Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,609 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,627,531
Pageviews Today: 2,119,374Threads Today: 466Posts Today: 8,353
02:27 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject I'm an Atheist. Why should I believe in a god? Which god? and why?
Poster Handle Don'tBeAfraid
Post Content
...


Well first, you asked for rational ways, so I provided a philosophical look (Metaphysics) at the existance of a supreme being. Before you discount anything, there's about 100 pages of logical reading, so I know you have read it yet.

Second, while not all spiritual systems were relational, most were. Certainly monotheism is. The realtionship of YHWH is one based upon Love, and hence relevent.

In YHWH there are two main principles. 1) God is the basis for Being or Existance. 2) God is the personification of Love. As such, you can't remove the Love element.
 Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid


I believe that love is a natural human emotion that's being wrongfully exploited by basically suggesting that without god, there would be no love.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23229603


I don't think you're serious, just having some fun with Christians or other spiritual systems. If you're serious as you claim, then you'd spend some time actually reading the logical arguments that you asked for. Since you have not, then I doubt your intentions.

I also think that you've had no training in philosophy or debate, for you are not answering questions in any logical way, only making some subjective observations, which you also are not proving by the way. You haven't built any logical statements, provided evidence of their veracity, or came to a conclusion as a result of reason and logic.

But since you may be young, I'll indulge you. You said, "I believe that love is a natural human emotion that's being wrongfully exploited by basically suggesting that without god, there would be no love."

Prove why that is so.

You should know that you cannot prove a negative, at least near impossible for a beginner in debate. It's a logical fallacy. It's called Evidence of Absence.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

That statement is impossible to prove. Your statement is also false, for I never made that claim.

To prove that the absence of X will result in the absence of Y is very difficult.
 Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid


First, I never asked for anything. Second, just because I have a different view, which, by the way, is a view that I have developed long ago, you resort by saying I'm "young" and I've "had no training in debate and philosophy" etc., which is fairly typical from a believer who is usually stumped by a rational, logical thinking atheist.

Also, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who claim the existence of a supreme deity.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23229603


Oh no, my friend. I'm stating logically that you haven't done 50% of the work in the debate. You're not challenging my assertions in a logical way, and yet you chose to believe that you're logical. When was the last class you had in Logic, Debate, or Philosophy, because I'm not seeing any evidence of it in your post?

And to the contrary, I enjoy being asked and am not in the remotest challenged, but I'm up for it.

No, the burden of proof is not on the believer. Do you know the meaning of dialectic? I hope you look it up so we can go through that process.

Saying, "Prove it." is not a debate or the search for Truth, it's a child's taunt. I'm sure you're intelligent, but I doubt your candor and intent.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation:



News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!