- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:00 am to AUveritas
quote:
atheist contention that God is impossible
Nope.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:00 am to Brazos
quote:
Please explain to me how atheist are more prone to use logic and reason
Belief in an invisible sky fairy is a de facto abandonment of logic and reason.
You're welcome!
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:02 am to AUveritas
You continue to equate demonstrating the impossible with proving a negative.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:05 am to AUveritas
quote:It proves you don't understand the concept you're trying to refute.
It's proof that you can prove something doesn't exist.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:06 am to AUveritas
quote:Which God? Do you mean the God of the Bible? Or, do you mean some kind of creative being capable of creating a universe? Or, about a million other variations?
Yes. And given the atheist contention that God is impossible,
quote:LOL. Wut.
it's not impossible to prove He doesn't exist
In any case, which God?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:07 am to Brazos
quote:
Please explain to me how atheist are more prone to use logic and reason. I think it's the opposite.
I don't know who is more prone to logic and reason but I would be happy to go down an atheist vs theist "checklist" and compare who is actually using logic and who is using belief.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 8:08 am
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:07 am to northshorebamaman
You can change definitions and standards after the fact as much as you want. If God is possible, then athiesm is an intellectually dishonest belief system (compared to agnosticism at least)and if the existence of God is not possible, proving His non-existence is possible.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:10 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
I don't know who is more prone to logic and reason but I would be happy to go down a list of atheist vs theist "checklist" and compare who is actually using logic and who is using belief.
Well. To be fair. I find the primary assertion in this thread incompatible with reality.
I've met many completely illogical atheists and many perfectly logical religious people.
It is a fallacy to assert that failure of logic in one area means one always fails at logic AND, it's a fallacy to assert getting one thing right means one is excellent at logic.
This is why I'm the atheist who generally, fricking dislikes atheists. Because too many atheists think their atheism, by default, makes them smart people.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:10 am to AUveritas
quote:Which God?
You can change definitions and standards after the fact as much as you want. If God is possible, then athiesm is an intellectually dishonest belief system
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:11 am to ShortyRob
For the sake of this discussion, any.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:13 am to AUveritas
quote:
niversity Survey On Religion: 'Almost No Atheists Voted For Trump'
You can change definitions and standards after the fact as much as you want. If God is possible, then athiesm is an intellectually dishonest belief system (compared to agnosticism at least)and if the existence of God is not possible, proving His non-existence is possible.
I respect your faith but you're unable to demonstrate an understand between proving a negative and inventing impossible scenarios. Maybe Buckeye is interested in continuing the discussion with you but I don't see any value in it.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:14 am to AUveritas
quote:ANY creative being?
For the sake of this discussion, any.
Well yeah. ANY creative being is impossible to rule out and therefore, possible.
But, somehow, I don't think that if I positively asserted that there was some supremely advanced being that created our universe and then never looked at it again, that ANY religious person would say I just described "God" as they see him.
So. They'd almost certainly still call me an atheist.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:15 am to ShortyRob
quote:
It is a fallacy to assert that failure of logic in one area means one always fails at logic AND, it's a fallacy to assert getting one thing right means one is excellent at logic.
This is why I'm the atheist who generally, fricking dislikes atheists. Because too many atheists think their atheism, by default, makes them smart people.
This is the first thread in eight years that I've even mentioned my beliefs but I'm not going to pretend his argument isn't trash.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:16 am to northshorebamaman
In this discussion, proving a negative has taken on the philosophical definition of proving that something does not exist. Something. No standards, definitions,etc. of what "something" is. I showed that it was easy to prove something doesn't exist. Now that I've done that, you guys want to change definitions and meanings.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:17 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
This is the first thread in eight years that I've even mentioned my beliefs but I'm not going to pretend his argument isn't trash.
Oh. His argument is trash. (I assume you mean AU's).
My post was more general. I just find that in general, my fellow atheists are insufferable pricks who falsely believe the fact they're atheists, by default, makes them smarter than anyone who isn't.
AT BEST, it only proves they're smarter on ONE thing.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:18 am to AUveritas
quote:
You can change definitions and standards after the fact as much as you want.
This is a cornerstone of religion, actually.
quote:
athiesm
I'm nearly 100% sure you don't know what this word means.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:18 am to AUveritas
quote:You showed you don't understand the concept being discussed.
. I showed that it was easy to prove something doesn't exist.
quote:Nope.
Now that I've done that, you guys want to change definitions and meanings.
You simply didn't adhere to the one that already existed. No one "changed" anything.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:20 am to AUveritas
quote:
I showed that it was easy to prove something doesn't exist.
No you didn't. Your two examples didn't even do that.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:20 am to ShortyRob
I posted the definition. It's exactly what I'm claiming it is. Feel free to post a different one.
Page 12 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News