210 replies to this topic

[mikeinnaples]

1.If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.Evil exists.
3.Therefore, moral values exist I.
4.Therefore, god exists.

That is the most idiotic argument I have ever seen. It is wrong from the very beginning to accept that moral values and duties cannot exist without divinity.

Do you even think before you type?

[gamesguru]

The argument from morality is a very unsound, poorly designed argument for God's existence. Since, if in even just one of the many possible worlds, there were objective morals, but no creator who created them, we would have an empirical refutation by contradiction of the claim that the existence of morals/values always necessitates the existence of a God. If I claim that all unique tangents to a circle must mutually intersect, and you show me the tangent on the exact opposite side of the first tangent, and point out that it is parallel and they should therefore never intersect, then if I should maintain that there are still no two parallel or non-intersecting tangents to the same circle, I should rightfully be thought to be talking nonsense. Unfortunately, as I have no access to or ability to examine this universe, let alone other possible ones, my sense of reason drives me to profess uncertainty with regards to the relation between God and morality.


I might say that it's not inconceivable for morality to evolve without a creator. It has been established for a long time that complex things can arise through simpler things, given constant laws and sufficient time. Why is the possibility that life, sentience, emotions, and ethics are not all just random outcomes of a uncaused mechanism not to be considered? Frankly, I don't think there's anyone who can answer these questions, and I'm not going to be the one who acts like he has all the answers...so please, Shadowhawk, enlighten us with the knowledge the almighty God has supplied to you.

Edited by dasheenster, 25 June 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[shadowhawk]

1.If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.Evil exists.
3.Therefore, moral values exist I.
4.Therefore, god exists.

That is the most idiotic argument I have ever seen. It is wrong from the very beginning to accept that moral values and duties cannot exist without divinity.

Do you even think before you type?

Obviously the argument is beyond you, You have mistated premise one so it says something I didn’t. Then you rave on. Typical. (Should I tell you what you left out? No.) Straw man, ad hominian among other logical fallacies is all you have.. More name calling by someone who has nothing more. This is not a argument at all, but it is like other responses you typically make. Ho Humm

[shadowhawk]

dasheenster: The argument from morality is a very unsound, poorly designed argument for God's existence. Since, if in even just one of the many possible worlds, there were objective morals, but no creator who created them, we would have an empirical refutation by contradiction of the claim that the existence of morals/values always necessitates the existence of a God. If I claim that all unique tangents to a circle must mutually intersect, and you show me the tangent on the exact opposite side of the first tangent, and point out that it is parallel and they should therefore never intersect, then if I should maintain that there are still no two parallel or non-intersecting tangents to the same circle, I should rightfully be thought to be talking nonsense. Unfortunately, as I have no access to or ability to examine this universe, let alone other possible ones, my sense of reason drives me to profess uncertainty with regards to the relation between God and morality.

The subject of this topic is what would it take to convence a theist to abandon their faith. This argument is based on a number of assumptions.

1.The multi verse with its infinite possibilities. One such possibility is there is no multi verse and we are not one of many possible worlds but the only possible world. Of course this view has little evidence and proves anything you want. .

2. You are the one who brought up evil as an argument that should cause a theist to disbelieve. You haven’t done anything with the argument except call names. Reconstruct the argument and show why believers in god should abandon their faith.

3.Argument from circles? If I said you don’t know what you are talking about doesn’t your argument support this?

dasheenster: I might say that it's not inconceivable for morality to evolve without a creator. It has been established for a long time that complex things can arise through simpler things, given constant laws and sufficient time. Why is the possibility that life, sentience, emotions, and ethics are not all just random outcomes of a uncaused mechanism not to be considered? Frankly, I don't think there's anyone who can answer these questions, and I'm not going to be the one who acts like he has all the answers...so please, Shadowhawk, enlighten us with the knowledge the almighty God has supplied to you.

If morality evolves, does it exist? Where do laws come from? You are the one who is among those making the claim a Theist should not believe. To try to get you to believe is off topic. You already believe and act like you know there are no answers. OK.

No God, no laws.
http://webcache.goog..._Laws_draft.pdf

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 June 2012 - 12:22 AM.

