[Moderated] What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything? - Page 10

TimCallahan · 22nd August 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.
[indent]
1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

Yrreg

This is nothing but a straw-man arguement on your part. Moat of us who are atheists do not belittle or laugh at God, and we certainly know what the issue is about.

Ultimately, the argument comes down to the initiator of a series of cause and effect events, the first cause or uncaused cause. Those of us who are unbelievers see the universe itself (in whatever form it existed before the Big Bang) as a sufficient first cause. We see neither the need nor the evidence for a supernatural cause behind the universe itself.

Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore the burden of proof rests on theists to demonstrate or present evidence of the existence of God. Rather than indulging in straw-man arguments and bad-mouthing us, present our evidence, and we'll talk about it.

Yoink · 22nd August 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

You know, it's almost certainly pointless engaging with this particular troll, but it struck me that the misrepresentation of the "FSM, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn" argument is actually interesting. Of course, the real form of the argument is not to say "god is a pink unicorn" but to say "why should I believe in God (for whose existence I have no evidence) any more than I would believe in an invisible pink unicorn (for whose existence I have no evidence)?" But you can actually run with yrreg's misstatement of the argument, viz:

"I posit that God is an invisible pink unicorn. Prove me wrong."

This can be expanded, of course, to the general claim that "there are no attributes that God can be proven not to have." (Prove that God is not bearded, is not a poor speaker of Finnish, is not a porcupine, is not angry at the cancellation of Firefly etc. etc.). The corollary of the argument would be that "if I cannot disprove the attribution of any qualities to an entity then I cannot prove that entity's existence, because to be known to exist is to be known to possess some attributes."

That could be more elegantly stated, but I think it works.

Yrreg--care to show how you'd set about proving that God isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn?

KingMerv00 · 22nd August 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Yoink

[/indent](Prove that God is not bearded, is not a poor speaker of Finnish, is not a porcupine, is not angry at the cancellation of Firefly etc. etc.).

Any being not angry at the cancellation of Firefly is not be worthy of the label "God".

Agatha · 22nd August 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.

Genuine pseudo arguments? Are they like brand new antiques, or boiling hot ice cubes?

Quote:

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

Nope, that's a FAIL. I know several people have explained this before, but I'll try again. When atheists talk about leprechauns or the FSM or the IPU we are not calling any of these things god, nor are we saying that god is any of these things. What we are saying is god is analogous to these things; that there is just as much evidence (ie, none) for the existence of any god you care to name as there is evidence for leprechauns or the FSM or the IPU. There is no evidence for the existence of any of them, not for god, not for any of the others.

Quote:

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

Nope, I'm afraid that is another FAIL. Atheists don't laugh at god any more than they laugh at the tooth fairy. Both of those entities fall into the category of "imaginary", they aren't funny per se. Now some atheists may well laugh at theists, and at the explanations they come up with. It's not polite but it is understandable. Frankly, if you'd give us some evidence for god that wasn't laughable, we'd stop laughing.

Quote:

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

That mind reading, you are doing it wrong. Atheists do know what the issues are, we just find your arguments unconvincing in the extreme. Do you have any evidence at all, yrreg? If so, please share it.

Quote:

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

I say (as an atheist) that your contentions are false, your evidence lacking, and your arguments fallacious. But other than that, please do carry on.

laca · 22nd August 2009, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

IIRC there were other "genuine pseudo arguments" as well, whataver that means...

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

Hmmm... And I thought that atheists and theists would make a full set...

Seriously, yrreg... I mean... Come on... You're like the skinny kid with bad eyesight that keeps kicking the school bully because he thinks that it's a paralyzed puppy...

Yoink · 22nd August 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Any being not angry at the cancellation of Firefly would not be worthy of the label "God".

QED

Any being unable to prevent the cancellation of Firefly is not worthy of the label "God."

Super double paradox QED burn!

yrreg · 22nd August 2009, 01:46 PM

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God.

Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is?

Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists.

Yrreg

Elizabeth I · 22nd August 2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists.

He's really, really, really slow, isn't he?

dafydd · 22nd August 2009, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God.

Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is?

Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists

Yrreg

???!!!!!

dafydd · 22nd August 2009, 01:51 PM

Are you feeling alright?

dafydd · 22nd August 2009, 01:52 PM

Poor old bugger,sad,isn't it?

Paulhoff · 22nd August 2009, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Gee, you think we are from another planet and this so-called christain god is new to us, like we have heard about it all our lives.

Paul

Dunstan · 22nd August 2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

I find it depends on which Christian you ask.

Agatha · 22nd August 2009, 01:55 PM

Yrreg. Please, for the love of all you hold dear, please read this:

Atheists don't believe in ANY god. Not in any concept of the Christian God, not in any concept of the Muslim God, the Norse Gods, the Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, the Chinese Gods, nor in any others you can think of.

We don't believe in any of them. We simply don't believe that any of them exist outside of the human imagination.

It really doesn't matter how you define your god, we still don't believe in it.

RoboTimbo · 22nd August 2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Yrreg

FAIL. Atheists lack belief in god(s). Yours isn't special. It's lumped in with all the others without favoritism.

ETA: Agatha beat me to it. Oh well.

ps. We don't believe in IPU or FSM either.

Yoink · 22nd August 2009, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God.

Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is?

Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists.

What do you mean by "targeting the correct God"? "Correct" in what way? No atheist "targets" any God, because, by definition, an atheist does not believe in any God.

If you want to show that the Christian God is the "correct" God then it's up to you to provide proof of the existence of the Christian God.

You really seem to have this completely backwards, Yrreg.

Jeff Corey · 22nd August 2009, 01:56 PM

I don't believe in any of them, therefore I don't believe in that one.

Yoink · 22nd August 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

Yrreg. Please, for the love of all you hold dear, please read this:

Atheists don't believe in ANY god. Not in any concept of the Christian God, not in any concept of the Muslim God, the Norse Gods, the Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, the Chinese Gods, nor in any others you can think of.

We don't believe in any of them. We simply don't believe that any of them exist outside of the human imagination.

It really doesn't matter how you define your god, we still don't believe in it.

Well, there's two possible exceptions to that. One would be the absurdly idiosyncratic. I mean, if I said "my God is a loaf of bread with all the normal powers and properties of a loaf of bread" then you'd be willing to believe in the existence of my God.

The other is the hopelessly vague. For those who say "by God I mean Nature" there is a sense in which you have to say "okeydoke, I agree that Nature exists, and if all you mean by Nature is what anyone else means by Nature then I guess you can call it God or Arthur or Cyril or Maude or anything else you want to call it."

But I don't imagine that that's the particular card Yrreg is holding up his sleeve.

RoboTimbo · 22nd August 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Yrreg

How about if you tell us your concept of god(s) so we can then tell you that we lack belief in it particularly.

laca · 22nd August 2009, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

I assume you're talking about the god of the bible?

Originally Posted by yrreg

Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God.

???

Originally Posted by yrreg

Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is?

Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists.

Targeting? Are you sure there is targeting involved? If so, do you really think atheists only "target" the christian god (i.e. your god)?

Pure Argent · 22nd August 2009, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

Yrreg

I say that you're a troll. Your entire argument is one giant flame. This supports what I have said in previous threads: no argument forwarded by yrreG can last for more than two sentences without degenerating into an attack on the intelligence of atheists.

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God.

Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is?

Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists.

Yrreg

As the others have said, it doesn't matter which god we take the Christians to mean. We don't believe in any of them. Except Cthulhu, of course.
But, for your information, I was raised Roman Catholic. So your god used to be my god. I read the Bible, went to Sunday school and Catholic Faith Formation like a good little boy, and prayed every day. Then one day I realized that it was all a hunk of ************. Like I said, your god used to be my god. I know exactly what I'm denying.

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

FAIL. Atheists lack belief in god(s). Yours isn't special. It's lumped in with all the others without favoritism.

ETA: Agatha beat me to it. Oh well.

ps. We don't believe in IPU or FSM either.

But we do believe in Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth. I mean, we're all intelligent people here.

