Hey Everyone.

[Edwardo Piet]

You said that 'it's nothing to be afraid of' and that us atheists do it too. That's the fallacy. The implication that two wrongs make a right.

Kyu said 'well you're gulity too' back at you, but then he never actually implied that therefore it's okay to be fallacious, or 'nothing to be afraid of' now..did he?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Ah I C. I wasn't implying it made a right - I was just pointing out that making a fallacy was common practice around here. The threat was, and there's yet to be reason to suggest it, that poor IF better beware at making a logical fallacy. Like it was what theists do, and not non theists. This is obviously incorrect.

You called it a "you too" fallacy. I said "you too" do it. And so did Kyu. Deal with the wrath of Kyu & stop squirming.

[Amphora]

Why? Your fellow atheists fall foul of them all the time. It's nothing to be afraid of.

Oh so it's nothing to be afraid of. But it's a good thing to know fallicies, and critical thinking.

So you are saying that you don't mind getting into arguments with others? And getting your point across?

Amp

[Violet]

Disproof of God (as an omnipresent, omniloving, omnipotent, all-powerful, unconditionally loving, jealous, and original god) is more than easy [for a philosopher anyway]. It cannot exist in any of those forms, at least not when it is the SINGLE god christians envision it to be.

I Know you're into philosophy Saerules but this is EXACTLY why I think philosophy (modern day at any rate) is pile of foetid dingos kidneys ... because YOU claim you can disprove "Gawd's" existence easily yet THEY claim they can prove it easily! Can you understand where I have an issue?

Kyu

I absolutely understand why you would say that However you will find that where philosophy is based on exactly the same thing as science (1=1), faith is based on the principle of 1 ≠ 1. I can disprove all-powerful beings with simple logic... and the faithful refute such logic because they a: don't think logically, b: are offended by logic, and c: are unwilling to change their mind.

This is why i consider philosophy (the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence) to be as valid as science (the intellectual and practical activity of studying the structure and behavior of existence and reality through observation and experimentation). Philosophy justifies science's correctness. Both philosophy and science change to accommodate new information or ways to approach a conundrum.

Faith, on the other hand, is a squeamish critter. It holds its basis in blind acceptance of something they have not thought about. It is purely emotional, and very brainwashing. The faithful are true slaves to non-thought. Therefore, you see that both science and philosophy have an edge over faith?

Science can observe, create a hypothesis, test its hypothesis, formulate a theory, extensively test it, and finally input it as a fact.

Philosophy comes into play where one cannot observe. The christian god is a good example of a time when science cannot observe it, and therefore philosophy must be relied upon to test it. One matter: omnipotence. In two seconds i can formulate a question that is unanswerable for the faithful: can your god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Nothing can be all-powerful. Their gods may be very powerful, or the most sovereign power in our universe... but they are not all-powerful. It is in this way that i can refute the christian god. It may exist... but it does not exist as you know it.

It will eventually be science that tells us if there is any form of higher being in our universe... but it is philosophy that will destroy the impossibilities in religious texts. Philosophy can disprove 'Gawd's existence... but nothing can touch the unknown's existence with any accuracy except science.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I Know you're into philosophy Saerules but this is EXACTLY why I think philosophy (modern day at any rate) is pile of foetid dingos kidneys ... because YOU claim you can disprove "Gawd's" existence easily yet THEY claim they can prove it easily! Can you understand where I have an issue?

In other words you avoid the subject because you know you can't win.

No, because there is bugger all point in something that can be used to "prove" one thing AND "prove" the exact opposite. This isn't rocket science, it's plain logic.

I Know you're into philosophy Saerules but this is EXACTLY why I think philosophy (modern day at any rate) is pile of foetid dingos kidneys ... because YOU claim you can disprove "Gawd's" existence easily yet THEY claim they can prove it easily! Can you understand where I have an issue?

I absolutely understand why you would say that However you will find that where philosophy is based on exactly the same thing as science (1=1), faith is based on the principle of 1 ≠ 1. I can disprove all-powerful beings with simple logic... and the faithful refute such logic because they a: don't think logically, b: are offended by logic, and c: are unwilling to change their mind.

Not getting too deep into this ... that's exactly the kind of thing they would say and that is why I stick to my basic point of view i.e. that, with the possible exception of maths, empirical evidence and a rational/compatible explanation of the same are the only things that are worth a damn when it comes to explaining things. Yes philosophy has it's uses as a reasoning tool and often feeds into science where that reasoning can be tested but alone it has never proven a thing. However my biggest issue is with it's bastard child metaphysics which, as far as I can tell, can be used to “prove” almost anything and can be somewhat cynically defined as a means of justifying that which cannot be demonstrated empirically.

Kyu

[I_Fight_for_Jesus_Christ]

Heh, been interesting to see you debate a bit and to have a look at your mentalities here. Yeah sure I'll give you proofs. There are thousands of proofs out there; and those that not only prove that God exists, but those that prove the God out there is the God of the Bible... Only you wont accept them because you don't want to... Will open a new proper thread when I have a bit of time and well have a proper clash there. Anyway, thanks for your hospitality people.

And by the way please dont think that I beleive cos mommy told me to. I was an atheist too for a time; and only through critical thinking and not ignoring the evidence that supports the idea that I am against have I become a Christian.

[Darwinian]

Only you wont accept them because you don't want to...

Please do not presume to dictate to us what we do or do not want to believe.

It seems that your are already insuring yourself against the inevitable debunking of your so called evidence so that when we reject it you can say, there, I told you so.

It's the same old story, over and over again with you people. You give us what you naively consider proof and then when we point out that it isn't proof and what you are saying makes no sense you simply blame us for refusing to believe because we don't want to. As if somehow we have deliberately closed our minds off to the truth because we reject God. When in reality it is you who have closed your mind off to logic and reason in favour of living in a fantasy world.

Give us solid, falsifiable, repeatable scientific evidence for the existence of your Christian God and we will listen, of course we will. But if you do then you will be the first in the history of humanity.

You have a lot to learn if you really think that atheists are the way they are because of choice, i.e. we simply don't want to believe. Atheists are the way they are because they can see that the claims of Christians are fallacious and have no basis in logic or reason and certainly no evidence to back them up.

Not a good start.

[Eilonnwy]

You claim you were an atheist, can you tell me what changed your mind and led you to Christianity?

[Kyuuketsuki]

And by the way please dont think that I beleive cos mommy told me to. I was an atheist too for a time; and only through critical thinking and not ignoring the evidence that supports the idea that I am against have I become a Christian.

Now THAT I don't believe ... I think you are either lying or you do not understand what an atheist is.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

You called it a "you too" fallacy. I said "you too" do it. And so did Kyu. Deal with the wrath of Kyu & stop squirming.

It just seemed to me like you were comitting a fallacy then, because it seemed to me that you were implying with 'nothing to be afraid of' - that it was okay to be fallacious because as you said we do it 'too'.

Which is the 'you too' fallacy, but you said you weren't being serious. You tell me to 'stop squirming' but I just found it ironic because it seemed like you were being fallacious whilst saying that it's 'nothing to fear' because we do it 'too' as I said

EvF