Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Yes.  The War against Christmas; as fought by President Trump and Fox News.  Fake outrage, designed to keep the political base in a state of excitement.

 

Are you suggesting that there isn't an ideological war between theistic realism and dialectical materialism? It seems to me that this philosophical divide is the primary engine of discontent in contemporary society in general, and this thread in particular. I'm not saying that the intellectual conflict is a bad thing, if y'all want to keep metaphysically punching each other in the face that's your own business, I'm just making an observation. I've known most of you for a long time and I hate to see my friends tearing this sanctuary apart like wild beasts, but if nothing else this conversation has illustrated both the necessity and infecundity of apologetics. Perhaps there's some wisdom to be gleaned from that. 🕊️

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 399
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Of course, genocide is bad.  A mind that has been corrupted by Scripture -- and faith --  might try to argue that genocide is permissible.  We know better.  

For anyone pursuing a degree in Apologetics that was given a dollar for every time they were asked "What is that, learning how to say you are sorry" upon answering the question of what it is that they

Still straining at gnats.... "there is no evidence, so we don't believe" verses "the absence of evidence causes them to reject"... No evidence is the same as absence of evidence, and not believing so

1 hour ago, Kingfisher said:

 

Are you suggesting that there isn't an ideological war between theistic realism and dialectical materialism? It seems to me that this philosophical divide is the primary engine of discontent in contemporary society in general, and this thread in particular. I'm not saying that the intellectual conflict is a bad thing, if y'all want to keep metaphysically punching each other in the face that's your own business, I'm just making an observation. I've known most of you for a long time and I hate to see my friends tearing this sanctuary apart like wild beasts, but if nothing else this conversation has illustrated both the necessity and infecundity of apologetics. Perhaps there's some wisdom to be gleaned from that. 🕊️

 

I'm sorry.  I only speak English.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

"The slogan of the founder of ULC (Kirby Hensley) was: "Do that which is right". So which of us has the authority to say, "What I believe, is "right' for all of the rest of you." ?"

 

Your words.  Just a few inches up on this page.  Here's a hint.  Don't lie and leave your printed words on view.

 

Sorry, but I still don't get it... Did I misquote Hensley? Or do you think I was saying that I have the authority to decide what is right for the rest of you? I don't see a lie..

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Sorry, but I still don't get it... Did I misquote Hensley? Or do you think I was saying that I have the authority to decide what is right for the rest of you? I don't see a lie..

 

 

So which of us has the authority to say, "What I believe, is "right' for all of the rest of you." ?"

 

You're putting your words into my mouth, as though they were my own.  It's very irritating and it's a lie.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 7:10 AM, Kingfisher said:

 

Are you suggesting that there isn't an ideological war between theistic realism and dialectical materialism? It seems to me that this philosophical divide is the primary engine of discontent in contemporary society in general, and this thread in particular. I'm not saying that the intellectual conflict is a bad thing, if y'all want to keep metaphysically punching each other in the face that's your own business, I'm just making an observation. I've known most of you for a long time and I hate to see my friends tearing this sanctuary apart like wild beasts, but if nothing else this conversation has illustrated both the necessity and infecundity of apologetics. Perhaps there's some wisdom to be gleaned from that. 🕊️

Theistic realism is the idea that god is real, acts in the universe, is knowable through the senses and reason.

Dialectical materialism is the marxist theory that maintains the material basis of reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind.

 

Yep, i had to look those up.

 

I haven't seen evidence of a war between those thoughts...nor do i concede they relate to the alleged war on christmas, nor that either or both provide proof that the war on christmas wasn't manufactured.  God is knowable vs matter over mind doesn't appear relevant to a fake war on christmas to me.  Can you prove it is or otherwise enlighten me in this regard?

 

Also, prove that its 'the primary engine of discontent'...since i dont view atheism as a matter over mind philosophy but rather as a lack of belief in deity alone.  I can see that as being conflated with dialectical materialism since you put the two on opposite ends, yet that doesn't necessarily demand atheism is actually the same.  Merely that we dont believe or subscribe to theistic realism does not automatically place us as dialectical materialists, they are not functions of each other.

Edited by cuchulain
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Theistic realism is the idea that god is real, acts in the universe, is knowable through the senses and reason.