Twiler · 22nd August 2009, 02:16 PM

Yrreg: What concept of the christian god as in the existant god which you deny are you denying?

Atheists: What d'ya got?

laca · 22nd August 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Yrreg: What concept of the christian god as in the existant god which you deny are you denying?

Atheists: What d'ya got?

yrreg: Infinite ignorance. And you?

Atheists: We've got science.

yrreg: Bah! My dragon style defeats it all! Bow before my might!

Pure Argent · 22nd August 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Atheists: What d'ya got?

Not the burden of proof, I'll tell you that much.

Quinn · 22nd August 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God.

Is there some alternate version of English in which these sentences make sense?

[Note to Yrreg: This is not "pretending not to understand." This is genuinely having no idea what you're on about.]

Phase Inverter · 22nd August 2009, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

To answer your question honestly and without getting off track, the God that the Christians believe exists:

Has a name, Yahweh.
Is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Is responsible for the creation of plants, animals, and humans on earth.
Is responsible for the creation of angels, and other beings in heaven.
Is one, but at the same time three, being(s). One of which was known as logos, but was made flesh and is now called Jesus.
Is referred to as being male.
Revealed himself to mankind on various occasions in various forms.
Directed the recording of these revelations in written form known as the Holy Bible.
Demands obedience and worship.
Chose one family to live while destroying every other human on earth.
Chose one family and it's descendants to be his people.
Dictated rules for worship, sacrifice, and behavior.
Sent a part of himself, Jesus, as a blood sacrifice to forgive the disobedience of his people.
Will punish for eternity all who do not accept or believe that Jesus died for the forgiveness of their disobedience.
Will grant eternal life and bliss to all those who do accept and believe that Jesus died for the forgiveness of their disobedience.
Will destroy heaven and earth and build a new heaven and earth with Jesus on the throne of the kingdom of God and the twelve disciples as rulers over the twelve tribes of his chosen people.
Etc.

Is this the God that you are "humanly certain" exists? Have I left anything out? Is there anything above that is incorrect?

Is this the God that we are going to hear arguments for or against?

Pure Argent · 22nd August 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Quinn

Is there some alternate version of English in which these sentences make sense?

[Note to Yrreg: This is not "pretending not to understand." This is genuinely having no idea what you're on about.]

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think English is yrreG's native language. If it is, then he should be very, very sad.

Agatha · 22nd August 2009, 02:29 PM

He's in the Philippines, and I don't think English is his first language.

Pure Argent · 22nd August 2009, 02:31 PM

Philippines? Cool. I'd like to visit there sometime. Hey, maybe I could stay with yrreG!

John Jones · 22nd August 2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

Yrreg

Three strawman arguments.

bokonon · 22nd August 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

That's some top-notch second-rate analysis.

thaiboxerken · 22nd August 2009, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

Yrreg

I say:

1. Define your god.

2. Give me evidence that your god exists.

Maia · 22nd August 2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

Yay, Yrreg finally included everybody!

I feel so special now. (((group hug)))

(((all sing Kumbaya and toast marshmallows by the campfire)))

LyTinWeedle · 22nd August 2009, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

Yrreg

Regarding point one, as has been stated earlier in this thread but I will reiterate here, all mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the IPU, ancient norse or greek gods, etc. are used only in the form of analogy. If I say computer memory can be thought of a series of containers into which bits of information can be placed, I am not saying that computer memory is containers.

Originally Posted by yrreg

What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing?

Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God.

Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is?

Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists.

Yrreg

The above, along with point three in your first message in this thread (also quoted above), is really where any discussion/debate between you and atheists, including myself, breaks down before it even gets started.

As you are making the affirmative claim, "God exists," it falls to you to define what you mean by God. You do not get to presuppose God and then have someone try to disprove you, as an arbitrary statement cannot be disproven. You must define and support your supposition. We can then have a discussion about the validity of your claims, whether they have merit and what conclusions can be drawn.

