RE: Atheism is just as irrational as Theism.
October 12, 2011 at 8:24 am
(This post was last modified: October 12, 2011 at 8:35 am by Welsh cake.)
(October 11, 2011 at 10:54 am)sonofodin Wrote: When you lack a belief in something,
Then you lack a belief in something. That's all there is to it.
Quote:you must specify what you are talking about.
This isn't an Ignosticism forum. Its not our business to define "god" merely to respond to theistic claims as unsupported and therefore lacking any good reason to believe they are true.
Quote:A general concept doesn't cut it, deists think that "god" is the universe,
That's Hermeticism or Pantheism.
Quote:some people think that god is humanity.
The Absolute or The All, its the same as the Hermetic or panentheistic view of God. At least take the time to learn the fricking concepts by name if you're going to argue what it is that we don't know what we lack a belief in. Geez...
Quote:You have to specify when you're talking about a word that has vastly different meanings to different people.
We're not ignostics again, and we're also not presenting an argument for the existence of gods or god-like beings, its not our burden to provide a clear positive ontology for any of the imagined or as of yet unimagined concepts that are out there, or yet to be conceived. I don't have to specify what it is that I lack a belief in because that's asinine. Do I have to specify the giant platypus that lives in the sun that I just made up this second before I can disbelieve in it?
Quote:Anyway, if we were to assume that it's a "supernatural god". How would you define it? How can you conceptualize it if it is outside of reality?
Any evidence? None? Okay so I don't believe in any "supernatural god" then. Well, that was easy.
You're seriously barging in here trying to argue that atheism is 'irrational' when the default position regarding claims over any given concept that is not backed up by evidence or supported by logic is actually disbelief until it has sufficiently met its obligated burden of proof? Are you for real? Does the funny farm know that you've escaped and not taken your meds again?
(October 11, 2011 at 11:00 am)sonofodin Wrote: That's pathetic, how can you live with being so intellectually dishonest? God forbid someone challenges your worldview... LOL
Atheism is not a worldview oh ill-informed shit-and-runner.
(October 12, 2011 at 6:19 am)FutureAndAHope Wrote: Supernatural in my definition is just having powers greater than my own, being super man, or super human as examples are just greater forms of humanity.
So all these exoskeleton suits developed by the army where the user can lift loads that he or she would normally not be able to are evidence of the supernatural? Congratulations you made supernatural as a noun even more meaningless to me than it was five minutes ago. Now I have to go and supernaturally perform large sums I couldn't work out alone with my scientific calculator, if you don't mind. ^^
Quote:So super natural is just a natural phenomenon that is above the natural realm, exists in a form greater than the natural.
Fixed for you.
Why call anything "supernatural" then? If it violates natural law shouldn't you be calling it "unnatural" instead? And if it doesn't and its all part of the same reality/creation whatever then why not just call it "natural" and save yourself the unnecessary baggage?
I can just as easily imagine the term "Hypernatural" that triumphs your pitiful supernatural in every conceivable and inconceivable way, but it doesn't mean a bloody thing if I don't establish the square-bounds and limits of "natural" first.