Dialectical materialism is the marxist theory that maintains the material basis of reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind.

 

Yep, i had to look those up.

 

I haven't seen evidence of a war between those thoughts...nor do i concede they relate to the alleged war on christmas, nor that either or both provide proof that the war on christmas wasn't manufactured.  God is knowable vs matter over mind doesn't appear relevant to a fake war on christmas to me.  Can you prove it is or otherwise enlighten me in this regard?

 

Also, prove that its 'the primary engine of discontent'...since i dont view atheism as a matter over mind philosophy but rather as a lack of belief in deity alone.  I can see that as being conflated with dialectical materialism since you put the two on opposite ends, yet that doesn't necessarily demand atheism is actually the same.  Merely that we dont believe or subscribe to theistic realism does not automatically place us as dialectical materialists, they are not functions of each other.

 

 

Since you have chosen to pursue the matter, let us look at the cultural context.

 

Every time I have ever encountered "dialectic materialism" was in the context of Marxist, Soviet Communism.  In America, it is common among the ignorant to confuse Communism and Atheism, as the same.  No.  They are not the same.

 

For what ever dirty and shameful reason -- Kingfisher has decided to bring back the old canard -- and conflate Communism with Atheism.  I won't have it.

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Since you have chosen to pursue the matter, let us look at the cultural context.

 

Every time I have ever encountered "dialectic materialism" was in the context of Marxist, Soviet Communism.  In America, it is common among the ignorant to confuse Communism and Atheism, as the same.  No.  They are not the same.

 

For what ever dirty and shameful reason -- Kingfisher has decided to bring back the old canard -- and conflate Communism with Atheism.  I won't have it.

 

 

I am, and shall be again, naive.  Thanks for pointing that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I am, and shall be again, naive.  Thanks for pointing that out.

 

 

I've been around for a while.  Long enough to see the pious, unload their standard dirty tricks.  The next step is to accuse Atheists of genocide -- because look at Stalin, Marx and Pol Pot.   Dirty, dirty and tedious.  I can smell the same sort of crap, when they talk about "objective morals".  There's no novelty in any of it.  Always, the same dirty tricks.

 

Stick around.  The scent is unmistakable.  The Cosmological arguments.  The utterly irrelevant attacks on evolution.   Pascal's Wager.   Oh look!  Trees! The Watchmaker Argument.  Kalaam. Variants of First Cause, etc.  The thing is, they always act like they just had this great idea.  For the first time.  Again.

 

:sigh2:

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's certainly true.  I've seen this ploy before as well as myriad others.  It's just i usually blind myself to it expecting the best, that is an honest but well intentioned mistake leading to new knowledge and understanding.  Or naivety on my part.  It's the factory default setting on my model.

 

Looking now, I can easily see the attack that was hidden(how we're tearing his sanctuary apart...nevermind that it takes multiples greater than one to fight) and the attack coming that you pointed out(commy atheists).  Next it'll be our judgementalism(which is displayed by calling atheists commies, but we overlook that of course).  I really hoped with a different voice there could be honest discourse...alas my naivety has dashed my hopes again, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

That's certainly true.  I've seen this ploy before as well as myriad others.  It's just i usually blind myself to it expecting the best, that is an honest but well intentioned mistake leading to new knowledge and understanding.  Or naivety on my part.  It's the factory default setting on my model.

 

Looking now, I can easily see the attack that was hidden(how we're tearing his sanctuary apart...nevermind that it takes multiples greater than one to fight) and the attack coming that you pointed out(commy atheists).  Next it'll be our judgementalism(which is displayed by calling atheists commies, but we overlook that of course).  I really hoped with a different voice there could be honest discourse...alas my naivety has dashed my hopes again, lol.

 

 

It's like turning on the television for the "fresh, new season".  What do I see?  Things that were old when they happened on "Make room for Daddy" with Danny Thomas.  Or on I love Lucy.  Or the Flintstones.  Or the Jetsons.  Or the Honeymooners.  Always like it's the first time.  I can't sustain the excitement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Theistic realism is the idea that god is real, acts in the universe, is knowable through the senses and reason.

Dialectical materialism is the marxist theory that maintains the material basis of reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind.

 

Yep, i had to look those up.