Using "The Christian God" as your definition is not sufficient. The attributes ascribed to the Christian God varies from church to church, such as Catholics, Lutherans and Southern Baptists. Saying the "God of the Bible" is not sufficient as there are various translations and interpretations of the Bible which are not consistent. Even within the Bible, any version, there is the question of which God you are choosing: the God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament or some combination of the two.

Yrreg, if you define what you mean by "God," then we have a starting point. Until then you might as well be talking about "Zrgles," because we won’t know what you mean.

LTW

JoeTheJuggler · 22nd August 2009, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

This is satire, especially pointed to show that the same "logic" you use wrt to the god you believe in looks absurd when you apply it to these other made up entities.

Quote:

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

Atheists don't believe in a god or gods, so there is no way possible that you have observed atheists "laughing at god". As far as laughing at theists who are laughable, should theists have a special immunity from this treatment? I give you permission to laugh at atheists who behave laughably. (You have to admit, theists are so much better at it! Praying in tongues, defending literalist interpretation of scriptures, denying modern science, televangelizing, etc.)

Quote:

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

I'm not sure what you mean by this one. I know anytime I discuss the existence of god with a theist, I will quickly insist on a definition of the term "God". Most conventional definitions of god are internally inconsistent, or obviously inconsistent with the real world, or both. I'm not pretending when I'm asking for a definition of this term.

Quote:

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

That's like decrying that modern physicists aren't really interested in the "academic inquiry" of phlogiston, or that modern medical researchers have no interest in the "academic inquiry" of chi or the humours.

I'm happy to engage in a debate on the existence of gods, but I find the idea that I should consider "the issue of God" to be a subject of "academic inquiry" to be. . . laughable!

DC · 22nd August 2009, 03:30 PM

well honestly i do laugh at the christian god, its a laughable fantasy.

fuelair · 22nd August 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

Yrreg

Let me say this slowly, so you can follow it. there is no god except in the mind of it's believers. No Zeus, no Jupiter, no Odin/Woden, No Krsna, no Yahweh, No Allah, No Rama, no anything. Feel free to show us undisprovable, positive proof we are wrong and you win. Words won't do it, "Logic" proves only itself, philosophy won't hack it. Real, physical, unfaked and unfakable physical proof is what you need. And I am absolutely certain you have not one iota of that - as does no other religion's apologists. If you had it, it would have been presented long ago and still be present for the purpose.

JoeTheJuggler · 22nd August 2009, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God.

And you wonder why you get laughed at?

It's up to you to support your claim that god exists. First, you've got to define what you mean by god or "concept of God accepted by Christians".

I don't deny that such a concept exists (see below for reservations), but that the concept doesn't refer to anything in the real world. (See also leprechauns, FSM, IPU, the Tooth Fairy, satyrs, flying horses, etc.)

Quote:

Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is?

I'm guessing you ask this question rather than defining your terms because you think it gives you an argumentative advantage.

At any rate, I know quite a lot about various Christian concepts of God. There is not one single universal concept among all Christians. They are quite varied and in some regards contradictory.

So--which one do you want to talk about? (I'm most well-versed in the Roman Catholic ideas, and I do prefer to discuss them because they're spelled out in black and white in St. Joseph's Baltimore Catechism, so when we discuss these terms theists can't go slipping back and forth using them ambiguously or changing their claims.)

fuelair · 22nd August 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God.

1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists.

3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists.

What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry?

Yrreg

Sorry, left this unstated, comparing your so-called god to the FSM, IPU, lper etc. is not callin it them, just noting there is exactly the same amount of proof of their existence as there is of it's.

And, to reiterate, words/arguments can only "prove" other combinations of words/arguments. All the words and logic in the world cannot prove the nonexistence of a bird against me holding one chirping in my hand. AND...All the words and logic in the world cannot prove the existence of a "god" against the lack of presence in a physical form observable to all and demonstrating god-attributes.

Yoink · 22nd August 2009, 03:45 PM

Don't you think that the phrase "Genuine pseudo arguments" is essentially an open admission that Yrreg is trolling? It has to be a deliberate joke, surely?

