Surely you're not acquiescing to the fact that atheism is untenable are you?

LOL

Surely you're not acquiescing to the fact that atheism is untenable are you? — 3017amen

Do you know the saying about playing chess with a pigeon?

Hahaha! I thought my questions were simple, but then again maybe they're not so simple after all LOL!

In any case, it doesn't seem like atheism has the answers...( to the deep questions of existence).

Atheism is a religion: :up:
Obligatory Einstein quote: :up:
NDE's: :up:
Sense of wonderment: :up:
obligatory condescending LOL in lieu of any understanding: :up:

Such original argumentation!

Hey happenstance welcome aboard!

What do you think about this simple question regarding atheism:

1. God does not exist.

Or since you mentioned a couple of those phenomena in your post:

1. Does music theory confer biological advantage?
2. Can you explain the feeling I have when I look at the color red?

Just askin'

Sir, I do not give one fig for your crappy argument or your condescending attitude.

Crappy argument?

Good to see you own your condescending attitude!

Good to see you own your condescending attitude!

Sure, I think it was Aristotle who said the greatest gift we can give to each other is to ' know thyself'.

Otherwise if I could read between the lines, it sounds like you are advocating atheism as a superior belief system of sorts. And that's perfectly fine.

It doesn't seem to provide the answers to basic existential questions though.

In any case, it doesn't seem like atheism has the answers...( to the deep questions of existence). — 3017amen

If you cannot explain the rules of chess to a pigeon, that doesn't mean that you don't know them.

you cannot explain the rules of chess to a pigeon, that doesn't mean that you don't know them.

Sure...Kantian intuition... or some other Reformed Epistemology?

(Otherwise existential questions are mysteriously answerable.)

Sure...Kantian intuition... or some other Reformed Epistemology? — 3017amen

I am not sure what you mean by Kantian intuition, but I do at least have some idea of Kant's epistemology.

it doesn't seem like atheism has the answers...( to the deep questions of existence). — 3017amen

Have you asked? What are the questions?

Sure, from the OP, I suggested these so-called phenomenon of making judgements from intuition.

1. Every event must have a cause.

That's called a synthetic a priori judgment. It's a synthesis of two concepts: experience and innate or what psychologists would call, intrinsic intuition.

So we know the statement is partially true but we're not exactly certain because we have not experienced every event.

This is ( an example of) the nature of human wonderment. And is also absolutely necessary (synthetic propositions) in using logic to discover anything in physics.

That also goes back to my point about half-truths existing (if you painstakingly read further back in the thread).

And so once again we're seeing that life is not perfectly logical like the Atheist's politically posit.

Faith, hope and love... .

Good to see you own your condescending attitude! — Happenstance

You should have added an LOL

Why are you people in the minority — 3017amen

At one point in history monotheism was a minority view. A view becomes a mass delusion when the elites in a society propagate and enforce the belief by imprisoning and killing anyone who says otherwise. Over centuries of doing this, eventually you weed out the kinds of people who think originally, or for themselves, and end up with a society of sheep who follow orders without question.

Hey come on now you know I was only kidding I love you guys!

Yeah I get it... deplorable! But I would say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either!

Hey come on now you know I was only kidding I love you guys! — 3017amen

I'd like you better if you'd have a real discussion instead of acting like a troll.

Yeah I get it... deplorable! But I would say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either! — 3017amen

Yeah, I dont get what this has to do with what I said.

You know TS, I got to stop this is a bad addiction. At least for a while, I got to get some work done.

(George Harrison/Beatles said: a lot of things in life can wait but the search for God cannot wait.)

But I love talking with you guys about religion. But you also have to own up to the fact that you never answered a lot of my questions in a direct succinct fashion.

That's okay we'll live for another day

I was speaking to the religious aspect (paradigms) of your concern.

So if you're saying it's all or nothing, or it's a or b , I of course would not agree with that dichotomization.

But I love talking with you guys about religion. But you also have to own up to the fact that you never answered a lot of my questions in a direct succinct fashion. — 3017amen

You are conflating answering “in a direct succinct fashion” with the answers you want us to say. You clearly want an atheist to say “god does not exist and here is my proof” or somesuch. Expecting that answer shows that you do not understand atheism, nor some of the basic logic behind atheist arguments/positions (such as the burden of proof).
People are becoming frustrated because you are not engaging. (Hence the “troll” accusation). Instead of engaging in discussion you are just trying to illicit responses which you can use to perpetuate your own talking points.
Personally, I think that you are being dishonest (perhaps not realising it) and the best you can do is couch your posts with feigned humility and good humour. ( hence the accusation of condescension).
You can show that isnt the case by exercising some succinct engagement of your own. I suggest starting by recognising the difference between “talking to” and “talking at”. Most people find the former to be the better of the two.

1. Every event must have a cause.

That's called a synthetic a priori judgment. It's a synthesis of two concepts: experience and innate or what psychologists would call, intrinsic intuition. — 3017amen

This seems contradictory. A-priori means prior to experience. I cannot be a synthetic a-priori judgement if it contains experience. Kant uses the qualifier "synthetic" to denote judgements that "synthesize" new information, as opposed to "analytic" judgements.

The rest doesn't really make much sense to me.

I am not playing games and I am not into political doublespeak. Personal attacks won't intimidate me in searching for the truth.

If people are frustrated they have to ask themselves why they feel frustrated.

For the 20th time parse/answer this statement/ question,:

1. God does not exist ?

You're an atheist so please answer the question. Now let's wait and see who's playing games ?

If people are frustrated they have to ask themselves why they feel frustrated. — 3017amen

Because, for example, I asked you three or four times in a row if you'd either agree to not resort to saying "That's an explanation" or alternately think about and post your criteria for what counts as an explanation, and you wouldn't even address the issue. That's frustrating, because it's someone simply ignoring what you're saying, all while pretending that they want to have a conversation.

I'll try once again and ask you, is the following statement true or false:

1. God does not exist.

If you can't answer it, it's suggests atheism is untenable... prove me wrong.

Didn't you read the second page of this thread? You even responded to me about it.

Im not trying to intimidate you, nor was any if that a personal attack. Im trying to help you, because if you keep on doing what your doing people will just start ignoring you. Id rather that people had interesting interactions instead of talking past or ignoring each other.
The reason you seem like you are trolling is because you are ignoring direct points and questions. You responded to that by just doing the exact same thing. Ignoring and restating your question. People are not confused why they are frustrated, you are confused as to why its frustrating.

And I already answered your question, remember?

Guy's guys guys stop the political doublespeak:

Is the following statement true or false:

God does not exist.

The lack of answer suggests that you don't know, therefore, what we are left with is that atheism remains untenable.

Prove me wrong if you have the courage.