 

I haven't seen evidence of a war between those thoughts...nor do i concede they relate to the alleged war on christmas, nor that either or both provide proof that the war on christmas wasn't manufactured.  God is knowable vs matter over mind doesn't appear relevant to a fake war on christmas to me.  Can you prove it is or otherwise enlighten me in this regard? 

 

Also, prove that its 'the primary engine of discontent'...since i dont view atheism as a matter over mind philosophy but rather as a lack of belief in deity alone.  I can see that as being conflated with dialectical materialism since you put the two on opposite ends, yet that doesn't necessarily demand atheism is actually the same.  Merely that we dont believe or subscribe to theistic realism does not automatically place us as dialectical materialists, they are not functions of each other.

 

I think Republicans are dumbing it down because most voters aren't philosophers, but they sense their entire understanding of reality coming under attack and the message resonates with them. A similar campaign can be seen coming from Democrats, who have taken a sharp left turn in recent years. No war is waged by only one participant. I'm still painting the conflict with a pretty wide brush myself. There are, of course, many variations across society, but I think it strikes to the heart of the matter when we examine the big picture. There is a particularly militant strain of atheism, born of socialist ideology, which cannot tolerate other world views, an almost religious devotion to a scientific methodology that refuses to entertain anything it can't explain. This is in direct competition with the spiritual mind which forms the foundation of every theistic belief system and interacts with the universe in a more abstract way, many of whose disciples are equally intolerant of ideas that challenge their dogma. Pure secularism can be as harmful to society as pure faith. There are many people who can't see the miracle in the maths, and the subsequent irreverence of creation, both above and below, is the source of a great deal of strife. Some reject the gods and some reject reason, and in the extremes find they cannot co-exist.

 

In a polarized political climate this becomes more prominent. I don't mean to accuse anyone here of subscribing to a particular narrow-minded outlook, but I do see the greater global struggle reflected here. The fundamental schism sparking the local feud seems to be rooted in this same conflict, and in a fractal way appears on many levels of modern culture. I don't sense any deep hostility here. I know folks like a good intellectual ruckus now and then, but this forum generally has a more mature attitude towards opposition than your average internet kerfuffle. Since the discussion touched on worldly affairs (and I figured it best to nip the politics in the bud before it gets out of hand) I thought it might be useful to draw some parallels. I've found that a little more contemplation and a little less passion helps to smooth over tense situations and keeps things from devolving into the bellum omnium contra omnes. I'm more of a transcendental idealist. Mine is the way of balance and unity. (I tried to take sides, but I just Kant 😜) That brings it's own problems, since I'm as likely to draw ire from both wings as I am to resolve the dispute, but I am what I am. If nothing else is to be accomplished I'd hoped this meditation might teach me something about how to approach the issue in broader scope without adding more fuel to an already raging fire. It's all well and good to sit back and ponder the great mysteries of life from afar, but if we want to make a difference in the world we have to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

For what ever dirty and shameful reason -- Kingfisher has decided to bring back the old canard -- and conflate Communism with Atheism.  I won't have it.

 

I'm afraid you've misunderstood both my argument and intent. I've never been hostile towards atheists, in this forum or elsewhere, and I've never presumed to assign particular beliefs to an individual based on how they choose to identify themselves. If you wish to confront my logic or condemn my motives, I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk about me as if I'm not here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kingfisher said:

 

I'm afraid you've misunderstood both my argument and intent. I've never been hostile towards atheists, in this forum or elsewhere, and I've never presumed to assign particular beliefs to an individual based on how they choose to identify themselves. If you wish to confront my logic or condemn my motives, I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk about me as if I'm not here.

 

 

Alright.  You wish to speak directly to me?  You were the individual who -- out of nowhere -- attempted to conflate dialectic materialism with Atheism.  It set off my BS detector.  Did I misread something?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Alright.  You wish to speak directly to me?  You were the individual who -- out of nowhere -- attempted to conflate dialectic materialism with Atheism.  It set off my BS detector.  Did I misread something?

