Actually, I did, and you're just refusing to engage it. That not only shows you've lost the argument, but that you're kind of a bad (and impolite) interlocutor. "



I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying. Please tell everyone. tick tock tick tock

What is Love?

Please tell everyone. tick tock tick tock — 3017amen

So that's just rude.

1. I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying(?).
2. What is Love?
3. This statement is a lie.

Can you explain at least one of these please? (Are these deficiencies in Atheism?)

So, for example, I have now 3 or 4 times explained 3 and you keep just ignoring what I say. On that basis, and your unapologetic rudeness (which leads me to believe you either can't handle the discussion or you're just a troll) there's no point in responding any further.

I'm sorry you want to end the debate. I'm expecting you, as an Atheist who's values logic, would be able explain them. In keeping with the OP, is this one deficiency?

Are you acquiescing to the unexplained?

I'm expecting you, as an Atheist who's values logic, would be able explain them. — 3017amen

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him understand logical arguments.

Robert, with respect to one of your questions, I could be wrong, but it appears Atheism has no answer/explanation for these questions/phenomena occurring in life:

1. I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying(?).
2. What is Love?
3. This statement is a lie. (True or False.)

Can you explain at least one of these please? (Are these deficiencies in Atheism?)

Why do you ask questions when you're clearly not interested in the answers?

I'm waiting... ? Do you think GMBAA could explain it better?

Do you always ignore the things your interlocutors actually say?

No, I'm listening, waiting, and excited that you might be able to explain how the human consciousness and subconsciousness work together?

Or how about question number 2. Love. Is that easier?

Not until you respond to answers I've already, repeatedly given you :kiss:

1. I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying(?).
2. What is Love?
3. This statement is a lie. (True or False.)

Can you explain at least one of these please? (Are these deficiencies in Atheism?)

You're trolling.

I'm asking you direct questions. And you are politically deflecting them.

You ignore my answers and then you ignore my criticism of you ignoring my answers. Just in order to ask the same question over and over. Trolltrolltroll.

The more interesting question to ask here is: how does God explain any of those?

Not because they do.not have explanations or need God to be explained, but rather to question the entire approach for handling unknown questions. What explanatory power could "God did it" or "My religion says so" ever have in this context? It's simply stating a relation of concepts, no more explanatory than if we said "atoms did it", "brains did it" or "2+2=4 did it."

God is always cheap herebecause God is literally anything and everything. Being other to the finite instances we are trying to describe, it never says much interesting about how things came to be or what they are. Just silly humans struggling to come to terms with self-existence by shifting it into something else.

I'm desperately trying to make sense out of your logic. Thus far this is what you're leaving me with:

1. If Artemis is God, she can answer my questions.
2. She cannot answer my questions.
3. Therefore, she is not God.

Absurd?

What explanatory power could "God did it" or "My religion says so" ever have in this context?



Are you trying to use a priori logic to 'disprove' God's existence? Of course that's a rhetorical question...

I would think in your case, Apophatic theology, would be a more intellectual approach. Or harder yet, inductive reasoning, I'm thinking would likely pose more hurdles for the positive Atheist I'm sure.

Otherwise what I'm hearing you say is Fundamentalism v. Atheism all over again. No?

If you want to define god as love so that you can continue using that random word for whaatever reason, go ahead. But that means god is just an emotion and not a conscious entity, creator of the universe, or an independent existence in any way. — Artemis

I will go ahead, thanks. But it is not random and I have not invented it. It is a mainstream tradition. And obviously, it is not an emotion. And I have already said I am not even interested in "existence" in this context. But apart from that , excellent response.

If you define a god as a magic man in the sky that exists and for whom there can be evidence, I will join you in your scepticism. But that is not what sensible people mean.

In a way... but less trying to disprove an existing God (that's a space for emprical questions and answers), than showing that the a priori infinite being posed as God cannot exist/give account of finite beings.

...sure...an unchanging Being in a deterministic/contingent world is not logically possible (but neither are my questions sort of speak).


Thus:

1. If TW of D is God, he/she can answer my questions.
2. He/She cannot answer my questions.
3. Therefore, he/she is not God.

1. I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying(?).
2. What is Love?
3. This statement is a lie. (True or False.) — 3017amen

None of these have to do with theism or atheism.

You might as well ask what is gravity, who invented the cursor and why do stars shine.

You stick to these three questions as if they were meaningful or a way to prove a point.

You can ask meaningless questions, questions that don't have any relevance, questions that are completely incongruent with the topic, but don't expect any replies.

For instance: the topic at hand is, "deficiencies of atheism". What is Love? Why would it support a deficiency of atheism? or refute the deficiency of atheism? It's not even a claim, but a question. It has no truth value. It is not an argument or a point.

This statement is a lie. If it's true, it's false, and if it's false, then it's true. This in support of your point of denying the deficiency in atheism, or your argument in support of deficiencies of atheism? "This statement is a lie" has nothing to do with anything. You are sticking to these utterances because you can, but you have given no reason why they support or reject the claim expressed in the topic.

Why do you do this, @3017amen? You are -- I am sorry to say so, but it is true -- becoming and acting like a troll. You carried these pointless three utterances for a number of pages now, for no reason, no consideration, and you yourself don't know why.

Putting meaningless posts and riling others, as well as giving others tasks, as well as being cockey about the whole thing, is a typical troll behaviour. I think it's time to call in the judges.

And obviously, it (love) is not an emotion. — unenlightened

Then you don't speak English. Or have misconnected ideals of concepts.

I'm asking you direct questions. And you are politically deflecting them. — 3017amen

There is a HUGE difference between "Artemis is politically deflecting them" and "@3017amen keeps ignoring her answers. " Time to learn the difference.

It is very frustrating for a debating opponent when the opposite party keeps ignoring the points. The opposite party in this scenario is either stupid, or malicious, or both. And stupidity + malice is what defines a troll.

IN my opinion, you are perfect natural specimen of what constitutes a troll, @3017amen. You ask irrelevant questions; you demand, nay, command an answer of those who are not obliged to; and when they answer you, you ignore their answers.

You are a humongously malicious, enormously reasonless, multi-story high troll, in my opinion. You are impervious to logic, to responses, to anything said to you.

How else would YOU describe your own behaviour, @3017amen?

I noticed the most vocal and prominently evocative deniers of the validity of atheism in this debate are either living in their own little worlds, where their language is different from the commonly spoken English usage, or else they are completely reasonless.

This I find more in support of atheism than any strong argument made for it by a true atheist.

In other news: Atheists are not denying the possibility of the existence of god. We just don't believe it exists. We can't prove god's non-existence with any more validity than theists can prove its existence.

:cheer: :100:

trying to disprove an existing God (that's a space for emprical questions and answers) — TheWillowOfDarkness

Time for my new thread showing not a disproof but an unlikeliness of 'God'.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6817/an-estimate-for-no-god

Thanks, @Artemis. It's about time someone reported this extreme troll-like behavour by @3017amen to a MOD.