Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Finkelstein

  One thing is for sure, you as an Atheist have a tremendous amount of faith compared to me a mere Christian. But to each his own, I by logic and reason, you by faith alone

  Really , the only belief I have and hold to is the adherence to intellectual honesty and faith that its better for mankind to continue investigating facts based on physical evidence to use toward the ending benefit of humanity.
  

  Your logic and reason is based upon hearsay alone derived from ancient mythological expressions.

  I do accept and acknowledge that the Jesus god was devised to appeal and in benefit to humanity through empathy, understanding and compassion toward the human condition.

  That goes without debate or faith required.
  
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Cofty

  Towerwatchman You have discovered a forum where you can frenetically reiterate all your carefully rehearsed apologetics and copy-paste your favourite apologists.

  Nothing rehearsed. Copy and paste yes. Either my work or if someone else, cited.

  The thing is we have heard all of this a thousand times year after year. Some of us used to preach exactly the same stuff. You have a style that makes conversation impossible and unfruitful. I don't believe you are as incapable of following a simple argument as you appear. I think you are trying to do far too much at once. You totally miss the point of every single thing people say to you and come back with smart-arse comments that are totally irrelevant to the topic. Is it possible for you to stop that and actually engage in a meaningful conversation?

  Yet to this point no rebuttal with substance. Read the responses, most responses to my OP are rude. Why engage that, I will just go for the jugular in the argument and capitalize. All my post respond to some point made. Now if you find dishonesty, don’t tell me about it, point it out.

  Let's go back to your OP. You claimed that in order to assert that god does not exist an atheist would need perfect knowledge. Lots of people have explained why you are wrong.

  Anyone who is affirming a negative absolute would need unlimited knowledge.

  1 - To be an atheist simply means to not be persuaded that god exists. Literally means "without god". It is not necessary to make a positive claim that god does not exist. Some atheists would go that far - I do - but not all atheists do. If you are going to have a useful conversation with people who disagree with you, you need to try hard to properly represent their actual views.

  When it comes to the deity question there are only three positions one can take. 1 Theist, 2 Atheist, 3 Agnostic. Position 1 and 2 either affirms or deny the existence of deity and has to provide support. Position three is the only one that gets to sit on the fence. Amazing how many want to be identified as atheist but then want to change the definition. What it comes down to is that many want to deny the existence of deity based on irrationality, but want to continue ontologically with theistic ideas. Following Atheism to a logical conclusion there is no meaning or purpose in life, no objective morality. Basically want to sit on the fence with the Agnostic and reap the benefits of both sides of the debate. I say ‘man up’. If Atheist embrace everything that is Atheist. Cut the umbilical cord from Theism, and go happily into oblivion with fear and despair to which only a Nietzsche or a Jean Paul Sartre can do full justice.

  2 - You have failed to define what you mean by god. If you leave god undefined so that it might include a very vague version of deism then of course nobody can prove you are wrong. But we both know that is not your position. Once you are honest enough to define god then it does become perfectly possible for atheists to show that the specific god you are preaching does not, or cannot, exist.

  Again a supernatural being with intelligence.

  I am willing to assert that I can prove god does not exist but with two conditions...
  1 - By "god" I mean the god and father of Jesus, the god of christian theism. I mean an all-powerful being who made all things, who is the epitome of goodness and love, who is active in the physical world and who desires a relationship with humans.
  2- By "prove" I mean establish beyond all reasonable doubt.

  This god does not exist. I am more than willing to back that claim up but in the context of this thread my only aim to show that your assertion about atheism being self-refuting is wrong.

  Atheism is not the denial of the Judeo Christian God but any deity. So follow the Atheist worldview and prove that no deity can exist.

  Sadly I doubt that you will take the time to read this carefully and reflect on it.

  But since you are so eager to disprove the Judeo Christian God, who am I to spoil your joy. Go ahead I will play your game.
• 

  Finkelstein

  So follow the Atheist worldview and prove that no deity can exist.

  You cant prove something of which you can not firstly define.

  Proving a negative is a logical fallacy in itself.
  

  Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:

  1) Skepticism of unsupported claims

  2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking

  3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.

  4) Requires testability

  5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

  6) Uses descriptive language

  7) Performs controlled experiments

  8) Self-correcting

  9) Relies on evidence and reason

  10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge

  11) Produces useful knowledge

  Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:

  1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism

  2) Does not require critical thinking

  3) Does not require experimental repeatability

  4) Does not require tests

  5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

  6) Uses vague language

  7) Relies on anecdotal evidence

  8) No self-correction

  9) Relies on belief and faith

  10) Makes absolute claims

  11) Produces no useful knowledge
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Finkelstein

  And must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy and finally and must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the first cause. And it must be a personal being. OK after reading that I'm officially awarding towerwatchman the royal fruit cake award.