 

I wasn't attempting to conflate them. I was attempting to distill the two philosophies down to their essence in order to compare and contrast the essential aspects, and applying that to a similar (not identical) relationship I've been observing among the participants in this forum in order to draw focus away from personal attacks and illuminate a much wider conflict which exists in global society. (Secondarily, to gently steer the discussion back toward the topic at hand, that being apologetics.) You can call my input BS if you disagree, however the "dirty and shameful" accusation was a biased assumption and completely unwarranted, although I can understand the defensiveness if you felt my commentary was an intentional mis-characterization of all atheists. It's interesting that you found no such animosity in the parallel between theistic realism and the fundamentalist Christian point of view espoused by other members, for there is certainly an analogous persecution among the faithful who do not adhere to the more rigid schools of thought. It seems that differences of opinion are being taken a little too personally, here to a lesser degree and in the wider world to a much greater degree, which is precisely the problem I thought needed to be addressed. I chose those particular terms because I believe this duality strikes to the heart of the matter, and we are, after all, in a philosophy and theory forum, not a kindergarten or political brouhaha. I wouldn't care if you are a communist. I don't care if folks are papists or pagans or polytheistic pluralists. I'm not here to beat anyone up for what they believe, I'm only exploring ideas and searching for ways to heal rifts that don't need to exist. When I see irreconcilable differences I try find a new perspective which will bring accord among them. I'm a minister, that's what I do. That's who I am. I had hoped we could all strive together for a harmonious dialogue more befitting this hallowed conclave. The bare-knuckle brawling I've witnessed does not create the sort of atmosphere which is welcoming to others who may wish to participate and educate themselves. If y'all would rather continue raining fire and brimstone down on each other then I'll apologize for intruding upon your enthusiastic discord and humbly leave you to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kingfisher said:

 

I wasn't attempting to conflate them.

 

1.  I was attempting to distill the two philosophies down to their essence in order to compare and contrast the essential aspects, and applying that to a similar (not identical) relationship I've been observing among the participants in this forum in order to draw focus away from personal attacks and illuminate a much wider conflict which exists in global society. (Secondarily, to gently steer the discussion back toward the topic at hand, that being apologetics.) You can call my input BS if you disagree,

 

 2.  however the "dirty and shameful" accusation was a biased assumption and completely unwarranted, although I can understand the defensiveness if you felt my commentary was an intentional mis-characterization of all atheists.

 

3.  It's interesting that you found no such animosity in the parallel between theistic realism and the fundamentalist Christian point of view espoused by other members, for there is certainly an analogous persecution among the faithful who do not adhere to the more rigid schools of thought.

 

4.  It seems that differences of opinion are being taken a little too personally, here to a lesser degree and in the wider world to a much greater degree, which is precisely the problem I thought needed to be addressed.

 

5.  I chose those particular terms because I believe this duality strikes to the heart of the matter, and we are, after all, in a philosophy and theory forum, not a kindergarten or political brouhaha. I wouldn't care if you are a communist.

 

6.  I don't care if folks are papists or pagans or polytheistic pluralists. I'm not here to beat anyone up for what they believe, I'm only exploring ideas and searching for ways to heal rifts that don't need to exist.

 

7.  When I see irreconcilable differences I try find a new perspective which will bring accord among them. I'm a minister, that's what I do. That's who I am. I had hoped we could all strive together for a harmonious dialogue more befitting this hallowed conclave. The bare-knuckle brawling I've witnessed does not create the sort of atmosphere which is welcoming to others who may wish to participate and educate themselves. If y'all would rather continue raining fire and brimstone down on each other then I'll apologize for intruding upon your enthusiastic discord and humbly leave you to it.

 

1.  Atheism is not a philosophy.  It isn't even a conclusion.  It is non-belief on one point, due to a lack of evidence.  There is nothing to distill.  Perhaps by distill, you mean turning water into fruit juice?  

 

2.  In 1954, Under God was inserted into The Pledge of Allegiance, in order to distinguish between "God fearing" Americans and "Godless Commies".  Then you come along and "distill" Atheism into dialectic materialism.  Yes.  I called that shameful and dirty, because my first response seemed inappropriate.  You don't want to know what my first response was.  I toned it down out of civility.  Tarnish your own image, if you must.  Atheism is still recovering from the Cold War.

 

3.  I have no reason to insert myself into a dialog, between and among Christians.  Christians can have that conversation without me.

