(January 25, 2010 at 9:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You are an atheist - you cannot know. I am a theist - I cannot know. that doesn't change the fact of our positions... you that there is no God, and me that there is.

This is precisely Adrian's definition, and I'm going with that.

That is akin to saying "I don't know therefore i believe", which is illogical.

What i am arguing, and what you still haven't addressed, is the proposition that the only rational position is to withhold judgement indefinitely because without evidence, logical or empirical, there is no reason to hold a positive belief in either the existence or the non-existence of God.

Quote:Requiring evidence is totally scornworthy. Sorry.

But evidence is required to discern between the two options in the Dichotomy, those two being "God exists" and "God does not exist". Without the evidence to suggest which of the two is true there is NO REASON to assume one position over the other, which is why withholding judgement is the only reasonable position to take.

You, as a Christian, have by definition made not one, but two assumptions, despite the lack of evidence for your positions. 1) You have assumed that God does exist and 2) You have decided that he is the Christian god. You have no evidence to either 1) Support the proposition that God exists, or 2) Support the proposition that God is the Christian god.

Quote:

Merriam-Webster Wrote:Belief

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

The point I'm trying to make by being accurate in my definition is that something required to be unknown is weakened by being known.

Again, that is illogical.

1) God is not required to be unknown, this is the opposite of what the Christian faith teaches. They explicitly state that God operates in a way that can be known, through Prayer, Miracles, Revelation etc.

2) If something is unknown, it is not weakened by being known, it is strengthened from being a position of blind faith to a reasonable position to hold.

Quote:If you separate faith with the rational subset that requires it then of course you can end up with some very silly ideas as you've shown. I don't have to show you how it works because you're already deliberately trying not to see the example in front of your face.

1) You haven't provided a shred of reasoning for you claims.

2) I am not deliberately not trying to not see anything, it is counter to my own standards. I have asked you time and time again if you can provide logical reasoning for not only 1) why God exists, but also 2) He is the Christian god.

Thus far you have failed entirely to provide any such reasoning for his existence and until such evidence is provided and is shown to be valid then i will continue to withhold judgement on the existence of God.

Don't think i don't appreciate the discussion, I do, but I am at a loss as to why you think it is more reasonable / Just as reasonable to take a position on the unknown than it is to withhold judgement.

fr0d0 believes in God without evidence, he also admits it. That is highly irrational.

And God is also extremely improbable too. fr0d0's belief is delusional.

EvF

fr0d0's position reminds me of people who claim they are vegetarians yet occasionally eat meat.

You are too reasonable VOID. If you don't mind, I'll let you think about that a bit more, because the information is already there it just requires a little thought.

(January 25, 2010 at 5:43 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You are too reasonable VOID. If you don't mind, I'll let you think about that a bit more, because the information is already there it just requires a little thought.

The fact that you don't respond to my arguments strongly suggests you can't and you lack the spine to admit it.

Now, assuming for a second that you aren't being a coward, you should be able to easily provide me with the reasoning that demonstrates that 1) Not only does God exist, but also 2) That he is the Christian God.

Should you fail to provide such reasoning I will be forced to conclude that not only are you utterly incapable of justifying your position but that you are also so intellectually dishonest that you are incapable of admitting it.

I think fr0d0 is claiming that logic and evidence aren't the "best" way to the truth. It seems to me that fr0d0 is giving equal credit to 'having faith' (understanding the christian god's needs). Regardless of being separated from experience having faith is more important.

After seeing the title of this thread I did some thinking about my particular opinion and position on the matter. I personally do not think that it takes faith to assert that there is no god because I have come to my position by reviewing the evidence or lack thereof for and against the matter, and after weighing it carefully have come to the conclusion that god does not exist.

My position is not based on faith but rather it is based on the facts that I have found to the contrary. Weighing the evidence for the existence of god with faith on one end of the scale and all other research of the issue on the other; faith, loses in a convincing manner. Faith does not rely on evidence, it relies on your acceptance of an assertion based on subjective feelings, emotions, or convictions of others. My definition of faith is that of many free thinkers and that is that faith is the abandonment of logic and reason and the subjugation of ones mind and true self to an ideology.

Can't... stop...

Typical fr0d0, I can't stop laughing at your idea of so called logical assertions based entirely on faith.

Asking for evidence of something that requires that there be no evidence seems like utter stupidity to me. Please explain to me how it isn't.