22nd August 2009, 01:15 PM	#361
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,128	Originally Posted by yrreg I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God. [indent] 1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc. 2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists. 3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists. Yrreg This is nothing but a straw-man arguement on your part. Moat of us who are atheists do not belittle or laugh at God, and we certainly know what the issue is about. Ultimately, the argument comes down to the initiator of a series of cause and effect events, the first cause or uncaused cause. Those of us who are unbelievers see the universe itself (in whatever form it existed before the Big Bang) as a sufficient first cause. We see neither the need nor the evidence for a supernatural cause behind the universe itself. Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore the burden of proof rests on theists to demonstrate or present evidence of the existence of God. Rather than indulging in straw-man arguments and bad-mouthing us, present our evidence, and we'll talk about it.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,128

22nd August 2009, 01:19 PM	#362
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by yrreg I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God. 1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc. 2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists. 3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists. You know, it's almost certainly pointless engaging with this particular troll, but it struck me that the misrepresentation of the "FSM, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn" argument is actually interesting. Of course, the real form of the argument is not to say "god is a pink unicorn" but to say "why should I believe in God (for whose existence I have no evidence) any more than I would believe in an invisible pink unicorn (for whose existence I have no evidence)?" But you can actually run with yrreg's misstatement of the argument, viz: "I posit that God is an invisible pink unicorn. Prove me wrong." This can be expanded, of course, to the general claim that "there are no attributes that God can be proven not to have." (Prove that God is not bearded, is not a poor speaker of Finnish, is not a porcupine, is not angry at the cancellation of Firefly etc. etc.). The corollary of the argument would be that "if I cannot disprove the attribution of any qualities to an entity then I cannot prove that entity's existence, because to be known to exist is to be known to possess some attributes." That could be more elegantly stated, but I think it works. Yrreg--care to show how you'd set about proving that God isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

22nd August 2009, 01:34 PM	#363
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Yoink [/indent](Prove that God is not bearded, is not a poor speaker of Finnish, is not a porcupine, is not angry at the cancellation of Firefly etc. etc.). Any being not angry at the cancellation of Firefly is not be worthy of the label "God".
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust? Last edited by KingMerv00; 22nd August 2009 at 01:37 PM.

22nd August 2009, 01:34 PM	#364
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,216	Originally Posted by yrreg I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God. Genuine pseudo arguments? Are they like brand new antiques, or boiling hot ice cubes? Quote: 1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc. Nope, that's a FAIL. I know several people have explained this before, but I'll try again. When atheists talk about leprechauns or the FSM or the IPU we are not calling any of these things god, nor are we saying that god is any of these things. What we are saying is god is analogous to these things; that there is just as much evidence (ie, none) for the existence of any god you care to name as there is evidence for leprechauns or the FSM or the IPU. There is no evidence for the existence of any of them, not for god, not for any of the others. Quote: 2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists. Nope, I'm afraid that is another FAIL. Atheists don't laugh at god any more than they laugh at the tooth fairy. Both of those entities fall into the category of "imaginary", they aren't funny per se. Now some atheists may well laugh at theists, and at the explanations they come up with. It's not polite but it is understandable. Frankly, if you'd give us some evidence for god that wasn't laughable, we'd stop laughing. Quote: 3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists. That mind reading, you are doing it wrong. Atheists do know what the issues are, we just find your arguments unconvincing in the extreme. Do you have any evidence at all, yrreg? If so, please share it. Quote: What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? I say (as an atheist) that your contentions are false, your evidence lacking, and your arguments fallacious. But other than that, please do carry on.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

22nd August 2009, 01:36 PM	#365
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,161	Originally Posted by yrreg I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God. 1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc. 2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists. 3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists. IIRC there were other "genuine pseudo arguments" as well, whataver that means... Originally Posted by yrreg What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? Hmmm... And I thought that atheists and theists would make a full set... Seriously, yrreg... I mean... Come on... You're like the skinny kid with bad eyesight that keeps kicking the school bully because he thinks that it's a paralyzed puppy...
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,161

22nd August 2009, 01:37 PM	#366
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Any being not angry at the cancellation of Firefly would not be worthy of the label "God". QED Any being unable to prevent the cancellation of Firefly is not worthy of the label "God." Super double paradox QED burn!
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

22nd August 2009, 01:46 PM	#367
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Okay, let us just concern ourselves with the Christian God. What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God. Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is? Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

22nd August 2009, 01:50 PM	#368
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,259	Quote: Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists. He's really, really, really slow, isn't he?
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

22nd August 2009, 01:50 PM	#369
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,456	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God. Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is? Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists Yrreg ???!!!!!

