XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:50:31 -0400, August Rode wrote:
.
>On 13/10/2014 7:06 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:33:49 -0400, August Rode wrote:
>
>
>
>>> That's correct but that isn't an answer to my question. Not even
>>> remotely. Here it is again in a slightly different form:
>>>
>>> Does belief in the truth of a claim mean that
>>> the claim is true?
>>>
>>>> When you
>>>> demand natural explanations for everything how is this resolved?
>>>
>>> I'll say the same thing to you that I've told others, that I'd accept a
>>> sound argument in place of natural explanations.
>>
>> What arguments would you accept? What arguments do you reject?
>
>I accept sound arguments. I reject arguments which have undecidable or
>false premises or which have logical fallacies, i.e. unsound arguments.
>Is that too hard for you?
You didn't give examples, so a person must try to read your mind for you
and
try to figure out what you think you're trying to talk about. What sort of
sound
arguments are you imagining? Is it "too hard for" me to try to figure it out
FOR
YOU and explain it TO YOU when you apparently can't do it for yourself? It
seems
it's "to hard for" both of us.
>>>>>>>> In my view, It's strictly an anti-religious
>>>>>>>> proclivity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the same way that continuing to claim that God exists is a religious
>>>>>>> proclivity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who is this in reference to? Who _claims_ that God exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless I miss my guess, *all* Christians do. There's really not much
>>>>> reason to be a Christian if God doesn't exist, is there?
>>>>>
>>>> Christians _believe_ God exist.
>>>
>>> Many of them _claim_ that God exists. However, for those that don't make
>>> such a claim overtly, believing that God exists is identical to
>>> believing that the claim "God exists" is true. No matter which way you
>>> cut it, Christians hold a definite position on the claim that God
>>> exists. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see much difference between
>>> making a claim and believing a claim to be true.
>>
>> So the same can be said for atheists.
>
>By definition, atheists reject the claim that God exists.
Are you ashamed to admit some atheists believe God does not exist? Are you
ashamed to admit you believe God does not exist?
>>>> They cannot prove he does.
>>>
>>> Correct. That doesn't seem to stop many of them from trying, though.
>>> Some of them brandish the argument from design as if it was intended to
>>> demonstrate something.
>>
>> Similarly atheists brandish...uh...nothing as if it was intended to
>> demonstrate something.
>
>Hunh??
Atheists have no real argument much less anything to back it up, which is
why I pointed out what I did.
>>>> It's a matter
>>>> primarily of faith.
>>
>> Again the same is true of atheists. All they have is their own faith that
>> there is no God associated with this planet, and some that there is no God
>> associated with any planet anywhere in the universe.
>
>If that is a claim that you support, i.e. that God or gods exist, I
>invite you to make the argument for it.
I don't claim that Gods exist. I'm a weak agnostic. I will say I believe
it's much more likely that in some places there are beings in the universe who
can be considered Gods than that there are not any anywhere. I'll also say that
so far from my pov it seems more likely than not that there is a God or/and
gods
associated with Earth.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
