free12thinker

WJ

I want you to prove that God exists, or justify your belief of his existence. Do this and give me some clean evidence.

In turn, I will prove to you that mixing red and white will give me pink. We will exchange evidence and determine which is an outright conclusion and which leaves a lot to be desired.

Look at it this way (if you can). Let's play court. I am on trial for killing my brother, and you're a jury member. I am pleading that I was set-up and I have two witnesses who will maintian that I was at a club during the time in question. The prosecution has a smoking gun (a gun with my prints), yet they can't find it. They maintain they had it, but it was lost in the evidence locker at the precinct. In closing arguments, the prosecution offers a shady motif, while my team offers up 2 big pieces of evidence that promote my innocence. They are: 1) Witnesses who put me somewhere else & 2) The prosections lack of any real evidence.

Do you convict me? Absolutely not. Why not? The witnesses didn't help me that much, I mean, let's face it, they could've been friends of mine, lying to keep me out of prison. What really saved me was the prosecutors lack of evidence. What if they stated that they had the gun but it shriveled up like a piece of paper and caught on fire right before their eyes? You still wouldn't convict me because such an occurence seems unbelievable compared to what's real. Compared to what we see around us.

Well the religious community has no evidence. And that which they call evidence is unbelievable. So unless you are willing to convict me under such shady evidence, or lack thereof, than don't ask why we defend atheism. It's all simple logic over faith.

WJ

Dave!

To make a similar point, you just said:

"...I wouldn't be an atheist, because it would be clear to me that God existed.'

Now, how can you claim that idea you just articulated above (or concept of God viz. good and evil) is a JTB?

This goes back to the question: If God appeared before man, how do you think you would know it?

Otherwise, what are you basing your assumption on when you say...'because it would be clear to me that God existed'?

Get it?

Walrus

WJ

Free!

I think now we are getting somewhere. Perhaps you are using a method of induction to draw your conclusion. That is ok. It works for both sides.

However, your analogy is like saying the glass of water I gave you was hot a moment ago. How would you be able to verify my assertion is true?

Walrus

jj

You are simply unable to accept what I've said to you.

You lie about what I do (I do not "believe" in the nonexistance, I conclude none exist), you demand a justification when none is due, and you fail to offer any evidence to the contrary of my CONCLUSION.

YOU make the extraordinary assertion that there is something out there which is untestable, unfalsifiable, and unreproducable, YOU provide the extraordinary proof.

I simply say "there is no evidence, therefore no need to hold a belief, or to conclude that a deity exists". You simply won't accept the simple fact of this statement.

You have also slide all over the landscape here. You tried the excluded middle (by implying that atheists PROVE the nonexistance of god), you've built straw man after straw man, and you demand answers to questions that presume your belief system as stipulated, when that is not the case.

In short, you're evasive, deceptive, and you avoid backing up your claims.

You are cheating from the start.

Your 'questions' are illicit and unrelated to my position. It is purely illicit to ask a question based on a proposition that is not agreed to start with, and I think you know that.

Your misrepresentation by using the world "belief" instead of "conclusion" is obvious to anyone reading the thread.

You show, by these actions, that you are simply not on the level.

If you ARE a believer, and you are a believer in a YHWH related religion, you should go consider your own status vs. the idea of telling falsehoods.

Ciao, cheater!

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: jj ]</p>

free12thinker

I think I am getting somewhere, yes. But if you use a method of induction beyond "faith", tell me what it is, and where I can see it, or draw parallels to it.

If you told me that the glass of water you gave me (which is now cold) was hot a moment ago, I would use simple logic in assuming that hot can become cold or cold can become hot. I can use such logic and in turn make the assumption that you are telling me the truth, because we have seen hot turn to cold and cold turn to hot. But we haven't seen the a gun shrivel up before our eyes and turn to flames. We haven't seen a force that was able to walk on water. We haven't seen the mass of earth's creatures (in twos) in any single place in any single time, nor does it make sense that they could all fit on a floating contraption of any kind AND survive the trip. Are we getting somewhere here?

I like how you keep asking the question; how do we know what he would look like (worded something like that). Of course, we don't know what he looks like, and that's the whole point. We haven't a single grain of evidence, nothing to draw parallels, nothing to compare it, he or she to, that would ever allow us to identify him.

Nor do we have any evidence that my left foot isn't in a quasi-nazi movement against the United States Government, thus showing my true motives in working for them all these years. This may sound silly and outlandish an example, but that's because it is. I am willing to accept that it doesn't seem likely, since there's been no real evidence like it before. Are you willing to submit to the same in regards to God.

(I can approach this 2-Million times from every other direction, but judging from JJ and Co's repeated attempts, it may be a lost cause)

Koyaanisqatsi

And here's the thrust of the stupidity, the equally fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Clucking bell...