22nd August 2009, 01:51 PM	#370
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,456	Are you feeling alright?

22nd August 2009, 01:52 PM	#371
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,456	Poor old bugger,sad,isn't it?

22nd August 2009, 01:53 PM	#372
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Gee, you think we are from another planet and this so-called christain god is new to us, like we have heard about it all our lives. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

22nd August 2009, 01:54 PM	#373
Dunstan Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park Posts: 4,292	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? I find it depends on which Christian you ask.

22nd August 2009, 01:55 PM	#374
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,216	Yrreg. Please, for the love of all you hold dear, please read this: Atheists don't believe in ANY god. Not in any concept of the Christian God, not in any concept of the Muslim God, the Norse Gods, the Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, the Chinese Gods, nor in any others you can think of. We don't believe in any of them. We simply don't believe that any of them exist outside of the human imagination. It really doesn't matter how you define your god, we still don't believe in it.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

22nd August 2009, 01:55 PM	#375
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,853	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Yrreg FAIL. Atheists lack belief in god(s). Yours isn't special. It's lumped in with all the others without favoritism. ETA: Agatha beat me to it. Oh well. ps. We don't believe in IPU or FSM either.
	Last edited by RoboTimbo; 22nd August 2009 at 01:56 PM.

22nd August 2009, 01:56 PM	#376
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God. Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is? Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists. What do you mean by "targeting the correct God"? "Correct" in what way? No atheist "targets" any God, because, by definition, an atheist does not believe in any God. If you want to show that the Christian God is the "correct" God then it's up to you to provide proof of the existence of the Christian God. You really seem to have this completely backwards, Yrreg.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

22nd August 2009, 01:56 PM	#377
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	I don't believe in any of them, therefore I don't believe in that one.
	Last edited by Jeff Corey; 22nd August 2009 at 02:21 PM.

22nd August 2009, 02:00 PM	#378
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937	Originally Posted by Agatha Yrreg. Please, for the love of all you hold dear, please read this: Atheists don't believe in ANY god. Not in any concept of the Christian God, not in any concept of the Muslim God, the Norse Gods, the Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, the Chinese Gods, nor in any others you can think of. We don't believe in any of them. We simply don't believe that any of them exist outside of the human imagination. It really doesn't matter how you define your god, we still don't believe in it. Well, there's two possible exceptions to that. One would be the absurdly idiosyncratic. I mean, if I said "my God is a loaf of bread with all the normal powers and properties of a loaf of bread" then you'd be willing to believe in the existence of my God. The other is the hopelessly vague. For those who say "by God I mean Nature" there is a sense in which you have to say "okeydoke, I agree that Nature exists, and if all you mean by Nature is what anyone else means by Nature then I guess you can call it God or Arthur or Cyril or Maude or anything else you want to call it." But I don't imagine that that's the particular card Yrreg is holding up his sleeve.
Yoink Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,937

22nd August 2009, 02:00 PM	#379
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,853	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Yrreg How about if you tell us your concept of god(s) so we can then tell you that we lack belief in it particularly.