  And the insults continue.

  Since the Greeks there has been two basic pictures of ultimate reality. One world view espoused that the mind is the primary reality. According to this view, material reality either originated from a preexisting mind or is shaped by a preexisting intelligence. Thus the mind, not matter is the ultimate reality from which everything come from. Plato, Aristotle, Roman Stoics, Jewish and Christian philosophers espoused some version of this worldview. Most founders of modern science [1300-1700 = scientific revolution] held to a mind first view of reality. This is known as Idealism. Theism is a version of Idealism which credits God as the source of all reality.

  The other view is that the physical universe is the ultimate source of reality. This is known as naturalism or materialism.

  So on behalf of Plato, Aristotle, Moses Maimonides, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Sir Isaac Newton I accept the ‘fruit cake award’.

  Note: When in ‘check mate’ dishonest scholarship takes the last position of ‘ignorance’, by attacking the character of its opponent and not addressing the material at hand.
• 

  towerwatchman

  To punkofnice

  Rather sad, that someone's worldview can only be supported by a child's comic strip. Pity is the proper response.
• 

  towerwatchman

  To punkofnice

  Another hideously long thread full of useless mumbo jumbo, name dropping and labels. Good gravy, this is tedious reading.

  Some here have degrees, which they spent years to obtain and will serve them for several decades. When it comes to the eternal, what amount of time is appropriate to invest in order to be correct?
• 

  towerwatchman

  ttdtt

  towerwatchman
  I guess you are the one who believes in an all powerful god who created everyone then didn't bother to give one ounce of irrefutable proof of his existence. I believe the ball is in the court of the god believers to prove his existence, just as it would be up to me to prove in my undying belief in leprechauns.

  One of my teachers once said, “You can smell a rose this way” [and smelled it with his nose]. Then he held it up to the back of his head and said “You can smell a rose this way.” The point is, somethings are easy to explain and prove, and some are not.

  So let’s start with something easy. Proving that only Intelligence could have created life.

  What kind of information does DNA have? What kind of information must the origin of life researcher ‘explain the origin of’? Webster defines information as ‘the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produces specific effects.’ A block of binary code in a software program is information. DNA contains alternative sequences of nucleotide bases that produce a specific effect; therefore DNA contains information. DNA sequences are improbable and specifically arranged to perform, this is functional information similar to CAD – CAM. Now the question becomes not what is the origin of life but the origin of biological information. Where did the information to build the first living organism come from? Let’s bring cause and effect. If an effect has only one known cause then the presence of the effect is enough to support the presence of the cause. The only known cause of information is intelligence.
• 

  towerwatchman

  To redvip2000

  because we have seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible.

  No you have not seen that. But i guess you'll just make up $hit as go, to try to support your idiotic position.

  Science = First the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning, therefore there is no infinite series of cause and effects.

  Philosophy = Time and space go together. When the universe began so did time. Any theory that speculates that the series of past events has been formed by adding one event after another like a sequence of dominoes falling one after another until the last domino today is reached is plausible. But no series that is formed by adding one member after another can be actually infinite. You cannot pass through an infinite number of elements one at a time.

  For example. No matter how high you count there always an infinity of numbers left to count. But if you cannot count to infinity then how could you count down from infinity?

  This would be like trying to count down all of the negative numbers ending at 0. Before you could count zero you have to count -1 and before you count -1, -2 and so forth. Before any number could be counted an infinity of numbers would have to have been counted first. You just get driven back and back into the past but then the final domino could never fall if an infinite number of dominoes had to fall first. So today could never be reached. But obviously we are here. So this shows that a series of past events must be finite and have a beginning. Thus time had a beginning.

  BTW. When in checkmate, the last position of ignorance is to insult the opponent and not address the topic.
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Finkelstein

  Theists position themselves with intellectual dishonesty when they say that there is positively a supernatural being. Its really the easiest answer that doesn't involve critical investigation upon psychical evidence. God the all powerful omniscient being did it all and that being has actually been in contact with humanity overtime. Ancient mythology offers men power and easily obtainable answer(s) to difficult complicated questions relating to are own existence and that of the universe and other things like salvation, redemption from sins and some times even money., where on the other hand science and its acquired knowledge and information doesn't offer them anything at all.

  Science is good but science is limited. Science tells us that if we give grandma poison she will die, but science does not tell us why it is wrong to give grandma poison. You can come to person denial of deity based on the evidence, but you cannot state for certainty deity does not exist.