tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post9076680454041476273..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Understanding atheistsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44728532798619655572011-02-21T17:30:57.539-06:002011-02-21T17:30:57.539-06:00This is probably too late, but I'm not sure wh...This is probably too late, but I'm not sure why buddy wants to take the argument over to the atheist community of Austin website. It would be much better to just keep it on this thread or ask one of the moderators to create a new one. It's easier to post here and you don't have to wait for approval on your posts here, because the discussion board must "approve" of your post before it can be posted, which can take awhile.<br /><br />I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear from buddy again, I found it kind of interesting that he claimed to have been following this show for two years, yet still used the kindergarten logic of "first cause" and BOP shifting. You would think you would learn a thing or two by watching this show for while, I've been following it for a few months now and I can't even describe how much I have learned about atheism, epistemology, the different logical fallacies theists use...etc.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66808073989311702282011-02-20T15:50:19.144-06:002011-02-20T15:50:19.144-06:00@Buddy
Sorry I must have misread "I've p...@Buddy<br /><br />Sorry I must have misread "I've podcasted the show for two years" as "I've podcasted *a* show for two years"<br /><br />My Mistake.Alexrkr7https://www.blogger.com/profile/17487865585891855345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2313084379414444432011-02-20T15:40:40.793-06:002011-02-20T15:40:40.793-06:00@ Alexrkr7:
LOL- No. I don't host a podcast. ...@ Alexrkr7:<br /><br />LOL- No. I don't host a podcast. I listen to alot of them. Maybe someday.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10683387911667289325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62758634268571011772011-02-20T14:32:06.766-06:002011-02-20T14:32:06.766-06:00@Buddy
Thank you for the concession buddy.
Still...@Buddy<br /><br />Thank you for the concession buddy.<br /><br />Still, I don't think it advisable to accept claim you don't have evidence for ie. the historicity of Jesus. But even granting you that you certainly shouldn't argue its validity to others because it would be as you say, a waste of time.<br /><br />You mention you host a podcast. I'd be interested in listening to it so if you could give me the info. on that it'd be much appreciated.Alexrkr7https://www.blogger.com/profile/17487865585891855345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17232530150362239802011-02-20T14:22:27.074-06:002011-02-20T14:22:27.074-06:00Thanks for your honest reply and fault admission. ...Thanks for your honest reply and fault admission. I don't mean to get personal when using language, but it's extremely frustrating when I try to explain something over and over and over. So maybe that's part my fault. But it's at least a step in the right direction for you to admit your wrongs and misunderstandings, and for me to admit using ill-willed language. <br /><br />I would encourage you to not waste your time reading up on Christian Apologetics because they won't validate or prove anything about your beliefs to be true, especially concerning historical documents. Frankly all you are going to get is people asserting that the supernatural events in the bible happened(from christian apologists). That isn't evidence. Like I said, just because a group of people share a particular belief about something, doesn't mean their beliefs are true. Evidence is required. I will be looking forward to your "Data findings" on the discussion board.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40654237368454907402011-02-20T14:08:35.492-06:002011-02-20T14:08:35.492-06:00@ MAMBA & Alexrkr7:
Mamba you must have ESP b...@ MAMBA & Alexrkr7:<br /><br />Mamba you must have ESP because I was just finishing reading up more on BOP and coincidently was reading up on positive and negative claims. <br /><br />I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong so yea I was wrong. I didn't fully understand BOP as you both nicely and not so nicely tried to explain to me so here's my mea culpa. <br /><br />With respect to the outside source historic data and Dr. Habermas's minimal fact approach I'm going to hold off on that for now. I have read articles on both and have Habermas's and Copans books which I have to read. <br /><br />At this point I would be wasting your time and do a diservice to their scholarship to present an ill prepared cliff notes version for discussion. Keep an eye on the discussion board at Atheist Community of Austin. When I can adequately represent their arguements I'll post something over there. <br /><br />Enough said.