(December 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Remember that the subject is immaterial, atemporal and supernatural.

Sounds safely untestable. In the absence of any possible evidence, belief would require some positive disposition to do so. Otherwise, why would one decide to embrace something so unsupportable?

Intellectually of course wrist

(December 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I agree Nope. But MA is asserting something positive: that there is no reason, when all he has is no information.

Is that what you think I said? Really?

(December 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: According to your explanation, which is correct to my understanding, he should be taking no position.

What prior knowledge do I have that I should be entirely neutral on the probability of an elephant being on my porch?

(December 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If anyone claimed existence of a deity, then indeed the burden of proof rests in them to demonstrate it. What I'm pointing out is that theists make no claim of existence, only of belief.

Theism, nor atheism, makes no claim of existence or nonexistence, only of belief. YMMV may vary with theists and atheists, but you can't possibly be honestly under the impression that theists who claim God exists are rare. To be so would require blinkers so big as to beggar belief.

(December 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What evidence do you think is possible?

Remember that the subject is immaterial, atemporal and supernatural.

If that's your definition, 'nothing' fits it nicely. You seem to have minimized your definition of God to the point that it's a contradiction to ascribe the property of 'existence' to it in any way but conceptually.

---

(December 26, 2014 at 3:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Intellectually of course wrist

That word...I don't think it means what you think it does.

---

fr0do, if you want to convey both what I said and my meaning more accurately, try saying "MA asserted that I (nor anyone) has made a case for theism that stands up to reasonable scrutiny, therefore it is reasonable to withold belief from the proposition that God exists".

(December 26, 2014 at 4:05 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If that's your definition, 'nothing' fits it nicely. You seem to have minimized your definition of God to the point that it's a contradiction to ascribe the property of 'existence' to it in any way but conceptually.

This is a very intellectually dishonest problem I have encountered with some not so sane theists. They erroneously believe that if something can be conceptualized, then it must have a place in reality via imaginative existence.

(December 26, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Sionnach Wrote: They erroneously believe that if something can be conceptualized, then it must have a place in reality via imaginative existence.

Yeah, I can conceptualize Apollo and his bow, I can do the same for Zeus, Thor, Odin and Loki. Hell, I can even conceptualize a dragon living in some cave or fairies in the woods next to my house, but that doesn't mean, they have a place in reality. And these theists would of course say the same when it comes to the examples above, but their god of course is different.

Different in respect of viability. Rather unshakeable viability. Therefore it is reasonable to hold belief in the proposition that God exists.

(December 26, 2014 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Rather unshakeable viability. Therefore it is reasonable to hold belief in the proposition that God exists.

False and false.

(December 26, 2014 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Different in respect of viability. Rather unshakeable viability.

Why? Simply why?

What's unshakeable viable about god in comparison to a cornish pixie?

The lack of any credible opposition for 2000 years?

---

(December 26, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(December 26, 2014 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Rather unshakeable viability. Therefore it is reasonable to hold belief in the proposition that God exists.

False and false.

If I said that that be hounded for reasoning. As you're an atheist you don't need to qualify that at all.

(December 26, 2014 at 3:19 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(December 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Remember that the subject is immaterial, atemporal and supernatural.

Sounds safely untestable. In the absence of any possible evidence, belief would require some positive disposition to do so. Otherwise, why would one decide to embrace something so unsupportable?

(December 26, 2014 at 3:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Intellectually of course wrist

Pure reason then? A completely non-empirical process leads to belief in gods? I seriously doubt that the human mind is capable of operating in such a disembodied, nonemotional way. When it comes to the non-empirical, all our minds can do is supply rationalization for what it is we want to believe. Surely the capacity for speculation regarding what is "immaterial, atemporal and supernatural" cannot have arisen by purely natural processes as it serves no function with any survival value. However justifying ones course of action once choses has very great value in achieving ends.

I can't take seriously anyones conclusions as to what is true for everyone beyond what is empirically verifiable. Everyone may have their private desires and fancies. Claims regarding these are true or false only if they match such private truths. But claims about what is true for everyone privately? Who could possibly be in a position to persuade another that they had it wrong? Not me.