argue for logic's reliability.

Am I correct in thinking you are arguing against the use of logic? If that's the case, your past arguments make perfect sense to me now.

He has argued against logic, reason, AND evidence. He just wants to be able to lie through his teeth and have every one swallow it in a blue dress.

[KnockEmOuttt]

Am I correct in thinking you are arguing against the use of logic? If that's the case, your past arguments make perfect sense to me now.

He has argued against logic, reason, AND evidence. He just wants to be able to lie through his teeth and have every one swallow it in a blue dress.

I know I've said this at least 1000 times by now, but I really just think he's out to save some souls, albeit with more philosophical doublespeak and less straight-up preaching. He hops on every person doubting their faith and tries to get them to doubt their doubts. He tries to scare away new theist members and create doubt in new atheist members.

That's why he's refused to accept the burden of proof every time he's been faced with it. The last two times I've really started getting into it with this guy, I bring up the burden of proof and he stops responding. Both times I brought up why he's got to submit the evidence he simply shuts up. While I've critiqued his methods, I've never insulted him. I think I've only sworn once while talking to him, and the word was "shit." I see no other reason for him not to respond other than that he has got no way to answer. His arguments are completely unevidenced, and because of his refusal to accept logic, rationality, and reason they can be rejected outright.

Just goes to show you that even though you've got a big vocabulary, you don't necessarily know anything.

[Jeffonthenet]

You must assume logic in order to argue for logic's reliability.

Am I correct in thinking you are arguing against the use of logic? If that's the case, your past arguments make perfect sense to me now.

I am not. I am saying justifying logic by logic is circular. I accept logic, but not on the basis of logic. To say, as Taq, we know logic is true because it has been tried and therefore works, seems to me to assume logic.

The argument, it seems to me, is something like this

1. Things that are true are things that work in reality
2. Logic works in reality
3. Therefore basic logic is true

However to even go from 1 to three you must assume logic is true as you use logic to make any inference. It used to be philosophers thought you could demonstrate truths by reason alone, and this has failed, which is partly what led to post-modernism.

We know logic by intuition, and so it is also possible that this is how we can know God.

[KnockEmOuttt]

Am I correct in thinking you are arguing against the use of logic? If that's the case, your past arguments make perfect sense to me now.

I am not. I am saying justifying logic by logic is circular. I accept logic, but not on the basis of logic. To say, as Taq, we know logic is true because it has been tried and therefore works, seems to me to assume logic.

The argument, it seems to me, is something like this

1. Things that are true are things that work in reality
2. Logic works in reality
3. Therefore basic logic is true

However to even go from 1 to three you must assume logic is true as you use logic to make any inference. It used to be philosophers thought you could demonstrate truths by reason alone, and this has failed, which is partly what led to post-modernism.

We know logic by intuition, and so it is also possible that this is how we can know God.

But we can test logic, and it holds up. When it doesn't our understanding of logic changes. We can't truly test God. When we do try, it doesn't hold up. Yet we're still supposed to retain the same understanding of God, according to religious doctrine, regardless of the fact that it doesn't stand up to the test.

I assume logic because logic has proved itself in my eyes. God has not. Therefore, unless you prove God then I will not assume God by default.

[fr0d0]

Could we draft in some decent atheists please because jeff is wiping the floor with these guys and it's embarrassing!

[Skepsis]

Could we draft in some decent atheists please because jeff is wiping the floor with these guys and it's embarrassing!

When Jeff stops strawmanning, evading, making vague, metaphysical arguments, denying logic, and constructing poor syllogisms, we might agree.
Until then, saywhat?