(January 17, 2009 at 5:23 am)dagda Wrote: I could back all this up with textual evidence from the bible but I feel this would bore you all.

Well my first response would be, there is no evidence to say that any of these claims are true.

Now the bible does not class as evidence. You can't really use the bible for evidence of your claims.
Now evidence is required for any claim that is made. So your claims fall at the first hurdle due to lack of evidence.

What causes you to believe? What evidence do you have to support your claims?

(January 16, 2009 at 12:08 pm)dagda Wrote: It came to me as I was sitting around. I havn't really ever heard a really convincing argument against the existence of a god. I was intreaged and thought the best place to come in my search was an atheist forum. So, anyone got any good ones?

Do we start with any God? Can we practice on Thor the God of Thunder or do you accept it was ignorant thinking? I am mystified by what you are prepared to believe (re:further posts) with absolutley no evidence other than blind faith. I thank *insert mystic deity* that our society has atheists to keep thing real.

I think you have missed the point of the thread. I was looking for an argument against a diety in general, not mine in particular. What makes the atheistical perception of reality right?

If you make your definition of a deity vague enough there is not much you can argue against, but there isn't much left to be called a deity either. The thing is, you are gnostic therefore believe in some deity. You have to be able to define what it is you actually believe, otherwise why believe it in the first place? We cant make claims of disbelieving things existing if it is not defined what it is.

As for what makes the the atheistical perception of reality right? I don't think many atheist claim to know what is the absolute correct perception of reality, but we base our perception and belief on what is gathered through testable and verifiable evidence, and not on some vague notion and hunches.

(January 19, 2009 at 11:50 am)dagda Wrote: I think you have missed the point of the thread. I was looking for an argument against a diety in general, not mine in particular.

Which again begs the question: what is a 'deity'? How can we formulate an argument against its existence if we don't even know what it is?

(January 19, 2009 at 11:50 am)dagda Wrote: What makes the atheistical perception of reality right?

Nothing, since there is no such "atheistical [sic] perception".

Theism affirms the existence of deities, while atheism does not. Atheism affirms nothing, claims nothing, posits nothing.

If a group of people claimed that there existed magic gnomes inside the roots of trees, I daresay you would be sceptical: you'd say "Hang on, why on Earth should I believe you?".

That is the atheist. He does not affirm the existence of deities (and, generally, he doesn't affirm their non-existence either).

---

(January 19, 2009 at 12:10 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: The thing is, you are gnostic therefore believe in some deity.

That means he's a theist, not a gnostic :p

(January 19, 2009 at 2:12 pm)DD_8630 Wrote:

(January 19, 2009 at 12:10 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: The thing is, you are gnostic therefore believe in some deity.

That means he's a theist, not a gnostic :p

I stand corrected.

But then again if he knows deities exist, he probably believes that too.

'Nothing, since there is no such "atheistical [sic] perception".'

I would say skepticism is still a perception. What we percive effects the reality we live in. Reality is perception hence unless you are seperate from reality, you will have a perception.

'I don't think many atheist claim to know what is the absolute correct perception of reality, but we base our perception and belief on what is gathered through testable and verifiable evidence, and not on some vague notion and hunches. '

Blake once said 'If it were not for the Poetic or Prophetical Character, the Philosophic and Experimental would soon be at the ratio of all things and stand still, unable to do other than repeat the same dull round over again.' I am inclined to agree. Falling outwith the realm of science does not make anything more or less valid.

I don't think atheism is much of a philosophy if it can not promote itself without giving the negitive of another philosophy. Why are you atheist?

(January 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm)dagda Wrote: 'Nothing, since there is no such "atheistical [sic] perception".'

I would say skepticism is still a perception. What we percive effects the reality we live in. Reality is perception hence unless you are seperate from reality, you will have a perception.

Guh... no. Scepticism is a stance, one where you don't blindly believe every claim that comes your way, where you say "Well, prove it".

And it should go without saying that reality isn't a perspective either, and nor does our perception affect the reality.

What is, is. What isn't, isn't. What we see is irrelevant to that.

(January 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm)dagda Wrote: I don't think atheism is much of a philosophy if it can not promote itself without giving the negitive of another philosophy. Why are you atheist?

Because there's no reason to be anything but an atheist. If there is no evidence for or against the existence of something, logic dictates that we make no claims as to its existence of non-existence.

The real question is, why believe something exists if there is no evidence for it?

---

(January 19, 2009 at 2:20 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: I stand corrected.

But then again if he knows deities exist, he probably believes that too.

Knowledge is a subset of belief, true dat :p

(January 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm)dagda Wrote: Why are you atheist?

The answer to that question is very simple. When someone presents to me their deity, I do not believe them.

Now if I may ask a question, why do you belive your mythology and not that of, for example, the Vikings? After all, there is as much evidence for Thor as there is for your Sophia.
Why are you not a jew, not a muslim, not a jehovah's witness, not a follower of Zeus?

When you realise why you reject other religions, you'll begin to understand why we reject yours.

(January 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm)dagda Wrote: I don't think atheism is much of a philosophy if it can not promote itself without giving the negitive of another philosophy.

You are correct, it isn't a philosophy at all. It is just simply not believing in deities, the rejection of theism, unless some tangible evidence can be provided that proves a deity positive. That's it, no more, no less. No strings attached.

It says nothing about a persons world view, what a person does believe, or what a persons preferences are.

Why am I an atheist? Because I have yet to see any evidence that would make me believe any deity exists.