You haven't been demonstrated to be "right" yet, so why would I even consider jumping through your hoops?

Yes, I have. You should try it some time. What you've been doing is force feeding straw men in a pathetic and transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Even if you were successful, little one, you'd still have your own burden of proof.

Oh, that's right, you have done nothing here but hide behind the fallacy of the complex question.

How's that working out for you there? Happy are you?

Good.

When you'd like to grow up, you just let us know, ok?

Yes, it does. Did you read the definition of the fallacy of the complex question?

If you did, why didn't you address it as I asked you to?

Here, I'll post it for you so that you can't continue to hide behind it. It's a fallacy of presumption, where the premises assume in some way what they attempt to prove.

The example the site gives for the Complex Question variant is: When will you quit murdering innocent people?

An easier one that everyone knows is, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It is meant to assume something as true, which has never been demonstrated to be true.

Now, are you capable of applying critical analysis in kind to your own fallacious questions or do you need for me to take you by the hand and reprint it for you in BIG E-Z-2-READ TYPE?

As others have pointed out quite conclusively, I need perform no such tricks for you, nor would it be possible. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods.

How do you propose I construct a syllogism for a negative that isn't merely a tautology?

P1: Fictional creatures don't factually exist.
P2: Gods are fictional creatures from ancient mythologies.
Therefore,
C: Gods don't factually exist.

Happy? Have fun trying to continue to force a stalemate where none exist with P2.

Unless you have compelling evidence that would support anything to the contrary, of course?

Oh, that's right, you're trying to pretend you don't have a position so that you don't have to deal with the burden of proof.

How....quaint....

As always, only to you.

Beg pardon?

STUFF STUFF STUFF that straw man!

That was great. Now, if you wouldn't mind making an actual argument of some kind, that would be great.

You can start by clarifying what you mean by the "tools of logic" being "unable to verify the basic assertions behind propositions."

Better still, since your posts are almost entirely filled with pointless rhetorical nonsense signifying nothing, demonstrate what you're arguing so we can show you how incorrect is your thinking.

Provided.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Godless Dave

Walrus,

You know, I intended to omit the word "therefore", just because it implies some use of a formal logic system. I don't have any background at all in formal logic so it's really misleading of me to use "therefore" like that. I'm going to edit it out.

I don't even know what JTB means. You're going to have to accept my statement of non-belief as it stands, I'm afraid.

As for your questions about evidence suggesting the existence of a god:

I would have to observe, personally, some truly miraculous thing (magically removing all the rust from my Land Cruiser before my eyes, and replacing the broken windshield, would probably qualify). Then the god who did it would have to talk to me personally, in a way I could not mistake for a dream, and explain to me who he is and what the miracle he just did was. He would have to answer my questions about his godhood.

That would be enough for me to believe a god exists - but not to worship.

WJ

JJ!

You still don't get it do you. I'm not the one selling the nonexistence of God to anyone. 'You' are selling the concept for the nonexistence of a God because (your belief system) you've asserted a position on the matter.

Now, are you an agnostic or not? You sound like you want to be one.

All your words are telling me that.., epistemically, truth is Subjectivity. I see no problem with that blanket statement of sorts. Do you?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Truth is subjective, thereby disproving the existence of God.

Q.E.D.

Thanks, WJ!

jj

I'm not selling anything to anyone, there's no money changing hands. I'm not trying to CONVINCE anyone, either, I simply stated my position, and you seem determined to misrepresent it as something it isn't. My position is an atheistic position. I have stated before, and will state again, that an atheist is one who does not espouse the existance of a deity. That's all there is to it.

Now, you're hiding behind your secret-language version of "atheist" I guess, whereby and irregardless of the meaning that others use for the world, you maintain that atheists claim to disprove the existance of god.

They do not. You did not address this issue the first time I stated it, but you repeat your false assertion through implication in your latest defamatory accusation.

Your incorrect assertion about atheists is a simple, obvious use of the doctrine of the excluded middle, a common rhetorical fallacy used by propagandists since the dawn of time. Atheists do not conclude or believe in the existance of god, period. (some conclude, some believe, etc. There is no common ground to atheism, any more than there is a common ground to a-green-cheesism, since atheism is the LACK of a belief, rather than the espousal of one, and the only commonality is not buying into a given unsupported idea, like a-green-cheesists don't buy into the idea that the moon is made of green cheese. The situation, despite your suborned argument, is not in any fashion dual to that of a believer, who does, factually, support a specific belief.)

I have not, and I continue NOT to argue that "truth is subjective". You have suborned that idea from pure fantasy on your part.

You repeatedly create straw men that are NOT what people have said to you, showing your base dishonesty.

If you're a believer, you need to look after your own soul.