22nd August 2009, 02:04 PM	#380
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,161	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? I assume you're talking about the god of the bible? Originally Posted by yrreg Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God. ??? Originally Posted by yrreg Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is? Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists. Targeting? Are you sure there is targeting involved? If so, do you really think atheists only "target" the christian god (i.e. your god)?
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,161

22nd August 2009, 02:15 PM	#381
Pure Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 6,259	Originally Posted by yrreg I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God. 1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc. 2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists. 3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists. What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? Yrreg I say that you're a troll. Your entire argument is one giant flame. This supports what I have said in previous threads: no argument forwarded by yrreG can last for more than two sentences without degenerating into an attack on the intelligence of atheists. Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God. Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is? Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists. Yrreg As the others have said, it doesn't matter which god we take the Christians to mean. We don't believe in any of them. Except Cthulhu, of course. But, for your information, I was raised Roman Catholic. So your god used to be my god. I read the Bible, went to Sunday school and Catholic Faith Formation like a good little boy, and prayed every day. Then one day I realized that it was all a hunk of ***********. Like I said, your god used* to be my god. I know exactly what I'm denying. Originally Posted by RoboTimbo FAIL. Atheists lack belief in god(s). Yours isn't special. It's lumped in with all the others without favoritism. ETA: Agatha beat me to it. Oh well. ps. We don't believe in IPU or FSM either. But we do believe in Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth. I mean, we're all intelligent people here.
	__________________ "Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

22nd August 2009, 02:16 PM	#382
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Yrreg: What concept of the christian god as in the existant god which you deny are you denying? Atheists: What d'ya got?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

22nd August 2009, 02:21 PM	#383
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,161	Originally Posted by Twiler Yrreg: What concept of the christian god as in the existant god which you deny are you denying? Atheists: What d'ya got? yrreg: Infinite ignorance. And you? Atheists: We've got science. yrreg: Bah! My dragon style defeats it all! Bow before my might!
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,161

22nd August 2009, 02:21 PM	#384
Pure Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 6,259	Originally Posted by Twiler Atheists: What d'ya got? Not the burden of proof, I'll tell you that much.
	__________________ "Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

22nd August 2009, 02:21 PM	#385
Quinn Breathtakingly blasphemous. Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,882	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God. Is there some alternate version of English in which these sentences make sense? [Note to Yrreg: This is not "pretending not to understand." This is genuinely having no idea what you're on about.]
	__________________ It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.

22nd August 2009, 02:22 PM	#386
Phase Inverter Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Detroit, MI USA Posts: 149	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? To answer your question honestly and without getting off track, the God that the Christians believe exists: Has a name, Yahweh. Is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. Is responsible for the creation of plants, animals, and humans on earth. Is responsible for the creation of angels, and other beings in heaven. Is one, but at the same time three, being(s). One of which was known as logos, but was made flesh and is now called Jesus. Is referred to as being male. Revealed himself to mankind on various occasions in various forms. Directed the recording of these revelations in written form known as the Holy Bible. Demands obedience and worship. Chose one family to live while destroying every other human on earth. Chose one family and it's descendants to be his people. Dictated rules for worship, sacrifice, and behavior. Sent a part of himself, Jesus, as a blood sacrifice to forgive the disobedience of his people. Will punish for eternity all who do not accept or believe that Jesus died for the forgiveness of their disobedience. Will grant eternal life and bliss to all those who do accept and believe that Jesus died for the forgiveness of their disobedience. Will destroy heaven and earth and build a new heaven and earth with Jesus on the throne of the kingdom of God and the twelve disciples as rulers over the twelve tribes of his chosen people. Etc. Is this the God that you are "humanly certain" exists? Have I left anything out? Is there anything above that is incorrect? Is this the God that we are going to hear arguments for or against?
	__________________ .

22nd August 2009, 02:23 PM	#387
Pure Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 6,259	Originally Posted by Quinn Is there some alternate version of English in which these sentences make sense? [Note to Yrreg: This is not "pretending not to understand." This is genuinely having no idea what you're on about.] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think English is yrreG's native language. If it is, then he should be very, very sad.
	__________________ "Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

22nd August 2009, 02:29 PM	#388
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,216	He's in the Philippines, and I don't think English is his first language.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

22nd August 2009, 02:31 PM	#389
Pure Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 6,259	Philippines? Cool. I'd like to visit there sometime. Hey, maybe I could stay with yrreG!
	__________________ "Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

22nd August 2009, 02:31 PM	#390
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,712	Originally Posted by yrreg I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God. 1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc. 2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists. 3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists. What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? Yrreg Three strawman arguments.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,712

22nd August 2009, 02:41 PM	#391
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? That's some top-notch second-rate analysis.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

22nd August 2009, 02:54 PM	#392
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,955	Originally Posted by yrreg What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? Yrreg I say: 1. Define your god. 2. Give me evidence that your god exists.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

22nd August 2009, 02:59 PM	#393
Maia Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1,261	Quote: What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? Yay, Yrreg finally included everybody! I feel so special now. (((group hug))) (((all sing Kumbaya and toast marshmallows by the campfire)))
	__________________ Satan, aka Precious the Cat-- the Comic! Come and read at Stripgenerator!

