|
Post by dlectronic on Jul 5, 2010 23:38:14 GMT -5
To my forum amigo Brent,
It seems you are currently this forum's most vocal non-theist. Call it agnosticism if you will, but essentially, that (agnosticism) is still choosing not to believe in a God. Am I wrong, or do you in fact believe in God?
With that being said, Brent, I was wondering if you might offer us a positive case for atheism. In other words, could you tell me why I should choose to believe in no God, rather than God? I know, I know, you are not a self titled "atheist," but I think it is safe to say that you are more apt to defend an atheist argument rather than a theistic one.
Please note, however, that this renders the burden of proof on you. Please do not make an argument for atheism by saying "why should I trust the Bible?" or something of the sort that passes the burden of proof to the other side. Hopefully you can provide something concise, maybe even in steps?
I ask this all because we have (very much so) heard you express your non-theistic worldview throughout other threads, but I just don't feel we have heard why your views are as such.
Care to give it a shot?
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Jul 6, 2010 0:20:21 GMT -5
To my forum amigo Brent, It seems you are currently this forum's most vocal non-theist. Call it agnosticism if you will, but essentially, that (agnosticism) is still choosing not to believe in a God. Am I wrong, or do you in fact believe in God? The False Dichotomy fallacy, also called the Bifurcation or "black and white" fallacy, is an informal logical fallacy where an individual presents an argument having only few competing alternatives, but in reality there are many more. The fallacy in its general form looks like this: 1.P or Q 2.Not P 3.Therefore Q False dichotomy is not a valid form of induction.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 6, 2010 0:45:00 GMT -5
Best response: Chaos rules and we are all doomed to dust.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Jul 6, 2010 1:12:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Jul 6, 2010 2:15:57 GMT -5
Brent, in all of that, you seemed to pose one positive argument for atheism, namely, the problem of evil. Your "Atheism" pic implied as much. But unfortunately you failed to formulate the argument, or even bother expanding on it at all.
First, please don't skate around the question by naming unfitting fallacies. One can either choose to believe in a deity or not. I demonstrate:
God either: a) exists or b) does not exist.
Brent, there is no third thing between being and non-being. You must acknowledge this in regards to God. Make fun of anybody you want, but at the end of the day, you still do not believe in God.
Rather than throwing hot-headed arguments all over the place, only to then hide behind your well-spent flameshield of agnosticism, please honestly consider: can you please provide a positive case for atheism? Just say no if you don't want to.
Coming from the one who's hot-headed internet pictures imply my faith is irrational, you've yet to make me consider atheism. Perhaps you could elaborate on the problem of evil a bit. There are actual areas of worthwhile discussion there.
Maybe you misunderstood: I am not trying to flame; I am trying to actually discuss, irenically.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 6, 2010 2:41:53 GMT -5
" You know, God don't like ugly, Bishop.
He ain't too fond of pretty, either.
Train, why you think... why you think God allows all this killin' all over the world to happen?
Hmm?
See... See, that's why I don't believe in him.
Well, if you don't believe in him, Bishop Cummings, then...why you care about whether or not God's the one allowin' all the killin' ? "
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Jul 6, 2010 2:56:23 GMT -5
I still cannot grasp how theists can claim that I am pissed, mad, or "hot-headed" in these arguments. You cannot see me typing these messages, you cannot predict my temperament via text. I am incredibly easy-going and care-free, and laugh at pretty much everything whether it's serious or not. Text is like subjective, like LOL see how it changes when I like talk like this like ROFL? Its all about perception, and I guess I am deceptive with how I talk, I know at least Jeremy understands how it is. I TYPE IN CAPS BECAUSE ITS FUNNY NOT BECAUSE I'M SHOUTING
CAPS LOCK f**k YEAH
I have beaten all my arguments to death in the past year or whatever. I have stated multiple times my position and nothing will change. You think I am dodging or whatever, that's cool dude. The only thing you've done is shift the burden of proof onto me, when I have already defended my position vehemently for the longest time. If you really care about discussing this s**t, there are people way more intelligent with all the complexities of argumentation on specific forums. I simplify everything into one sentence which is in my signature. I don't believe is God because there is no justification for it. There is no burden of proof when you have nothing to prove. There is no God to defend when there is no evidence of his existence.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Jul 6, 2010 3:32:05 GMT -5
It's perfectly fine to question God and doubt His existence. If there is a God and an Atheist/Agnostic doesn't believe it, that is perfectly reasonable. If there isn't, it's even more reasonable. That leaves the burden of proof on God himself, and the man's only logical responsibility is to keep an open mind (as one would to some undiscoverd piece of scientific info).
