Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pointing out the flaws in arguments for theism would be the obvious one

And when did you achieve that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

And when did you achieve that?

Every time someone (yourself included) attempts an argumentum ad consequentiam, an ad pop, an ad hom, a post hoc ergo propter hoc, an argument from personal incredulity, a god of the gaps, a negative proof fallacy, a...etc and (wearily) etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Every time someone (yourself included) attempts an argumentum ad consequentiam, an ad pop, an ad hom, a post hoc ergo propter hoc, an argument from personal incredulity, a god of the gaps, a negative proof fallacy, a...etc and (wearily) etc.

Hardly ever done IMHO and if an independent adjucator could be found they would find antitheists more guilty even if by dint of having superior numbers on the forum having bored/alienated anyone not in possession of ''The mark of Dawkins''.

The NPF is particularly misused and applied on this forum hence slimy recourse to statements such as ''shaking hands with the NPF''. Perhaps you are familiar with that one Mr Hillside?

[Gordon]

And when did you achieve that?

Every time a fallacy is pointed out - such as your own 'virtuous' use of a straw man in this very thread earlier today.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Every time a fallacy is pointed out - such as your own 'virtuous' use of a straw man in this very thread earlier today.

Do you believe that the thought that leads to atheism is correct if so then you believe it has virtue because although the absence of God cannot be demonstrated, there is supposed virtue in living and existing as if God does not exist.

Therefore, demonstrate, in the context of neither atheism or theism being scientifically demonstrable, that atheism, which according to you is the result of thought, is more correct or virtuous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Hardly ever done IMHO and if an independent adjucator could be found they would find antitheists more guilty even if by dint of having superior numbers on the forum having bored/alienated anyone not in possession of ''The mark of Dawkins''.

No, it's routinely and consistently done. If you think there's an argument for "god" that isn't logically false, why not be the first person here to present it?

The NPF is particularly misused and applied on this forum hence slimy recourse to statements such as ''shaking hands with the NPF''. Perhaps you are familiar with that one Mr Hillside?

No it isn't. What happens is the people like you say things like, "but you can't disprove it can you?" as if that in some unexplained way is argument for something and then you go all coy and "wot me?" when it's explained that leaving off the "therefore it's true" doesn't get you of the hook of an implied NPF.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

No, it's routinely and consistently done. If you think there's an argument for "god" that isn't logically false, why not be the first person here to present it?

It's routinely and constantly done in the face of invincible ignorance on the part of antitheists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Do you believe that the thought that leads to atheism is correct…

When “the thought” is identifying the logical flaws in the arguments attempted for theism, then yes.

…if so then you believe it has virtue because although the absence of God cannot be demonstrated, there is supposed virtue in living and existing as if God does not exist.

Utter gibberish. “Virtue” is to do with morality – finding arguments attempted for “god” to be false has nothing to do with that.

Therefore…

So funny (again). You can’t have a “therefore” when your premise has just collapsed. Again.

…demonstrate, in the context of neither atheism or theism being scientifically demonstrable, that atheism, which according to you is the result of thought, is more correct or virtuous.

The “virtuous” is just a repeat of your earlier lie. The “correct” is readily demonstrated for the reasons that have been explained to you – identifying false reasoning used to argue for gods is all that’s necessary for atheism to pertain. It’s simple enough, even for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

It's routinely and constantly done in the face of invincible ignorance on the part of antitheists.

An "ignorance" you're entirely unable to demonstrate.

Funny that.

Oh, and you've just repeated one of your favourite dishonesties - conflating "atheist" with "antitheist". Why do you bother?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

An "ignorance" you're entirely unable to demonstrate.

That is obviously an article of faith with you. Since you are apparently so successful at pulling the wool and courtier replying on behalf of atheism, you look as though you've managed to fool yourself.... I would thus be wasting my time completely....mind you that is just you.

[ippy]

Do you believe that the thought that leads to atheism is correct if so then you believe it has virtue because although the absence of God cannot be demonstrated, there is supposed virtue in living and existing as if God does not exist.

Therefore, demonstrate, in the context of neither atheism or theism being scientifically demonstrable, that atheism, which according to you is the result of thought, is more correct or virtuous.

You posed this question Vlad:

'Therefore, demonstrate, in the context of neither atheism or theism being scientifically demonstrable, that atheism, which according to you is the result of thought, is more correct or virtuous'.