 

4.  Perhaps, you have missed my interactions with Dan.  I don't care what other people believe.  What gets me bent out of shape, is when the pious insist on misrepresenting Atheism; into something that it's not.  For instance, dialectic materialism.  Or Philosophy.  Or a system of morals.  Or answers to the countless questions that have nothing to do with Atheism.

 

5.  Atheism and Christianity are not a binary.  There are other options.  Small wonder that the Pagans -- and others -- have gone silent on this board.

 

6.  It's not my place to say this.  Still, I do have Catholic friends.  Catholics don't enjoy being called Papists.  Is this your idea of being open minded? Or respectful of difference?  

 

7.  Perhaps I have you confused with someone else.  Are you not, the individual who was pressing me on the subject of Objective Morals?  :birgits_giggle:  That's right.  You're here to bring accord.     :rolleyes:

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kingfisher said:

 

I think Republicans are dumbing it down because most voters aren't philosophers, but they sense their entire understanding of reality coming under attack and the message resonates with them. A similar campaign can be seen coming from Democrats, who have taken a sharp left turn in recent years. No war is waged by only one participant. I'm still painting the conflict with a pretty wide brush myself. There are, of course, many variations across society, but I think it strikes to the heart of the matter when we examine the big picture. There is a particularly militant strain of atheism, born of socialist ideology, which cannot tolerate other world views, an almost religious devotion to a scientific methodology that refuses to entertain anything it can't explain. This is in direct competition with the spiritual mind which forms the foundation of every theistic belief system and interacts with the universe in a more abstract way, many of whose disciples are equally intolerant of ideas that challenge their dogma. Pure secularism can be as harmful to society as pure faith. There are many people who can't see the miracle in the maths, and the subsequent irreverence of creation, both above and below, is the source of a great deal of strife. Some reject the gods and some reject reason, and in the extremes find they cannot co-exist.

 

In a polarized political climate this becomes more prominent. I don't mean to accuse anyone here of subscribing to a particular narrow-minded outlook, but I do see the greater global struggle reflected here. The fundamental schism sparking the local feud seems to be rooted in this same conflict, and in a fractal way appears on many levels of modern culture. I don't sense any deep hostility here. I know folks like a good intellectual ruckus now and then, but this forum generally has a more mature attitude towards opposition than your average internet kerfuffle. Since the discussion touched on worldly affairs (and I figured it best to nip the politics in the bud before it gets out of hand) I thought it might be useful to draw some parallels. I've found that a little more contemplation and a little less passion helps to smooth over tense situations and keeps things from devolving into the bellum omnium contra omnes. I'm more of a transcendental idealist. Mine is the way of balance and unity. (I tried to take sides, but I just Kant 😜) That brings it's own problems, since I'm as likely to draw ire from both wings as I am to resolve the dispute, but I am what I am. If nothing else is to be accomplished I'd hoped this meditation might teach me something about how to approach the issue in broader scope without adding more fuel to an already raging fire. It's all well and good to sit back and ponder the great mysteries of life from afar, but if we want to make a difference in the world we have to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty.

 

 

Balance and unity?  Then stop trying to force everybody into one of two boxes.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kingfisher said:

 

I wasn't attempting to conflate them. I was attempting to distill the two philosophies down to their essence in order to compare and contrast the essential aspects, and applying that to a similar (not identical) relationship I've been observing among the participants in this forum in order to draw focus away from personal attacks and illuminate a much wider conflict which exists in global society. (Secondarily, to gently steer the discussion back toward the topic at hand, that being apologetics.) You can call my input BS if you disagree, however the "dirty and shameful" accusation was a biased assumption and completely unwarranted, although I can understand the defensiveness if you felt my commentary was an intentional mis-characterization of all atheists. It's interesting that you found no such animosity in the parallel between theistic realism and the fundamentalist Christian point of view espoused by other members, for there is certainly an analogous persecution among the faithful who do not adhere to the more rigid schools of thought. It seems that differences of opinion are being taken a little too personally, here to a lesser degree and in the wider world to a much greater degree, which is precisely the problem I thought needed to be addressed. I chose those particular terms because I believe this duality strikes to the heart of the matter, and we are, after all, in a philosophy and theory forum, not a kindergarten or political brouhaha. I wouldn't care if you are a communist. I don't care if folks are papists or pagans or polytheistic pluralists. I'm not here to beat anyone up for what they believe, I'm only exploring ideas and searching for ways to heal rifts that don't need to exist. When I see irreconcilable differences I try find a new perspective which will bring accord among them. I'm a minister, that's what I do. That's who I am. I had hoped we could all strive together for a harmonious dialogue more befitting this hallowed conclave. The bare-knuckle brawling I've witnessed does not create the sort of atmosphere which is welcoming to others who may wish to participate and educate themselves. If y'all would rather continue raining fire and brimstone down on each other then I'll apologize for intruding upon your enthusiastic discord and humbly leave you to it.