[gamesguru]

I read through page 5, then skimmed the rest. Blue-blood empiricism? I've never heard of such a thing, and I can't find any information about it, in any resources at all; I can only find other people discussing broadly similar things under names such as "British Empiricism" or "Epiphenomenolism", both of which are becoming outmoded with the clarification and refinement of postmodernistic doctrine.. Paired with his finicky introduction to important philosophical doctrine (chiefly empiricism, Platonism, and instrumentalism), this seems to greatly reduce the credibility of the essay which you referenced.
He apparently has nothing to say against atheistic instrumentalism, and his suggestion that empiricism needs a God to discover laws at all seems unfounded. You might say these laws would never exist without God, but in that case I'll simply ask you why God isn't contingent upon any higher-order entity, and why he is his own sufficient reason (I am using this term as Schopenhauer would)? Who created God at all, and where do you get the impression that he simplifies the situation? I'm quite content to say Occam's Razor dictates it is most likely that the Universe is its own sufficient reason, though it is not necessarily the cause of itself.

argument from circles? how about you read more closely or ask questions where confusion arises?
You were explicitly asked by another member to please STOP posting low-quality material from external resources, yet as far as I can tell, you have once again posted a low quality resource.

Edited by dasheenster, 26 June 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[shadowhawk]

dasheenster: read through page 5, then skimmed the rest. Blue-blood empiricism? I've never heard of such a thing, and I can't find any information about it, in any resources at all; I can only find other people discussing broadly similar things under names such as "British Empiricism" or "Epiphenomenolism", both of which are becoming outmoded with the clarification and refinement of postmodernistic doctrine.. Paired with his finicky introduction to important philosophical doctrine (chiefly empiricism, Platonism, and instrumentalism), this seems to greatly reduce the credibility of the essay which you referenced.

Not a him, a “her.” You should read the entire paper before you comment on it.

dasheenster: He apparently has nothing to say against atheistic instrumentalism, and his suggestion that empiricism needs a God to discover laws at all seems unfounded. You might say these laws would never exist without God, but in that case I'll simply ask you why God isn't contingent upon any higher-order entity, and why he is his own sufficient reason (I am using this term as Schopenhauer would)? Who created God at all, and where do you get the impression that he simplifies the situation? I'm quite content to say Occam's Razor dictates it is most likely that the Universe is its own sufficient reason, though it is not necessarily the cause of itself.

Again, perhaps because you did not read the paper you can be excused for criticizing it for something completely outside its purpose.

dasheenster: argument from circles? how about you read more closely or ask questions where confusion arises?

OK, what are you talking about? Your entire circle argument has what relevance to what we were talking about?

dasheenster: You were explicitly asked by another member to please STOP posting low-quality material from external resources, yet as far as I can tell, you have once again posted a low quality resource.

Low quality is in the eye of the beholder. I quoted a debate which included Sam Harris, a leading Atheist. Low quality? Nancy Cartwright is not low quality. You don’t even know she is a woman and haven’t even read what she wrote. Now you call her low quality.
http://en.wikipedia....t_(philosopher)

Typical smearing without any evidence. What is even more amazing is the complete ignorance and lack of real support for arguments coming my way. What BS. .

[mikeinnaples]

Typical smearing without any evidence. What is even more amazing is the complete ignorance and lack of real support for arguments coming my way. What BS. .

You don't need evidence for opinions. They are subjective.

Also, please stop crying and complaining about everything. It is hard enough as it is to take you seriously because you don't think for yourself. The whining and moaning makes it impossible.

[gamesguru]

dasheenster: read through page 5, then skimmed the rest. Blue-blood empiricism? I've never heard of such a thing, and I can't find any information about it, in any resources at all; I can only find other people discussing broadly similar things under names such as "British Empiricism" or "Epiphenomenolism", both of which are becoming outmoded with the clarification and refinement of postmodernistic doctrine.. Paired with his finicky introduction to important philosophical doctrine (chiefly empiricism, Platonism, and instrumentalism), this seems to greatly reduce the credibility of the essay which you referenced.