This question of yours couldn't be any easier to answer, as follows; if you were a non-believer say like I am, I'm never having to think if I do this good deed for my neighbour, should be worth quite a few brownie points on that heavenly scale.

Nor do I have to think if I hope Woolwich Wanderers lose that football game today I'll really be pleased, Ill be loosing brownie points for my place in the hear after.

I do the favour as just that a favour, just because I like to think I've helped someone and nothing more than that, I don't have to kid myself needlessly that there's something mystical about it.

I'm a Spurs supporter and as such it's only right that we need to see the demise of Woolwich Wanderers and that's the end of it, it's a bit of competitive fun nothing more, no need for a fire resistant suit.

Regards ippy

Wollwich Wanderers, I use this handle so that I don't need to fumigate my PC to rid it of that pollutant other name. 

Regards ippy

[Gordon]

Do you believe that the thought that leads to atheism is correct if so then you believe it has virtue because although the absence of God cannot be demonstrated, there is supposed virtue in living and existing as if God does not exist.

What 'thought that leads to atheism' is this? Pointing out that arguments used by others (in this case some theists) are flawed and should be dismissed involves no special thoughts - just the application of some logical thinking about the arguments offered. I have no idea where you get this 'virtue' notion from in relation to how you imagine atheists live their lives - did you read some Aristotle and not understand it?

Therefore, demonstrate, in the context of neither atheism or theism being scientifically demonstrable, that atheism, which according to you is the result of thought, is more correct or virtuous.

Where did I say atheism was 'correct' or 'virtuous'? All it means is that I've yet to encounter an argument for 'God' that isn't deficient in one way or another so that, as things stand, and pending a better argument, I see no good reasons to think 'God' is a serious proposition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

That is obviously an article of faith with you. Since you are apparently so successful at pulling the wool and courtier replying on behalf of atheism, you look as though you've managed to fool yourself.... I would thus be wasting my time completely....mind you that is just you.

So you still can't demonstrate this supposed ignorance then.

Thought so.

Oh, and the irony of you wrongly accusing someone else of the courtier's reply when you've just attempted it with your (albeit false) claim of ignorance is beyond laughable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What 'thought that leads to atheism' is this? Pointing out that arguments used by others (in this case some theists) are flawed and should be dismissed involves no special thoughts - just the application of some logical thinking about the arguments offered. I have no idea where you get this 'virtue' notion from in relation to how you imagine atheists live their lives - did you read some Aristotle and not understand it?

Where did I say atheism was 'correct' or 'virtuous'? All it means is that I've yet to encounter an argument for 'God' that isn't deficient in one way or another so that, as things stand, and pending a better argument, I see no good reasons to think 'God' is a serious proposition.

You don't convince me Gordon.


I don't think there is any one on here who seriously is guilty of what I think you mean by NPF ( can't actually find NPF except here).

Nobody ever says you cannot provide a logical argument for naturalism (The no God) option, therefore God exists no matter how often Hillside applies his Turdpolisher on the affair.

Therefore I suggest you are seeing logical flaws where they are not there and not seeing your own.

Materialism and physicalism are circular arguments

Empiricism is a circular argument

as is naturalism.

Scientism is faith.

An atheist who states that he has trouble with Pascal's wager yet is quite happy to state that he doesn't know that God exists but has chosen to commit and live faithfully to the notion he doesn't not only is taking part in Pascal's Wager but cannot be prized off the betting machine in the philosophical version of PaddyPower.

'Tis contradiction all.

[Gordon]

Vlad

You seem to be ranting now: leave the windmills alone, old chap.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You don't convince me Gordon.


I don't think there is any one on here who seriously is guilty of what I think you mean by NPF ( can't actually find NPF except here).

Nobody ever says you cannot provide a logical argument for naturalism (The no God) option, therefore God exists no matter how often Hillside applies his Turdpolisher on the affair.

Therefore I suggest you are seeing logical flaws where they are not there and not seeing your own.

Materialism and physicalism are circular arguments

Empiricism is a circular argument

as is naturalism.

Scientism is faith.

An atheist who states that he has trouble with Pascal's wager yet is quite happy to state that he doesn't know that God exist but has chosen to commit and live faithfully with the notion he doesn't not only is taking part in Pascal's Wager but cannot be prized off the betting machine in the philosophical version of PaddyPower.

'Tis contradiction all.

