I don't think this guy can handle this level of conversation. Look at his user title: "I am, therefore I think".
Here is one place in that tangent where you seemed to be saying this. I think I drew a reasonable conclusion that you were using Superman as a parallel to God and then listing believed in attributes about Superman as parallels to attributes of God. And then saying that someone asserting he exists despite differences in some attributes is nonsense. IOW the parallel situation in relation to God by Christians would also entail that God does not exist. As I have pointed out over and over you cannot prove that the Christian God does not exist because there are contradictions in the reports of Christians. You could I suppose in a philosophy of language context take a stab at it, but then you have to be willing to include situations where your own contradictory perceptions of people would entail their lack of existence. IOW their names are not referring correctly to something. And remember, I am not a Christian. I can see the contradictions in a Christians presentation of God and yet not be sure that they are not correct in some important ways about God. I also cannot be sure they do not come into the presence, for example, of God when they pray and are on basically the right track. I do not think you can either. You chose attributes of Superman that are critical to his superness. This is not a good parallel. This would mean that if we looked at the contradictions you pointed out in relation to God all we had left was something like, Well God exists, but he is just a regular human living in Hoboken. But that is not the case. This response would seem appropriate if I insulted you somehow. OK. It seemed implicit in your Superman analogy where you say it is nonsense to assert God exists if some of his attributes are contradictory. You used attributes in relation to superman that I believe are unfair ones to use. He would not be Superman without them. As a non christian looking at contradictions within Christian descriptions of God, I dont think that use of the Superman analogy was fair. Only if you assume that God must use his omnipotence in every situation. Humans do not use all their power in every situation. I cannot see why we should assume that God would. That is an interesting line. I am not sure you have argued this line. At the very least you have strayed beyond it and implied things about external reality. God's existence, for example. Which you clarified as.... Which I pointed out does not really fit with the meaning of the word theist or the word atheist. Further you are taking a strong atheist stand here. You are saying that none of them are in fact experiencing the presence of God. How do you know this? How do you know none of them are 'with God'? And notice your final statement. You are shifting the onus to me. You are making the claim that none of them are with God. You have the onus to back up that claim. If you simply said something like 'I have no reason to believe they are in the presence of God.' that would be a different story. But you made a claim, it seems to me implicitly and let me no if I am wrong, that no one is 'with God'. This gives you the onus. If that is really the tangent why don't we focus there. Be very clear. I am not trying to prove God does exist. I still see efforts on your part to show that Christians are wrong to believe in their God. In the last quote of yours above, I do not see any other way to take the Show me someone who is with God to imply that this is not the case anywhere. If you simply mean I cannot prove to you they are with God that is a whole other issue. I do not think this can be done. But it does not relate to whether Christians believe in God or whether their belief is justified given their own experiences. It would only be relevent in a discussion of whether you should believe their assertions are correct and believe in their God yourself.
I don't know about atheism. That merely implies a lack of belief in a god. Atheists could still be dualists, I guess. Naturalism also works.
I'm not sure if scientism is a real philosophy, or if it has, hasn't entered the lexicon. Science is based on empiricism, which is grounded in naturalism.
Since I havent experienced any kind of god firsthand, I dont say there is god of course, and I might even say "apparently there are no gods, but there is some small chance there are gods. Just like there really could be elves out there somewhere." Does that make me an atheist? I dont think my perspective is a belief . I think its just an expression of my experience in life concerning the idea of gods and/or elves existing.
Theists just want to make us believe that we're no better than they are. They have this fantastic notion that everything is a belief because they generally don't understand the sciences, or even basic logic, for that matter.
This thread has been going for 60 pages, and nothing has been accomplished. Why are you all wasting your time?
If you aren't enjoying it, then why do you still visit? Instead of busting balls, how about you move on and find something better to do? Stop posting just to get attention, and try contributing.
Exactly, but saying it's a religion is a whole different topic...So many atheists don't want to have a religion. But your religion is your bases for what you base your belief off of, then again, whether or not you think it's a religion, it doesn't get us anywhere when we have that decided.
The problem is just with semantics. An atheist has a lack of belief in a god (if we assume weak atheists, not strong atheists) However, if you lack a belief in something, doesn't that suggest that you believe it does not exist? Because if you believed that it did exist, you wouldn't lack a belief in it. Agnostic is, perhaps, the wisest stance here that doesn't contradict itself. The viewpoint that the subject of god is ultimately unknowable.
At least the most rational, given that we haven't any evidence for god, or much evidence against a deity of some kind.
The way I see it, science is metaphysically agnostic and only concerned with the observable, repeatable and testable. The nature of our existence is a metaphysical standpoint and outside the realms of scientific inquiry (I think).
