Atheism (2)

[Dave Ellis]

Good morning Mr. Eudaimonist. I hope you are enjoying this beautiful day wherever you are.

To address your reply, all that needs to be said is this: I never have espoused that atheists are unable to be moral creatures. Many do have a sense of morality and do live moral lives that is in some cases, far more commendable than people who do believe in God! What I have said, and I shall repeat it again, is that atheism as a worldview is amoral. This simply means that the idea of morality has no place in the atheistic worldview.

I find it quite ironic that men like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer understand more completely the logical outworkings of an atheistic worldview than many of the "enlightened thinkers" and new atheists of today. From the things that both of these men have said with regards to their atheistic worldview, they understand that amorality is living without adherence to morals. This was their justification for committing the rape and murder of young boys and women.

Am I saying all atheists are amoral. By no means. I am saying that their worldview is amoral. There are atheists who live as law abiding productive citizens. There are atheists that dont. That is my point.

What is it you don't understand about the fact that Atheism is NOT a worldview?

 

[Dave Ellis]

no I know God exists everywhere,

I am just saying to you to prove that He doesn't exist everywhere.

In other words show me one place where God is not.

God is not anywhere.

Hopefully that provides you with enough examples.

 

[Dave Ellis]

prove it though,

like I said you can't prove a negative. You have to have absolute knowledge. It doesn't matter if God is omnipresent or not!

We are not claiming to have ultimate knowledge, you are.

You have made the claim that God exists, which is a claim of knowledge.

You have not provided any evidence or reason to accept your claim, so therefore we do not accept it.

We are justified in our position, you are not.

 

[Dave Ellis]

because only an agent does not need causality, and an agent is personality.

so because there is causation in the universe and because we all came from somewhere, we conclude God did it.

Otherwise you are forced to believe in a huge bang that exploded itself out of God knows what. And all the while this force is an agent of personality that Has as much knowledge as we do. Just nonsense and confusion.

What justification do you have to conclude that God did it? There is no more reason to accept your conclusion, than the idea than the Easter bunny did it.

The most reasonable position to take is that we don't know what caused the Big Bang. There are a number of scientific models (all of which are more plausible than God did it), however we don't know which, or if any are correct as of yet.

So, the intellectually honest position to take is that we don't know the answer yet, and continue our research into the subject.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My stance is not that I have evidence that God doesn't exist - my stance is that I have no good evidence that he does.

that is a fallacy

Evidence against one position is not evidence FOR the other. Because they could both be wrong!

thats an argument from ignorance. Read the last post it provides the definition for you.

Wrong, the question if something exists or not, it is a binary position. It either exists, or it doesn't.

A total lack of evidence for the existence of something, is evidence that the proposed thing does not exist.

That's not enough to confirm such a thing does not exist, but it strongly points to that conclusion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

but I dont' want to, because it's an athiest forum. And we should talk about athiesm. So prove He doesn't exist. It's your day, so shine! Shine!

We don't need to, that's not what the Atheistic position is.

We just simply do not accept your claims, because there is no justifiable reason to.

 

[Dave Ellis]

what makes you think man authored the Bible? Couldn't it have been a miracle?

science cannot explain miracles (generally speaking) or they would not be miraculous.

Sure, it could have been.... but what reason do you have to assume that is was a miracle?

 

[madaz]

It's so much cooler on our side though

There are too many "sides" to religion, and too many "sides" to christianity. Each "side" believing they are the right "side"
Not all "sides" can be right. If the deity for one religion revealed itself as the one and only deity then the majority of religions will be proven wrong.

It much cooler not believing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's so much cooler on our side though

That's a matter of perspective.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Skavau]

but I dont' want to, because it's an athiest forum. And we should talk about athiesm. So prove He doesn't exist. It's your day, so shine! Shine!

Gradyll. I'll say this just once.

Atheism is not predicated on completely disproving a God or all possible God(s). Atheism is not even an assertion. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God(s). It is a descriptive term solely. It says little about anyone it describes other than a brief description on their perspective of God(s).

So your question is frankly loaded and does not address what atheists actually are.

 

[madaz]

it's an athiest forum. And we should talk about athiesm. So prove He doesn't exist. It's your day, so shine! Shine!

Then ask questions about Atheism.

Instead you are using this thread to ask Atheists to prove a negative regarding someones religious beliefs. Thats NOT Atheism.

Do you know its impossible to answer your question "So prove He doesn't exist." ?

I believe you do.

Yet you continue to ask this impossible question.

I'm going to turn things around for you so you may understand the stupidity of your question better.

As a christian you would obviously be Atheistic towards the following god/goddesses.
Apollo, Tranquillitas, Hercules, Epona, Invidia, Salicia and Tiberinus.

So my question to you is disprove at least one It's your day, so shine! Shine!

You cannot disprove the presence of these deities can you?

So stop asking an impossible question.

 

[madaz]

Gradyll. I'll say this just once.

Atheism is not predicated on completely disproving a God or all possible God(s). Atheism is not even an assertion. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God(s). It is a descriptive term solely. It says little about anyone it describes other than a brief description on their perspective of God(s).

So your question is frankly loaded and does not address what atheists actually are.

Although you are saying this once Gradyll has been informed of these facts on numerous occasions, yet Gradyll continues to redefine Atheism and ask loaded questions. You my friend are banging your head into a brick wall with Gradyll.

 

[Skavau]

Gradyll has been informed of these facts on numerous occasions yet Gradyll continues to redefine Atheism and ask loaded questions. You my friend are banging your head into a brick wall with Gradyll.

Indeed. He appears so consistent and petty with it that you wonder if he is doing it on purpose. A funny thing to note given here I myself have collected infractions for minor 'offenses'.

 

[createdtoworship]

even if you can't disprove His existence, then prove something.

for example if you define atheism for me, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Skavau]

even if you can't disprove His existence, then prove something.

for example if you define atheism for me, I would greatly appreciate it.

Atheism has been defined to you. Repeatedly.

If you did not listen then, why will you listen now?

 

[createdtoworship]

Atheism has been defined to you. Repeatedly.

If you did not listen then, why will you listen now?

thats a strawman, to weaken the stand of an opposition.

now please answer what athiesm is.

 

[Skavau]

thats a strawman, to weaken the stand of an opposition.

No it isn't. You've been told what atheism is repeatedly. You didn't listen and did the textual equivalent of petulant thumb waggling.

now please answer what athiesm is.

Atheism is a descriptive term which refers to people who do not believe in the existence of a God(s).

 

[createdtoworship]

No it isn't. You've been told what atheism is repeatedly. You didn't listen and did the textual equivalent of petulant thumb waggling.


Atheism is a descriptive term which refers to people who do not believe in the existence of a God(s).

now, what is the technical definition of atheism, you haven't ever given me that. Only one guy did (and I aswered it).

 

[Skavau]

now, what is the technical definition of atheism, you haven't ever given me that. Only one guy did (and I aswered it).

That is the definition of atheism.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is the definition of atheism.

what do athiests believe then, how about that!