Quote from axeman:
Anyone see an issue here?
777 BELIEVES in grand miraculous fairy tale claims WHICH
he freely admits have NEVER been proven. I do not.
For the sake of argument, God has not been proven to exist according to the standards of proof that are relativistic, and sensual. I have no problem with that statement. God is Absolute and non-sensual, He could not be proven according to your standards.
This doesn't mean that He does not exist. It means that he cannot be proven according to your standards. Many realities of life cannot be proven according to the same standards.
You are hung up on your material logic, that is your creed and dogma, fine, personal choice.
Who is acting rationally??? Duh... ME!
This fits the notion of DELUSION quite nicely.
Logical fallacy, as you are using logic itself to prove that logic is the correct method of evaluation of what is delusion. Delusion is only understood to be that which is not real, but what is absolutely is a question that will forever escape the material and relativistic mind.
Until such time that you can have some objective absolute criteria to test logic against, all we can say is that our hard wiring is of a certain nature on the surface, but to conclude logically that that is ultimate reality is not logical. Who can say that logical thinking is the correct thinking or program to run in our minds? If the brain is the hardware, and the mind is the programmable software, who is to say what the correct software is? For my money, the correct software would be that which would reveal Absolute reality, not relativistic material reality.
But it is a personal choice, we are free to choose, and those who say they know with certainty what is the right software programs to run in the brain have no logical foundation to make that absolute certain claim.
2) 777 claims I have no proof that a religious moral
system is mythical.
LMAO. Ummmm hellooooooooooooo 777. You just described
a myth. A bunch of made up bullshit that has NEVER
been proven.
A myth may be fact, all anyone can really say is that it is not provable to others. I can't prove to you that I love my friends and family, but it is not a myth.
To know with certainty that something was, or is in fact a myth, would require the person who created the idea, or those who perpetuate the idea to claim it was in fact a myth and false. We simply do not know.
The rest of your post is chock full of the same illogical bullshit.
You claim fallacies and fail to even name them.
Your posts are always full of the same excrement you dump on these boards, so what? That is your logical argument?
You dont even know what a fallacy is, obviously.
Clearly another fallacious claim of yours, so obvious as to be ridiculous.
Welp.... i've once again wasted a bunch of my time arguing
with a complete idiot.
I know you are but what am I? See how easy it is to lob back flame?
I'll reclaim my spare time now. It's been fun bashing
your weak arguments to pieces once again.
You are as usual, a legend in your own mind.
An obvious STRAWMAN, from the master of strawman fallacies
What a stupid thing to say. Let's follow his idiotic logic here:
Red is a color, therefore red is a synonym for color.
LMAOOOO!!! What a moron!
MY watch is deaf, dumb and blind.
A reasonable person can see the who is really being moronic here.
A dog/plant is an atheist. So therefore a dog/plant must be
a synonym for atheist. BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT wrong!
How do you come up with stuff THIS stupid??!?? LOL
Yes it is silly to call a dog and a plant an atheist, completely agree to the stupidity of it.
Surely you wouldnt ask me to provide a dictionary which
lists a dog/plant as a synonym for atheist if you didnt
believe this was some sort of requirement.
This is your clear implication. Lets watch 777 backpedal
out of this idiotic notion now
You are the one claiming you have the correct definition, I claim you don't, and when I ask you to prove you have the right definition, all I get is spin.
I do know why you want to define atheism as such, and why you play the linguistic games. It goes to the heart of the issue of what Theism is, and what atheism really is, what Theists are, and what atheists are.
The trick that is trying to be used, unsuccessfully, is to convince people that atheism is right on the basis of it being the pre-existing state. This is a fallacy. People are not born speaking, reading, feeding themselves, etc. These are learned behaviors, and no less true because they are learned. The key is that the ability to learn exists a priori to learning. Dogs and plants lack capacity to conceive of, or believe or disbelieve in God. If the definition of an atheist is the inability to conceive of or believe in God, then you are not an atheist. You want it both ways, and it doesn't work that way. Once someone has heard of God and has developed a sense of what is real or false for themselves, and grasps the concept of God, the Gini is out of bottle. At that point either one believes the concept, excepts it as true or rejects it as false. The only other situation is confusion. It is the nature of the human mind to either accept concepts or reject them. It happens automatically, that we accept or reject based on pre-existing belief systems. That is how the mind works.
There may be confusion and or conflict in the mind in which one does not accept what they believe, and I will readily accept that notion that you are a confused intellectual if you claim to have no opinion regarding the existence of God.
The ability to believe in God exists for all normal functional human beings. Once the concept of God is understood, it is impossible not to have either a positive or negative believe in God's existence. Those who say they do not know can be both Theists or atheists, but Theists say they believe, and atheist say they don't believe. Both are active, conscious, and elective states. It is not possible to be without positive or negative belief when knowledge is lacking yet a concept is understood.
Lacking "proof" of a relativisic and sensual nature, some people choose to believe there is no God as they have set forth their own personal criteria of what they need to believe in God. Others do believe, for a variety of reasons.
If I say, "God exsits because I can see him" you cannot prove that I do not see him. I may not be able to prove it to you, but that doesn't disprove my claims that I see Him and he is real for me, and perhaps real for you.
It doesn't prove that my claims are delusion, or illusion either, as you would have to provide proof of God's non-existence to verify with mathematical certainty that I was not seeing God. You simply don't know, and in your arrogance you judge.
You can believe what you want, but it is just a belief, your religion, your creed and dogma. It is not a hard science, as it is subjective. Yet, subjectivity is not false categorically. It is just subjective, beyond instrumentation of modern day science.
Michael Jordan would talk about the "zone" he would be in when he played. Other athletes would relate, but the subjective state of his experience was not known to instrumentation or measurement, but it was real for him, as it is very real for all athletes. Non athletes have no idea what he is really talking about. Yet, try to tell an athlete that the "zone" is an illusion because he cannot prove it to objectively to others, and see how he responds.
Ok ok ... im done toying with you....
I'll let the peanut gallery decide who has been extremely
inconsistent here, if it's not obvious enough.
I rest my case.
Playing games and resting cases. How irrational, childish and immature.
You are as free to practice your religion, your own creed and dogma as anyone else, no better, no worse. Perhaps less intellectually honest that it is just a belief system, but you would never accept a proof of that anyway. All I see is arrogance, and of course arrogance is illogical anyway.
peace
axeman
