sir drinks-a-lot

This is getting less and less interesting. Thus far, you have gotten most of us to place God in the Category of Things Things That Cannot Be Disproven. Not too exciting...

I think most of us will require some pretty good evidence. You are making quite a claim here.

I would also recommend starting a new thread, as the scope and topic of discussion has changed.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Kvalhion

This reminds me of an automated phone call that is trying to sell religion. Obviously the person doing the speaking doesn't hear a thing you say, makes illogical points, and then continues on as if everything that has been said is "established."

AF, if you are not going to respond to the dozens of posts in this thread that has debunked your absurd statement, what is the point of moving on when no doubt the same pattern will continue?

To put it simply, you've established nothing other than your misconception for atheism and what constitutes logic. Congratulations.

Matt

See here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000089" target="_blank">"What would it take"?</a>

or

here: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000127" target="_blank">More "what would it take"?</a>

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Matt ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
<strong>First, I was not aware that originality was a requirement for posting a topic. If so, we should all stop posting anything. These topics have been debated in one form or another for thousands of years. I doubt a truly original thought has ever been posted here.</strong>

Just a tad presumptuous, given that this board has not been around for thousands of years so that we can test your argument that there are no original arguments here. Add to that the fact that you have only been around a little while, and have not had enough time to read EVERY argument to see if any are original or unique. Personally, I see original arguments and good evidences show up here every week. That's the beauty of being "on-line" in this hi-tech world.

YOUR arguments, on the other hand, are easily verifiable by the members here as having been regurgitated by "witnesses" before. In fact, I tried to use several of your arguments here almost two years ago.....to no avail (except that I listened to the rebuttals with an open mind and critical thinking, and was later set free of supersticious beliefs that are sorely lacking in the proof department).

<strong>I simply wanted to start by pointing out that atheism, as defined as the belief that there is no god or supernatural, is logically inconsistent where one can not positively state how the universe came to exist. With that establised, we can now move on to what evidence does exist for god. </strong>

Yeah yeah yeah, I've heard Hanky Hannegraaf use this one a million times. It is total twaddle... If I tell YOU that Zeus is the one and only true god, and YOU say "Well, I don't believe that's true." Then it is up to ME to PROVE to YOU that Zeus is the one and only true god. You have NO obligation to prove to ME that Zeus does NOT exist and is NOT the only one true god, and in fact it is NOT something you can prove to me because it is NOT real, it exists in my belief system ONLY. Substitute "time travel machine" for "Zeus" and the same rules apply.

I can not then just go on and say, "Okay....NOW that we agree that it is entirely POSSIBLE that Zeus exists, let ME how he is the one TRUE god of Greek Mythology and therefore God of the UNIVERSE!!" Again...twaddle.


<strong>Before I begin my proof, I would like to pose a question to the self-described atheists and agnostics reading this: What proof do you require to believe in god in general and the christian god in particular?

Regards,

Finch</strong>[/QUOTE]


Uh, well...hmmm...could he show up on Larry King tonight for an interview? How about asking him to hover over the Vatican so the pedophiles there will cower in shame? Or better yet, ask him to turn the Mormon Tabernacle into a grease spot....
I mean ...if he's "GOD"...anything is possible, right?

Or how about "PROOF", real evidential, verifiable, non-anecdotal P-R-O-O-F. Something more than "Mere Assertions".

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

Eudaimonist

This is not established. You could at least address Malaclypse's argument. He made an excellent point.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>

sidewinder

There are many strong arguments against his original and subsequent posts. I'm still waiting to hear his answers to them.

Darwin's Finch

Enough. Rather than get sidetracked discussing what we would regard as reasonable evidence (a trial lawyer with such an obviously healthy imagination should be able to answer that for himself), why don't we just get on with what you consider to be your best evidence? We can go from there. However, I agree with the earlier poster who said that this should be carried on in a different thread.

Eudaimonist

Yeah, I thought I made a strong argument too, but I'd be happy if he'd just respond to one good one, instead of simply ignoring them.

Samhain

I'm beginning to see a pattern here...

(1) AF makes a hasty overgeneralization in the method of circular argumentation with no knowledge of even the basic guidelines of the opposing viewpoint, while begging the question on several points and using ad hominem attacks. In other words, he defines atheism as he sees fit to define it, basically saying that the way that "he sees it" there is no room for logical consistency because of his "extensive knowledge" on atheism. Clearly this is a moot point since he fails to recognize the most basic quality of atheism isn't a disbelief but a lack of belief.

(2) Multitudes of atheists rebut his points, saying that he speaks on the point of ignorace to atheism (which is quite true). Then, even considering the possibility that his definition of atheism is correct, atheists rebut his argument as it stands anyway, showing their point from a logical, reasonable stand, taking in all of AF's points.

(3) Card-stacking arguments by AF with no reference to anything which rebutted his statements, continues the circular argument, and does not even acknowledge what has been said by others, but instead, rephrases what he said before to make it sound different.

(4) Everyone points this out, tells him that before one can go on, one must understand how exactly this point is so "true" for all atheists, while at the same time he demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of what atheism is about.

(5) More card-stacking arguments...Some shifting of the burden of proof in order to give us questios which neither theist or atheist can answer, but, of course, hints that all is understood in a theistic perspective.

(6) Absurdities of AF's arguments are pointed out to an even broader extent, the whole foundation of AF's argument fails, and AF has made no point whatsoever.

and finally....

(7) More card stacking arguments by AF.

AF, please, if you are going to discuss the inconsistancies of the logic of others, don't base your entire argument off of fallacies.

DarkBronzePlant

AF,

Since you are asking us what we would consider adequate evidence to believe in god's existence, are you prepared to provide what you would consider adequate evidence for the non-existence of god?

I'm not intending to sidetrack your argument, so a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice here.

DBP