The origins of atheism

[Davian]

Scientists want to smell your armpits.

What they want to do in their free time is none of my business.

 

[Davian]

1. I gave you the definition.
2. You cannot test what is beyond your capability. You are not equipped.

You failed to provide a coherent, testable definition. You have failed to show that your claims are of significance.

3. Good men gathered to form a more perfect union. Then you came along and don't like the fact that they believed in God. Sad story.

You have misrepresented what I have said. I don't care if they believe in pixies and Bigfoot, as long as they don't try to embed their beliefs into the government and education systems.

4. "Him" who? ...Just messing with you
5. If I went by interpretations, I would line up with some denomination. But I don't. If you are not able to put me in a box, how are you able to make such a claim?

Equivocation fail. I did not equate interpretation with a particular religion/sect/cult/etc. I was referring to your personal interpretation of your bible.

6. How many times do I have to say, I DO NOT BELIEVE?

Are you not a Christian?

7. My answer went over your head. A pattern, I should say.

Or, a swing and a miss. A pattern, I should say.

 

[Davian]

1. I DO NOT BELIEVE.

Are you now an atheist? That was sudden.

2. I gave the answer. Must I repeat everything? ... Spirit is the essence of God. In a person, it is evidence of being "of" God.

So how do we test this, to see that you are not just making this up?

3. Over your head again.

A swing and a miss. You bring no joy to Mudville.

4. If I know God and you do not, consider yourself. Which of course, is what you are doing.

If you "know God", and the best you can do is to be argumentative, consider me sceptical.

 

[Davian]

Is all news a fallacy with you, or just the news you don't understand?

Only "news" that is presented in a fallacious manner.

 

[Davian]

CORRECTION: You cannot see what you cannot imagine.

I cannot imagine what you cannot coherently describe and define.

 

[Davian]

Good question. The point is more that it is not something you can find outwardly. But, you need to look for it inwardly, because that is the only place one can find God. It is not that God is in you, but that His kingdom is within you. It is given to all people, that they may come to God, to enter into His presence...but you must approach Him.

Do you send letters to Santa?

 

[ScottA]

My "within" is telling me you're full of it. Great, with that out of the way I can move on to worrying about actual issues rather than made up stuff.

What you do not realize...is the world is what is made up ("created")...perhaps you have read the story, it's true. Welcome to fairyland.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is all news a fallacy with you, or just the news you don't understand?

So are you denying that an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy or not?

 

[yesyoushould]

Atheism is the lack of belief in God. Jesus says it perfectly, those that don't believe in God, are already damned.

John 3:18KJV not the fake asv.

 

[ScottA]

I cannot imagine what you cannot coherently describe and define.

Why do you keep doing that?

Einstein said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'

 

[ScottA]

Do you send letters to Santa?

Why do you keep doing that?

Einstein said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'

 

[ScottA]

So are you denying that an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy or not?

If I follow your question and what appears to be a double negative...any appeal to, or limited to, the natural realm, about the supernatural realm, is a futile.

 

[Davian]

Why do you keep doing that?

Einstein said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'

Why do you keep doing that?

Einstein said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'

Einstein was right, if you keep making the same claims, in the same form, in the same place, you will get the same results.

Einstein also said, "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

 

[ScottA]

You failed to provide a coherent, testable definition. You have failed to show that your claims are of significance.

You have misrepresented what I have said. I don't care if they believe in pixies and Bigfoot, as long as they don't try to embed their beliefs into the government and education systems.

Equivocation fail. I did not equate interpretation with a particular religion/sect/cult/etc. I was referring to your personal interpretation of your bible.

Are you not a Christian?

Or, a swing and a miss. A pattern, I should say.

1. If an adult answers coherently to a baby, but the baby does not understand. Should the adult speak baby talk, or wait until the baby matures? Meanwhile, your crying is just annoying.
2. The beliefs you fear, where there first, and have not been removed.
3. I don't "interpret" the bible.
4. You are repeating again. Yes, I am a Christian.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If I follow your question and what appears to be a double negative...any appeal to, or limited to, the natural realm, about the supernatural realm, is a futile.

It's not a double negative. It's not even remotely a double negative.

So are you saying that logical fallacies don't apply when discussing a god? Because if that's the case, there's no reason for you to be posting in the Philosophy section, since it deals with... Philosophy...

And it also means that there's no point in any of us discussing anything with you at all, since it's ultimately futile.

 

[ScottA]

Einstein was right, if you keep making the same claims, in the same form, in the same place, you will get the same results.

Einstein also said, "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Fair enough.

If you see the word "Duplicate" in my answers to your repeated comments and questions, it will be evidence that it is you who are doing in the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

 

[Davian]

Fair enough.

If you see the word "Duplicate" in my answers to your repeated comments and questions, it will be evidence that it is you who are doing in the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

I am not expecting a different result.

 

[ScottA]

So are you saying that logical fallacies don't apply when discussing a god? Because if that's the case, there's no reason for you to be posting in the Philosophy section, since it deals with... Philosophy...

And it also means that there's no point in any of us discussing anything with you at all, since it's ultimately futile.

That's correct, God exist above the plain of worldly logic. But that does not mean talk of God does not belong here or anywhere else, or that it is philosophy. It means, just the opposite, that everything else is [only] philosophy.

Futility would mean there is no way, and yet there is a way to discuss God. It is philosophy that is futile. Discussion of God demands the abandonment of philosophy...and conjecture, and speculation, etc.

What remains, is what has been happening down through all of recorded history: the building of one Godly fact upon another, and God showing himself to those who participate. No one is excluded, unless they choose not to participate...in which case, life is simply organic and not spiritual.

 

[ScottA]

I am not expecting a different result.

-Duplicate- (That was fast!)

 

[Davian]

1. If an adult answers coherently to a baby, but the baby does not understand. Should the adult speak baby talk, or wait until the baby matures? Meanwhile, your crying is just annoying.

You fail again to provide a coherent, testable definition, and throw in an insult. Is that a Christian thing, to insult those that disagree with you?

2. The beliefs you fear,

Can you read minds?

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

where there first,

The argument from antiquity is a fallacy.

and have not been removed.

In my country, fortunately, they have become just a side note. My daughter's high school class spent a day on religious creationism, as a curiosity.

3. I don't "interpret" the bible.

Of course you do.

4. You are repeating again. Yes, I am a Christian.

Then it is your beliefs that you are presenting here.