Lol, man you guys need to stop looking for a fight. You sound like people who have spent so much time arguing with others over your beliefs that you are bitter and spiteful about it now.
Actually I'm not telling anybody anything, as I've said multiple times now, I read the definition from a dictionary. I've stated what definition I was basing my premise on so you could know where I was coming from. If that is not the correct definition, you'd have to take that up with the writers of the dictionary. And
special pleading for my beliefs. What the heck. Did I miss something?
Man, who the heck said I was trying falsify or prove anything. My beliefs are based on a choice from the conclusion I explained earlier. They are no more and no less than a choice between what makes more sense "to me" and what doesn't. I cannot prove anything, which is why I have continually stated "I choose to believe". You say I need to provide evidence for my assumptions and yet I have made no objective assumptions about God whatsoever this entire thread. I have only reasoned out the nature of the beginning of existence to the best of my ability and if my reasoning is faulty, I gladly welcome anyone to show me why so that I may become wiser, not to sound like Socrates but this is very much the present case. Furthermore I only presented that belief to address a claim about me. This thread actually has nothing to do with that.
Nothing can be known about the nature of God and therefore it makes no sense to assert he doesn't exist. This was my original premise. You've made statements multiple times that show you agree with this premise. Faith no More" has also pointed out, that only strong atheist makes this assertion, which is not how the dictionary defined it. Therefore, if you are not a strong atheist then my question and assumptions about atheist clearly don't apply to you.
Not sure what you mean by the sock puppet statement, but I've said nothing about miracles or warm, fuzzy feelings and at all. Philosophy is about reasoning and discovering the whats truths are inherited from a basic premise assumed true. Since nothing can be known about God I take the philosophical route. You cannot deny that there is no evidence for or against God. Therefore, to assert that he doesn't exist makes no sense. If that does not describe your beliefs, then what I've said doesn't apply to you.
You guys say I am looking down your beliefs from my premise, and that I think my beliefs are superior but it seems to me that the contrary is more likely to be true. You guys are so full of yourselves, belief wise, that you can't even acknowledge that my question does not apply to most of the people here, since most people here are not strong atheist. Many of you were so ready for an argument that you weren't even able to see what I was really saying and now that some of you do, you're already spited and wont be satisfied until you make me out to look completely ignorant or contradicting which, in turn, will justify your beliefs and establish the superiority you fiendishly seek.
I mean God's sake ( no pun intended)
LIGHTEN UP!
Ace Otana Wrote:Theists just love telling us what we believe. They never seem to do the sensible and intelligent thing and actually ask us what we believe or lack belief in anything.
If they're not telling us what we believe, they're trying to redefine atheism. This one has already used special pleading to support his beliefs. Not looking good.
Actually I'm not telling anybody anything, as I've said multiple times now, I read the definition from a dictionary. I've stated what definition I was basing my premise on so you could know where I was coming from. If that is not the correct definition, you'd have to take that up with the writers of the dictionary. And
special pleading for my beliefs. What the heck. Did I miss something?
Rhythem Wrote:You've carefully crafted a statement to avoid contradiction, by way of making god a factually meaningless proposition. Your model has no explanatory value, it makes no predictions, and cannot be falsified. It's an extremely weak model.
"if god can be said to, and if god can be supposed as" My friend, god cannot be said to, and cannot be supposed as, you must provide evidence for your assumptions if you wish to compare them to others assumptions. Further you must prove these assumptions before the conclusions you have reached upon said assumptions can be argued to be superior to others conclusions.
Man, who the heck said I was trying falsify or prove anything. My beliefs are based on a choice from the conclusion I explained earlier. They are no more and no less than a choice between what makes more sense "to me" and what doesn't. I cannot prove anything, which is why I have continually stated "I choose to believe". You say I need to provide evidence for my assumptions and yet I have made no objective assumptions about God whatsoever this entire thread. I have only reasoned out the nature of the beginning of existence to the best of my ability and if my reasoning is faulty, I gladly welcome anyone to show me why so that I may become wiser, not to sound like Socrates but this is very much the present case. Furthermore I only presented that belief to address a claim about me. This thread actually has nothing to do with that.
Nothing can be known about the nature of God and therefore it makes no sense to assert he doesn't exist. This was my original premise. You've made statements multiple times that show you agree with this premise. Faith no More" has also pointed out, that only strong atheist makes this assertion, which is not how the dictionary defined it. Therefore, if you are not a strong atheist then my question and assumptions about atheist clearly don't apply to you.
Sciwoman Wrote:Maybe I'm getting cynical, but I was thinking sock puppet....but then again there are so many of them using the same tired arguments that they do start to sound alike. However, I'll bite:
It boils down to evidence - there is none. Warm, fuzzy feelings or twelfth-hand stories of miracles don't cut it.
Not sure what you mean by the sock puppet statement, but I've said nothing about miracles or warm, fuzzy feelings and at all. Philosophy is about reasoning and discovering the whats truths are inherited from a basic premise assumed true. Since nothing can be known about God I take the philosophical route. You cannot deny that there is no evidence for or against God. Therefore, to assert that he doesn't exist makes no sense. If that does not describe your beliefs, then what I've said doesn't apply to you.
You guys say I am looking down your beliefs from my premise, and that I think my beliefs are superior but it seems to me that the contrary is more likely to be true. You guys are so full of yourselves, belief wise, that you can't even acknowledge that my question does not apply to most of the people here, since most people here are not strong atheist. Many of you were so ready for an argument that you weren't even able to see what I was really saying and now that some of you do, you're already spited and wont be satisfied until you make me out to look completely ignorant or contradicting which, in turn, will justify your beliefs and establish the superiority you fiendishly seek.
I mean God's sake ( no pun intended)
LIGHTEN UP!
