210 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

dasheenster:: If you wish to remain stubbornly dogmatic in your contention that only conclusive evidence for atheism or against theism warrants a change of opinion, I shall point you toward some arguments against theism, and in turn to some for atheism/agnosticism.

See this, starting at 2. Arguments against Theism: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5657.

See these two as well: http://www.philosoph...or-agnosticism/, and http://www.philosoph...s-for-atheism/.

Good site but there are too many issues to even hope to address them all. Perhaps rather than point at the library, you could point out a book you find compelling that relates to the topic. Focus. I will list one of my own so two can play. It will be at the end of this post.

dasheenster: My mention of "sentimental illogicality" was meant to argue against your position that God's existence is self-evident ("For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse."), by virtue of nature, he reveals himself subtly to every individual heart. Rousseau held a similar position as evidence by, "I believe...that a will moves the universe and animates nature. This is my first dogma, or my first article of faith...This ‘being’ which wills and is powerful, this being active in itself, this being, whatever it may be, which moves the universe and orders all things, I call God...But as soon as I want to contemplate Him in Himself, as soon as I want to find out where He is, what He is, what His substance is, He escapes me, and my clouded mind no longer perceives anything...I do not need to be taught this worship; it is dictated to me by nature itself". I bitterly oppose this sort of thinking. Though, you could also have been implying that the ontological argument is self-consistent and self-evident. I would also challenge that contention, were you to uphold it.

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.

dasheenster: And let's not throw careless ad hominems around. Having a thought disorder doesn't necessarily invalidate the beliefs you're expressing.

You are right, even an idiot can pronounce truth. That does not keep them from being an idiot does it?

Some sources to balance the ones you presented. I included Craig’s which deals with all the issues raised in your offering. Let’s focus.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
http://www.apologetics315.com/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/

[johnross47]

"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."

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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

[mikeinnaples]

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.

Many brilliant people choose to see reason and find nothing where a 'god' is supposed to be. What evidence do you have that I SHOULD believe in a god. A supernatural, all powerful being should easily be able to provide proof. Would you mind praying to your deity and asking him to provide some? I will wait patiently.

Conversely, asking me or anyone to disprove the existence of something in the universe (possibly multiverses depending on which theory pans out in the end) is quite silly. The only way this is even possible would be by possessing the very powers of the deity(s) in question. Since you absolutely insist on going this route in your silly little argument, I will make you a deal. *IF* you can prove to me that flesh and blood pink and purple polka dotted unicorns do not exist, I will absolutely provide proof to you that your god doesn't exist. Sound like a deal?

You keep ignoring the latter ..... I wonder why.

[gamesguru]

I find there is no such introductory book in English which comprehensively deals with these arguments.
I shall, therefore be forced to recommend a piece of crap containing loads of misinformation: http://books.google....id=FI7ZAAAAMAAJ.
It contains explanations of many of the most significant arguments which I referenced in my last post.

Of course the scriptures explain that some people will not believe, and that you will not be able to persuade them to believe. Many religions since Platonism have had this defensive feature.

See, from the Qu'ran:

Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe...
When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.

[shadowhawk]

dasheenster: I find there is no such introductory book in English which comprehensively deals with these arguments.

Here is one, not a piece of crap.

http://www.amazon.co...liam craig lane

dasheenster: I shall, therefore be forced to recommend a piece of crap containing loads of misinformation: http://books.google....d=FI7ZAAAAMAAJ.
It contains explanations of many of the most significant arguments which I referenced in my last post.

I like the web site better.

dasheenster: Of course the scriptures explain that some people will not believe, and that you will not be able to persuade them to believe. Many religions since Platonism have had this defensive feature.

See, from the Qu'ran:

Quote
Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe...
When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.

How is this a defense? I am not using it that way. So, then as now people have rejected all kinds of evidence concerning everything. OK, now lets focus. Taking one argument from the many we have sourced, show me a compelling reason why I should abandon faith in God and evidence for Atheism.

[shadowhawk]

Many brilliant people choose to see reason and find nothing where a 'god' is supposed to be. What evidence do you have that I SHOULD believe in a god. A supernatural, all powerful being should easily be able to provide proof. Would you mind praying to your deity and asking him to provide some? I will wait patiently.

