Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#121 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 15 January 2010 - 06:46 AM

So… We do now exist! And, we know from inductive and deductive empirical scientific evidence that we could NOT have come from NOTHING. Therefore; WE HAD AN ORIGIN! WE CAME FROM SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (all said with emphasis so as to ensure there os NO posturing, equivocation and side-tracking)!

All true. Atheists don't know "what" or "who" the something was, and it doesn't matter anyway. To be an atheist, all you have to do is consider it an unlikely prospect that the "what" or "who" was a god. This has been said several times already in this thread, and I don't really understand your objection. Could you explain?

#122 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 15 January 2010 - 10:00 AM

So… We do now exist! And, we know from inductive and deductive empirical scientific evidence that we could NOT have come from NOTHING. Therefore; WE HAD AN ORIGIN! WE CAME FROM SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (all said with emphasis so as to ensure there os NO posturing, equivocation and side-tracking)!

View Post


We came from chemicals that were created in stars. The original bits and pieces of the chemicals came from something that happened 14 billion years ago, generally called "The Big Bang". We do not know what "caused" the big Bang.

#123 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:04 AM

Is this another weak attempt to paint atheism as a religion?

View Post


The weak attempt here Jason, is your not having the ability (or your inability) to answer the OP questions, and positing nothing more than weak equivocations to cover for that inability. It follows therefore, until an answer is forthcoming, all you are doing is providing evidences for the premise that I brought forth in my last post.

And, of course, that includes your equivocation as per #’s 2 and 6 in your response above.

Again, for your edification, as per the OP; from where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

#124 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:23 AM

We came from chemicals that were created in stars. 

View Post

The above in an equivocation as per OP #’s 2 & 5 PLUS, you provide absolutely no substantiation for your assertion, which makes it nothing more than speculation and opinion. Which , of course is an equivocation as per OP #1

The original bits and pieces of the chemicals came from something that happened 14 billion years ago, generally called "The Big Bang". 

View Post

The above in an equivocation as per OP #’s 2 & 5 PLUS, you provide absolutely no substantiation for your assertion, which makes it nothing more than speculation and opinion. Which , of course is an equivocation as per OP #1

We do not know what "caused" the big Bang.

View Post

Although this is the most cogent statement you’ve made thus far, it really says nothing, and it just shows your faith in atheism because; from all the science (be it the historical inductive and deductive empiricism) that we have, we know it takes someone or something to start/make/create anything. So, since we know “from nothing, nothing comes” it logically follows that someone or something to started/made/created all of this.
Having said that, none of it answers the OP questions.

#125 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:34 AM

All true. Atheists don't know "what" or "who" the something was, and it doesn't matter anyway.

View Post

Actually, it matters greatly if you are a materialist and place your faith in the hope that we came from nothing, and go to nothing. But, having said that, the above is equivocation as per #’s 2, 3, 4 & 6.


To be an atheist, all you have to do is consider it an unlikely prospect that the "what" or "who" was a god.

View Post

That is all well and good falcone, but you are doing so on faith alone (totally unsupported by logic and empirical science). Having said that, the above is equivocation as per #’s 2, 3, 4, 5& 6.

This has been said several times already in this thread, and I don't really understand your objection. Could you explain?

View Post

Again, equivocation doesn’t deal with the questions posted. And that has been explained over and over. So, it doesn’t matter how many times an equivocation has been posted, it will continue to be exposed and/or removed.

#126 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 January 2010 - 06:24 AM

We came from chemicals that were created in stars. 

View Post


P.S. I forgot to add: The large amounts of faith it takes for you to make such a statement rivals that of the greatest theologians of LL antiquity.

#127 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 16 January 2010 - 12:53 PM

The weak attempt here Jason, is your not having the ability (or your inability) to answer the OP questions, and positing nothing more than weak equivocations to cover for that inability. It follows therefore, until an answer is forthcoming, all you are doing is providing evidences for the premise that I brought forth in my last post.

And, of course, that includes your equivocation as per #’s 2 and 6 in your response above.

Again, for your edification, as per the OP; from where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

View Post


Would you accept the answers "I don't know" and "The lack of evidence for gods"?

#128 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 16 January 2010 - 01:01 PM

Would you accept the answers "I don't know" and "The lack of evidence for gods"?

View Post


I would be glad to accept your answer. Now will you accept that your answer is an argument from ignorance, and a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignoratiam)?

#129 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 January 2010 - 01:48 PM

Would you accept the answers "I don't know" and "The lack of evidence for gods"?

View Post


Did you read the OP?

#130 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 January 2010 - 01:50 PM

Atheists don't know "what" or "who" the something was

View Post


Actually, that would be the definition for an agnostic.

#131 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 January 2010 - 02:40 PM

Which is what atheism is evolving into due to a lack of many answers atheism cannot find.