Not a him, a “her.” You should read the entire paper before you comment on it.

dasheenster: He apparently has nothing to say against atheistic instrumentalism, and his suggestion that empiricism needs a God to discover laws at all seems unfounded. You might say these laws would never exist without God, but in that case I'll simply ask you why God isn't contingent upon any higher-order entity, and why he is his own sufficient reason (I am using this term as Schopenhauer would)? Who created God at all, and where do you get the impression that he simplifies the situation? I'm quite content to say Occam's Razor dictates it is most likely that the Universe is its own sufficient reason, though it is not necessarily the cause of itself.

Again, perhaps because you did not read the paper you can be excused for criticizing it for something completely outside its purpose.

I read it and skimmed it. She said nothing about who created God. Basically, she just kept saying that you can't make sense of "natural law" if "God" doesn't exist. I stand by my claim that she is low quality.

Low quality is in the eye of the beholder.

Man is the measure of all things.

[johnross47]

I have read the last 10 posts and have to conclude not one argument worth relating to or answering.. Nothing but logical fallacies and off topic drivel. Can’t non theists do better than this? From my experience, no. Call me names all you want. Ho hum No reasons to change from Theism here. What a joke.

You were once again offered a chance to engage in proper discussion, but instead you chose to pretend that it's all beneath you. I think I am justified, at this point, in saying that what you have actually demonstrated very clearly, is that you are not capable of proper logical exposition and debate. You run away shouting childish insults every time you are asked to prove your ability, so I have to conclude that you have none. You have lost the argument because you have not taken part.

[shadowhawk]

jounross47 You were once again offered a chance to engage in proper discussion, but instead you chose to pretend that it's all beneath you.

Who and when was this offered? What is “proper,” discussion. As usual your posts are little more than ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. You say absolutely nothing. No use debating this nonsense. .

jounross47 I think I am justified, at this point, in saying that what you have actually demonstrated very clearly, is that you are not capable of proper logical exposition and debate. You run away shouting childish insults every time you are asked to prove your ability, so I have to conclude that you have none.

There is nothing in your post but childish personal attacks. Just go back and read your past posts, they are all the same. Typical and totally off topic and whining about the form of debates without dealing with the content. Not interested in debates without content. Nothing has been presented, bu you, that would cause a Theist to change. 0

jounross47 You have lost the argument because you have not taken part.

No,, it is you who has not taken part. There has been no argument with you. Ho Hamm. Not interested in your pissing contest.

[mikeinnaples]

jounross47 You were once again offered a chance to engage in proper discussion, but instead you chose to pretend that it's all beneath you.

1. Who and when was this offered? What is “proper,” discussion. As usual your posts are little more than ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. You say absolutely nothing. No use debating this nonsense. .

jounross47 I think I am justified, at this point, in saying that what you have actually demonstrated very clearly, is that you are not capable of proper logical exposition and debate. You run away shouting childish insults every time you are asked to prove your ability, so I have to conclude that you have none.

2. There is nothing in your post but childish personal attacks. Just go back and read your past posts, they are all the same. Typical and totally off topic and whining about the form of debates without dealing with the content. Not interested in debates without content. Nothing has been presented, bu you, that would cause a Theist to change. 0

jounross47 You have lost the argument because you have not taken part.

3. No,, it is you who has not taken part. There has been no argument with you. Ho Hamm. Not interested in your pissing contest.

1. He is right. You consistently refuse to hold a proper or even a reasonable discussion. You also constantly regurgitate someone's thoughts rather than your own. You are also a hypocrite because you often resort to ad hominem attacks yourself, while crying about them when they are directed towards you.

2. All of your posts are the same as well. Why even try to make that comment directed towards someone else? Hypocrisy again. You are also the last person on the planet that is allowed or justified to complain about 'whining'. Hypocrisy. If anyone needs a nice warm glass of man-the-fuck-up, it is you. Stop crying martyr, it is getting tiresome.

3. Great response to him. Reminds me of the playground in elementary school. John, drop it down to his level so he can understand it and just say: "No U" or "I know you are, but what am I". Absolutely silly .....

[shadowhawk]

Off topic, ad hominem. No reason for a theist to change here. Have a good day.

