There's a teapot between Mercury and Venus and you can't prove me wrong! — Christoffer
An appeal to authority from a fundamentalist atheist.
No priestly irony here! — Trinidad
Words words words. — Trinidad
Why would I want to? — counterpunch
Ah now that's interesting. I wonder how common this is. — Kenosha Kid
So your counterargument is that you don't want to? The point is that burden of proof is on the one claiming something. You claim the existence of God, then the burden of proof is on you. If you don't even know Russell's teapot I understand why you are confused, but it proves my point even better. In contemporary philosophy, theism is a joke. The scrutiny required for the level of philosophy done today requires much more than theists can manage to provide. — Christoffer
I can't ever remember having any sort of disadvantage for being an atheist (I'm Austrian, for what it's worth. Roughly 70 % Roman Catholics when I was a child, I think.) — Dawnstorm
Here's the classic ontological argument based upon the same logico-deductive reasoning:
1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality. — 3017
My take is Amen didn’t show up to the debate. Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate. That's what it looked like to me. — DingoJones
Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate. — DingoJones
You don't seem to know what the true Scotsman fallacy is. If I define atheism as having a foundation of logic and rational reasoning instead of just a lack of belief in God, that incorporates everyone with a belief that doesn't have a logical foundation for it. Hence, it includes these people. The Scotsman fallacy is if I just say "they aren't true atheists" and don't provide any foundation for that claim, which I have. — Christoffer
Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists. — Christoffer
...people like Amen cannot recognize how disingenuine they are being, blind to their dishonest engagement. What do you call that, — DingoJones
Nothing, were possible.what do you say to them? — DingoJones
Having a debate about what so many atheists are not philosophically inclined and can't really justify their atheism might be a more rewarding line to follow. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.