#132 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 January 2010 - 08:07 PM

Now will you accept that your answer is an argument from ignorance, and a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignoratiam)?

View Post


And that is what makes it an agnostic argument, and not an atheistic argument performedge. That is why those who claim to be atheists aren't really the atheists they thought they were. There's an appropriate quote by Madalyn Murray O'Hair I'm trying to remember that fits quite nicely here.

#133 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:09 AM

Actually, that would be the definition for an agnostic.

View Post


Agnostic is not a question of religion or lack there of but a question of ability to know. There are all sorts of agnostics including Christian Agnostics.

Agnosticism does not help one decide if or if there isn't a god/gods.

#134 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 January 2010 - 05:39 AM

Agnostic is not a question of religion or lack there of but a question of ability to know.

View Post

Actually, that would be incorrect. Agnosticism (within the context of the conversation) is a question of God and therefore religion:

ag•nos•tic

NOUN:
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
ADJECTIVE:
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

ETYMOLOGY:
a-1 + Gnostic

OTHER FORMS:
ag•nos ti•cal•ly(Adverb)

WORD HISTORY:
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals "ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. (American Heritage® Dictionary)


There are all sorts of agnostics including Christian Agnostics.

View Post

The only “Christians” who are agnostic, are those who lack understanding in areas other than following the commands of Christ. You may want to consult the “Words of Jesus” to really understand what a Christian is.



Agnosticism does not help one decide if or if there isn't a god/gods.

View Post


See the definition above to understand where you are incorrect.

#135 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 17 January 2010 - 07:10 AM

I would be glad to accept your answer.  Now will you accept that your answer is an argument from ignorance, and a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignoratiam)?

View Post


It would be an argument from ignorance if it were a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

#136 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 17 January 2010 - 07:11 AM

And that is what makes it an agnostic argument, and not an atheistic argument performedge. That is why those who claim to be atheists aren't really the atheists they thought they were. There's an appropriate quote by Madalyn Murray O'Hair I'm trying to remember that fits quite nicely here.

View Post


Claiming not to know how the universe started does not make someone agnostic.

#137 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 January 2010 - 11:39 AM

Claiming not to know how the universe started does not make someone agnostic.

View Post


That would be incorrect Jason; not only contextually, but linguistically as well. You may want to research the word “agnostic” one more time.

#138 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:19 PM

Actually, that would be incorrect. Agnosticism (within the context of the conversation) is a question of God and therefore religion:

ag•nos•tic

NOUN:
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
ADJECTIVE:
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

ETYMOLOGY:
a-1 + Gnostic

OTHER FORMS:
ag•nos ti•cal•ly(Adverb)

WORD HISTORY:
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals "ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. (American Heritage® Dictionary)

Look at the bold.

See the definition above to understand where you are incorrect.

View Post


ag⋅nos⋅tic
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

I will only accept the areas in which the two definitions overlap as the definition.

I see your bottom entry in dictionary.com
Did you purposely chose that to fit your argument? Because I have never seen 1b of that definition anywhere else.

The only “Christians” who are agnostic, are those who lack understanding in areas other than following the commands of Christ. You may want to consult the “Words of Jesus” to really understand what a Christian is.

That is only your opinion.

"Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable."

"Christian Agnostics practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God."

http://en.wikipedia....Agnostic_theism

#139 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 January 2010 - 04:37 PM

Look at the bold.

View Post

Exactly Thanos, and if you kept the conversation in context of the rebuttal, you’d understand where you err.

ag⋅nos⋅tic
noun
1.  a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.  a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3.  of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4.  asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

I will only accept the areas in which the two definitions overlap as the definition.

View Post

It doesn’t much matter what you accept or not Thanos. That is, it doesn’t matter if you want to limit your knowledge so-as–to distinctly fit your world-view. Facts are facts…

I see your bottom entry in dictionary.com
Did you purposely chose that to fit your argument? Because I have never seen 1b of that definition anywhere else.

View Post

No Thanos, it was simply the first one I came across.

That is only your opinion.

View Post

No Thanos, that is the opinion of the one for whom Christianity is named. Anything, or anyone else is just a poseur. Again, You may want to consult the “WORDS” of the one for whom Christianity is named to really understand what a Christian is.

"Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable."
"Christian Agnostics practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God."
http://en.wikipedia....Agnostic_theism

View Post


Again, Thanos, You may want to consult the “WORDS” of the one for whom Christianity is named to really understand what a Christian is, not Wikipedia…

#140 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 January 2010 - 08:04 PM

My apologies for such a long side tracked issue.

View Post


That's Okay, I've gotten use to the side-tracking and equivocations. If you spent half as much time attempting to actually answer the OP questions, then we'd be somewhere.

If you would like to make a thread with relevant posts that would be fine with me.

View Post


I'll tell you what, answer the OP questions, and I'll start a new thread. Or, here's a novel idea, start your own thread! :lol:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)