[johnross47]

Off topic, ad hominem. No reason for a theist to change here. Have a good day.

I stated a case for my position at #62 and again at #86. You ducked the issue both times, resorting to a combination of insults and a pretence that there was no discussion presented. If you can, argue the case in your own words point by point and without substituting insults for arguments. If you think something is wrong, don't just shout "logical fallacy", explain to us why it is illogical.

[shadowhawk]

Response to Post #62, repeated in #86, #103
Topic: What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?

Shadowhawk: "So what are you saying here, the creation does not support belief in reasonable people? We will just have to disagree, challenge as you will, the cosmoses existence has caused many brilliant minds to fine God is the answer for why there is something rather than nothing. So you don’t believe, that is not a defeater for the scripture you quoted and in fact the scripture argues some will not believe. What evidence do you have that I should not believe there is a God.. Give me evidence proving Atheism."

johnross47: Yes, let's focus. The argument that the scale and complexity and wonderfulness of the cosmos, the cosmos' very existence, supports belief in god, is very weak.

And it is strong for Atheists? I should abandon Theism for this?

johnross47: It is clearly not a logically structured argument because it has a term (god) in its conclusion that is not in its premises. Does it work on an inductive level? Not really. If you concede, just temporarily for the sake of examining the point, that this evidence supports some sort of personal creative force you are still left with the definition of that force and there is no way to make a choice. The omnipotent, omniscient, all good, all loving etc. god of the christians?

The topic is not addressed to Christians nor did I make a logically structured argument here but I have done so elsewhere. You are hard to follow especially if you think this is on topic or that you are arguing against the cosmological argument..

johnross47: That is very hard to support. How could such a god create people knowing that many of them, many who had never heard of christianity, would burn forever in the fires of his hell? The god of the bible is a vile despot if you read the bible stories, rather than the good being claimed.

First you argue against a non existent straw man argument. Weird! Then you follow this with a confusing discussion against the argument finishing this off as if it is against Christians!!! Then you begin to follow this with a chain of questions such as what of those who never heard of Christianity? Maybe God is to be pronounced bad by you?

johnross47: But, of course the creative force might just as easily be a vile and despotic god; that might be a better explanation for the state of the world than the good version. Clearly, relying on this sort of cosmic evidential claim, leads inevitably to both, the old problem of evil, and to the fact that there are many possible creative forces we can propose, without the means to distinguish between them. The fact, that many brilliant minds have believed on this basis, is not evidence. Many other brilliant minds have not believed, and many things believed by many brilliant minds in the past, have turned out not to be true. Truth is not decided democratically.
The question in the topic does not demand any particular type of evidence, or specify which atheist we have to persuade. ( Are you confused!) This is a problem in itself because it is fairly obvious that what some people regard as sufficient, others don't. You have said that for you it would be evidence of atheism. That question has been discussed on another thread, at enormous bad tempered length and reached no conclusion. Most participants agreed that such evidence was inherently impossible, but of course democracy is irrelevant. For me, the fact that all existing supposed proofs of god's existence have failed to convince, would at the very least make me an agnostic. The fact that it is possible to propose endless lists of possible origins for the cosmos without the means at this time to choose accurately between them, would make me equally wary of any demand for choice or any claim to certainty.

The topic is not convincing you to be a theist but Theists not to be Theists. To start off, you would have to prove atheism. Why are you having such a hard time reading it? You have said nothing that would cause a theist to change their mind. My God, unlike your construct, little resembles what you have said, but then I am a Christian and this is off topic. What you have here is hardly a convincing argument against Theism. Ho Hummm

Read this slowly. Topic: What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?

[johnross47]

Once again you have failed. You have selectively misrepresented bits of what I said and produced no arguments merely unsupported rejections.
in the end you resort to your usual tactic of insult. Why should any of us waste our time on you?

[gamesguru]

It's OK for topics to get off-topic, Shadowhawk. It's not the end of the world, and we shouldn't have to make a brand new topic to address a very similar question.

[shadowhawk]

Topic: What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?