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10683387911667289325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70153832235363925952011-02-20T13:35:38.734-06:002011-02-20T13:35:38.734-06:00What Buddy doesn't seem to understand is the d...What Buddy doesn't seem to understand is the difference between a positive claim and a negative claim. Here is the difference.<br /><br />1. God/gods do not exist.- Negative claim<br />2. God/gods do exist.- Positive claim<br /><br />When someone asserts that something "doesn't exist", whether it's a god, fairy, leprechaun, troll, or unicorn, they are making a negative claim.<br /><br />When someone asserts that something "does exist"(a god, fairy, troll, unicorn, etc...) They are making a positive claim. <br /><br />Buddy seems to think that the claim "God/gods do not exist" is a positive claim. Thus demonstrating that he lacks an understanding of how the BOP works and what the difference is between Positive/negative claims.<br /><br />And since Buddy has agreed with us that the person making the positive claim logically and reasonably has the BOP, he must agree that it isn't reasonable to ask someone who claims that unicorns, fairies, trolls, or gods don't exist to shoulder the BOP.(Because none of these are positive claims)<br /><br />Let's see if he concedes our points, or if he will just ignore them and repeat his flawed logic and reasoning.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-42262189163889636942011-02-19T21:04:37.982-06:002011-02-19T21:04:37.982-06:00We will be eagerly awaiting this "Data"....We will be eagerly awaiting this "Data".Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21997871458096514612011-02-19T19:48:00.181-06:002011-02-19T19:48:00.181-06:00@ Alexrkr7:
I'll respond latter tomorrow or M...@ Alexrkr7:<br /><br />I'll respond latter tomorrow or Monday. Have to look up the data.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10683387911667289325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85467115501468266112011-02-19T18:42:34.830-06:002011-02-19T18:42:34.830-06:00Part 2….
"The point I was making was that th...Part 2….<br /><br />"The point I was making was that there are historical sources outside of the biblical documents themselves."<br /><br />None of which were contemporary historical sources.<br /><br />"To many examples to list. point being no other religious writing has as much outside attestation as the bible."<br /><br />If you're not willing to provide them then you can't make the argument nor do I have to respond to it. It like if I said "I have absolute proof the bible is false but I don't feel like citing how I know this. So how do you explain that!?"<br /><br />"I also think a serious historian might argue that the Bible itself is historical evidence."<br /><br />The bible makes supernatural and miraculous claims and one must provide evidence for that. There is evidence for some of the things in the bible existing, Jerusalem, Egypt, Paul etc. But the other things it claims; Genesis, Noah, Jesus' miracles and resurrection don't have evidence to support them. Just as in Spiderman comics there is evidence that New York exists, doesn't mean Spiderman does. Nor is it a problem to call into question the claims. Even if we found a Peter Parker in New York who was bitten by a spider it doesn't mean he now has powers. Each claim is being evaluated on it's own merit.<br /><br />"Dr. Habermas makes a minimal facts case on the resurrection based on I think 4-5 minimal facts that historians accept about jesus across the board. These are historians from across the spectrum- athiest-christian"<br /><br />And once you provide the evidence we can talk about that.<br /><br />"My point was and still is that IMHO AE could/should make a positive claim and defend it."<br /><br />So I guess you didn't forget what you posted… This is how people start to think one is intellectually dishonest buddy. If you think there is a problem with our definition (which isn't just the AE definition but the definition all atheists I know, go by) Then show us how it is wrong. I tried showing how you misunderstood the BOP with both the courtroom analogy and the 4 premises (one you disagreed with and the other you seemed to agree with) So maybe you should try using analogy to show me why not believing/ don't believe/ lack a belief in gods gives me the BOP.Alexrkr7https://www.blogger.com/profile/17487865585891855345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80122497194358003872011-02-19T18:41:58.043-06:002011-02-19T18:41:58.043-06:00@Buddy
