Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Devilnaut · 10-13-2002, 10:52 PM

Seraphim:

Quote:

OK then ... where shall I put the thread ?

It depends on your angle I guess. Are you going to head right for discussing arguments for the existence of a deity, or are you going to talk about souls and such first? The latter probably would get more replies in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=57" target="_blank">Science and Skepticism forum</a>.

Quote:

Atheist also do not believe in Souls I believe. Is that true? In that case, get ready to back-up your argument.

This is generally true, but atheism doesn't rule out their existence. By definition, atheism is simply the non-belief in God(s), and I don't think every concept of "souls" requires the existence of a deity. Atheists certainly make no arguments claiming their non-existence, but we'll defend our position in the face of arguments for them.

10-13-2002, 11:11 PM

"It depends on your angle I guess. Are you going to head right for discussing arguments for the existence of a deity, or are you going to talk about souls and such first? The latter probably would get more replies in the Science and Skepticism forum."

I'm going to bring argument of God and His existence through Science, so where do I put that thread? Under Science or under the one we are in now? I wish someone comes out with some guideline on what to put where around here.

"This is generally true, but atheism doesn't rule out their existence. By definition, atheism is simply the non-belief in God(s), and I don't think every concept of "souls" requires the existence of a deity. Atheists certainly make no arguments claiming their non-existence, but we'll defend our position in the face of arguments for them. "

You guys (some anyway) do agree there is such thing as a Soul but do not believe in a God? You kids are really confusing ...

Anyway, I will bringing my argument that there is a Soul first since that will make the task of proving there is a God much easier. It will be from Buddhism (mostly) and Quantum Physics.

Devilnaut · 10-13-2002, 11:22 PM

Sera:

Quote:

I'm going to bring argument of God and His existence through Science, so where do I put that thread? Under Science or under the one we are in now? I wish someone comes out with some guideline on what to put where around here.

Either one, I don't think it's really a big deal. If it starts going in a direction more appropriate for somewhere else, it can be moved. I'd suggest science and skepticism to start..

Quote:

You guys (some anyway) do agree there is such thing as a Soul but do not believe in a God? You kids are really confusing ...

Heheh.. I didn't mean to confuse. It was just a qualifier. I doubt you'll meet an atheist who believes in souls, but it's possible. At any rate, you'll find adequate opposition here.

Quote:

Anyway, I will bringing my argument that there is a Soul first since that will make the task of proving there is a God much easier. It will be from Buddhism (mostly) and Quantum Physics.

I look forward to reading it.

Goliath · 10-14-2002, 08:31 AM

Seraphim,

I had said,

Quote:

Huh? Do you mean "I notice that most of you say that the xian god does not exist."? If so, then not all of us claim this, since weak atheists (such as myself) merely lack belief in the existence of any god.

To which you replied:

Quote:

And how do you come up with such conclusion, may I know?

Again: Huh? What conclusion? What are you talking about? I said that I lack belief in the existence of any god. I do not believe that any god exists. I also do not believe that no gods exist.

Here is a complete and total list of my beliefs regarding the supernatural:

Nothing.

Quote:

In my opinion, you have no rights to say there is no god

Again, I have never made such a claim. Please, pay attention.

Quote:

What is the difference between a weak Atheist and a strong (if there is one)?

All the difference in the universe! A strong atheist believes that no gods exist. A weak atheist merely does not believe that any gods exist.

Read over those last two sentences very, very carefully and think about what they say.

Quote:

Because you believe there is no such God

Again, incorrect. In no way, shape, or form do I claim that no gods exist.

Quote:

I said that I love to hear any Atheist try and prove there is no God which Hindus, Buddhist, or Taoist believed in.

I have never made such a claim that no such gods exist, so don't be expecting such a proof from me.

Quote:

Yourself? Acceptable but still not suitable for a public forum nor disccussion since I do not know anything about you, your background nor your way of life. And I've no idea how your journey will end and what you will face in your journey till the end either.

Absolutely irrelevant. You asked for someone who lacked faith and had the strength to endure living. I have both of those qualities. Accept that such an example exists, and move on, please.

I had said:

Quote:

"The one about "whenever you guys see someone else who is different, you all gang up on him and try to scare him into following you ... "

To which you replied:

Quote:

My reply : Thank you for point it again. What was the problem with it again?

It was absolutely incorrect. See HelenM, seebs, or Rev. Joshua about why your quoted assertion above is wrong.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath · 10-14-2002, 08:32 AM

Seraphim,

Quote:

To prove there is a God, first I will have to prove there is a Soul, then what is heaven and hell and finally God. Is this acceptable?