 

Thanks for attempting to reason, but some folks just aren't open or receptive to ideologies besides their own, and that includes myself. But it stands to reason that since I believe in one God and one truth, I can't agree or compromise with those who believe in nothing spiritual. That fact seems to irritate them, they are easily insulted and get extremely defensive. Its almost a paranoia that puts them into immediate attack mode, as you have discovered. 

 

I do agree with your terminology and analysis comparing theistic realism and dialectical materialism. I'm obviously in the theistic realism camp and think dialectical materialism adequately defines the Atheistic/Agnostic group, not so much in the godless communistic sense as they've implied, but more from a humanism perspective.

 

The bottom line is that Atheist discard spirituality, their reality is limited to the natural world, so they only diagnose things from a physical existence, which is limited to what you can see, touch, hear, smell, and feel. Thus the consistent demand from cuchulain who's only acceptable evidentiary procedure is limited to his materialistic realm of existence.

 

That's essentially the non-negotiable duality, God is spirit and is experience spiritually, God is not revealed or perceived naturally, the spiritual and the physical are entirely separate. Anyway, thanks for trying to bring some clarity to what differentiates the 2 ideologies, which in my opinion boils down to those with spiritual faith and those who don't know or just can't conceive of anything beyond the here & now.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Atheism is not a philosophy.  It isn't even a conclusion.  It is non-belief on one point, due to a lack of evidence.

 

Isn't "There is no God" a conclusion? Not accepting something on the basis of no satisfying evidence is still a conclusion.

 

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Perhaps, you have missed my interactions with Dan.  I don't care what other people believe.  What gets me bent out of shape, is when the pious insist on misrepresenting Atheism; into something that it's not.  For instance, dialectic materialism.  Or Philosophy.  Or a system of morals. 

 

I've wrote that Atheist have no system of morals, so I haven't misrepresented anything. And since God cannot be dis-proven,  Atheism can only be construed as an unproven philosophy. Funny how you define Christianity as mythology, but take offense when Atheism is referred to as a philosophy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

1.  Isn't "There is no God" a conclusion? Not accepting something on the basis of no satisfying evidence is still a conclusion.

 

 

2.  I've wrote that Atheist have no system of morals, so I haven't misrepresented anything.

 

3.  And since God cannot be dis-proven,  Atheism can only be construed as an unproven philosophy.

 

4.  Funny how you define Christianity as mythology,

 

5.  but take offense when Atheism is referred to as a philosophy. 

 

1.  There are lots of things that I don't accept, due to a lack of evidence.  A small sampling would include:  Green Elephants on Mars; the Lochnes Monster; Unicorns; Elves;  Bigfoot;; etc.  Oh, yes.  Your God.  It's not so much disbelief.  I need a reason to believe.  Or even take a proposition seriously.

 

2.  Still?  Alright.  One more time.  Atheists have morals.  It is Atheism that does not involve morals, one way or another.  Neither does Math.  Neither does physics.

 

3.  Unicorns also can't be disproven.  Does that make A-Unicornism an unproven philosophy?

 

4.  Mythology is about the stories of gods of other people.  The Greek gods are mythology, to me, because they are not my gods.  The Norse gods are mythology, to me, because they are not my gods.  Guess what?  The Christian God is also not my God.  That makes it mythology, to me.  As a matter of personal preference, I find the stories about the Norse gods, to be much more interesting, than the Bible stories.

 

5.  In what way is Atheism a philosophy?  You still can't understand something that simple?  Non-belief due to non-evidence is not philosophy.  I don't know why you persist in trying to bait me.  This time, it failed.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.