"Not sure where you going with this… M...@Buddy<br />"Not sure where you going with this… My only point in bringing that up was that IMO you don't have to have diect physical evidence to make your case ie. testable/provable evidence." <br /><br />My point with the analogy is clear (I even put how it pertains to us in parenthesis) I was illustrating that you have the burden of proof. In both criminal and civil cases the burden lies on the claimant (you). You keep saying you understand this but you continue to say things like the above; claiming *we* are the one who need to provide evidence.<br /><br />"I still think one can make a valid circumstantial case for God thats rational and reasonable."<br /><br />And that's what we are asking you to do, since the burden of proof lies on you.<br /><br />"With respect to your 4 questions their all the same- the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. (not for anything i believed that going into this and my reason for posting wasn't to refute that.)"<br /><br />And I quote:<br /><br />"Frankly I think the only reason you do this is to avoid the burden of proof."<br />"If your going to posit a belief held by a small portion of the population it seems to me you should put forth some decent reasons as to why we should accept your views."<br /><br />"The point I'm making is if you really don't think God exists or there is'nt sufficient evidence then just say it. Don't nuance how you define atheism to avoid BOP."<br /><br />"i'm not shifting BOP because as i expected your not willing to accept BOP which was my initial point in posting."<br /><br />I hope for your sake you just have a hard time remembering you said all that. You, from the beginning, claim that we have the BOP and that we are trying to avoid it. You now say you were never arguing that you didn't have the BOP and that we did. Those quotes are only from your first 4 posts.<br /><br />Continued….Alexrkr7https://www.blogger.com/profile/17487865585891855345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72300102493889407802011-02-19T15:57:55.159-06:002011-02-19T15:57:55.159-06:00"My point was and still is that IMHO AE could..."My point was and still is that IMHO AE could/should make a positive claim and defend it."<br /><br />We can't make a positive claim! We can only make a negative claim. When someone says that something doesn't exist, that's a negative claim! It is impossible for an atheist to make a positive claim. And this is why the BOP rests on the person making the positive claim. That is why it isn't reasonable to ask an atheist to carry the BOP, because it's nonsensical, just like it's not reasonable to ask someone to prove Thor doesn't exist. Can you really not understand this??Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3721133125810432342011-02-19T15:51:04.584-06:002011-02-19T15:51:04.584-06:00Buddyford1 said.."Dr. Habermas makes a minima...Buddyford1 said.."Dr. Habermas makes a minimal facts case on the resurrection based on I think 4-5 minimal facts that historians accept about jesus across the board. These are historians from across the spectrum- athiest-christian."<br /><br />It doesn't matter what some Christian apologist thinks buddy, resorting to people who share your beliefs about there being a resurrection isn't proof of their being a resurrection. You must supply evidence, not appeals to authority. I'm sure there some things that historians accept concerning the existence of Jesus. No one here is claiming that Jesus didn't exist, it's possible that a Jewish rabbi or may or may not have been named Jesus existed in the first century CE. What needs to be proven is whether or not the supernatural/miracle/mythical elements associated with him are true. And for the second time there isn't anything that can be used to determine whether or not a supernatural event/miracle occurred...none. <br /><br />Buddyford1 said.."My point was and still is that IMHO AE could/should make a positive claim and defend it."<br /><br />And this is where you contradict yourself. We have already got you to agree that the BOP rests on the party making the positive claim, not the person making the negative claim. Even if the AE made the negative claim "There is no god", we still wouldn't have the BOP because it is reasonably and logically accepted that the BOP rests on the Positive claim. It's nonsensical to ask someone to prove a negative. You agreed with this, here is the proof below.<br /><br />Buddyford said.."Frankly I think were talking past each other. I absolutely understand the BOP. +The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof to demonstrate the claim is true. IE. unicorn in the closet.+<br /><br />There you go, you admitted to us that the person making the positive claim is the one reasonably required to bear the BOP. You however dishonestly try to get us to prove a negative. It's like you asking someone who doesn't believe in unicorns to assume the position of "there is absolutely no such thing as a unicorn", and them asking to them to prove it.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79863989346960722792011-02-19T15:32:24.828-06:002011-02-19T15:32:24.828-06:00Buddyford1 said.."Historical evidence. The po...Buddyford1 said.."Historical evidence. The point I was making was that there are historical sources outside of the biblical documents themselves."<br /><br />-And we have shown you that there isn't any contemporary outside sources for the historical accuracy of the bible, let alone the supernatural claims. Simply asserting there is doesn't buy you points.<br /><br />Buddyford1 said.."Yes i'm aware of the josephus issue. i'm not going to cut and paste a whole article. Jim @ pleaseconvinceme.com does a nice job of outlining the outside sources both friendly and non freindly to the Bible. To many examples to list. point being no other religious writing has as much outside attestation as the bible."<br /><br />And for the umpteenth time we don't need you to cut and paste anything from what some christian apologist said, so offer one example of a contemporary outside source that confirms the bible to historically accurate and true for the supernatural claims. We have asked you now multiple times and you just keep asserting that there are outside sources, and then resorts to appeals of authority(Some guy claiming that there are). Show me these outside sources.<br /><br /><br />Buddyford1 said.."I also think a serious historian might argue that the Bible itself is historical evidence. You making a genetic fallacy??"<br /><br />-And this is where you are wrong, you cannot use the bible to prove itself, you need outside sources to verify it(archaeological evidence). LOL Do you understand what a genetic fallacy is? Because this isn't anywhere near what it is..A genetic fallacy is an argument form irrelevance, it doesn't matter how people may have viewed the bible in the past or in current times because it's totally irrelevant to whether or not it's true.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17766863502635156572011-02-19T15:15:51.708-06:002011-02-19T15:15:51.708-06:00Buddyford1 said.."You talking civil or crimin...Buddyford1 said.."You talking civil or criminal. In a criminal case the jury has to be unamimous and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case its preponderance of the evidence. Not sure where you going with this. My only point in bringing that up was that IMO you don't have to have diect physical evidence to make your case ie. testable/provable evidence. I still think one can make a valid circumstantial case for God thats rational and reasonable."<br /><br />-Yeah you totally missed the entire point of the court room analogy. I will repeat myself for the second time in saying that circumstantial evidence isn't sufficient for proving that a god exists, you need direct evidence. The reason for this being that circumstantial evidence can still be wrong and lead to the wrong verdict. You fail to understand this point.<br /><br />Buddyford1 said.."With respect to your 4 questions their all the same- the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. (not for anything i believed that going into this and my reason for posting wasn't to refute that.)"<br /><br />-Then you must acknowledge that the reasonable position to take is to not believe the claim, whether or not you are talking about trolls, fairies, unicorns, or gods. Since you admitted this, you must also admit that the atheists position is the reasonable one. To claim otherwise is to contradict yourself and prove your dishonesty.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79162588881938641742011-02-19T14:57:08.402-06:002011-02-19T14:57:08.402-06:00@ Alexrkr7:
I kind of linked you to Mamba unfairl...@ Alexrkr7:<br /><br />I kind of linked you to Mamba unfairly sorry about that. <br /><br />Regarding the prosecution/defense court analogy.<br /><br />You talking civil or criminal. In a criminal case the jury has to be unamimous and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case its preponderance of the evidence. Not sure where you going with this. My only point in bringing that up was that IMO you don't have to have diect physical evidence to make your case ie. testable/provable evidence. I still think one can make a valid circumstantial case for God thats rational and reasonable.<br /><br />With respect to your 4 questions their all the same- the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. (not for anything i believed that going into this and my reason for posting wasn't to refute that.)