Melkor

Lol. This thread makes me think of the "Argument Clinic" sketch from Python...

"An argument is a connected series of statements in which one side attempts to prevail over the other by exerting reason with those statements... you can't simply contradict each other!"

Yes you can.

"No you can't!"

Yes you can.

"No you can't!"

Yes you can.

"No you can't!"

Yes you can.

"No you can't!"

(repeat)

Philosoft

The items in Mr. Tryon's list represent his conclusions, not anything necessitated by doctrinal atheism. As I'm sure you will hear over and over, atheism only carries one requirement: a lack of god-belief. Any additional statements made thereupon are entirely orthogonal to the doctrine of atheism itself. They represent the expanded worldview of the particular atheist. Mr. Tryon appears to be a metaphysical naturalist, thus some of his statements are derived from a metaphysical naturalist viewpoint. Various other statements indicate a mistrust of religion, again not a necessary part of atheism, but a common enough opinion held by many atheists.

In any case, I think Mr. Tryon is looking for honest criticism. Indeed, he says, "I believe I can defend every item." Yet you appear more interested in mockery to the point that some of your reversals are incoherent.

TerryTryon

Well said, but may I add that when one is so lacking in any arguments that he or she starts speculating on alternate realities and beings with no variable attributes, one has pretty much scraped the bottom of the rhetorical barrel: no mass, no body, no parts, no passions; all good, all knowing, all powerful. How do you even talk about something like that let alone believe?

diana

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up to this point, in that you wished to make a point by showing the reverse of Terry Tryon's conclusions look equally valid if you begin from the assumption that God does exist.

However, the mere gainsaying of anything the other person says is not argument. Argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just saying, "No it isn't!"

If you wish to make a noteworthy contribution to this forum, provide a lucid, evidential argument which disproves any of the conclusions another poster has reached.

If you intend only to disagree--which argues nothing--take it ~~Elsewhere~~.

d

TerryTryon

MonkeeSage:

Incoherent means that a concept or proposition does not hold together, that is, if a person carries the proposition to its logical ends, one will find that the logic will generate inconsistencies, paradoxes, and internal contradictions. The concept of the otherworld makes any attempt to decide what is real or not real an arbitrary decision, based on the mood of the day. Is it spiritual, material, or fantastical? Eenie, meenie, miney moe. Philosophy has a word for folks who deny the ability to establish a reality outside their minds, solipsism. It is amazing how god-believers throw that word around. It reminds me of the old mote-and-beam-in-the-eye parable.
You see I maintain that when you die, your consciousness is extinguished forever. Then, everything you ever were or had the potential of becoming is worm food. God believers maintain that when they die, they go to a beautiful place where god and his angels do everything possible to make them happy, and all they have to do is sing songs of praise in return. There’s not much wishful thinking in the atheist scenario. Just a stoic determination to take life as it really is, with no sugar coating.
In addition to ruffling feathers, my purpose in this thread is to examine some hard earned and painful conclusions, in hopes of clarifying them and putting them in more precise terms. Your participation is fully voluntary, and your purpose is your own. I claim no authority over you, and leave you free to listen to my ramblings or not as you choose. I claim no power, no coercion and no authority over anyone on this BB. The suggestion is absurd.
I read the words, but no meaning registers. As Noam Chomsky famously said, “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”
Oh, no they don’t, and it is disingenuous of you to assert that. Religions depend on faith, revelation, and theology for their evidence, with a healthy dose of anecdotal bias. And every religion is similar to every other only in that it appears to be made up from out of thin air. However, anyone who has examined the observations and the underlying axioms will agree that the sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth, that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, and that a good approximation of pi is 3.1415926.
I am afraid that you may be using the term “genetic fallacy,” to cover a hateful streak of misogyny and homophobia in yourself. Please, tell me I am jumping to conclusions. I like your impish humor, your in-your-face attitude, and your way cool way of expressing yourself. Please, I’d like this to be fun. Deny that I have interpreted you fairly!
Actually in a nature vs. nurture debate this seems to rely a lot more on learning than instinct. If it is false, it gives genetics too little of what it is due. Do atheists have a genetic defect that makes them avoid both crime and the supernatural?
Really now. The best argument I’ve heard from a god believer is, “You see, I lost my job, and couldn’t pay the rent, and I prayed, and then the doorbell rang, and it was my minister and he gave me an envelope with the exact amount of money in it that I owed in rent. It was a miracle!” If someone told you a ridiculous story like this, the only reason you would believe such rubbish is because you wanted to. It’s called a faith promoting story for a reason.
Perhaps that could be true, if godtalkers would leave us alone long enough to develop some momentum. But history argues against it. All it shows for the atheist movement is a series of false starts, catastrophes and painful retrenchment. Organizing atheists is like herding cats. They tend not to like authority; ultimate transcendence or anything else.
That really is a bald assertion with no support. Ask any parent if their kid is credulous. Then ask if they have a natural interest in god. Ask any big brother if it’s fun to tease his sibling with tall tales. Then ask how many times the notion of prayer comes spontaneously into the little kids head.
Counter Conclusion: All propositions, like all coats, can be turned inside out, but that doesn’t mean you are not going to look absurd if you wear the lining of a dress jacket to the weather. Not all coats are made to be reversible.
Good try, MonkeeSage. Try to support your arguments with a little more meat.
Respectfully,
TerryTryon

xplosive58

******************
You see I maintain that when you die, your consciousness is extinguished forever. Then, everything you ever were or had the potential of becoming is worm food.
******************

:boohoo:

it doesnt make sense to me that someday ill just stop existing. its such a bizzare thought to think someday i wont be able to think. Ill have to think about this

Shadownought

What were you doing before you were born?

xplosive58

nothing, but it didnt matter. i guess it wont matter when im dead