Nothing here. It is not alright to go completely off topic. These arguments have no content. Johnross47 says almost nothing and then thinks he is profound. His then offended because someone reminds him of the topic. Ho Hummm

[johnross47]

Topic: What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?

Nothing here. It is not alright to go completely off topic. These arguments have no content. Johnross47 says almost nothing and then thinks he is profound. His then offended because someone reminds him of the topic. Ho Hummm

the question is not "what would it take to change Shadowhawk's mind?" I don't think anybody here is naive enough to imagine that is possible. I also don't think anyone imagines it is possible to have a discussion with shadowhawk.

He has not yet addressed a single substantial point. He resorts to insult and inappropriate abuse of superficial logical terminology whenever he is challenged. Let's look at the question. Which theist are we talking about? They don't agree. Which god are we examining? They are all different. One of the unatributed sources that shadowhawk plagarised has some interesting ideas that he conveniently didn't mention. Specifically the idea that if non-theists want to attack the idea of God they should attack from the point of view of incoherence. The issue here is that we don't know which god we are evaluating. It is fairly obvious however that most proposed gods are incoherent. The list of proposed properties of most popular gods is inconsistent gibberish. It might be possible to take a fairly bland generic god and show that it is incoherent but then the theist can come back and say, "that's not my god." What we really need to make this a sensible discussion with premises that are actually falsifiable, is a specification for a god that some actual theist believes in. Without that the question is essentially empty.

Suggestion please, in plain English, and without insults.

[shadowhawk]

Topic: What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?

Nothing here. It is not alright to go completely off topic. These arguments have no content. Johnross47 says almost nothing and then thinks he is profound. His then offended because someone reminds him of the topic. Ho Hummm

the question is not "what would it take to change Shadowhawk's mind?" I don't think anybody here is naive enough to imagine that is possible. I also don't think anyone imagines it is possible to have a discussion with shadowhawk.

He has not yet addressed a single substantial point. He resorts to insult and inappropriate abuse of superficial logical terminology whenever he is challenged. Let's look at the question. Which theist are we talking about? They don't agree. Which god are we examining? They are all different. One of the unatributed sources that shadowhawk plagarised has some interesting ideas that he conveniently didn't mention. Specifically the idea that if non-theists want to attack the idea of God they should attack from the point of view of incoherence. The issue here is that we don't know which god we are evaluating. It is fairly obvious however that most proposed gods are incoherent. The list of proposed properties of most popular gods is inconsistent gibberish. It might be possible to take a fairly bland generic god and show that it is incoherent but then the theist can come back and say, "that's not my god." What we really need to make this a sensible discussion with premises that are actually falsifiable, is a specification for a god that some actual theist believes in. Without that the question is essentially empty.

Suggestion please, in plain English, and without insults.

Here is what you can do.

Stay on topic.I know it is hard to do.

Make at least one substantial point. So far there are none.

Amazingly, though you claim to have made a substantial point, yet you admit the question is essentially empty. Define substantial and illustrate where you made a substantial point. One can’t argue with the many logical fallacies you are making.

Topic: What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God?

Theism is no different than every other subject matter, there are different views. That does not make any of them wrong. Poor logic again! I know this sounds like an insult but the topic is about Theism not some specific view.

Admit it your question asking Theists what it would take to change their views requires, at least a coherent argument on your part, which has not been made. Not my fault that you came up empty. Theists were challenged to engage in your topic, remember. Read the posts. (You don’t have to look at videos or citations) Hope you don’t feel insulted because that is not my intent.

[johnross47]

Possibly the most astonishing aspect of your behaviour, shadowhawk, is that seem to be either completely unaware of the impression you create, or just don't care. If you aren't going totake part in a proper adult discussion I have better things to do.

[mikeinnaples]

[Ryan the Paradox Master]

Okay here is my opinion on god as a theist. I believe religion (all religion) is false or a lie. We try to give our "ideal" god human emotions, personality, and consciousness.

