atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To Cofty
Natural evil is proof that the god of christian theism does not exist.
When one asserts that there is such a thing as evil, one must assume there is such a thing as good. When one assumes there is such a thing as good, he or she must also assume there is an objective moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. When you assume an objective moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver—the source of the moral law. [Ravi Zacharias]
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To
Possibly the best example of gibberish in the history of the forum
You actually are ridiculous.
It's like trying to explain calculus to somebody who can't count to ten.
This is the best you can do. Pity
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To cofty
Yes there are a cadre of theists who love it when some mug joins and spouts all the vacuous nonsense they wish they had the courage to post. You will get lots of PMs and plenty warnings about me and others. Remember those same theists tried out all your fallacies already and had it explained to them why it was wrong.
No warnings, rather the consensus is you are getting your a** kicked. And I am only using one hand.
Don't let it go to your head. Despite what they tell you, you haven't said anything interesting yet.
Nothing is getting my head. Sadly this is getting boring. Other forums where I discussed these topics people actually have material to exchange.
You are parroting lots of Wm L Craig bullshit
Not only Craig, but Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Stephen C. Meyer, William A. Dembski, Norman Geisler, Isaac Newton, and St Augustine to name a few.
and not engaging in genuine conversation with anybody. If you ever slow down and engage in genuine dialogue you will realise how much you have to learn.
Typical position of ignorance. Instead of addressing the topics attack my character. BTW still waiting on you.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To TD
You're still projecting the modern English noun usages (i.e. With the endings "ist" and "ism") backwards upon the Greek adjective.
"It is only about a decade after Socrates' death, in Plato (ca. 429 - 347 B.C.) that we start to find the Greek word atheos, which originally was used in the meaning, "godless, without gods, godforsaken," denoting intellectuals who denied the gods of the city or any form of deity." -Martin, Michael The Cambridge Companion to Atheism p. 19
"Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said átheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, átheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed." -Drachmann, A.B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (Emphasis mine)
For argument sake I will grant you “without god” now what? What does that prove? What is it? Is it without out god on Mondays? Without god at work? Without god on vacations? Notice the incompleteness. It is a cowardly position to take.
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 in order to live a lifestyle contrary to a theistic worldview, but want to continue ontologically with theistic ideas for their benefit. 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.
“‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” J. J. C. Smart
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To Cofty
TWM - I will discuss evolution with you any time but stay on topic in this thread. Here is a link to 38 threads I have written on evolution. Take your pick... By the way tell me which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read. I predict the answer is none and you will ignore the question.
You brought up evolution, and now you ignore my post. If you paid attention to my response it covers your 38 threads. Instead of discussing biology in it many stages of development, let’s roll it back to the closes point of commencement and discuss that.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Berengaria
No, it's pretty simple. Without god. Not having god. That's all atheism is. You are apparently trying to turn it into a belief that there is no god.
For argument sake I will grant you “without god” now what? What does that prove? What is it? Is it without out god on Monday’s? Without god at work? Without god on vacations? Notice the incompleteness. It is a cowardly position to take.
A believer will say "I believe there is an invisible table in the middle of that room." A nonbeliever will simply say it's an empty room. They would not say "I absolutely do not believe there is a table in this room".
When it pertains to Atheism or Theism the issue is not the empty room but the existence of the invisible table.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
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.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
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.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
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.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
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?