<br /><br />Re: Historical evidence. The point I was making was that there are historical sources outside of the biblical documents themselves. Yes i'm aware of the josephus issue. i'm not going to cut and paste a whole article. Jim @ pleaseconvinceme.com does a nice job of outlining the outside sources both friendly and non freindly to the Bible. To many examples to list. point being no other religious writing has as much outside attestation as the bible. <br />I also think a serious historian might argue that the Bible itself is historical evidence. You making a genetic fallacy?? <br /><br />Dr. Habermas makes a minimal facts case on the resurrection based on I think 4-5 minimal facts that historians accept about jesus across the board. These are historians from across the spectrum- athiest-christian. <br /><br />Re: my #8 that you responded to. Again to repeat myself. My intention in posting was not to get into making a case for God-although you sucked me in. My point was and still is that IMHO AE could/should make a positive claim and defend it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10683387911667289325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76800061541325301682011-02-19T14:18:59.965-06:002011-02-19T14:18:59.965-06:00Footnote: You didn't actually present any cont...Footnote: You didn't actually present any contemporary outside sources for the bible, you simply asserted that there was and failed to provide any. Like we already explained to you Josephus and Tacitus aren't contemporary outside sources of the bible.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10413280603785452252011-02-19T13:37:41.593-06:002011-02-19T13:37:41.593-06:00Part 2:
"3. I'm perfectly capable of eval...Part 2:<br />"3. I'm perfectly capable of evaluating evidence and making reasonable conclusions. The difference is we look at the same set of data and see different things."<br /><br />And I disagree this is it at all. The way it seems to be to me is that erroneous conclusions are drawn on your part. Over reaching logical inference and a break down in a basic understanding of epistemological positions concerning one positions on gods.<br /><br />"The main reason being we have a different set of pre-suppositions."<br /><br />You make assumptions, we do not?<br /><br />"4.I point out different sources of information<br />but the two of you don't have the intellectual integrity to check it out."<br /><br />I responded to the info you gave me about historical evidence and I responded in turn.<br /><br />"5. I never claimed or asserted that I have 100% certainty in Gods existence. I'm reasonably certain based on what I said to you.(So what does that make me a soft-theist)"<br /><br />If you don't even know how to describe your position it's a wonder how we will get through to you on anything else. Yes you're a soft-theist or more commonly known as an agnostic theist. But it doesn't matter if you claim 100% or not, you're still making a claim and BOP is on the one making the claim (I'm fairly sure you don't disagree you you in fact making a claim)<br /><br />"6. …Do you do the same? Could I ever have my mind changed? Sure? I pointed out one scenario for you."<br /><br />"7. I asked for a decent discussion. I get insults, lectures, and ignored"<br /><br />I don't think I've done any other these things. I even copy and pasted what you said and responded to every pertinent point. If there is something I missed point it out. Otherwise stop claiming this. You on the other hand haven't responded to anything I've said about BOP, the courtroom analogy, my responses to the historical evidence you provided etc. Who is being dishonest?<br /><br />"8. My initial post was about how AE defines Atheism. In a round about way you admit I'm right but still manage to not answer the question."<br /><br />I'm reading your initial post (I'm a bit late to the game) and all I see you do is accuse us of redefining atheism and calling us dishonest. You ask "How does one lack belief?" If you don't think one can lack belief then show evidence that unicorns don't exist. If you can't simply lack belief but have to have an active belief they don't exist what's your evidence?Alexrkr7https://www.blogger.com/profile/17487865585891855345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82775847643771034302011-02-19T13:37:04.924-06:002011-02-19T13:37:04.924-06:00@Buddy