My challenge is, why can't you disbelieve and keep an open mind to other's beliefs at the same time? That's the most reasonable course of action. Your skepticism makes sense, and I have no qualms with it, but you have not found concrete and scientific evidence that your beliefs are better than ours. I admit that I haven't found adequate evidence in the other direction, but it doesn't matter because unlike you, I'm not trying to convince you that my beliefs are better than yours, just to have an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Jul 6, 2010 3:56:01 GMT -5
@ Patrick
Actually, I really am hoping to persuade (or at least be a catalyst of persuasion), because I really feel it is of worth for others to hear (Jesus and the Bible). I recognize that it might sound overused, but I do mean it genuinely.
Ah, and regarding your lack of evidence remark, you ought to check out some William Lane Craig work. His books are good (I am reading a few right now) and his videos offer decent introductory insight to his arguments for God. I'de say though, that there is logical evidence for God. I have found that Craig's work renders Christianity very plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Jul 6, 2010 4:08:58 GMT -5
If you're actually trying to persuade then you are being hypocritical and contradicting. Your God says in your holy book that he will supposedly reveal himself to everyone. You cannot disagree, as I don't know who specifically said it, but said that everyone has a personal experience with God, think it might have been Scott idk
I have nothing to prove. I have nothing to disprove. I believe in reality, that there is reason for everything. Those reasons of which have been discovered are what I care about. Logical explanations for why things happen, why this why that. Only facts are inarguable, anything else is open to interpretation. I like to simplify explanations and understand basic concepts. Explanations in the process of being discovered I really couldn't care less about but it's fun discussing God because my argument is irrefutable (see:sig).
It is impossible to understand an existence in something which doesn't dwell in our universe.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Jul 6, 2010 4:28:45 GMT -5
@ Patrick Actually, I really am hoping to persuade (or at least be a catalyst of persuasion), because I really feel it is of worth for others to hear (Jesus and the Bible). I recognize that it might sound overused, but I do mean it genuinely. Ah, and regarding your lack of evidence remark, you ought to check out some William Lane Craig work. His books are good (I am reading a few right now) and his videos offer decent introductory insight to his arguments for God. I'de say though, that there is logical evidence for God. I have found that Craig's work renders Christianity very plausible. You cannot persuade someone who doesn't want to hear it. That's why Brent can't persuade most of us, and why we can't persuade him. It makes sense to debate Christians in Christian terms and to debate Secularists in secular terms. Common sense is all we can use. The God stuff is best left to God. Brent wants empirical evidence, and both you and I know that none of us can give that.
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Jul 6, 2010 7:57:02 GMT -5
Wasn't Brent a Christian a few years ago or something? Or am I being stupid?
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Jul 6, 2010 11:45:00 GMT -5
HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT JACOB! haha, I seem to remember he was a former theist as well. @ Patric: I still think we ought to be trying though. It wouldn't be loving to say "[non-theist X] shouldn't here the logical evidence for God because he/she won't want to hear." Rather, we ought to be engaging in the conversations so the Holy Spirit can work through them. Indeed, WE are not to "save" anybody, but as Jesus says in Matthew, we are to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." If they are convinced of God and the Bible, we would be doing this. @ Brent: You give yourself a difficult load to bear when you make such claims about your "argument." It's not really an argument, per se, but more of a statement. Anyways, I don't think you are anywhere close to being as certain as you think you are. You claim that "God cannot be proven or disproven; Agnosticism is the best." This is somehow "irrefutable." I don't mean to bleed you dry with all these questions, but I still don't see any reason to be agnostic (which is non-theism). I might ask, Brent, why demand empirical evidence for God? Do you expect God to audibly speak to the forum members and say "here I am!"? I think the logical explanation is good enough, if not better. We do have to want to love God, and it is impossible to be forced to love something. Though this deviates from the thread's topic, would you consider seeing for yourself some positive arguments for God? William Lane Craig defends a few of them, and they really seem to be logically ironclad (despite what the video you posted said, haha).
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Jul 6, 2010 12:35:21 GMT -5
Im agnostic and laughed at the agnostic picture
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Jul 6, 2010 13:34:03 GMT -5
@ Patrick: we are to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." dlectronic: I agree, but before you can convince someone who is closed off to the Lord to become a disciple, you must first convince that person to have an open mind. The Holy Spirit is the best witness, and one of the reasons why many never hear His calling is because their ears are shut (do you know what I mean). Brent's ears are shut to the Gospel, so if we are going to argue using logic, the first order of business is to convince him that it makes sense to have an open mind to these matters (which it objectively does). There is a scripture that says "Don't cast your pearls before swine lest they trample them underfoot, then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matt. 7:6)" Christ didn't mean that people like Brent are swine, but that we should be discerning in what we share with people and when we share it. Many people are simply not ready to hear it, as I can tell Brent is by many of his reactions on this board. I would love to see him give his life to Christ, as I am sure he would be happy to see me reject God, but at this point, it would be an incredible victory to convince him to have an open mind to all the options (i.e. unstop his ears).
|
|