Koyaanisqatsi

I did not "buy into" anything; I carefully detailed precisely why you are incorrect. Either do the same or piss up a rope.

That is not counter-refutation or argumentation.

False. It is the absence of belief in magical fairy god kings as the cause of existence.

Grow up.

No, they are not, as I demonstrated conclusively in my last post to which you have just childishly pretended did not exist in order to contradict me by making yet another unsubstantiated claim.

No counter-argument; no deconstruction; no demonstration of why my arguments were unsound, just, "nu-unh, you're regurgitating and not critically thinking."

Are you that incompetent when it comes to the procedures of argumentation and counter-refutation?

Two questions no one has asked here and not an "answer;" an unsubstantiated, ludicrous assertion through definition.

If you're going to masturbate your straw man like this, please have the decency to close the curtains.

Again, he who makes the claim must prove it. Now prove your claim that a fictional creature is the answer to those questions since yours is the only claim.

What disturbs me even more is when intellectual cowards like you try to avoid addressing the extensive deconstruction of my arguments, which directly dispels this false accusation.

Your childish rhetoric will not stop you from being found incorrect.

How dare you, you childish bore. I have "regurgitated" nothing and provided more than enough direct evidence as to my precise thought processes to demand an apology.

Your cowardice is repulsive.

What? I ask again, what?

False.

No, you're an agnostic.

False. Declaring "fictional creatures do not factually exist" is a tautology, not a "positive claim" that would require the same burden of proof that the theist is under.

You have no argument and your response betrays your obvious lack of intellectual integrity.

Address my entire post point-by-point and provide detailed deconstruction to my arguments demonstrating your evasive, (false) accusations or apologize.

This childish bullshit is beneath me.

Andrew_theist

Koyaanisqatsi

The refutation of the point you are making is contained in my response if you read the whole thing and not just the part pertaining to you. Not that any of it will matter as it is obvious to me you are merely expressing a fundamentalist belief about atheism and not a point in fact. I will leave the issue in the hands of those who read this thread since I can tell by your rhetoric no amount of refutation will matter to you. Not that you are beneath discussing with; it would just be a futile waste of time.

Mad Kally

You're not too bright are you? Your website called "Challenging atheism" makes about as much sense as a website devoted to challenging aSantaism. If you have an absence of belief in Santa Claus, that's exacly why I have an absence of belief in any god.. Can you grasp what I'm saying?

Andrew_theist

You're not too bright are you? Your website called "Challenging atheism" makes about as much sense as a website devoted to challenging aSantaism. If you have an absence of belief in Santa Claus, that's exacly why I have an absence of belief in any god.. Can you grasp what I'm saying?

You assume if someone disagrees with you it must be due to intelligence or inability to comprehend. It couldn't be because they understand and disagree any way. This is part of the intellectual elitism that goes with much of atheism. I know from experience that this belief of what atheism is, is a fundamental belief and no evidence to the contrary will allow you to take off you're indoctrination cap and think for yourself. The following is only for those who haven't been throughly brain washed.

What is an Atheist?
An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist.
Richard Carrier
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/atheism.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/atheism.html</a>

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny; To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

<a href="http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html</a>
Atheism*
Atheism is the disbelief in God. An atheist must believe that humans created God rather than the other way around. To say that man created or invented God is to say that the vast majority of humans are deluded. It should go without saying that being deluded is not the same as being mentally unbalanced, but since some defenders of belief in God (e.g., D.E. Trueblood in The Trustworthiness of Religious Experience) do not seem to know this, we mention it.
*Note: in this entry we are limiting our denial of the existence of God to the denial of the God of the major western religions.

missus_gumby

Comprehensive examples please.

TollHouse

&lt;TollHouse checks in to see if the promised and devastating miracle proof has been delivered&gt;

Hmm...nope, no proof. I guess Andrew was just full of shit to begin with. Oh well, we see it everyday.

BTW, good post Koy! It's just too bad that Andrew didn't listen.

&lt;TollHouse checks out&gt;

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: TollHouse ]</p>

Theli

I didn't ask if it WERE god, I asked how you could know it was god.

KeithHarwood

So, you present me with a god who can mend one broken leg rather more quickly than normal and you expect me to believe that this same god created the whole universe? Just how gullible do you think I am?

theophilus

Well, of course it is - look up the meaning of the suffix "ism."

More to the point, to assert or deny something assumes a system of knowledge sufficient to support the declaration.
So, unless you're claiming to be just mumbling meaningless jibberish by your statements, they are the result of a belief system; not atheism but auto-theism.

agapeo

Koyaanisqatsi says

No "reason" is required since there is no such thing as "natural-born atheism" in the sense you are implying. Atheism--the absence of belief in a god or gods.

The sense that I am implying is according to your definition if it holds water. If atheism is simply a lack of belief or absense of belief, if you will, then a child is an atheist by birth since he/she has no beliefs.

But my simple mind fails to understand how you came about your understanding of what atheism is or is not if you didn't learn it from someone else. Did the thought simply pop into your head one day? In my simple mind it appears to me that what you think (believe)is a result of selecting a view which sounds the most reasonable to you. If atheism "fits the bill" then you've accepted that "viewpoint." Call it non-belief, lack of belief or duck soup if you like but it remains what you are. And what you are is composed of all the information (knowledge) that you have been exposed to. You chose to "believe" or accept the reasoning of one over another. In other words you believe that the reasons for not believing in the existence of God is more reasonable than believing in the existence of God. If you don't "believe" me that I suggest you read the Craig-Washington Debate: Does God Exist? in which Dr. Corey Washington (one of your fellow and renown atheist) presents his defence of atheism. One needs not defend a lack of belief. What is there to defend?

BTW - If god does not exist how can it damn anything?

Koyaanisqatsi says:
Do you comprehend those painfully simple words?

Judging by your response to my words it appears that my words were more painful to you than yours are to me.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>