Conversely, asking me or anyone to disprove the existence of something in the universe (possibly multiverses depending on which theory pans out in the end) is quite silly. The only way this is even possible would be by possessing the very powers of the deity(s) in question. Since you absolutely insist on going this route in your silly little argument, I will make you a deal. *IF* you can prove to me that flesh and blood pink and purple polka dotted unicorns do not exist, I will absolutely provide proof to you that your god doesn't exist. Sound like a deal?

You keep ignoring the latter ..... I wonder why.

I already dealt with this many times and it is a drag doing it over and over.

[gamesguru]

I'll start with the "presumption of atheism" (http://www.philosoph...ion-of-atheism/).

Basically, since there are are so many different religions, and geography/heredity determine which religion one will be brought up in, it might be that all religions are misleading and it is rational to suppose one should presume a position of non-belief, either by refusing to ascend to belief in God or by proclaiming that God does not or probably does not exist.

Edited by dasheenster, 14 June 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

I already dealt with this many times and it is a drag doing it over and over.

No you haven't... not once.

[shadowhawk]

No you haven't... not once.

What a drag. I am tired of this.

----------------------------------------

1. Definition of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything.

Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls only on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence. But is it right?

You can see Atheists play the why game most of us learned as children. All you have to do is ask a version of “why,” any time any theist makes a statement about God. Does the Atheist also get to play? No because Atheists clame they don’t believe anything and have no burden of proof.

The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.

Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.

It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).

The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here in this post, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism. Where is the evidence?

What about Ockham’s Razor, the principle of parsimony associated with the medieval philosopher and monk, William of Ockham Is Atheism the simplest answer and God is something made up like the Spaghetti Monster? The simplest answer is to be preferred?

[mikeinnaples]

You still haven't :(

[shadowhawk]

I'll start with the "presumption of atheism" (http://www.philosoph...ion-of-atheism/).

Basically, since there are are so many different religions, and geography/heredity determine which religion one will be brought up in, it might be that all religions are misleading and it is rational to suppose one should presume a position of non-belief, either by refusing to ascend to belief in God or by proclaiming that God does not or probably does not exist.

The great Atheist Anthony Flew http://en.wikipedia....iki/Antony_Flew coined the phrase “presumption if Atheism.” PoA http://www.unc.edu/~...hil32/flew.html
“We should adopt the PoA to ensure that we never arrive at an unreasonable belief that God exists.”

HaHa, Flew later became a Theist. http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0061335304

“There is A God”
In 1971, Flew published The Presumption of Atheism. In his final work dealing with atheism, he argued that as the inherently more rational position, atheism should be presumed at the outset of any debate regarding God’s existence, and the burden of proof should be on the theist (p. 53). He notes that the ‘headiest challenge’ to this argument came from Christian logician Alvin Plantinga, who argued that the belief in God is ‘properly basic’ for believers (p. 55). He clarifies that ‘the presumption of atheism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion’, and that the presumption of atheism could be accepted by theists who have adequate grounds for believing in God (p. 56).

Indeed, atheism itself has a number of propositions that have to be accepted by faith, e.g. that something (the universe) came from nothing, non-living matter evolved into living cells by stochastic chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, morality arose by natural selection, etc.

I could go on but do you really want to argue this point? There is no Presumption of Atheism is my position and is not a reason to abandon Theism. By the way there are many views on most subjects. Does that make them all wrong? Even Atheists differ. What kind of argument is this?

http://www.reasonabl...ques-of-atheism

[shadowhawk]

You still haven't :(

[mikeinnaples]

“There is A Purple Unicorn”
In 1971, Flew published The Presumption of Anti-Unicornism. In his final work dealing with Anti-Unicornism, he argued that as the inherently more rational position, Anti-Unicornism should be presumed at the outset of any debate regarding A Purple Unicorn's existence, and the burden of proof should be on the unicornist (p. 53). He notes that the ‘headiest challenge’ to this argument came from Unicornian logician Alvin Plantinga, who argued that the belief in A Purple Unicorn's is ‘properly basic’ for believers (p. 55). He clarifies that ‘the presumption of Anti-Unicornism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion’, and that the presumption of Anti-Unicornism could be accepted by unicornists who have adequate grounds for believing in Purple Unicorns (p. 56).

