Arguments about God, including the ignostic-Ockham

[[Matt]]

No. I am more rational than you. The proof is in your own idiotic postings.

You believe in things with no evidence to back up those beliefs... That isn't a rational position to take.

[[Matt]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

 

Reason is a human mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. It is the means by which rational beings use reasons.

 

Reason is often contrasted with authority, intuition, emotion, mysticism, superstition, and faith, and is thought by rationalists to be more reliable than these in discovering what is true or what is best.

Considering you're guilty of all of the above by using logical fallacies based upon them within nearly every post you make, then claiming yourself as rational is just plain idiotic...

[Grahame]

;6168597']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

 

Considering you're guilty of all of the above by using logical fallacies based upon them within nearly every post you make, then claiming yourself as rational is just plain idiotic...

 

Believing in cause and effect is rational and is better than thinking fairies created life and then they had a tea party from a flying tea pot.

[[Matt]]

Believing in cause and effect is rational and is better than thinking fairies created life and then they had a tea party from a flying tea pot.

Yea that was totally a rational post because I believe in effing fairies don't I....

 

We've been over this before.

 

The universe could have existed in one form or another forever and something that is eternal need not have a first cause. Your first mistake is to assume there must have been a first cause.

 

Secondly if the universe did indeed have a first cause then that first cause need not have been a god. Your second mistake is to disregard the many other possibilities for a first cause including natural ones devoid of supernatural explanations.

 

Thirdly if that first cause was a god then that first cause need not be the god you believe in. Your third mistake is to assume the Christian god to be the creator when there's a pretty hefty list of gods to choose from which originate in religions devoid of any Christian concepts...

 

In essence you're making far too many assumptions in order to justify your irrational beliefs due to your blinkered and narrow minded view of the universe. I however prefer to keep an open mind reserve my judgement until actual evidence comes forward...

[Grahame]

;6168749']Yea that was totally a rational post because I believe in effing fairies don't I....

 

We've been over this before.

 

The universe could have existed in one form or another forever and something that is eternal need not have a first cause. Your first mistake is to assume there must have been a first cause.

 

Secondly if the universe did indeed have a first cause then that first cause need not have been a god. Your second mistake is to disregard the many other possibilities for a first cause including natural ones devoid of supernatural explanations.

 

Thirdly if that first cause was a god then that first cause need not be the god you believe in. Your third mistake is to assume the Christian god to be the creator when there's a pretty hefty list of gods to choose from which originate in religions devoid of any Christian concepts...

 

In essence you're making far too many assumptions in order to justify your irrational beliefs due to your blinkered and narrow minded view of the universe. I however prefer to keep an open mind reserve my judgement until actual evidence comes forward...

Look Matt, I believe in God and you don't now why don't you give it a rest and exercise a bit of tolerance, everyone is entitled to believe what they want without all this harassment and being personally insulted. It has gone too far and you and plekhanov and one or two others are becoming a serious nuisance. Enough is enough, just learn to accept that we are all different, it would be a strange world if we were all the same. This isn't Communist China and we are all entitled to our own opinions, so just swallow and accept it. You are beginning to sound like a control freak.

[Zaytsev]

Look Matt, I believe in God and you don't now why don't you give it a rest and exercise a bit of tolerance, everyone is entitled to believe what they want without all this harassment and being personally insulted. It has gone too far and you and plekhanov and one or two others are becoming a serious nuisance. Enough is enough, just learn to accept that we are all different, that is one of the joys of life.

 

Tolerance, from you. ha ha ha ha. What a hypocrite.

[[Matt]]

Look Matt, I believe in God and you don't now why don't you give it a rest and exercise a bit of tolerance, everyone is entitled to believe what they want without all this harassment and being personally insulted. It has gone too far and you and plekhanov and one or two others are becoming a serious nuisance. Enough is enough, just learn to accept that we are all different, it would be a strange world if we were all the same. This isn't Communist China and we are all entitled to our own opinions, so just swallow and accept it. You are beginning to sound like a control freak.

You're the intolerant one accusing us of being irrational and idiotic aswell as referring to us as 'having the mind of a virus'. Am I not allowed to respond to such hilariously wrong accusations now?

 

As far as I'm concerned this cartoon reminds me so much of you...

 

http://img1.visualizeus.com/thumbs/09/01/02/atheism,cartoon,comic,hypocrisy-6e69f6aa62face97de8afd5f418085ce_h.jpg

[redwhine]

You're strange. You posted a you-tube about a superstitious pigeon. What that has to do with the price of fish only you know, but you atheists don't half come out with some weird stuff.

(My bold.)

 

 

 

Monotheism with (at the very least) 3 gods. Virgin birth. Etc.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

(...to laugh at you or to cry for you.)

[redwhine]

Believing in cause and effect is rational and is better than thinking fairies created life and then they had a tea party from a flying tea pot.

See what I mean?

 

If anybody did believe those, why is that worse than believing theist woo.

[ignostic]

Matt, faith doth that to people!

Alister Earl McGrath cannot fathom that the Ground of Being or Being itself is on par with that celestial tea cup as it too is undetectable and thus meaningless.

Science could detect supernatural intent but when it does investigate and - it does in effect -do so ,it finds no miracles, no supernatural intent for stigmata, no human parthenogenesis, no creation of the Cosmos, no healing effect of prayer and no intent behind natural phenomena.

This the argument from intent affirms the empirical one that no evidence exists for His existence and much against it like also the problem of evil.

Cause and order and regularity are inherent to the Cosmos. Indee no putative- supposed- God could act without their being prior to His actions!

And that is also why He couldn't be the Primary Cause!

That illuminates why we have to get supernaturalists fom begging the question as they are so wont to do! That is why I note the ignostic challenge and the physical argument against His being disembodied. We can't afford to let them off with such woo!

Redwhine, then that means henotheism. The early Israelistes were polytheists, contrary to the biblical myth. King Josiah called for monotheism as I understand. Oh, and they were Canaanites as William G. Dever illustrates in " Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?

Thanks, fellow naturalists!

Serious inquirers just might check out these blogs:

IgnosticMorgan@WordPress and

Carneades @aimoo.

Ignostic Morgan