(September 30, 2009 at 8:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You say the same elsewhere.
If I do, it's hypothetical. I don't assert such things as if I actually believe them, like I did in the blasphemy thread. I was joking in the blasphemy thread of course.
Quote:"Atheist argument relies on screwey logic.. cherry picking as with denying philosophy with science."
How does that substantiate your previous claim? That's just covering it with a paraphrasing of the same claim! That also lacks substantiation!
How does the definition of atheism (since you say "atheist argument" - that's my point)=denying philosophy? Atheism in and of itself says nothing of philosophy or science at all actually. Atheism is just non-belief in God. As I said, how does non-belief in God=screwy logic? How does it make sense for you to say Atheist argument relies on screwy logic? And I still fail to see how you've substantiated this. You've just told me that atheists cherry-pick and deny philosophy 'with science', but how so?
Quote:I was speaking of claims made by JP and Arcanus. My claims you skilfully circled around too.
I know you were, you're referring to the logical arguments that have been 'demonstrated' or 'presented' on these forums according to you. That according to you, I have 'ignored' or 'failed to understand'. But I'm just saying that...that's, as I said - from your point of view. From my point of view however, I haven't ignored anything. Because in my view there's nothing to ignore, because despite what you think you, Arcanus and JP, etc, have said that have been logical arguments for God according to you - I have seen no such logical arguments that in any way provide evidence for God. So from my perspective I haven't ignored, because there's no evidence of anything to ignore. Why would I believe if, in my view, there's no evidence?
Quote:So you mean no one has inspired you enough to look into it seriously. That's a bit different from saying there is no evidence. You are simply taking other people's word for that, having never looked into it yourself to make up your own mind.
Why would I look into it or find it any more inspiring than the FSM, or countless of other hypothetical deities? Just because it's popular? That's not logical.
Quote:It is. I had nothing to say. I've suggested we resume before and you've declined.
Did I? What the fuck? I never do that. Please provide a quote if you can! I mean, when did I? I certainly never explicitly did. I've been waiting for you to reply this whole time. If you have seen an implication of me saying I don't want to continue with our debate, no such implication was ever intended, if that is so.
Quote:Funny I thought evidence was our topic and not faith.
It is, I was just saying how it was okay to mention just evidence here, so long as I don't mention faith I think...if we are to mention both, then that goes in the debate, right?
I only mentioned faith to try and confirm this...
Quote:So it's not that you don't want to understand it it's that you don't want to look into it
Correct, I'm questioning why you and other theists believe (and also why deists believe), and why you think there's evidence, and what you think that evidence is. I don't expect there to be evidence. I'm not saying it's impossible - but I might as well go searching for the IPU!!
Quote:I've detailed my case up to that point in support of my logic. I've taken you to the book shop and placed TGD in your hands. Now all you have to do is read it. Why did you read TGD if looking into this subject was futile as you say? You take great interest and research around anti God because somehow this interests you, yet you refuse to give the same importance to the very subject you're dismissing... without ever wanting to look into it.
The subject may be the same, but the motives are different. I read TGD because I'm interested in religion. But that's a whole other ball game anyway, because my position was completely different then. Because when I was to read TGD, I didn't consider it as futile because I was more unsure of if there was a God or not at the time, but my superstition in pseudo-scientific New Age bullshit was decreasing, so I was giving it a shot to see if the New Age BS really was BS, and if God was less 50/50, 60/40, 80/20 or even 90/10 odds and if the odds were in fact more against him than that.
From the position I'm at now however, what would motivate me into thinking that looking for evidence for God was any less futile than looking for the IPU?
No, I look into religion now because I just find it interesting, for moral/immoral and historical reasons, etc. And I find it fascinating the sort of stuff people can believe. I mean, I find religion interesting just as someone who is interested in Mythology is interested in it, without actually thinking Zeus is in any way plausible (not that he's impossible..you can't prove a negative, etc).
EvF
