Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 13, 2007 8:05:28 GMT -4
EDIT: And may I add that long arguments over the meaning of words is what I call "the semantics game". It goes nowhere and ignores any actual issue being discussed. Well, as many of your problems with "atheism" seem to arise directly from a faulty definition, some degree of semantic argument is inevitable.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 12:29:32 GMT -4
I have a problem with a particular position. You may argue over what I should call that position, but that's not the same as disagreeing with me, is it?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 13, 2007 15:36:26 GMT -4
You derided me for not enjoining in your experiment to give the LDS church a try, so that I could see if your prayer theory was correct. I was telling you I already have experience with prayer.
As to joining the LDS church to see if my prayers would then be answered, this is an appeal to exchange your inability to distinguish between the acts of a deity and the actions of random chance for my own inability to do the same. I am no more capable of distinguishing between the acts of a deity and the actions of random chance than are you.
This is, again, an appeal to faith and carries no weight as a rational demonstration of your belief in a deity.
Logic and reason demand that we be able to rationally demonstrate a belief for the belief to be considered true. There is no rational demonstration for the belief in a deity, therefore it is theism that is irrational. As there is no rational demonstration of the belief that a god exists, atheism is entirely rational. To state the opposite in absence of a rational argument is not logical.
Your belief that we must leave open the idea that there could be a god is not supported in any way by any of your arguments.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 15:39:58 GMT -4
You derided me for not enjoining in your experiment to give the LDS church a try, so that I could see if your prayer theory was correct. I was telling you I already have experience with prayer. And your conclusion is that God doesn't answer them, or that He does, or that you don't know either way? I'm just trying to clarify your position here.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 15:51:52 GMT -4
Also never said anyone has to join the LDS church to see their prayers answered. The test of reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it is simply one that I have seen is reliable. Not only did it work in my case, but it has worked in every case I have come across. The trick is in getting people to try it in the first place.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 13, 2007 16:53:26 GMT -4
The "experiment" still lacks any sort of control, which is a rather fundamental flaw in the design. Earlier you mentioned General Patton's crack about atheists in foxholes. Even being generous and assuming that Patton had made an accurate generalisation from his WWI experience, we can be fairly sure that there were 8.5 million foxhole and trench occupants whose prayers were definitively not answered in any affirmative fashion...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 17:23:59 GMT -4
No, we can be sure that 8.5 million foxhole and trench occupants did not have their prayer to be spared answered in the affirmative, not that it went unanswered. EDIT: and that assumes that they were praying to be spared themselves, and not something like "go ahead and take me if it will spare my wife, or kids, or my buddies."
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 13, 2007 17:34:36 GMT -4
Just to keep beating the dead horse, I'll counter that there is no evidence that they were answered in the affirmative or in the negative.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 17:44:30 GMT -4
True. So since there's no way to tell either way we'll have to be agnostic about whether they were answered.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 13, 2007 17:49:02 GMT -4
Uh, no. A lack of evidence does not support that position.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 17:54:02 GMT -4
Doesn't hurt it either. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
EDIT: Are you going to answer my question about your position on prayer, by the way? I could infer your answer from your replies to this point but I would prefer that you actually state it plainly.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 13, 2007 18:12:05 GMT -4
As a young person, I believed that God would answer some prayers – though it seemed impossible to determine which prayers might be answered.
Now I see that there is no rational reason to believe there is a god listening. So I can’t make the statement “God doesn’t answer prayer,” because I see no reason to believe there is a god.
The atheist position does not require evidence to disprove the existence of god, as it is a logical impossibility to disprove the existence of that for which there is no evidence. The lack of evidence is all that is required to make the rational claim that by the evidence, there is no reason to believe in the existence of a god. The lack of evidence in this case confirms the atheist position and does nothing for the theist position.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 19:17:22 GMT -4
So it sounds like your answer is "no He doesn't." But the reason you believe that is because you can't say definitely whether He ever answered any of yours, so there's an element of uncertainty in there too.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 13, 2007 19:54:01 GMT -4
That is not my position. That would be like saying, "no, Santa doesn't bring gifts." It would be illogical to claim that Santa doesn't bring gifts, because the claim would seem to imply the existence of Santa. The same is true of the claim that "He doesn't answer prayers." If "He" does not exist, the claim that he doesn't answer prayers is nonsense.
I am definitely sure that there is no reason to believe there is a god that answers prayers. There is no uncertainty about it.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 13, 2007 21:55:18 GMT -4
I am sick of this place. You are all idiots, and lunar orbit is the biggest idiot of all. Does it make you feel importent to be an admin? This is bullsh*t, anyone can do it. When you try to pick up girls in bars and tell them you are the administrator, are they impressed? Or do they call you a pathetic looser? You are a joke. It is not posible to have intelligent discussion in your playgroup, people are too illogicial and beleive in ridiculous supersticions. I will not waist anymore time here, it is hopeless, you people do not want to think, there are things in the world and the universe that make you uncomfortable, so you make up nice stories to make yourselves feel better. You are pathetic.
|
|