22nd August 2009, 03:15 PM	#394
LyTinWeedle Scholar Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 76	Originally Posted by yrreg I am now convinced that atheists have only genuine pseudo arguments against God. 1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc. 2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists. 3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists. What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? Yrreg Regarding point one, as has been stated earlier in this thread but I will reiterate here, all mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the IPU, ancient norse or greek gods, etc. are used only in the form of analogy. If I say computer memory can be thought of a series of containers into which bits of information can be placed, I am not saying that computer memory is containers. Originally Posted by yrreg What do you know to be the concept of God as accepted by Christians to be in fact existing? Please take care that we are now into the concept of God accepted by Christians to be in fact existing, we are not now into the issue of the existence of God. Why do I want to know what you know to be the concept of God, the Christian God that is? Because then I will know whether you are targeting the correct God, or you are missing altogether your target, and thus you are not being relevant in being atheists. Yrreg The above, along with point three in your first message in this thread (also quoted above), is really where any discussion/debate between you and atheists, including myself, breaks down before it even gets started. As you are making the affirmative claim, "God exists," it falls to you to define what you mean by God. You do not get to presuppose God and then have someone try to disprove you, as an arbitrary statement cannot be disproven. You must define and support your supposition. We can then have a discussion about the validity of your claims, whether they have merit and what conclusions can be drawn. Using "The Christian God" as your definition is not sufficient. The attributes ascribed to the Christian God varies from church to church, such as Catholics, Lutherans and Southern Baptists. Saying the "God of the Bible" is not sufficient as there are various translations and interpretations of the Bible which are not consistent. Even within the Bible, any version, there is the question of which God you are choosing: the God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament or some combination of the two. Yrreg, if you define what you mean by "God," then we have a starting point. Until then you might as well be talking about "Zrgles," because we won’t know what you mean. LTW
LyTinWeedle Scholar Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 76

22nd August 2009, 03:22 PM	#395
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,746	Originally Posted by yrreg 1. Bad-mouthing God, like calling Him a Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechaun, invisible pink unicorn, etc. This is satire, especially pointed to show that the same "logic" you use wrt to the god you believe in looks absurd when you apply it to these other made up entities. Quote: 2. Laughing at God and theists who want to explain to them how God is a fact by engaging in frivolities, instead of attending carefully to the explanations from theists. Atheists don't believe in a god or gods, so there is no way possible that you have observed atheists "laughing at god". As far as laughing at theists who are laughable, should theists have a special immunity from this treatment? I give you permission to laugh at atheists who behave laughably. (You have to admit, theists are so much better at it! Praying in tongues, defending literalist interpretation of scriptures, denying modern science, televangelizing, etc.) Quote: 3. Pretending not to know what the issue is all about, or to not know anything which might enlighten them on the fact that God exists. I'm not sure what you mean by this one. I know anytime I discuss the existence of god with a theist, I will quickly insist on a definition of the term "God". Most conventional definitions of god are internally inconsistent, or obviously inconsistent with the real world, or both. I'm not pretending when I'm asking for a definition of this term. Quote: What do you guys here say, atheists and theists and people who are neither but interested in the issue of God or no God for an academic inquiry? That's like decrying that modern physicists aren't really interested in the "academic inquiry" of phlogiston, or that modern medical researchers have no interest in the "academic inquiry" of chi or the humours. I'm happy to engage in a debate on the existence of gods, but I find the idea that I should consider "the issue of God" to be a subject of "academic inquiry" to be. . . laughable!
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons