Why do you believe in God?

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Some atheists have a really poor comprehension of the arguments for atheism, also many people are frustrated and/or defensive about their beliefs. I don't fundamentally disagree that some atheists act in this way (anymore than I would deny that some libertarians are antisocial assholes), but the atheist position is at least entirely tenable.

Yes, like you claim you are right and the others are wrong.

 

[LiberalVichy]

My claims are irrelevant, it's the argument. I haven't claimed to prove it to you, nor do I think it ought to be necessary. Essentially I consider debating this pointless because I believe that contrary claims are utterly nonsensical, like 2+2 = 5. They're false by definition.

 

[Peter Parka]

So why are you even in here debating it then?:unsure:

 

[Minor Axis]

My claims are irrelevant, it's the argument. I haven't claimed to prove it to you, nor do I think it ought to be necessary. Essentially I consider debating this pointless because I believe that contrary claims are utterly nonsensical, like 2+2 = 5. They're false by definition.

For someone who thinks debating is pointless, you sure do expend a lot of energy participating. And for someone who claims to dislike abstract concepts like "good", you spend most of your time talking in abstract terms, like this quote. For debate, calling something nonsensical requires more than your statement that it is so. It requires specific logical reasoning why 2+2 = 4 and not 5 which so far, you've not provided much of.

 

[LiberalVichy]

I have no problem with abstract concepts, since that's what all logical concepts are. Furthermore, I consider good to be an abstract concept, and a logical one. And no, it doesn't, if you understand what the numbers and symbols mean it is impossible to conceive of any situation in which 2 + 2 did not equal 5. Numbers are a consequence of the fact that discrete entities do exist in the Universe, if it were all some sort of formless fog there would be no numbers (or us). Physical reality and abstract logical thought are no in the least contradictory or different; neither could exist without the other, reality exists within a framework of logic and logic is a result of the existence of something (concepts like the laws of logic would make no sense if there were not things to be true or false).

I have no idea how you got this idea that I had any problem with abstract concepts. Everything I was critiquing was how moral relatavism makes concepts like 'good' and 'justice' impossible; only by a logical understanding of the meaning of good can we form any conception of what is moral and what is good cannot contradict reality nor be 'irrational' any more than anything which exists can contradict logic; they are equivalent.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

2+2 = 22

 

[Obdurate]

That's what I've always thought too.

 

[IntruderLS1]

As there are countless examples of the work of Brahma, Shiva and Allah in peoples lives....does that mean they exist?

LOL haven't we already covered this style of argument? I think the man called you out on it pretty strongly a few pages back. :nod:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.
The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.
---
In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

You do realize he probable had someone ELSE write this up for him. Right?

 

[IntruderLS1]

You do realize he probable had someone ELSE write this up for him. Right?
[/font][/size][/color][/color]

Presidents don't spend half of their lives writing their own speaches?!? :eek


What's your point?

 

[FreeWorkVest]

Presidents don't spend half of their lives writing their own speaches?!? :eek


What's your point?

President Clinton was well know for his extemporanious speaches. He was involved in the writing of every speack he gave. President Bush was probably playing with his army men when this was written

 

[gillibean]

President Clinton was well know for his extemporanious speaches. He was involved in the writing of every speack he gave. President Bush was probably playing with his army men when this was written

:nod::homo:

 

[pladecalvo]

LOL haven't we already covered this style of argument? I think the man called you out on it pretty strongly a few pages back. :nod:

You are entitled to think so.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

President Clinton was well know for his extemporanious speaches. He was involved in the writing of every speack he gave. President Bush was probably playing with his army men when this was written

:nod::homo:

:homo: too.

Give Jack his jacket, he was/is an excellent orater. One of the best there is.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I think I missed a turn somewhere. What are we talking about?

Presidential speaches?

**looks around lost**

 

[Minor Axis]

Well I thought that angels can dance on a pin head....

I find your avatar tastless and without merit. My guess is you intend that.