'tis bollocks all but as you just ignore or lie about every rebuttal of the utter nonsense you've just posted I see no point in falsifying it all again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

You seem to be ranting now: leave the windmills alone, old chap.

It's called ''not suffering fools'' Gordon.

[Enki]

But it is your subjective opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot 'gild' that to bring 'objective' as you did in your post by putting an incorrect use of objective in.

I'm still not sure where you are going with this. Anything anyone might say may be classed as a subjective opinion, can't it? If this is what you are saying, then, of course, I accept that is true. No problem.

However we usually distinguish between those who are simply expressing personal opinions and those who at least try to look at their opinions in as objective a way as possible.

If I were to suggest that my personal experiences or my personal beliefs were objective evidence for saying that there is no objective evidence then you might have a point, but I am not saying that. I discount personal experience, for instance, as objective evidence, because it is only pertinent for the person concerned.

Evidence needs confirmation that a belief is valid. Objective evidence needs confirmation that doesn't depend upon any particular individual, but can be(ideally) tested  by anyone. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of this nature which illustrates that god(s) exists. That doesn't mean that I am right, of course, since I cannot know all the evidence, but it is a reasonable and objective holding position.

My reason for saying that there is no objective evidence for the existence of god(s) is therefore based upon observation and analysis, two prerequisites for objectivity.
I can, of course, by the very nature of objective evidence, be proved wrong by examples of objective evidence  which do just that.

Hence I think I'll stick with the phrase 'I find no objective evidence' because I see no reason to change it. Think of it as a subjective decision on my part.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case Vlad, how do you live with yourself?

same way you do I suppose
  ::)and an extra helping of

[Alan Burns]

Just came across this reading in a church service from 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 in which Paul recognises and highlights the limitations of human wisdom - so applicable today, as it was over 2000 years ago:

For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power.  The scripture says,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
    and set aside the understanding of the scholars.”
So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skilful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness!
For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called “foolish” message we preach, God decided to save those who believe.  Jews want miracles for proof, and Greeks look for wisdom.  As for us, we proclaim the crucified Christ, a message that is offensive to the Jews and nonsense to the Gentiles;  but for those whom God has called, both Jews and Gentiles, this message is Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For what seems to be God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and what seems to be God's weakness is stronger than human strength.

[Walter]

has nobody found this flamin' DOG yet ?

[torridon]

Just came across this reading in a church service from 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 in which Paul recognises and highlights the limitations of human wisdom - so applicable today, as it was over 2000 years ago:

For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power.  The scripture says,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
    and set aside the understanding of the scholars.”
So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skilful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness!
For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called “foolish” message we preach, God decided to save those who believe.  Jews want miracles for proof, and Greeks look for wisdom.  As for us, we proclaim the crucified Christ, a message that is offensive to the Jews and nonsense to the Gentiles;  but for those whom God has called, both Jews and Gentiles, this message is Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For what seems to be God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and what seems to be God's weakness is stronger than human strength.

That doesn't reconcile with a god that is open to all.  A god that calls some but not others is discriminating. A god that decides to save only those that renounce the critical thinking skills that he bestowed on them is playing head games with humanity.  Would you give your child a bike for his birthday only to tell him he is not allowed to ride it ?

[SusanDoris]

That doesn't reconcile with a god that is open to all.  A god that calls some but not others is discriminating. A god that decides to save only those that renounce the critical thinking skills that he bestowed on them is playing head games with humanity.  Would you give your child a bike for his birthday only to tell him he is not allowed to ride it ?

Bit of a tangent: It's what AB and family are going to teach the grandson that saddens me. It is probably already too late for himn to grow up with critical thinking skills. End tangent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't reconcile with a god that is open to all.  A god that calls some but not others is discriminating. A god that decides to save only those that renounce the critical thinking skills that he bestowed on them is playing head games with humanity.  Would you give your child a bike for his birthday only to tell him he is not allowed to ride it ?

By renouncing critical thinking skills, I take it you mean renouncing what Lewontin calls " Our prior commitment to materialism".

You give the antitheist scheme away by equating critical thinking with atheism.
Similar to the renaming atheism as "bright".

[torridon]

By renouncing critical thinking skills, I take it you mean renouncing what Lewontin calls " Our prior commitment to materialism".

You give the antitheist scheme away by equating critical thinking with atheism.
Similar to the renaming atheism as "bright".

Not interested in your strawmen Vladdo.  Read the posts.