by Joey Jo-Jo 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I would love to see a thread between Joey and SAB :-D
Both guys have a reply for everything... hmmmm like in field service. When you go door to door thinking you have all the answers for everything there no point in even knocking the door.
"We came here to tell you you are wrong and we are right no matter what you have to say."
Thank God I am out...
I'm more of an I-don't-give-a-crap-one-way-or-the-other-ist.
I think I'm gonna join Scully's religion!
The older I get, the less appeal labels seem to have. And I don't really care as much about being "correct"
bohm, i think we have diferent ways of thinking things through, do you know what logical fallacies are? all i have to do is to show that your arguments are selt contradictory, the other is that you can not answer any of my questions but only by your terms.
you can not accept the existence of god based on the lack of evidence? this the second time i am asking this.
a judge is not an atheist, if there were, many innocent people would be guilty due to a lack of evidence. i am telling you again that i am not a theist, i dont claim or do the existence of gods due to a lack of evidence. (null hypothesis)
Jojo:
do you know what logical fallacies are? all i have to do is to show that your arguments are selt contradictory, the other is that you can not answer any of my questions but only by your terms.
Obviously you have never shown any of my arguments are self-contradictory. This is getting quite inane.
you can not accept the existence of god based on the lack of evidence? this the second time i am asking this.
Firstly that is not a question, that is badly phrased assertion followed by a question mark. I am not even sure how to rephrase it to a proper question. Did you intend to ask me something like this: "Do you not accept the existence of god based on the lack of evidence for god"?
to which my answer will be: yes. I hope the answer is plain enough, but i have my doubts, expecially since i have made my case clear on every single page of this thread except this, and you have so far ignored it every time.
a judge is not an atheist, if there were, many innocent people would be guilty due to a lack of evidence.
ARGHHH!!!!
Normal logic:
When an atheist says: "I do not accept the existence of god because i see no good evidence for god", that is like a judge who says: "I do not accept the client is guilty because there is no good evidence he is guilty".
Jojo logic:
When an atheist says: "I do not accept the existence of god because there is no good evidence for god", that is like a judge who says: "I accept the client is guilty because there is no good evidence he is innocent".
yah, you totally nailed that analogy.
bohn: as I said before, I prefer these debates done on youtube and skype than having to type everything, besides me thinking that you fully did not understand me, I guess this tennis match has gone long enough so I am going to have to agree to disagree. But look up my previous post on page 3 with the Richard Dawkins attachment, Dawkins claimed to be an agnostic.
Here is another interesting debate
Skip to 6:22, keep in mind that the late Hitchens is talking to a theist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epVAfVNXx1k
Another quote who many think to be an atheist, Carl Sagan -
An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed". Source -Wakin, Edward (May 1981). [www.uscatholic.org "God andCarl Sagan: Is the Cosmos Big Enough for Both of Them?"]. U.S. Catholic: 19-24 . Retrieved 7 April 2012 .
Agnosticism is the only reasonable out of those two option unless you are arrogant enough to believe you have all the evidence either way, which is absurd.
Well, have a nice day then Jojo. By the way, what is the name of the logical fallacy where you simply quote people to support your position even though you would not yourself accept such quotes as an argument?
Yadda: atheists do not claim such a thing. you are erecting a strawman.
I dont see a fallacy, Dawkins claimed to be an atheist when it came to discussing the god of the bible, in that regard I am also an atheist(I also wrote before on this thread that I do not believe in the god writen by men), but when it comes to what else is out there Dawkins in that respect acknowledges to be an agnostic, the same agnostic defined in Carl Sagans words quoted on my last post. Hitchens says the same thing when his oponent asks him a very similar question, in fact Craig tells Hitchens Atheists are Agnostics, althought the argument is invalid as Hitchens is talking to a theist.
Now I don't agree with everything these people say. I wanted this thread to move ahead but seems like it will end here, how could you possibly ask an agnostic to define god through assumptions is beyong me. In that regard I could assumed God farting the cosmos out from his ass (well that would at least explain the caotic universe lol).
There were other facets I wanted to discuss, like how atheists view science and parapsychology... maybe on another thread, but they all have to do with agnosticism.
Yadda:There are atheists that claim that god does not exist, but they are a minority, check my previous post on this thread - 17 types of atheism.
so your evidence to disprove god is through a lack of evidence? hypothetically, it would be a great injustice if someone received the death penalty through a court system that the decision was established through a lack of evidence, how is this any diferent from your no god claim?
Because no reasonable judicial system would ever sentence an individual to death predicated on a lack of evidence. I'll let you figure out the flawed thinking with your hypothetical question.
