(January 6, 2012 at 2:59 am)amkerman Wrote: - it is YOU who are presupposing God is imaginary. Straight off the gun you beg the question.By asserting people who perceive life to have meaning without God is nothing more than illusory, you are making the presupposition that God already exists demonstrably, common-knowledge, plain as day. This is not the case. So far all theists have ever been able to present is a mental construct of their deity in their mind, which amkerman I have to remind you with an insufferable smugness, is all imaginary.
Quote:- where? Not once did I state God exists. None of my claims or queries needs God. In fact my entire question is how life can have objective purpose without God.Disingenuous aren't we?
Quote:Believing that meaning is real but that "God" is illusory doesn't make any sense.
Quote:- I never said anyone on here is. Until now. You most definitely ARE in denial.See my first response. How am I in denial? What am I denying? Go on you clown, make that hole you're digging even deeper.
Quote:- commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. You know this.Except you're ignoring the fact that you and your theist bum chums have never once provided extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims about the existence of an all-powerful god. All you've ever done is lobby. Any arguments presented have already since been refuted.
Quote:- so your answer is real meaning doesn't exist and neither does God. No problem with that, you should have just stated it from the get go.That's postmodernism. And what do you mean I should've stated it from the get-go? I did. Or were you not paying attention?
Quote:- No. It's not. Rationalization is the mental act of justifying ones beliefs or actions...No no, NO. We're addressing the theory of justification within epistemology. We're NOT unconsciously making excuses to feebly avoid any true explanation. Do you not know what the word "rationalization" means within the context of psychology and logic? Of course you do. How DARE you insinuate that. You're trying to make us inadvertently commit the informal fallacy of reasoning here.
Once again - Rationalization is not the correct word to use here.
Quote:- well if it's a false belief (which you just stated above) then it is just a belief in God by another name. If there is nothing inherently wrong or unacceptable with believing in real purpose then there is nothing inherently wrong or unacceptable with believing in God. Both are fine by me.What the fuck are you talking about? This is a non-sequitur. It in NO way addresses the point I was making earlier about people attempting to justify their demonstrably real lives with subjective meaning. You're going on a rant-off and finishing every fucking statement with "God". Is that all you've got for us? God this and God that?
And NO, there is something inherently wrong in believing in supernatural beings that have not been proven to exist by those arguing that they do without valid and reliable evidence. That is the tragic story of people preferring the self-indulgence of fantasy and lies over reality and truth. Such beliefs have opened people up to just about every form of abuse conceivable. If God remains unproven, the default position is to remain in disbelief until new and sufficient evidence for the claim presents itself.
Quote:- that any belief in an objective reality is equivalent to a belief in God.Objectivity has nothing to do with magic man. Its a philosophical concept, not a religious concept. It is concerned with what is objectively true and what is independent of the judgement of a conscious entity or subject, that includes god or gods.
You believe god is reality? Prove it because I'm weary of your insincere bullshit.