Indeed, Anti-Unicornism itself has a number of propositions that have to be accepted by faith, e.g. that something (the universe) came from nothing, non-living matter evolved into living cells by stochastic chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, morality arose by natural selection, etc.

I could go on but do you really want to argue this point? There is no Presumption of Anti-Unicornism is my position and is not a reason to abandon Unicornism. By the way there are many views on most subjects. Does that make them all wrong? Even Anti-Unicornists differ. What kind of argument is this?

Fixed it for you.

Please post something real instead of the insane rambling and gibberish from some lunatic.

You are a complete and total waste of my time.

[johnross47]

“There is A Purple Unicorn”
In 1971, Flew published The Presumption of Anti-Unicornism. In his final work dealing with Anti-Unicornism, he argued that as the inherently more rational position, Anti-Unicornism should be presumed at the outset of any debate regarding A Purple Unicorn's existence, and the burden of proof should be on the unicornist (p. 53). He notes that the ‘headiest challenge’ to this argument came from Unicornian logician Alvin Plantinga, who argued that the belief in A Purple Unicorn's is ‘properly basic’ for believers (p. 55). He clarifies that ‘the presumption of Anti-Unicornism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion’, and that the presumption of Anti-Unicornism could be accepted by unicornists who have adequate grounds for believing in Purple Unicorns (p. 56).

Indeed, Anti-Unicornism itself has a number of propositions that have to be accepted by faith, e.g. that something (the universe) came from nothing, non-living matter evolved into living cells by stochastic chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, morality arose by natural selection, etc.

I could go on but do you really want to argue this point? There is no Presumption of Anti-Unicornism is my position and is not a reason to abandon Unicornism. By the way there are many views on most subjects. Does that make them all wrong? Even Anti-Unicornists differ. What kind of argument is this?

Fixed it for you.

Please post something real instead of the insane rambling and gibberish from some lunatic.

You are a complete and total waste of my time.

You are right. He is a total waste of time. I was going to do a line by line analysis of his rubbish above but then I told myslef, he'll just ignore it like he did with my last try. He won't ever acknowledge anything that defies his ability to cut and paste. He takes over topics, no matter who actually started them, and makes it all about himself. I predicted it away back around #34 or so. I have other important things to be doing; paintings to paint, ceramics to build.

[shadowhawk]

“There is A Purple Unicorn”
In 1971, Flew published The Presumption of Anti-Unicornism. In his final work dealing with Anti-Unicornism, he argued that as the inherently more rational position, Anti-Unicornism should be presumed at the outset of any debate regarding A Purple Unicorn's existence, and the burden of proof should be on the unicornist (p. 53). He notes that the ‘headiest challenge’ to this argument came from Unicornian logician Alvin Plantinga, who argued that the belief in A Purple Unicorn's is ‘properly basic’ for believers (p. 55). He clarifies that ‘the presumption of Anti-Unicornism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion’, and that the presumption of Anti-Unicornism could be accepted by unicornists who have adequate grounds for believing in Purple Unicorns (p. 56).

Indeed, Anti-Unicornism itself has a number of propositions that have to be accepted by faith, e.g. that something (the universe) came from nothing, non-living matter evolved into living cells by stochastic chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, morality arose by natural selection, etc.

I could go on but do you really want to argue this point? There is no Presumption of Anti-Unicornism is my position and is not a reason to abandon Unicornism. By the way there are many views on most subjects. Does that make them all wrong? Even Anti-Unicornists differ. What kind of argument is this?

Fixed it for you.

Please post something real instead of the insane rambling and gibberish from some lunatic.

You are a complete and total waste of my time.

You have done this before to another poster, changing the content of their post so it says something they didn’t. You have now, used my avatar and changed the quote so it says something I didn’t. You got chewed out for this dishonest practice by the moderators before. That is not a quote of anything I wrote. I can find the post I am referring to.

Your response just shows how weak your position is.

Don’t continue to misquote me by dishonestly changing my post from what I said..

In the meantime I think this video addresses the logic of what you are trying to do with your misquote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go6m-KNUmG4&feature=related

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 June 2012 - 10:41 PM.