Most certainly. Now, quit saying that you're going to present such a proof and present it.

Sincerely,

Goliath

galiel · 10-14-2002, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath:
<strong>
Most certainly. Now, quit saying that you're going to present such a proof and present it.
</strong>

Personally, I can't wait for the "proof" of god using "Physics and Quantum Physics (including models of working mechanics)"

K · 10-14-2002, 11:13 AM

galiel:

Don't hold your breath. I heard these kind of proofs claimed before. They usually turn out to be something along the lines of, "who created the Big Bang?... it was God."

SRB · 10-14-2002, 11:34 AM

Tercel:
It's kind of ironic in that at the beginning of the article he actually spends some time expounding the brilliance of some of the more famous skeptical theists such as Pascal, Newton, Descartes, Copernicus and Galileo only to later accuse them of having inconsistent beliefs.

His main problem seems to be his faulty assumption (which he is inconsistent in the application of) that the status of Skeptic/Gullible is a fundamental one as opposed to derived.

SRB:
You seem not to be aware that skeptical theist is a technical term used in the literature pertaining to the evidential argument from evil. So far as I know, Paul Draper coined that term in his 1996 paper of the same name. None of Pascal, Newton, Descartes, Copernicus and Galileo was a skeptical theist as that term is normally (i.e. properly) used. What you mean by the term is unclear.

SRB

Corgan Sow · 10-14-2002, 06:39 PM

Quote:

My reply : I'm referring to the fact that there are some Atheists (example - Corgan, why else I should bother stating this argument) who making this argument as if it is already proven whether or not such thing as God exist. If they do things like that here, fine ... no harm done, but they should present such failed argument in a multi-racial forum, then he or she is in for an argument which he or she cannot simply escape from. Ask Corgan and you will know how many time he get whacked from me.

Whacked by you? Lets bring the argument of God here again, padre.

I state again that I am an agnostic atheist. I do not disprove God, but rather I have no obligation to worship or know him since the burden of proof is yet to be taken.

You have not defeated me yet, Seraphim. And please, your arrogance will make argument hard to work. Remember, I did not force you to oblige to come to this forum.

Do not be an ass.

Corgan Sow · 10-14-2002, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Anyway, I will bringing my argument that there is a Soul first since that will make the task of proving there is a God much easier. It will be from Buddhism (mostly) and Quantum Physics.

Buddhism does not have beliefs in any sort of deities. Get your facts right again.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2002, 11:11 PM	#62
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"It depends on your angle I guess. Are you going to head right for discussing arguments for the existence of a deity, or are you going to talk about souls and such first? The latter probably would get more replies in the Science and Skepticism forum." I'm going to bring argument of God and His existence through Science, so where do I put that thread? Under Science or under the one we are in now? I wish someone comes out with some guideline on what to put where around here. "This is generally true, but atheism doesn't rule out their existence. By definition, atheism is simply the non-belief in God(s), and I don't think every concept of "souls" requires the existence of a deity. Atheists certainly make no arguments claiming their non-existence, but we'll defend our position in the face of arguments for them. " You guys (some anyway) do agree there is such thing as a Soul but do not believe in a God? You kids are really confusing ... Anyway, I will bringing my argument that there is a Soul first since that will make the task of proving there is a God much easier. It will be from Buddhism (mostly) and Quantum Physics.

10-14-2002, 11:13 AM	#67
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	galiel: Don't hold your breath. I heard these kind of proofs claimed before. They usually turn out to be something along the lines of, "who created the Big Bang?... it was God."

10-14-2002, 11:34 AM	#68
SRB Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: UK Posts: 227	Tercel: It's kind of ironic in that at the beginning of the article he actually spends some time expounding the brilliance of some of the more famous skeptical theists such as Pascal, Newton, Descartes, Copernicus and Galileo only to later accuse them of having inconsistent beliefs. His main problem seems to be his faulty assumption (which he is inconsistent in the application of) that the status of Skeptic/Gullible is a fundamental one as opposed to derived. SRB: You seem not to be aware that skeptical theist is a technical term used in the literature pertaining to the evidential argument from evil. So far as I know, Paul Draper coined that term in his 1996 paper of the same name. None of Pascal, Newton, Descartes, Copernicus and Galileo was a skeptical theist as that term is normally (i.e. properly) used. What you mean by the term is unclear. SRB

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.