A series of my arguments/points over the years.

[Mystic]

1. Neutrality isn't neccesarily more logical if it's blindness to the bright light.

One thing I argued over the years, is that (weak) Atheism (ie. agnosticism) is not more reasonable per say just because it's neutral. There is some reasons for this.  One if God is the source of reality, praise, greatness, goodness, beauty, majesty, glory, and is the light of all that light, then seeing reality of who we are and our link to the source can be properly basic much like we see ourselves to exist. In this case, eternalness is something we can witness as a property of reality, that everything has been created through the truth of God's reality that through his light all praise is linked to him and is towards him and belongs to Him. If this is the reality of things, we ought to ask God to make us see reality of things as they are, and not just say,  I don't know, there is no evidence, etc.  If everything is created from God's glory and that is the reality of existence, then witnessing this would not be an impossibility. 

2. Properly Basic axioms and knowledge

Some of most important beliefs that even Atheists share are properly basic. There is no argument or evidence for them, aside from our personal strong inclinations to believe these things as knowledge. For example, that you are the same person you were as you were a baby. That despite how much you change, you are that person. Another example is moral realism. Another example if free-will. These are properly basic beliefs.  Belief in praise and your belief your actions are inherited to who you are are also properly basic beliefs. Even if there are arguments that prove these things, no human or at least most humans don't believe in these things because of those philosophical justifications.

3. If we are souls why would it not be obvious we are that?

If we are souls, I would think by the very nature of that it would be obvious we are. Anyways whether it is obvious or not, to say we are souls but cannot witness it seems more irrational then to say we can witness we are souls if we are souls.  To me it is so manifestly obvious that I am a soul. Please don't get into this define a soul etc, just witness your true existence, and everything becomes easy. 



4. Anti-theism needs justification

Saying you don't know God exists therefore theists don't God exists needs you to prove in light of the above that God doesn't exist. If you don't know, why become hostile towards others and deny they know? 

5. Consciousness and non-consciousness and the supposed in between stages.

I think it's obvious that at a point there has to be something alive.  The step from non-consciousness to consciousness would need many stages and yet there would at the end have to be one stage that does that, yet it's obvious there is nothing in between that.  Either it's conscious or not. Lesser degrees of mind is still mind. Yet at the end there has to be a step even to the small dint of consciousness, for non-concsiousness to that, is so drastic, there can't be single step of mutation. It is so complex. Pointing to similar arguments that been debunked for the eye or what not, doesn't do away with this problem.  I want you guys to think about this paradox.

6. Non-Arbitrary nature of morality proves it to be eternal.

If God can decide morals, they would be arbitrary. If he can create morality out of nothing, he would of decided it. Yet we know morality is not arbitrary and that God can create evolution. If God can create evolution but cannot create morality from nothing, then neither can evolution. Therefore morality is eternal. And morality also needs a mind for to exist so an eternal mind surely contained it.

to be continued....

[Foxaèr]

4. Anti-theism needs justification

Saying you don't know God exists

As an anti-theist, I have never had qualms in stating the obvious that I know god does not exist.

[Heat]

Your entire argument comes from trying to disprove Atheists. Come back when you can prove Theism. Or at least when you read up on the rules of an argument.

[Heat]

4. Anti-theism needs justification

Saying you don't know God exists

As an anti-theist, I have never had qualms in stating the obvious that I know god does not exist.

You are no better than him. He is trying to disprove arguments about what he's failed to prove without providing any evidence. You are trying to prove arguments by disproving what's failed to provide evidence. That is not proof, that is a claim that there is no proof, I have seen this time and time again explained to you, yet you still insist you "know god doesn't exist" regardless of any claims in which this is based on evidence. You're what creates the religious stereotype of Atheism, because from what you've displayed you somehow want god not to exist. You may claim to be above these childish myths, however you don't have enough intellectual honesty to admit you cannot disprove the claim of god, at least not without evidence, evidence you have failed to present. And because that evidence hasn't been presented, any time you press this idea of "There is no god and I know it", you end up looking just as childish and illogical as the theists who similarly have no proof of the claims they so valiantly push.

[Alex K]

Wait, I neither subscribe to free will (except in the most mundane formulation) nor to moral realism.

If we are souls, I would think by the very nature of that it would be obvious we are. Anyways whether it is obvious or not, to say we are souls but cannot witness it seems more irrational then to say we can witness we are souls if we are souls. To me it is so manifestly obvious that I am a soul. Please don't get into this define a soul etc, just witness your true existence, and everything becomes easy.

Sigh. Don't analyze and it all becomes clear, huh? You really are a mystic, aren't you

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Grand, let's just not define ANY thing. Don't define, souls, gods, trees, poop, ducks, asparagus, paper, fish, etc. Once we agree to that, everyone can win every argument EVER, without all that pesky, whaddyacallit....thinking.

Boru

[SofaKingHigh]

"3. If we are souls why would it not be obvious we are that?

If we are souls, I would think by the very nature of that it would be obvious we are. Anyways whether it is obvious or not, to say we are souls but cannot witness it seems more irrational then to say we can witness we are souls if we are souls.  To me it is so manifestly obvious that I am a soul. Please don't get into this define a soul etc, just witness your true existence, and everything becomes easy."

Have you been paying too much attention to the ramblings of Little Prik?

[Angrboda]

What is man but a little soul holding up a corpse?
~ Malcolm Lowry

[Angrboda]

3. If we are souls why would it not be obvious we are that?

If we are souls, I would think by the very nature of that it would be obvious we are. Anyways whether it is obvious or not, to say we are souls but cannot witness it seems more irrational then to say we can witness we are souls if we are souls.  To me it is so manifestly obvious that I am a soul. Please don't get into this define a soul etc, just witness your true existence, and everything becomes easy. 

(emphasis mine)

Why would it be irrational? I think this is a misstep. It would certainly be convenient, but life is not always what we desire.

5. Consciousness and non-consciousness and the supposed in between stages.

I think it's obvious that at a point there has to be something alive.  The step from non-consciousness to consciousness would need many stages and yet there would at the end have to be one stage that does that, yet it's obvious there is nothing in between that.  Either it's conscious or not. Lesser degrees of mind is still mind. Yet at the end there has to be a step even to the small dint of consciousness, for non-concsiousness to that, is so drastic, there can't be single step of mutation. It is so complex. Pointing to similar arguments that been debunked for the eye or what not, doesn't do away with this problem.  I want you guys to think about this paradox.

Think of the weird malformed thoughts that occur when you are rousing from sleep to wakefulness. There is an in-between in which things only make partial sense.

6. Non-Arbitrary nature of morality proves it to be eternal.

If God can decide morals, they would be arbitrary. If he can create morality out of nothing, he would of decided it. Yet we know morality is not arbitrary and that God can create evolution. If God can create evolution but cannot create morality from nothing, then neither can evolution. Therefore morality is eternal. And morality also needs a mind for to exist so an eternal mind surely contained it.

(emphasis mine)

We do? If I sample the varying morals of the world, there seems a distinct arbitrariness, from the hate speech laws of Europe to the honor crimes in parts of the middle east.

[Cecelia]

4. Anti-theism needs justification

Saying you don't know God exists therefore theists don't God exists needs you to prove in light of the above that God doesn't exist. If you don't know, why become hostile towards others and deny they know?

We can say with reasonable confidence that your specific God does not exist.  There's too much evidence pointing to the fact that the original religious text upon which the Abrahamic Faiths are based is less credible than Star Magazine.  Which is why so many theists try to rely on arguments that don't require their religious texts.