[shadowhawk]

“There is A Purple Unicorn”
In 1971, Flew published The Presumption of Anti-Unicornism. In his final work dealing with Anti-Unicornism, he argued that as the inherently more rational position, Anti-Unicornism should be presumed at the outset of any debate regarding A Purple Unicorn's existence, and the burden of proof should be on the unicornist (p. 53). He notes that the ‘headiest challenge’ to this argument came from Unicornian logician Alvin Plantinga, who argued that the belief in A Purple Unicorn's is ‘properly basic’ for believers (p. 55). He clarifies that ‘the presumption of Anti-Unicornism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion’, and that the presumption of Anti-Unicornism could be accepted by unicornists who have adequate grounds for believing in Purple Unicorns (p. 56).

Indeed, Anti-Unicornism itself has a number of propositions that have to be accepted by faith, e.g. that something (the universe) came from nothing, non-living matter evolved into living cells by stochastic chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, morality arose by natural selection, etc.

I could go on but do you really want to argue this point? There is no Presumption of Anti-Unicornism is my position and is not a reason to abandon Unicornism. By the way there are many views on most subjects. Does that make them all wrong? Even Anti-Unicornists differ. What kind of argument is this?

Fixed it for you.

Please post something real instead of the insane rambling and gibberish from some lunatic.

You are a complete and total waste of my time.

You are right. He is a total waste of time. I was going to do a line by line analysis of his rubbish above but then I told myslef, he'll just ignore it like he did with my last try. He won't ever acknowledge anything that defies his ability to cut and paste. He takes over topics, no matter who actually started them, and makes it all about himself. I predicted it away back around #34 or so. I have other important things to be doing; paintings to paint, ceramics to build.

I guess you can’t read the topic. Poor you. You seem to be unable to recognize what it is, or who is involved in the topic. You don’t really have a problem with the methods of commutating ideas (cut and paste, audio visuals, books, papers, etc.) but use it as an excuse to have no content of your own. You major in logical fallacy and name calling.

[Elus]

You are right. He is a total waste of time. I was going to do a line by line analysis of his rubbish above but then I told myslef, he'll just ignore it like he did with my last try. He won't ever acknowledge anything that defies his ability to cut and paste. He takes over topics, no matter who actually started them, and makes it all about himself. I predicted it away back around #34 or so. I have other important things to be doing; paintings to paint, ceramics to build.

You can take comfort in the fact that people who are religious come from a position of faithful ignorance, and will therefore be culled by natural selection. Ultimately, their ignorant world view will lead to their downfall, while the intelligent and logical people survive. Shadowhawk's kind is a dying breed (just look at the statistics for quickly religion is vanishing from the US).

[johnross47]

You are right. He is a total waste of time. I was going to do a line by line analysis of his rubbish above but then I told myslef, he'll just ignore it like he did with my last try. He won't ever acknowledge anything that defies his ability to cut and paste. He takes over topics, no matter who actually started them, and makes it all about himself. I predicted it away back around #34 or so. I have other important things to be doing; paintings to paint, ceramics to build.

You can take comfort in the fact that people who are religious come from a position of faithful ignorance, and will therefore be culled by natural selection. Ultimately, their ignorant world view will lead to their downfall, while the intelligent and logical people survive. Shadowhawk's kind is a dying breed (just look at the statistics for quickly religion is vanishing from the US).

There is some long term comfort in that. I guess the thing that is most wearying about Shadowhawk is not just the failure to engage in proper discussion but the relentlessly, viciously nasty and dishonest nature of his replies, such as that above. This topic was going along quietly till he joined. I suspect that if you took all of the conversations in Longecity and pasted them up on a wall, you could spot the ones he is involved in just from the number of video clips and flaming capitals. I haven't come across anything else like him in Longecity. Almost everybody else seems to be polite and reasonable, and interested in evidence led discussion, on all the topics.

[gamesguru]

Christianity may be dying, but it is too early to tell. It can be likened to any trend in culture, the evolution of music, for instance. Many elders exhibit disgust and contempt over today's popular music, and while they may hope to revive the culture of the 1940s, no one can say when the tides will turn, until they have already arrived. There's no telling when a given culture or ideology will wane or flourish, or even when (or whether) a a given person will thrive or fade away. Though it is unthinkably absurd to some that Frank Sinatra or Justin Bieber should one day be forgotten, if I am right, then practically no predictions carry much certainty.