Let me ask you this though, if you are a god like entity beyond all reality, and you created this universe, the laws of physics, and all the beings within it, you would be nothing like a human (conciousness wise)

Chances are there is a divine force in this universe (I find it hard to believe that the laws of physics, matter, space, and time just happened to create itself, though you never know.) however, I doubt it has any understanding of morality as we do (as in good vs evil) or if it does, it probably embodies both spheres. If you look at the universe, and look at nature, and extrapolate gods persona from it, it paints the picture of a god that is beyond morality, beyond ideals of good and evil, and praying to such a being probably has no consequences.

There, thats my thoughts on the matter. I believe in a god, but I don't pray to it, I just thank it for my existence, and live my life with the free will (or illusion of) that I have.

[shadowhawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY&feature=youtu.be

Love how thinking, such as this, causes some to continuously go off topic and to think personal ad hominem attacks get them somewhere. Certainly no theist will be convinced by this kind of childish thinking disorder. Ho humm, not interested.

[gamesguru]

Shadowhawk, I admit there is nothing to disprove God. Can you disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, or the cookie monster? Can you disprove the Homeric Gods? This thread is pointless, as it has no solution, and you dismiss everyone's viewpoint except your own as "empty, nothing to see here". Even if we presented the most profound reasons in favor of atheism and against theism, from the greatest thinkers over the centuries, you would say that they're childish, wrong, misinformed, off-topic, irrelevant, inferior to your own beliefs, and flat out wrong. I suspect you're a very unpleasant person to have lunch with (go ahead and accuse me of an ad homimen...captain obvious).

Christians are atheists with regard to all divine deities except for their God. Atheists just go one God further.

Maybe the Judeo-Christian God will apprehend me in purgatory, and ask me why I refused to believe in him. I will, to quote Bertrand Russell, reply that he didn't send enough concrete evidence. If he's still displeased by my answer, I'll reply that everyone makes honest mistakes, and I'm particularly proud of this one!

Okay here is my opinion on god as a theist. I believe religion (all religion) is false or a lie. We try to give our "ideal" god human emotions, personality, and consciousness.

Let me ask you this though, if you are a god like entity beyond all reality, and you created this universe, the laws of physics, and all the beings within it, you would be nothing like a human (conciousness wise)

Chances are there is a divine force in this universe (I find it hard to believe that the laws of physics, matter, space, and time just happened to create itself, though you never know.) however, I doubt it has any understanding of morality as we do (as in good vs evil) or if it does, it probably embodies both spheres. If you look at the universe, and look at nature, and extrapolate gods persona from it, it paints the picture of a god that is beyond morality, beyond ideals of good and evil, and praying to such a being probably has no consequences.

There, thats my thoughts on the matter. I believe in a god, but I don't pray to it, I just thank it for my existence, and live my life with the free will (or illusion of) that I have.

You should read about pantheism and panentheism, if you haven't already, as they resemble what you believe.

Edited by dasheenster, 31 July 2012 - 01:55 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

Love how thinking, such as this, causes some to continuously go off topic and to think personal ad hominem attacks get them somewhere. Certainly no theist will be convinced by this kind of childish thinking disorder. Ho humm, not interested.

It was to point out the very hypocrisy you display on these forums. I have to give you props though on your consistency. I really didnt expect you to see it for what it is though. You ARE brainwashed after all.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 31 July 2012 - 01:50 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Love how thinking, such as this, causes some to continuously go off topic and to think personal ad hominem attacks get them somewhere. Certainly no theist will be convinced by this kind of childish thinking disorder. Ho humm, not interested.

It was to point out the very hypocrisy you display on these forums. I have to give you props though on your consistency. I really didnt expect you to see it for what it is though. You ARE brainwashed after all.

This is all you have, ad hominem personal attacks. Again and again. Ho humm off topic. Have a nice day.

[mikeinnaples]

Love how thinking, such as this, causes some to continuously go off topic and to think personal ad hominem attacks get them somewhere. Certainly no theist will be convinced by this kind of childish thinking disorder. Ho humm, not interested.

It was to point out the very hypocrisy you display on these forums. I have to give you props though on your consistency. I really didnt expect you to see it for what it is though. You ARE brainwashed after all.

This is all you have, ad hominem personal attacks. Again and again. Ho humm off topic. Have a nice day.

No need to keep up the martyr act, hypocrisy, and the whining. You are transparent.

