Search results

Then I would propose that we change our argument to something more along the lines of: 1. We have psychological and social explanations for religious beliefs 2. There is no positive evidence for the existence of God (apart from those explained by psychology or sociology) 3. Therefore God does...

This is a beautiful way of putting it. Oh without a doubt. I am pleased you called me on it for this reason. There definitely is a bit of overlap which is why confusion between the two could lead to fallacious reasoning. Well possibly, but such a concept is hugely different from what most...

What an embarrassing typo! I did know this, I promise. Thanks for the point out though, I've fixed up the original post now :) Such an argument I could at least understand, but Tatecress14's conclusion is not that God does not exist, rather it is that we are God. Even under inductive logic...

Thinking hard and not getting far here... A description of the concept "cat" can choose to include things which are both uniquely related to "cat" and also those things which are related to a myriad of things. There is no rule within description, that forces one to uniquely identify an...

This seems logically contradictory to me. How can Jesus be the one true God whilst also being a mere prophet like so many others? The bible contains both an Old and New Testament. The Old is compiled from books written before Jesus was born. The new is a compilation of books written after...

I'm going to assume for a moment that you are not trolling and try to actually delve into your logic a bit. I'm not sure what you mean by this. How is the bible an impression of a god? In what sense do you mean impression? Do mean to say that a god impressed himself upon the writers of the book...

I think I understand your question a little further although if I miss the point, I will need you to clarify further :P Essentially you are asking "How is the blame for Adams sin literally transferred from parent to child if each soul is a separate entity from that parent from which they...

I feel quite privileged that you would specifically seek out my opinion on such questions, although I must confess that I feel quite under qualified in answering these questions with much sense of assurance. After thinking about this question, I think it may be far deeper reaching in its...

Thought I might quickly drop a line and recommend some reading and alternatives to a Calvinistic pre-destined doctrine. As far as I can see there are four main contenders (views) in the Christian realm on Gods knowledge of the future and the reconciliation of freewill within that. You have...

And so the circle begins again... :p Edit* I should probably explain a little more. Plug, ghosts back into our original conversation in place of "fairies" and I think you will find we end up at the same point. Also should mention that I did not mean to imply that implications in this sense are...

Fortunately, I was only subject to a mandatory 50hrs of driving when I got my L's. I am pleased to say that my brother has now legitimately completed 120hrs of driving though. Always nice to see people doing things the honest way even when no one will notice.

So effectively what you're saying is: I don't see any reason for the belief in God, nor do I have any reason to disbelieve in God and so I regard myself as an agnostic that errs on the side of disbelief. One could always ask, why you err or on that side, but I am happy to leave it, as this makes...

Ha ha :P I wouldn't say that the antithesis of theism is lack of belief in God. The theist believes that God does exist, and so the antithesis to this position is the belief that God does not exist. Why does atheism need to be a middle ground when we have agnosticism? It's as though you want...

Ha ha, yeah very much so. This is why many people are labeled as trolls when they are simply expressing their opinions.

You originally wanted me to explain why I believe Gods non-existence has further reaching implications than a fairies non existence. I did so by outlining 4 implications that Gods non-existence has for us. That is 1. meaning 2. value 3. purpose and 4. forgiveness. You agreed with point 1's...

A troll is basically someone that goes through forums and posts messages only to annoy other users and encourage arguement. Trolling is what a troll does. Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

And so a definition of atheism that defines not only atheists, but agnostics, dogs, cats erasers and gofers cannot be used as a definition at all. It does not define anything.

Just want to quickly point out before addressing your point, that your admittance to this implication of Gods non-existence serves as proof that the implications for Gods non-existence are further reaching than that of a fairies. Hence, I feel on this point alone that I have been able to show...

Even under your definitions, the agnostic still lacks a belief in God, it's just that they also have a lack of knowledge of Gods existence. Surely the lack of knowledge entails the lack of belief?

As I have expressed, I find such a definition of atheism inadequate as there would be numerous things labeled atheists under such a view - agnostics, cats, dogs, erasers, gofers, unicorns etc. I apologize if it is annoying, but I will continue to point out invalid logic where I recognize it.