[johnross47]

Christianity may be dying, but it is too early to tell. It can be likened to any trend in culture, the evolution of music, for instance. Many elders exhibit disgust and contempt over today's popular music, and while they may hope to revive the culture of the 1940s, no one can say when the tides will turn, until they have already arrived. There's no telling when a given culture or ideology will wane or flourish, or even when (or whether) a a given person will thrive or fade away. Though it is unthinkably absurd to some that Frank Sinatra or Justin Bieber should one day be forgotten, if I am right, then practically no predictions carry much certainty.

One of the first lessons in the practical side of statistics is that you can't extend the end of a graph. (just after you learn the difference between cause and correlation). Or, looking at the issue from another side,(as has been said many times), if you want to make the Gods laugh, tell them your plans.

[mikeinnaples]

“There is A Purple Unicorn”
In 1971, Flew published The Presumption of Anti-Unicornism. In his final work dealing with Anti-Unicornism, he argued that as the inherently more rational position, Anti-Unicornism should be presumed at the outset of any debate regarding A Purple Unicorn's existence, and the burden of proof should be on the unicornist (p. 53). He notes that the ‘headiest challenge’ to this argument came from Unicornian logician Alvin Plantinga, who argued that the belief in A Purple Unicorn's is ‘properly basic’ for believers (p. 55). He clarifies that ‘the presumption of Anti-Unicornism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion’, and that the presumption of Anti-Unicornism could be accepted by unicornists who have adequate grounds for believing in Purple Unicorns (p. 56).

Indeed, Anti-Unicornism itself has a number of propositions that have to be accepted by faith, e.g. that something (the universe) came from nothing, non-living matter evolved into living cells by stochastic chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, morality arose by natural selection, etc.

I could go on but do you really want to argue this point? There is no Presumption of Anti-Unicornism is my position and is not a reason to abandon Unicornism. By the way there are many views on most subjects. Does that make them all wrong? Even Anti-Unicornists differ. What kind of argument is this?

Fixed it for you.

Please post something real instead of the insane rambling and gibberish from some lunatic.

You are a complete and total waste of my time.

You have done this before to another poster, changing the content of their post so it says something they didn’t. You have now, used my avatar and changed the quote so it says something I didn’t. You got chewed out for this dishonest practice by the moderators before. That is not a quote of anything I wrote. I can find the post I am referring to.

Your response just shows how weak your position is.

Don’t continue to misquote me by dishonestly changing my post from what I said..

Seriously? Your only response to that is to cry like a bitch?

You are a complete and total waste of time and energy.

[johnross47]

“There is A Purple Unicorn”
In 1971, Flew published The Presumption of Anti-Unicornism. In his final work dealing with Anti-Unicornism, he argued that as the inherently more rational position, Anti-Unicornism should be presumed at the outset of any debate regarding A Purple Unicorn's existence, and the burden of proof should be on the unicornist (p. 53). He notes that the ‘headiest challenge’ to this argument came from Unicornian logician Alvin Plantinga, who argued that the belief in A Purple Unicorn's is ‘properly basic’ for believers (p. 55). He clarifies that ‘the presumption of Anti-Unicornism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion’, and that the presumption of Anti-Unicornism could be accepted by unicornists who have adequate grounds for believing in Purple Unicorns (p. 56).

Indeed, Anti-Unicornism itself has a number of propositions that have to be accepted by faith, e.g. that something (the universe) came from nothing, non-living matter evolved into living cells by stochastic chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, morality arose by natural selection, etc.

I could go on but do you really want to argue this point? There is no Presumption of Anti-Unicornism is my position and is not a reason to abandon Unicornism. By the way there are many views on most subjects. Does that make them all wrong? Even Anti-Unicornists differ. What kind of argument is this?

Fixed it for you.

Please post something real instead of the insane rambling and gibberish from some lunatic.

You are a complete and total waste of my time.

You have done this before to another poster, changing the content of their post so it says something they didn’t. You have now, used my avatar and changed the quote so it says something I didn’t. You got chewed out for this dishonest practice by the moderators before. That is not a quote of anything I wrote. I can find the post I am referring to.

Your response just shows how weak your position is.

Don’t continue to misquote me by dishonestly changing my post from what I said..

In the meantime I think this video addresses the logic of what you are trying to do with your misquote.

I t seemed fairly obvious to me that your original post was being satirised. When dealing with someone who's posts are mostly unacknowledged quotes rather than their own words, it's probably acceptable.