Please don't run with tall between the...@Buddy<br /><br />Please don't run with tall between the legs. I have been having a discussion and await your response to a number of things I've said in response to you. It would be rude to waste my time.<br /><br />First before you reply to anything I've said concerning your last post please address these very pertinent points first. Directly, don't just say I know your position on this already. Please show the flaw in these:<br /><br />Prosecution claims [the] defendant is a murderer (you claim god exists) The jury (atheists) doesn't accept claim until evidence is presented (atheists don't accept your claim until evidence is presented). If the jury renders the verdict 'not guilty' they are saying they haven't seen enough evidence to accept the claim that this is the murderer (atheists don't see enough evidence that god exists) This is different then claiming that the person is innocent (claim god doesn't exist)<br /><br />And this:<br /><br />1. I don't believe in unicorns; you claim they exist<br />2. I don't believe in trolls; you claim they exist<br />3. I don't believe in fairies; you claim they exist<br />4. I don't believe in gods; you claim one exists<br /><br />Who has the burden of proof in examples 1-3? Now, who has the burden of proof in example 4? I'm sure you don't believe in examples 1-3, do you have the BOP and have to show they don't exist?<br /><br />Now on to your latest post:<br /><br /><br />"1. I'm a 43 yr old male-College grad."<br /><br />Irrelevant, but thank you for sharing.<br /><br />"2. If I was completely brain washed why would I bother to listen to the show-buy/read books written by atheists-bother to engage with atheists."<br /><br />Although I would have once agreed with this I see people exhibit incredible behavior when defending delusion. Ray Comfort comes to mind. (Not comparing you two)<br /><br />"2. I'm not the dim-witted idiot that you accuse me of being."<br /><br />You used '2.' twice there buddy =p. I can only speak for myself when I say I never called you dimwitted nor have I come to that conclusion… yet. <br /><br />Continued........Alexrkr7https://www.blogger.com/profile/17487865585891855345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83809074272709345142011-02-19T13:00:39.985-06:002011-02-19T13:00:39.985-06:00@buddyford1....You are exactly what this thread is...@buddyford1....You are exactly what this thread is meant to talk about...Dishonest ignorant theists who have serious misconceptions about what atheism is, and how to engage in HONEST rational discussions. Thanks for showing anyone who ever reads these comments how intellectually deprived, willfully ignorant, and dishonest theists can be in this world.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72546649931029308912011-02-19T11:41:02.089-06:002011-02-19T11:41:02.089-06:00Buddyford1 said.."I'm perfectly capable o...Buddyford1 said.."I'm perfectly capable of evaluating evidence and making reasonable conclusions. The difference is we look at the same set of data and see different things. The main reason being we have a different set of pre-suppositions."<br /><br />-Obviously not since you don't understand how logical fallacies work. You have also repeatedly shown to be willfully ignorant of every point an d question thrown at you. And you once again don't even understand that no one has presuppositions because we aren't making claims of absolute certainty. Holding a disbelief in something for which there is no evidence for is not a presupposition. Are you holding a presupposition by saying you don't believe in Santa Claus? lol<br /><br />Buddyford1 said..".I point out different sources of information<br />but the two of you don't have the intellectual integrity to check it out."<br /><br />-You are one ignorant dishonest egghead. You did point out different sources of information, and if you read our posts you would see why your sources failed to support any of your claims or beliefs because we....explained...it....to...you! Mr. college grad clearly doesn't understand anything about how to properly examine and research an issue or claim. You brought up bible as a source for proving the bible is true.(That makes you a moron), you brought of Josephus and Tacitus and outside sources.(We point out that they are both not contemporaries and are simply making note of a movement others are telling them about. You should also note that both Tacitus and Josephus weren't Christians...SO neither of them believed that Jesus was the savior anyway. A ancient Historian making reference to a religious movement and their beliefs that they are hearing form others isn't evidence of any of the supernatural claims.) We have checked out the arguments, we have checked out the early christian writings, we have checked out early historical histories. Now answer our questions and stop being a dishonest theist who keeps plugging his ears and yelling "La La La La La La".Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17043752582219291892011-02-19T11:23:12.453-06:002011-02-19T11:23:12.453-06:00And he completely ignores our questions and points...And he completely ignores our questions and points again, and claims we don't understand him/ignored his viewpoints(We completely understand his viewpoint and why it is flawed), thus demonstrating to me once again how intellectually dishonest he is.