The atheist thread

[Thue]

And now, for some content. A funny criticism of a CNN segment.

This is not meant to convince - he is shooting fish in a barrel. It is just that he is doing it in such an entertaining way.

His points are so obvious that one would normally only find them as part of a strawman argument. But he is actually just responding to a seriously meant discussion, which took place on CNN, no less.

[Thue]

Originally posted by Starchild
I basically had to admit my limitations. While the human mind can conceive and understand the universe in all its glory and subtle beauty, anything that could be called God is outside our frame of reference. I can't prove or disprove whether such a being exists so I lead my life based on how I interpret the evidence to hand. That evidence right now seems to me to be a universe rather indifferent to our existence and where morality springs from human nature and society.

My bolding.

I agree that the universe is an amazing place, and we probably understand very little. What I have a problem with is making stuff up about things without backing in reality.

About the impossibility of proving or disproving the existance of god, see Russell's teapot for why assuming his non-existance is reasonable.

[Jon Miller]

But you seem to miss the point that assuming God's existance is also reasonable.

And there was no doubt in anyone's mind about you being an atheist, you have posted mastubatory stuff on the topic before.

Jon Miller

[Thue]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
But you seem to miss the point that assuming God's existance is also reasonable.

Depending on the definition of the god which is believed in I may disagree. Some definitions are unreasonable, IMO.

But we are not going to come to an agreement here, so drop that...

[Jon Miller]

It's that your response seemed to be to something entirely different than what Starchild posted. You were just attacking a strawman... which is why I added the masturbatory comment since that seems to be what you appreciate.

Jon Miller

[Thue]

I do not think my response was off the mark.

Starchild had said he was no longer sure of his once steadfast atheism. I asked why, and he responded with what I quoted.

I evaluated what he said, to see if my position was unreasonable, if there was reason not to be a steadfast atheist. My response pointed out why I think being a steadfast atheist was reasonable.

This has nothing to do with masturbation, when put in context.

[Jon Miller]

He said impossible to prove or disprove, but did not say it was unreasonable to be an atheist.

Then you respond with an argument about why it was reasonable to be an atheist.

You addressed something completely different than what he said.

Jon Miller

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Oooh, you latterday Octave Cremazie, you.

I don't shave my Occams for just any old handsome Quebecois.

He's making you drool, isn't he ?

Monsieur, you are a cunning linguist.

I'm afraid that Métro Crémazie would be my preferred method of 'cunning' :

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
But you seem to miss the point that assuming God's existance is also reasonable.

I disagree. But I do agree that evangelical atheism is obnoxious.

[Sandman]

I like Deism. I've got no moral problem with God starting the universe but then being actively involved afterwards raises some troubling questions for me.

Yeah. The absurd goings-on detailed in various religious texts do not inspire confidence.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Most atheists don't bother with reading philosophical texts on God, or medieval wisdom on monastic life, etc.

That's why most of their arguments are just the kind of crap that 12-year olds ask when they're old enough to understand that litteral interpretation of sacred texts obviously doesn't work, but are yet too ignorant of culture to try to seek answers beyond common discourse.

I'm probably not a believer per se, but I reckon that St. Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza, (and plenty others) are much more intelligent than your typical 'if God created the world then who created God ?' folks.

Hey, FakeBoris made a smart post! Lord be praised!

[Nubclear]

Wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

There are plenty of dumb religionists who claim God must exist because something must have created the world. Infinite descent is a perfectly valid argument againt them.

[Fake Boris]

Hey Kuci, next time remember that with PROPRIO DIRECT, there is no intermediate !

[Kuciwalker]

Does proprio direct mean first cause or first mover? 'Cause I don't think you meant "direct landlord."