Why do you not believe in God?

[Cyberman]

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

Are we reading the same thread?

[fr0d0]

When Jeff stops strawmanning, evading, making vague, metaphysical arguments, denying logic, and constructing poor syllogisms,

You've seen grown ups using those words haven't you?

[Skepsis]

When Jeff stops strawmanning, evading, making vague, metaphysical arguments, denying logic, and constructing poor syllogisms,

You've seen grown ups using those words haven't you?

"Grown ups"?
Since when do adults have imaginary friends?
Seems to me that you don't have any room to talk to me about my maturity. I'll call out shitty arguments where and when I see them.
Jeff is a special case- even by the standards I set for theists his comprehension of basic logic and step-by-step explanation is terrible.
Which is why I find it more than a small oddity that anyone, even another xtard, would support him.

For example, he has neglected to answer my lengthy post that absolutely destroys his arguments, reveals his strawmen, and functions as a deadline for all his previous bullshit. He didn't bother to take another look at my rebuttal, and obviously neither did you.
Do you ever get tired of having you ass handed to you by atheists?
Judging by your picture, I would suppose not.

[Paul the Human]

Don't let fr0d0 get to you. He's just trolling. He's more full of shit than any of them.

[Zen Badger]

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

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

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

You can quit strawmanning us any time, twat.

However to even go from 1 to three you must assume logic is true as you use logic to make any inference.

Logic can be tested, and in fact developed and continues to develop through testing.

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.

And now it is understood that reason answers to evidence. Try to catch up to the 20th century, at least.

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

No, we don't. This is what I was talking about when I pointed out that you are incapable of honest debate.

---

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

Only an equally ignorant, disingenuous, intellectually bankrupt twat like you would think so.

---

When Jeff stops strawmanning, evading, making vague, metaphysical arguments, denying logic, and constructing poor syllogisms,

You've seen grown ups using those words haven't you?

I see that you have been destroyed to the point that you can only lay in a pool of your own blood, shit, and vomit and jeer from the sidelines.

[Mystic]

I agree logic can be tested so it's not in the same field, but where we wrong to depend on logic before analytically rigorously testing it? Were we wrong to believe in it in a properly basic manner without testing it?

[Skepsis]

I agree logic can be tested so it's not in the same field, but where we wrong to depend on logic before analytically rigorously testing it? Were we wrong to believe in it in a properly basic manner without testing it?

No, we weren't wrong.
Logic is inherent in humans largely due to the evolutionary process which, in the case of humans, thinned out the less logical; logic, being a distinguishing feature in humans, was one of the biggest things that separated us from other predators. It is intuitive because it works to survive, which lends it credibility in assessing the truth of our surroundings. There are places in which intuition fails, namely in more recent physics, but this doesn't discredit intuition in the "human sphere" where our senses are nearly impeccably accurate.
Logic doesn't need the same rigorous testing due to the nature of logic's origins, that of selective progression that depended on interpretation of the natural world and one's surroundings to such a degree that unproblematic survival might be ensured.
I guess I said all of that so I could say that the "testing" of logic can be said to have already been taken care of by nature.

[Mystic]

So suppose knowledge of God was properly basic, perhaps some people have it and others lose trust in it, because it's not able to be tested? But in this case, it surely is not wrong to trust it.

Perhaps "spirituality" is the form of constantly testing our knowledge of God and why people feel the need to practice a religion?

[Skepsis]

So suppose knowledge of God was properly basic, perhaps some people have it and others lose trust in it, because it's not able to be tested? But in this case, it surely is not wrong to trust it.

Perhaps "spirituality" is the form of constantly testing our knowledge of God and why people feel the need to practice a religion?

So, there's this little thing humans have that we develop an aversion to at an early age... it's called FEAR.
You see, fear is something that is invoked when an individual feels a situation is likely to end in his/her detriment, especially in the case of physical harm, pain, or long-term loss of some kind or another.
Fear has always been a basic, ingrained thought pattern necessary for survival (or increased survival chances). The reason religion was developed was in large part to allow for an escape from the fear of death, loss of loved ones, and the ability to never fear anything again after a certain event- death. That way, God can avoid the axe of logic. At least for the gullible.
When you say that religion, or "spirituality" in your case, is a basic belief, you are asserting that a human with no contact in any sense with any other person would have knowledge of God.
Prove it.
Your full of shit if you really think that. You are equating my comments about logic having been tested (in a sense) by nature to the idea that people naturally have a belief, or at least an understanding, of a God or something of the sort.
Nobody intuits God. People might intuitively develop an imaginary friend, but it is to allieviate another human faculty called "loneliness".
Beliefs that conflict with, contradict, or ignore logic nearly always serve a purpose to the believer. Most of the time these beliefs are ingraned, but they can be developed solely by the adherent, in which case the believer likely just wishes the proposition to be true for some reason.