FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Dakota Bob on September 27, 2012, 05:08:47 am
-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/09/do-atheists-exist.html (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/09/do-atheists-exist.html)
Quite the intellectual, this one.
-
But agnostics exist, so God might not exist? :o
-
^lol
-
^lol
-
So taken to its logical conclusion, if non-believers in Santa Claus exist...then Santa Claus must also exist. Or something?
-
So taken to its logical conclusion, if non-believers in Santa Claus exist...then Santa Claus must also exist. Or something?
Some people brought this up in the comments. His response? "Read past the title, understand the article, and then make an informed decision".
Hell, in one comment thread, he showed that he couldn't grasp meaning in satire.
-
Some people brought this up in the comments. His response? "Read past the title, understand the article, and then make an informed decision".
I can hear Alanis singing away in the background.
-
I encountered too much of this sophistry in a Jesuit college to pay any attention to it at this stage in my life.
-
I don't believe in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, so obviously, they both exist.
Don't you just love this kind of nonsensical "logic"? ::)
-
If you don't believe in something, it must exist. What type of twisted logic is this?
Ironbite-I can't follow it past that dive at the end.
-
Well if that's how things work, where's my pet dragon and hoverboard!?!?
-
I think this is following "A creation proves a creator." line of reasoning, which the OP title doesn't really seem to properly indicate. Having said that, I will give this guy credit for one thing.
Whether this YHVH-Yahweh is a personal God, whether he answers prayer and does miracles and is in fact a Trinity of Three Persons united in one Godhead and whether the second person of the Trinity became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and died on the cross to redeem the human race–all that is another matter entirely.
If we humor the idea that his above reasoning is correct and that there is a god, then this is a good point. That is, arguing for the existence of a god is different than arguing that said god is how you imagine.
-
Well if that's how things work, where's my pet dragon and hoverboard!?!?
One sec, I'm not believing in those.
Okay, check the closet or something, I specifically believed they weren't in there.
-
Put it this way - In mathematics you can "prove" anything you want when you multiply anything by zero.
This guys' "logic" is total bollocks.
-
I think this is following "A creation proves a creator." line of reasoning, which the OP title doesn't really seem to properly indicate. ...
I'd say it derives more from the Ontological argument.
-
I'm not sure I'd credit this argument to any particularly thought out argument for god. This really reads to me like a 'God exists because stuff' argument. Metacrock and I used to bitch at each other over far better points than what this rests on.
-
After reading the article and its comments, the idea seems to be that reality requires a base that is immutable and immortal from which objects arise and return in their temporary existence.
Except things don't cease to exist. People, planets, stars - they die and decay, but their particles still exist. And that's this guy's god. the basic material of the universe - which, as I understand it, is 'force'.
Use it wisely, you must.
-
I think this is following "A creation proves a creator." line of reasoning, which the OP title doesn't really seem to properly indicate. ...
I'd say it derives more from the Ontological argument.
Ah yes, if it exists in the mind it must exist in reality. Because that always made sense ???
-
I'm not sure I'd credit this argument to any particularly thought out argument for god. This really reads to me like a 'God exists because stuff' argument. Metacrock and I used to bitch at each other over far better points than what this rests on.
It sounds like a pathetic attempt at pantheistic solipsism.
-
I think this is following "A creation proves a creator." line of reasoning, which the OP title doesn't really seem to properly indicate. ...
I'd say it derives more from the Ontological argument.
Ah yes, if it exists in the mind it must exist in reality. Because that always made sense ???
*thinks of having a flying car*
-
I think this is following "A creation proves a creator." line of reasoning, which the OP title doesn't really seem to properly indicate. ...
I'd say it derives more from the Ontological argument.
Ah yes, if it exists in the mind it must exist in reality. Because that always made sense ???
*thinks of having a flying car*
Use these newfound powers for good, my child. (http://www.terrafugia.com)