God is santa for adults.

Post Reply New Topic

*yawn*

If you want a theist proof that will convince you, I agree I can't provide one. But if you can provide a decent argument for non-existence, I'm prepared to inspect it, and potentially even accept it. But I don't see one offered. I'm going to make the crazy assumption that "I never aimed to provide proof" means you don't intend to provide one either.

A strawman argument rewords an opponent's position in a way that is inaccurate, so that it can be shot down easily, giving the illusion of victory. To be absolutely honest, I've had trouble at many points figuring out what you're even talking about. Perhaps this is some fault inherent in me; who knows. But if you were to present an argument, and do so in clear wording, I wouldn't have to paraphrase your text in an effort to make it readable.

If you want to debate an issue in clear terms, let me suggest somewhere other than the Haven. If you start another thread with a well-forumulated argument of any of the forms "There is no God because...", "God is unlikely to exist because...", or "Because theists believe/think/do X, they are giant doodoo heads who should be strung up and shot," in an appropriate forum, I'd certainly follow.

Or are premises and conclusions on next semester's syllabus?

-You're still being dishonest. I've clearly stated that the weak-atheist position is that theism is unlikely. I also mentioned earlier on that some versions of theism cannot be entirely falsified--a post you responded to. So no, I never intended to provide a proof. Either you keep insisting that weak-atheists provide absolute proof rather than evidence or you conflate evidence with proof. I have explained why dismissing anything less than absolute proof is unreasonable.
-I have no problem with theism per se, but if you wish to engage in a debate, or for that matter, any exchange of ideas, some questioning is unavoidable. That you are so defensive about it in the post I last responded to is what pisses me off, not to mention the fact that you are willfully dishonest in taking everything out of context.
-I didn't bother with premise-conclusion form arguments because the content is already fairly detailed. Laying out the premises and conclusions would just make things more overwhelming, not to mention the fact that the gist of the arguments is fairly clear.
-My primary focus is on why dismissing anything short of absolute proof as long as it favors theism is unreasonable. Basically, I intended to make a case for weak-atheism, by addressing the broader issues first.
-You've failed to rebut Occam's Razor. Of course there are are other arguments including arguments from evolved minds, argument from confusion, argument from physical minds, problems with non-temporal minds, Quentin Smith's atheistic cosmological argument, incompatible-properties arguments, etc.--too many to analyze in detail. Again, I wished to focus on the broader issues first.

I see no reason to bother with these arguments until you've explained how theism is epistemically justified without evidence, much less how it can be justified in the presence of contrary evidence.
-You've especially failed in having committed the tu ququoe fallacy.

I'm not religious but I think you've missed something here. Given the example above, people don't necessarily pray for the injured person's recovery. They pray for the person's spiritual well-being. Yes, their god should know the person is in a bad situation, but they're not asking for recovery. In the end, I think it's just comforting for the person who is doing the praying (and the person prayed for if they are aware).

That how I feel. It's like the question: does the chicken or the egg come first?
I think there is something that is out there spiritually, but I don't want close my mind to other religions if I just pick on (Luckily in Buddhism, it is not neccessary to believe in a higher power)

I agree. Don't forget that most churches are like communities, so sharing a prayer for others is therapeutic, and affirms their faith.

i don't like religion, the idea behind religion isnt a bad one but the way religions are worked out, it's always an us versus them principle every religion says: if you don't join us your afterlife won't be a very pleasant one, in fact they sneakishly threathen you with something that isnt solid, the tell you your afterlife is going to be hell, how could they know, it's so ignorant. i'm not an atheist however, i follow my own beliefs wich have no god nor a holy book, but are complicated in their simplistic ways

im not believing anything except my self(no im not satanist even my avatar is reaper )"prepares for getting crusade partys after by getting scythe sharpened"

YES INDEEDY. i have had a similar experience. i love logic and do not believe it can coexist with any religion.

i believed in god as a child and young adult mostly because it was expected of me and i really wasn't allowed to have my own opinion about it.

as an adult, i lump jesus, santa, and the tooth fairy all into the imaginary category.

You double posted this in PPR, where it belongs, AND here?