DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You just finished blaming your phone. You contradict yourself.
Now I'm sure you'll explain how your phone doesn't exist - it just IS.
Can former atheists explain what atheism is?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Now I'm sure you'll explain how your phone doesn't exist - it just IS.
How does me blaming the condition of my phone, mean my phone made me do it?
I’m not surprised coming from someone who actually believes Fido magically turned into Free Willy.
Jan.
I know religion doesn't work on evidence, it works on faith and those gullible enough to believe things that cannot be demonstrated.
I see, you presuppose that my ability to ask such questions depends on there being a god. Poppycock.
I have no faith that god doesn't exist either.
Again you presume to know what's in my mind. Presuppositionalism is dumb because it assumes the thing it's trying to prove. Circular logic.
The problem with the world is that smart people are full of doubts and dumb people are full of confidence.
Jan Ardena:
Put it this way: atheist is not inconsistent with current science. Neither are certain brands of theism, of course. Creationist beliefs like yours, however, are inconsistent with science, so if they are part of your theism then your theism is inconsistent with science.
God = knowledge? Is this that magical knowledge you keep going on about? Science isn't about that.
Atheists aren't forced to believe anything. That's more often a feature of religious dogma.
Given that you have stated that you believe in Santa Claus - that's funny.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And unicorns. Don't forget unicorns.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Okay, so if I'm to post on this forum in English, I am presupposing that it follows everyone who comes here can read English, but that doesn't follow, does it, because not everyone can read English. Does this then mean we cannot make sense of truth without presupposing God? Or better yet, does God imply truth such that we cannot even assert truth without ever denying God? Is God then logically consistent with truth?
If so, then your claim is flawed, not only inconsistent, but actually contradicts itself. This is shown in the first claim where you say, "Evidence presupposes truth" yet nothing of what you have ever claimed here has the support of evidence, the claim fails from the get go as you can no more show a truth than you can presupposing one; ie. God.
If you can't presuppose a truth without evidence, then I can easily claim Leprechauns race unicorns in the Kentucky Derby and it will stand as an absolute truth, based on your logic.
Evidence presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God, is self-explanetory.
If you don't get it, don't worry about it.
It simply means the destination of attaining knowledge, ultimately leads back to God.
''I'' am not my physical body is a truth.
I cannot be the thing, that I own, is evidence that ''I'' am not my body.
jan
Another lie!
I don't believe IN Santa Claus. I believe that Santa Claus (as we know and recognise his character) exists.
And so do you.
Let's not forget your indirect claim of being in the Garden of Eden, alongside Adam and Eve.
jan
How is God, being the origin of all, the ultimate destination of knowledge, inconsistent with science?
What is Science about, if not to attain knowledge?
I think religious dogma, is atheistic in nature, because despite their pomp and ceremony, they cannot recognise God.
A good example of what I'm saying comes from the book of Matthew...
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign;
jan.
Nobody doubts that your God exists either - as a character like Santa Claus.
I didn't say that. I said Creationism is inconsistent with science.
You're right. It's not about attaining magical knowledge, like "just knowing" that God is real, magically. You were right to cross out that reference to magical knowledge when you started talking about science. Well done.
Hmm. Quoting religious dogma in order to support your point about religious dogma being atheistic in nature. Interesting approach.
Unless you are all-knowing, all decisions is based on faith, it's strength based on the natural likelihood of the outcome.
When you perpetually ask for other to show you God, and that way you'll accept it's existence, is a demonstration of wilful ignorance.
I think you need go back through this particular segment of our overall discussion. You'll realize you have strayed somewhat.
What do you have faith in, and why?
Of course I know what's in your mind, we're in a discussion.
Does logic exist?
Do we use logic to determine that?
Isn't that a cirular argument?
Are you saying I am a dumb person?
jan.
You said creationist beliefs like mine.
So can you answer the question please?
What do you think to it?
jan.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Yet, you established through your so-called logic that is not even remotely valid as YOU yourself said it all starts with evidence, something you don't even possess. Try again.
With no evidence, the thing YOU said must be first and foremost. Again, you're just tossing out empty assertions. Try again.
No, that's an empty assertion because you lack evidence to support your alleged truths. That last claims is just double speak.
Sorry Jan, but you failed to live up to your own words, yet again.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Pro-tip for Jan:
Saying 'it's atheist thinking' is not a hit against an argument.
An argument is an argument. It stands on its merits, regardless of who said it.
And you have not refuted the argument made. To-wit:
When you say things exist - such as Santa Claus - you have acknowledged that 'to exist' can mean exist as a concept.
And likewise, we all acknowledge that God exists - as a concept. It does not mean God exists as an objective entity any more than Santa does.
This you know, and trying to play word games is simply evidence that you are aware your rationalizations hold no water.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Because you made him up.
Sorry, which question? Whether a God would be inconsistent with science? It might be, or it might not be. It depends what the God entails.
What do I think of injunctions such as "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign"?
I think it's a clever way to dissuade the religious flock from asking too many difficult questions. It's a recurring theme in virtually all religious texts: the believer is supposed to have faith in the god(s). One must not "test" the gods or question them. The unspoken danger is that the gods won't stand up to testing, which might result in followers deserting the faith.