Edited by johnross47, 18 June 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

It seemed fairly obvious to me that your original post was being satirised. When dealing with someone who's posts are mostly unacknowledged quotes rather than their own words, it's probably acceptable.

Right, his post wasn't even 'his' post. I am not sure how I am violating forum policy with a very obvious satire of a directly plagiarized quote from a third party not even involved in the current discussion on the forum. Though if I am wrong about this, I am sure I will be getting a nasty gram at some point in my personal messages. Moderating something like that would open up a whole can of worms, but I trust the admins to do whatever they judge to be the right thing.

[mikeinnaples]

Seriously? Your only response to that is to cry like a bitch?

You are a complete and total waste of time and energy.

I do suppose this could be moderated though. From my perspective, I was simply making a very accurate observation. It really shouldn't be confused with a personal attack.

[johnross47]

Seriously? Your only response to that is to cry like a bitch?

You are a complete and total waste of time and energy.

I do suppose this could be moderated though. From my perspective, I was simply making a very accurate observation. It really shouldn't be confused with a personal attack.

Shadowhawk pasted the passage you satirised directly from creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew. For some reason I can't get the link to paste. I imagine, now that the day for worshiping his master has passed he will be back tonight flinging around the usual insults and lies. Not least among the lies is the idea that he is far more intelligent and talented than the rest of us. Once you start to spot the dishonest quotes and plagarism, and then to spot which little bits of his posts are actually his own work, you realise that he has severe difficulties expressing himself.

PS....I've found his passage on the burden of proof, further back...it's a direct paste again, from Philosophy now.http://www.philosoph...es_The_Evidence

We don't really need to put up with this.

Edited by johnross47, 18 June 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[johnross47]

Shadowhawk

I've committed the sin of quoting myself here. If you can argue these points in your own words without any cutting and pasting then we can have a proper conversation.

If you can't....please please leave the rest of us to live in peace.

"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."

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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

[shadowhawk]

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.

[gamesguru]

What about the argument from evil (see: http://en.wikipedia....Problem_of_evil, and http://plato.stanfor...u/entries/evil/), which, broadly speaking, posits that it is impossible for evil to co-exist with an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being, for the existence of such a being necessitates the non-existence and unreality of all evil. Whether or not the argument is ultimately sound, I cannot say, but the reasons offered in its favor appear quite compelling from my limited perspective.

I might say the same to you shadowhawk. You are nothing but another like us, a sheer human, all too human. You have produced not a perfectly sound argument either, and in your posts, have thrown mainly insults and nonsense.

I just keep coming back to my argument from uncertainty. You haven't produced a sound, conclusive reason in favor of God, and your opponents haven't produced a sound, conclusive reason against God...so I'm not going to commit to either belief just now, by suspending judgment and hoping to happen upon more definite reasons during another day.

Edited by dasheenster, 21 June 2012 - 03:04 AM.

[shadowhawk]

dasheenster: What about the argument from evil (see: http://en.wikipedia....Problem_of_evil, and http://plato.stanfor...u/entries/evil/), which, broadly speaking, posits that it is impossible for evil to co-exist with an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being, for the existence of such a being necessitates the non-existence and unreality of all evil. Whether or not the argument is ultimately sound, I cannot say, but the reasons offered in its favor appear quite compelling from my limited perspective.

I might say the same to you shadowhawk. You are nothing but another like us, a sheer human, all too human. You have produced not a perfectly sound argument either, and in your posts, have thrown mainly insults and nonsense.

I just keep coming back to my argument from uncertainty. You haven't produced a sound, conclusive reason in favor of God, and your opponents haven't produced a sound, conclusive reason against God...so I'm not going to commit to either belief just now, by suspending judgment and hoping to happen upon more definite reasons during another day.

Then the solution is clear. No god = no evil.

But, bad things happen, people do bad things......... it takes belief in the concept of god to label something evil. You must want me to believe! Apparently you believe in evil??? DO YOU???

As for your final two paragraphs, off topic. Read the topic.

I know some lack the intellect to handle pictures, videos and quotes from books but this is a quick summary for the truly interested of why evil is an argument for, Yes god = yes evil..

What happened to the last issue, "The prsumption of Atheism," that you as a non Atheist presented ?

Edited by shadowhawk, 22 June 2012 - 10:59 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.