Former evangelical minister, now atheist

[LGM]

Skeptic:

The reason I argue the way I do is because many atheists take the stance that atheism is the default--and therefore the superior--world view unless it is "disproven" by a compelling argument in favor of theism. At best one can say that he finds theist's arguments unconvincing, but it can not be assumed that the alternative worldview view--atheism--is therefore true, unless a positive case can be made in its favor.

There is no such thing as "generic" theism, so please stop the silly posturing.

Perhaps Deism is the closest, but even there you have just insinuated a claim about the nature of god depending on what form of Deism you subscribe too.

Your religion is all about your claims MM. Sorry if you don't want to defend the talking donkeys, or baby killing gods in your sacred literature, but that's what seperates your "theism" from say...sun worship.

But please, please continue to imagine that "theism" is some kind of united generic belief in a generic montheistic god...it really shows how desperate and delusional your argument really is.

[Skeptic]

The reason I argue the way I do is because many atheists take the stance that atheism is the default--and therefore the superior--world view unless it is "disproven" by a compelling argument in favor of theism. At best one can say that he finds theist's arguments unconvincing, but it can not be assumed that the alternative worldview view--atheism--is therefore true, unless a positive case can be made in its favor.

Using the negative definition of atheism I would tend to agree with that. But as I said, in my experience most atheists don't fall under the positive definition, and that objection doesn't address the negative or non-theist position, which seems to be far more common.

Byron

[Cleombrotus]

I'm sorry Cleo, you just told me that you have yet to make any claims in your posts that need defending.

Did you forget so soon? Do you read your own posts? You should start...they're quite amusing...

How can I argue with you, when you claim you've yet to make a claim or an argument?

Right now, as it stands, I completely agree with everything you haven't said!

LGM
...I like this game!...

*Sigh* Another one I have to break it down to its bare fundamentals for. Don't they teach diagraming of sentences and reading comprehension in schools anymore?

I did not say "I did not make any claims"; what I said was "I did not make any claims that need defending". What I have offered is axiomatic. Except, perhaps to a partisan. And then, no explanation will suffice.

But for the philosophically impaired:

Since there are only two possible answers to the question of God's existence (i.e "YES" and "NO"), the idea that either one of these answers, if true, will be able to offer substantive reasons for its validity INDEPENDENTLY of the other's reasonings, is not something which needs to be defended. It comes under the heading of "the Law of Non-Contradiction".

If that idea escapes you, then there is little point in my trying to explain the fallacies in the other arguments you proposed in your first diatribe and I would offer the same advice I gave to another. Either follow the train of thought or start your own thread.

[bandecoot]

*Sigh* Another one I have to break it down to its bare fundamentals for. Don't they teach diagraming of sentences and reading comprehension in schools anymore?

I did not say "I did not make any claims"; what I said was "I did not make any claims that need defending". What I have offered is axiomatic. Except, perhaps to a partisan. And then, no explanation will suffice.

But for the philosophically impaired:

Since there are only two possible answers to the question of God's existence (i.e "YES" and "NO"), the idea that either one of these answers, if true, will be able to offer substantive reasons for its validity INDEPENDENTLY of the other's reasonings, is not something which needs to be defended. It comes under the heading of "the Law of Non-Contradiction".

If that idea escapes you, then there is little point in my trying to explain the fallacies in the other arguments you proposed in your first diatribe and I would offer the same advice I gave to another. Either follow the train of thought or start your own thread.

If you say you make a claim that needs no defending, then you lie. simple. I am here to challange you as is LGM and a few others. I have put lie to your claim.

Since there are only two possible answers to the question of God's existence (i.e "YES" and "NO"), the idea that either one of these answers, if true, will be able to offer substantive reasons for its validity INDEPENDENTLY of the other's reasonings, is not something which needs to be defended. It comes under the heading of "the Law of Non-Contradiction".

Hmm lets see, who is making an assertion? I believe God exists. Because there is proof (theist) I dont believe in God, I see no evidence for the existance of god (atheist)

well stuff me. The theists are making the assertion. so let them prove it. Its not that hard.

I am simply say what I see and dont see. You are saying what you do see and what I cant see. So step up and prove it.

I think we did this dance a bit ago. Mountain mans assertion was stillborn. I just moved on.


atheism and theism are only tied together by your umbilical cord. We cut you lot away years ago.

[Cleombrotus]

If you say you make a claim that needs no defending, then you lie. simple. I am here to challange you as is LGM and a few others. I have put lie to your claim.

