WJ

That 'is' my opinion. In my view, Ayer is correct.


"Then you agree with my paragraph on how atheists don't carry the burden of proof only to follow that with a statement that you don't debate anything that doesn't exist. And in stating this, you are obviously stating your belief that God exists, and atheism does not."

You only carry the burden when you 'decide' to 'engage' in a 'debate' about it. Just to correct you, atheism is an epistemic belief system, thus you should have said..."my belief as a [theist], and atheism does not." That is more apples and apples. Otherwise, please tell me why you used, in your preceding post, the word "false"? I'm afraid we're back to a 'belief' that some thing either exists or doesn't exist. Language does not capture the problem of existence viz. Being.


"What are you referring to that "doesn't exist"?"


You see, you are sounding like an agnostic here. This is my point. If you want to continue this debate, which I assume you do by virtue of asking the question, then your belief, default position, or whatever you wish to call it, errs towards ambivalence.

Now, if you don't want to admit this, I will not continue the debate. Otherwise, let us begin by asking each other the question as I hinted above: what does it mean for something to exist [to believe it exists]? Are we referring to a Being or a thing? Or a creator that created the cosmos and human consciousness? Or a creator that decided to create consciousness from an existing universe?

Whatever the case, the fundemental question has to be how, can I [you] as an atheist, affirm to the world that my [your] view is absolute and correct?

Walrus

free12thinker

By claiming that someone only carries the burden when they decide to engage in a debate, you are basically stating that:
Man A can say anything he wants to, no matter how unreasonable it is, yet Man A does not have to prove such statements to be true, instead, that task is laid upon whichever person decides to question such statements. This view can only be supported by someone who follows the original statement (that God exists), because hey, you are right until we can prove you wrong. And that will never happen because nothing is absolute, as most atheists will admit to everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

But anyway, I don't see how I am sounding like an agnostic. I was simply asking what you were referring to. It was a question slated to you.

And if you're going to cease this debate unless I admit to being ambivalent, than cease it now. We'll all be thankful. You've been run out of a host of other topics, and you're running yourself out of this one.

Cheers.



[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

WJ

Well, I'm not sure if it's your personal pride that is preventing you from admitting this or not, that's your own personal issue (much like the belief in God and, none of my concern. To that end, you are correct, you and I can say anything we want to say or feel the need to say.

What's your point? Perhaps you have no point. Perhaps it is true that your position cannot proclaim any objective 'absolute' whatsoever. Is that what you are saying? If it is, then you would agree with Ayer [and me] on this. Your claims are just as nonsensical as the [atheist's view of] theists(?)

So, you really have no thing to proclaim. Right?

What is it you are trying to tell us?


Walrus

Jayhawker Soule

Could someone restate the central issue under discussion?

free12thinker

I'm afraid the central issue has been lost in WJ. As with every other post he gets involved with (or starts), the initial topic is lost in his interpretation of other peoples words.

He's a mind reader I tell ya!


But seriously, there really is no hope. And for that, I am sorry for him. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

free12thinker

You should realize that all of my posts are replies to your previous posts.

Do yourself a favor and print the entire lot of them, line them up and read them the way they are supposed to be read.

That would suit you better than replying to single parts of single posts. It would sure be easier if this were a verbal conversation in which we could argue til our faces were blue, but who knows, perhaps you would still have fun misinterpreting my words.

Jayhawker Soule

To hell, then, with 'the initial topic'. What about the 'initial sentence' -- if, inded, it is one?

parkdalian

How about these definitions:

Mindless Atheism: Unaware of a god-concept while lacking any other cosmological belief.

Weak Atheism: Belief that believers in a creator God are probably mistaken.

Strong Atheism: Belief that belief in the concept of a real creator God is an insane idea and that those who believe in God are somewhat insane.


Parkdalian

Jayhawker Soule

I think they may only apply to Canadians.

Koyaanisqatsi

It's pointless. WJ thinks his semantics dance is in some manner applicable by mere petulant fiat on his behalf.

Arguing in mirrors must be terrifying for you. You have my sympathy. Though it is cute that you pretend the argument that devastates theism applies to those who have no beliefs in the factual existence of magical fairy god kings.

Pointless, trivial and irrelevant, but certainly cute.

You forget, of course, that the christian cult and the islamic cult (just to name two of the most prevalent ones) can easily and effortlessly be demonstrated to be historically detrimental to society, so your transparent attempts at equivocation fail instantly when applied to the comparison of the results of theism as opposed to the absence of theism.

The absence of christian theism and islamic theism is therefore demonstrably preferable for humanity on the most basic, primary levels; justifiable through empathy/sympathy and inherent self-survival instincts.

Your repeated fallacy is in the forced (and erroneous) attempts to equivocate theism and atheism, which cannot be done. They are not flip sides of the same coin or even bastard stepchildren from a drunken father.

Both christian cult and islamic cult theism are active, positive, unproven, fear and threat-based claims designed to control and rule people's lives according to the strict adherence to proscribed doctrine that have resulted in centuries of horrific and unjustifiable atrocities as a direct result of the strict adherence of those doctrines.

It is the dogma that is to blame. That is irrefutable. You may deny it all you want (others have tried ad nauseum), but it fools no one.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Conversely (though no comparison is necessary other than to appeal to your apparently limited grasp of conceptual processing), the absence of adhering to these historically proven detrimental doctrines of the christian and islamic cults can readily be demonstrated to be an historically positive effect (not claim, but effect) on humanity.

This, too, has been demonstrated ad nauseum both here and elsewhere for centuries.

So if it's a comparison you're trying to force upon us, then the absence of adherence to demonstrably detrimental theist-based doctrines such as those found in the christian and islamic cults is arguably and demonstrably preferable, based upon the most basic, inherent elements of empathy/sympathy and self-preservation that is at the heart of every single moral decision individual's and group consciousness process on a continuing and mutable basis.

There is no requirement for establishing "absolutes" since none exist and never have, which is your transparent point, ironically demonstrating an indirect proof that no God creature factually exists.

Now, if you wish to keep on splitting little semantics hairs on this non-issue thinking you've just made the greatest macaroni Christmas tree your eight year old mind could put together for Mommy and Daddy, be my guest.

Atheism needs no justification. Theism, on the other hand, requires so much justification that the list is almost literally endless.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>