<br /><br />Buddy...answer...these....questions!<br /><br />1. Person A says "Unicorns exist". I say they don't exist.<br />2. Person A says "fairies exist". I say they don't exist.<br />3. Person A says "Sasquatch exists". I say they don't exist.<br />4.Person A says "a god/gods exists". I say they don't exist.<br /><br />Who is reasonably required to bear the burden of proof in the first three statements? Who is reasonably required to bear the burden of proof in the fourth statement?<br /><br />Answer the questions.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32420311121717152492011-02-19T10:10:30.006-06:002011-02-19T10:10:30.006-06:00@ MAthiest:
I hear what your saying. The problem ...@ MAthiest:<br /><br />I hear what your saying. The problem from my POV is that there are other worldviews-philosophies that undergird that definition. (I think the hosts would deny that.)Kind of like the white elephant in the room. <br /><br />I absolutely understand the position. What i'm saying though is that the show promotes positive atheism as they define it. They implicitly imply that their position is correct but we really don't have a worldview. I think inherently they do. My issue is nuancing the definition into not taking a position although I think its implied. IMHO.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10683387911667289325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34629825931707665852011-02-19T09:50:12.104-06:002011-02-19T09:50:12.104-06:00@ MAMBA24 & Alexrkr7:
1. I'm a 43 yr old ...@ MAMBA24 & Alexrkr7:<br /><br />1. I'm a 43 yr old male-College grad.<br /><br />2. If I was completely brain washed why would I bother to listen to the show-buy/read books written by atheists-bother to engage with atheists. <br /><br />2. I'm not the dim-witted idiot that you accuse me of being. <br /><br />3. I'm perfectly capable of evaluating evidence and making reasonable conclusions. The difference is we look at the same set of data and see different things. The main reason being we have a different set of pre-suppositions.<br /><br />4.I point out different sources of information<br /> but the two of you don't have the intellectual integrity to check it out.<br /><br />5. I never claimed or asserted that I have 100% certainty in Gods existence. I'm reasonably certain based on what I said to you.(So what does that make me a soft-theist) In fact my initial reason for posting wasn't to get into defending the faith. You pushed/defaulted the exchange into defending my beliefs.<br /><br />6. I want to know the truth as much as anyone. While I believe God exists and Christianity is true I still am investigating other points of view. ie. I listen to AE. So obviously I'm not closed minded. Do you do the same? Could I ever have my mind changed? Sure? I pointed out one scenario for you.<br /><br />7. I asked for a decent discussion. I get insults, lectures, and ignored.<br /><br />8. My initial post was about how AE defines Atheism. In a round about way you admit I'm right but still manage to not answer the question. <br /><br />At that I'm done for now. Your not cabable or willing to have a decent conversation without attacking people and insulting them. So I'll come back some other time. Maybe someone else over there can have an intelligent-honest-discussion.<br /><br />@ any of the hosts of AE. if you want to have an honest dialogue to address my initial post let me know. No I'm not calling the show. Yet.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10683387911667289325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64548888573867633952011-02-19T08:44:38.977-06:002011-02-19T08:44:38.977-06:00buddyford1 said ...
The point of the typical defin...buddyford1 said ...<br /><i>The point of the typical definition as opposed to the AE version is that a positive claim is being made. "I don't believe a God/Gods exist" positive assertion vs. " I lack a belief that God exists" wishy washy no definitive claim.</i><br /><br />Buddyford1, how are those two statements different? Never mind the fact that the first statement "I don't believe a God/Gods exist" is not a positive statement. Saying "I do not believe" is the same as "I lack a belief." Which, as you say, has no definitive claim, I agree with you there.<br /><br />The topic of this post is "Understanding atheists", again you said it yourself, there is no definitive claim. An atheist is someone that does not believe in any god, that's it, nothing else. There is no dogma, no tenets, no claims as you put it. Lack of belief does not lead to anything or cause any action. That would be akin to saying, "I have to tend my garden because I don't believe in fairies."MAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.com