Since there are only two possible answers to the question of God's existence (i.e "YES" and "NO"), the idea that either one of these answers, if true, will be able to offer substantive reasons for its validity INDEPENDENTLY of the other's reasonings, is not something which needs to be defended. It comes under the heading of "the Law of Non-Contradiction".

Hmm lets see, who is making an assertion? I believe God exists. Because there is proof (theist) I dont believe in God, I see no evidence for the existance of god (atheist)

well stuff me. The theists are making the assertion. so let them prove it. Its not that hard.

I am simply say what I see and dont see. You are saying what you do see and what I cant see. So step up and prove it.

I think we did this dance a bit ago. Mountain mans assertion was stillborn. I just moved on.


atheism and theism are only tied together by your umbilical cord. We cut you lot away years ago.

bandecoot, read this very slowly, ok?

In...this...thread...I...never...claimed...that...God...exists.

Got that? Digest that for a while and then get back to me.

There will be a test.

[bandecoot]

bandecoot, read this very slowly, ok?

In...this...thread...I...never...claimed...that...God...exists.

Got that? Digest that for a while and then get back to me.

There will be a test.

You lie then .. you have a cross next to to your name dimwit. If you deny that God exists the then grab a ? and sit down and shut up.


otherwise enjoy the buttkickicking

[Cleombrotus]

You lie then .. you have a cross next to to your name dimwit. If you deny that God exists the then grab a ? and sit down and shut up.


otherwise enjoy the buttkickicking

OK, bandecoot, I concede the argument. Your logic is impeccable and flawless.

Boy, I guess you told me, huh?

[LGM]

*Sigh* Another one I have to break it down to its bare fundamentals for. Don't they teach diagraming of sentences and reading comprehension in schools anymore?

Keep patting yourself on the back...it adds to my amusement.

Since there are only two possible answers to the question of God's existence (i.e "YES" and "NO"), the idea that either one of these answers, if true, will be able to offer substantive reasons for its validity INDEPENDENTLY of the other's reasonings, is not something which needs to be defended. It comes under the heading of "the Law of Non-Contradiction".

I'm sorry you think the word "god" is a brand name and registered trademark of Christianity. But that's a typical mistake of narrow minded, uneducated dolts.

People in ancient Greece and Rome thought dozens of gods existed. They never heard of your gods, they hadn't been all invented yet.

The question of a single "god's existence" would be an incoherent question to them. JUST AS IT IS TODAY. They would tell you that many gods do exist, and they would rattle off names completely foreign to a pompous dolt like you.

Sorry this basic history is beyond your grasp. Why not find a library and actually crack a book on world history and comparitive religions? Then you won't look so ignorant in declaring your hilaroius, modern, western monotheistic Christian assumptions as "axioms" and "logic".

[Cleombrotus]

Keep patting yourself on the back...it adds to my amusement.


I'm sorry you think the word "god" is a brand name and registered trademark of Christianity. But that's a typical mistake of narrow minded, uneducated dolts.

People in ancient Greece and Rome thought dozens of gods existed. They never heard of your gods, they hadn't been all invented yet.

The question of a single "god's existence" would be an incoherent question to them. JUST AS IT IS TODAY. They would tell you that many gods do exist, and they would rattle off names completely foreign to a pompous dolt like you.

Sorry this basic history is beyond your grasp. Why not find a library and actually crack a book on world history and comparitive religions? Then you won't look so ignorant in declaring your hilaroius, modern, western monotheistic Christian assumptions as "axioms" and "logic".

Oh man, this is getting boring. Quickly.

Mr. Nicholson,

Allow me to introduce the idea into your consciousness that we are nowhere near the point where we are able to discuss the nature or characteristics of, either "god", "God", "god(s)", or "God(s)".

We are not concerned with what (God, god,Gods, gods - take your pick) is yet. We are merely concerned with IS (God, god, Gods, or gods)?

Got it? ( Man, it's like talking to third graders in here)

[jpholding]

How about Dan and the Mrs. start an atheist theme park in The People's Republic of Madison?

Why not? There have got to be some good names for rides at a place like that.

Hey JP...did you here about Dan's latest project?

He and Newdow are suing to have the courts rule that its illegal to say "God bless you" when somebody sneezes in a public building...

The funny thing is, I think someone made that joke in a parody article they wrote for me...

