To Those Who Claim A Religion: What Does Atheism Mean/Stand For?

[Don Corleone]

To use any of those arguments is a logical fallacy. The Cosmological Argument is probably the more illogical of them all. The fact is it is unknown. To use the Cosmological argument one could easily apply the First Cause to God himself rendering the entire argument null. When it is insisted that God is exempt, now we have special pleading which is another fallacy.

No...theists define God as being independent of spacetime and therefore is not bounded by the laws of the universe. If we ultimately conclude that God created this universe, why would we not be inclined to say that God isn't trapped inside his own creation? To conclude otherwise is what's really a logical fallacy. This is the definition mind you...for an argument to even be reasonable, the theist concludes that God is infinite and eternal. Otherwise, the description of God becomes obsolete.

The Teleological Argument is based on a perception and follows an argument of poor design. Again, the Teleological Argument could be turned onto God as well saying something infinitely more complex must have created it, ad infinitum. Once again the fall back position is special pleading which is not logical.

Once again, most theists define God as being the Creator of all, and eternal which basically means that God is not bounded by time.

I'd encourage you to use paragraphs more often because it helps the person you're debating with read easier and it's more organized.

There are a lot of arguments which can be put forth, but just because you can argue something (logically or illogically) doesn't mean it must be true. This is the reason for so many competing ideas of God or Gods.

What's ironic is your post is the actual fallacy. You've committed a strawman fallacy because you're arguing against a comment I didn't make regardless if I believe in that comment or not. You asked for evidence (which I defined as support of a claim) and I provided it. I didn't argue whether God existed or not, I argued the fact that there is evidence (based on reason) and I provided what those reason-based support were.

All of those arguments are not proof or evidence either, they are just what they say, philosophical "arguments". Evidence would require something to measure against or to test. While those arguments support the idea of a God existing, they do not prove it or supply evidence.

Yes but evidence is simply a sign or proof of a claim. If you do not agree, then define evidence.

Every religion on the planet can claim fulfillment of prophecies and sound reasoning behind their subscribed faith, but not all can be correct. Choosing one over the other is merely guesswork at this point.

I disagree. Not all religions can "claim" fulfillment of a prophecy if the prophecy is not fulfilled. Which is why I view it to be incredible how the Bible has fulfilled so many prophecies.

But we're swaying from the topic. This isn't about theism this is about atheism.

[THe TRiNiTY]

So the theory of gravity is just speculation? No. Atheism is meant for the disbelief of religion and God, skepticism is for the unsure.

First of all, theory has more then one meaning. The point I'm trying to prove is that the definition you have assigned for the usage of the word is dependant on the subject being discussed.

Gravity is a theory, for the record. But theory in science isn't the same as it might be for me or you. A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be 'proved', it can only be 'disproved' by experiment. This is exactly what makes a theory scientific.

[THe TRiNiTY]

1. The Big Bang isn't "when" life started. It's the evolution of our universe starting with its initial expansion up until the formation of stars and galaxies and onwards.

2. Please provide which verse in the Bible points to the reference of the "age of the Universe" or "beginning of life".

3. The Bible was never meant to be a science book by any means and it's absurd to suggest so or to conclude that science is what it relies on.

4. Not all people (such as Catholics) interpret the Bible as literal as other Christian denominations (such as Protestants). The Bible is known for its use of allegory and symbolism (especially within the New Testament with the parables of Christ).

1. I didn't say it's when life started. Im saying that they wouldn't match up, time-wise.

2. If you honestly thought that the Bible didn't say that, you wouldn't cover your ass with number 4.

3. I agree. It's absurd to think that the Book would rely on something as sensible as science.

[Don Corleone]

1. I didn't say it's when life started. Im saying that they wouldn't match up, time-wise.

No? You didn't? Are you sure about that? Then what about this...

the Bible says that life started thousands of years ago.

In other words, when I call you on your own inconsistencies, you say you never said it? Lying isn't the best way to win an argument...

2. If you honestly thought that the Bible didn't say that, you wouldn't cover your ass with number 4.

So for the record, you're refusing to show where it says that in the Bible but yet you expect me to believe that it indeed does? Am I supposed to just trust you in your claims or something?

3. I agree. It's absurd to think that the Book would rely on something as sensible as science.

Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? Science (as a whole) wasn't around during the time the Bible was written. You do know this right? I would hope so...

Secondly, you've totally swayed away from your own topic. You started a thread asking theists what they thought atheism stands for. However, you've shifted so far off topic that you're now arguing against theism...just as I originally said. This is a typical theism vs. atheism thread that will neither change nor progress.

[squealpiggy]

Just a quick point to make: Saying that everything needs a beginning apart from god is all well and good. So I'm going to say that the big bang didn't need a cause, it just happened. That way we don't have to explain god. Win.

[Texanballer]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

[squealpiggy]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

Aquinas' argument seems to be "The existence of god is provable, in that it is not provable and therefore it is. QED."

[THe TRiNiTY]

No? You didn't? Are you sure about that? Then what about this...
In other words, when I call you on your own inconsistencies, you say you never said it? Lying isn't the best way to win an argument...

It's not a lie or an inconcistency. I rushed to a comment. I made a mistake. I meant that to the majority of believers (especially ones I've talked with), think the world began thousands of years ago.

There's a difference between a lie and letting words get away from you.

So for the record, you're refusing to show where it says that in the Bible but yet you expect me to believe that it indeed does? Am I supposed to just trust you in your claims or something?

Lol. You could be right. That all knowing, all telling book, might not have ANY references to how we got here and how long ago that was.

Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? Science (as a whole) wasn't around during the time the Bible was written. You do know this right? I would hope so...

science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

So, none of this was around when the Bible was produced? Interesting......

You can say 'as a whole' all you'd like. However, science has always been around. It's simply the answers we give things with the evidence we're given. Different name/tools doesn't change what it is.

Secondly, you've totally swayed away from your own topic. You started a thread asking theists what they thought atheism stands for. However, you've shifted so far off topic that you're now arguing against theism...just as I originally said. This is a typical theism vs. atheism thread that will neither change nor progress.

A topic to me, is a starting point. Where the discussion goes is up to the people involved in the discussion. If we're not arguing in a negative way, whats the problem with that? To me, this isn't negative. I never debate someone to convince them. I'm trying to convince the people reading the discussion.

Furthermore, I asked for the definition of Atheism. Not the different between theists and Atheists. I'm fine with that. However, you can't say I was the only one swaying off topic.

[Don Corleone]

Just a quick point to make: Saying that everything needs a beginning apart from god is all well and good. So I'm going to say that the big bang didn't need a cause, it just happened. That way we don't have to explain god. Win.

Let's be real here. The Big Bang accounts for everything of our current universe. It does not say whether God does or doesn't exist. Furthermore, it does not mention anything outside our known universe; it's merely the evolution of our universe which initially expanded from an infinitely dense point to the formation of our universe today.

We as theists are claiming God is "outside our universe" and "not bounded by spacetime". You know...similar to how the multiverse theory predicts that parallel universes may not share our physical laws. So if multiverse advocates are commenting on universes outside our own, why would there be an exception to any other thing outside our universe such as a Supernatural Force? If it fits well with the topic of "What caused our universe?", then why not find it sensible to discuss? Or are you just being superficial because science rarely (if ever) attempts to examine anything related to the Supernatural nor takes it serious?

[Run]

Just a quick point to make: Saying that everything needs a beginning apart from god is all well and good. So I'm going to say that the big bang didn't need a cause, it just happened. That way we don't have to explain god. Win.

Yeah but even you know that's ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous as in fact believing in the Leprechuans you speak of.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!