[shadowhawk]

Love how thinking, such as this, causes some to continuously go off topic and to think personal ad hominem attacks get them somewhere. Certainly no theist will be convinced by this kind of childish thinking disorder. Ho humm, not interested.

It was to point out the very hypocrisy you display on these forums. I have to give you props though on your consistency. I really didnt expect you to see it for what it is though. You ARE brainwashed after all.

This is all you have, ad hominem personal attacks. Again and again. Ho humm off topic. Have a nice day.

No need to keep up the martyr act, hypocrisy, and the whining. You are transparent.

Ho humm

[shadowhawk]

dasheenster: Shadowhawk, I admit there is nothing to disprove God. Can you disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, or the cookie monster? Can you disprove the Homeric Gods? This thread is pointless, as it has no solution, and you dismiss everyone's viewpoint except your own as "empty, nothing to see here". Even if we presented the most profound reasons in favor of atheism and against theism, from the greatest thinkers over the centuries, you would say that they're childish, wrong, misinformed, off-topic, irrelevant, inferior to your own beliefs, and flat out wrong. I suspect you're a very unpleasant person to have lunch with (go ahead and accuse me of an ad homimen...captain obvious).

dasheenster: Christians are atheists with regard to all divine deities except for their God. Atheists just go one God further.

Not believing in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, or the Cooky monster does not make one an Atheist. My dog doesn’t believe in them either. Does that make her an Atheist?

“The real definition of atheism: the belief that there is no God. The fake definition of atheism: the lack of belief in God. The second false definition would make a Dog an Atheist! The Greek roots of the word Atheist is as follows.

A = Without
Theos = God
Atheos = Without God
Thus
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.”
http://www.longecity...885#entry501885

There is no god, is Atheism. There is a god, is Theism.

dasheenster: Maybe the Judeo-Christian God will apprehend me in purgatory, and ask me why I refused to believe in him. I will, to quote Bertrand Russell, reply that he didn't send enough concrete evidence. If he's still displeased by my answer, I'll reply that everyone makes honest mistakes, and I'm particularly proud of this one!

Yes I can disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and the cooky monster. None of them ever claimed to be real. Your point is God is just a human invention. You give a few examples of false fairy cartoon creatures and that is supposed to make your point there is no God, since we can make things up. It may surprise you but I believe humans can make things up too.

Then you conclude the discussion is pointless and that I dismiss everyone’s viewpoint. The village Atheists are the ones who started this post!!!

I am a Christian and can show that Jesus' actual life can be investigated historically through the New Testament documents, and the early Christian beliefs can be known through their oral and written traditions. Contrary to popular claims, Christianity did not borrow from pagan mystery religions. Jesus actions, words, and deeds show his claims to divinity. Other historical writings beside the Bible speak if Christ and the beliefs of Christians.

Christianity is not a fairy tale; it is rooted in the events of history. The same cannot be said of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or even the Homeric Gods.

All of the sources cited by those who argue that Christianity was heavily dependent on mystery religions postdate the oral and written sources for Christianity. So if borrowing was going on, it was the mystery religions that borrowed from Christianity in order to gain new converts.

Truth is exclusive by definition. And every belief system—even atheism—makes truth claims. Do you believe what you are saying is true? How narrow minded!

The New Testament documents provide solid historical data about Jesus that can be reasonably assessed. Lay-people and scholars have investigated and found the person of Jesus compelling for two thousand years now. Objections much more sophisticated than the ones you or The Village Atheists have marshaled have been raised and responded to through the years.

The topic the Village Atheists are having such a hard time understanding is. What would it take to reverse an theist's position on the existence of God? Proof Atheism is true. You say there is none. Why should I, or any Theist, reverse our position?

[gamesguru]

As far as I can tell, Christianity is a fairy tale. And I don't think anyone has come forward with proof that Christianity is rooted in events of history, as opposed to rooted in misrepresentations of eye-witness accounts, and unverified stages in a gradually evolving myth. If you can prove this, then you've done better than any scholar to date. To put it bluntly, in your words, I believe the evidence renders it probable that Christianity (like other religions) is a human invention.