Your book's doing about as well in Utah...as Dan's is in Dayton Tennessee...

And the funny thing there is, I have sold over 60 books to the Tanners' bookstore in Salt Lake...more than to anyone else...

Atheists need someone to write them some decent hymns for our services at Free Thought Hall.

If you sign the papers, I'll even post those...

[LGM]

Oh man, this is getting boring. Quickly.

Really? The rest of us find it amusing...

Allow me to introduce the idea into your consciousness that we are nowhere near the point where we are able to discuss the nature or characteristics of, either "god", "God", "god(s)", or "God(s)".

We are not concerned with what (God, god,Gods, gods - take your pick) is yet. We are merely concerned with IS (God, god, Gods, or gods)?

Got it? ( Man, it's like talking to third graders in here)

Nice two-step Cleo...no one here is falling for your tripe Cleo.

Here's your original quote since I know you don't read your own posts:

Since there are only two possible answers to the question of God's existence

See the capital G? See the apostrophe after the word God? That’s an English language construct that you are referring to a SINGLE god and it is a PROPER NAME.

Struggling with your own sentence structure dolt?

A polytheist would scratch his head at the question about a “God’s existence”.
Which god are you talking about? Many gods exist…Zeus, Apollo, Venus…but no…I’ve never heard of Kami…

At which point an exclusive tri-theist…(i.e YOU), will need to disagree and explain that NO, only one god, and two sub-gods, really exist.

But please, continue to backpedal on your unicycle while you juggle the framing of your “axiom” in these posts.

Here, why not end the charade, and just take a further step back and say…

“Something exists”

Then we can all agree with your logical brilliance and go home!

[LGM]

Why not? There have got to be some good names for rides at a place like that.

The “Madalyn Murray O'Hair Tower of Terror” comes to mind...no matter how scared you get on the ride…you can’t pray!

The funny thing is, I think someone made that joke in a parody article they wrote for me...

Well its an easy target...How about this...Dan is suing the Guaranteed Overnight Delivery company to add the words “Newly Organized” to the front of their company name, and reflect that change with the new initials painted on the side of their trucks.

And the funny thing there is, I have sold over 60 books to the Tanners' bookstore in Salt Lake...more than to anyone else...

Nothing better than tapping the lucrative, rebellious, teenage Mormon market.
I bet one of the Osmond kids even owns a copy!

If you sign the papers, I'll even post those...

I give you perpetual license to use them as you will.

I was hoping Dan would be here to enjoy them, and post them on his site, but he is out traveling the world, vigilantly protecting me from people like you…

Remind me to up my donation...

[Cleombrotus]

Really? The rest of us find it amusing...



Nice two-step Cleo...no one here is falling for your tripe Cleo.

Here's your original quote since I know you don't read your own posts:



See the capital G? See the apostrophe after the word God? That’s an English language construct that you are referring to a SINGLE god and it is a PROPER NAME.

Struggling with your own sentence structure dolt?

A polytheist would scratch his head at the question about a “God’s existence”.
Which god are you talking about? Many gods exist…Zeus, Apollo, Venus…but no…I’ve never heard of Kami…

At which point an exclusive tri-theist…(i.e YOU), will need to disagree and explain that NO, only one god, and two sub-gods, really exist.

But please, continue to backpedal on your unicycle while you juggle the framing of your “axiom” in these posts.

Here, why not end the charade, and just take a further step back and say…

“Something exists”

Then we can all agree with your logical brilliance and go home!

Like I said, when you stop arguing with my bias and address my argument, maybe we can get beyond the kindergarten stage of argumentation, Mr. Nicholson.

[LGM]

Like I said, when you stop arguing with my bias and address my argument, maybe we can get beyond the kindergarten stage of argumentation, Mr. Nicholson.

Your bias is your argument.

Try again.

Make your "generic axiomatic" god claim again. Try and use your superior, post-kindergarten sentence structure and logic this time.

You can't.

Does an invisible monster exist Cleo? Yes or No?

LGM
...perhaps he hasn't seen the animated movie...

[Cleombrotus]

Your bias is your argument.

Try again.

Make your "generic axiomatic" god claim again. Try and use your superior, post-kindergarten sentence structure and logic this time.

You can't.

Does an invisible monster exist Cleo? Yes or No?

LGM
...perhaps he hasn't seen the animated movie...

LGMan,

Do you seriously think this is what can be called rebuttal?

This is infantile. Now you're rambling. Get a grip, man.