Atheism = self defeating. (page 16)

towerwatchman

Berengaria

No, it's pretty simple. Without god. Not having god. That's all atheism is. You are apparently trying to turn it into a belief that there is no god.

For argument sake I will grant you “without god” now what? What does that prove? What is it? Is it without out god on Monday’s? Without god at work? Without god on vacations? Notice the incompleteness. It is a cowardly position to take.

A believer will say "I believe there is an invisible table in the middle of that room." A nonbeliever will simply say it's an empty room. They would not say "I absolutely do not believe there is a table in this room".

When it pertains to Atheism or Theism the issue is not the empty room but the existence of the invisible table.

towerwatchman

To Cofty

TWM - I will discuss evolution with you any time but stay on topic in this thread. Here is a link to 38 threads I have written on evolution. Take your pick... By the way tell me which books that present the scientific evidence for evolution you have read. I predict the answer is none and you will ignore the question.

You brought up evolution, and now you ignore my post. If you paid attention to my response it covers your 38 threads. Instead of discussing biology in it many stages of development, let’s roll it back to the closes point of commencement and discuss that.

towerwatchman

To TD

You're still projecting the modern English noun usages (i.e. With the endings "ist" and "ism") backwards upon the Greek adjective.
"It is only about a decade after Socrates' death, in Plato (ca. 429 - 347 B.C.) that we start to find the Greek word atheos, which originally was used in the meaning, "godless, without gods, godforsaken," denoting intellectuals who denied the gods of the city or any form of deity." -Martin, Michael The Cambridge Companion to Atheism p. 19
"Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said átheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, átheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed." -Drachmann, A.B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (Emphasis mine)

For argument sake I will grant you “without god” now what? What does that prove? What is it? Is it without out god on Mondays? Without god at work? Without god on vacations? Notice the incompleteness. It is a cowardly position to take.

When it comes to the deity question there are only three positions one can take. 1 Theist, 2 Atheist, 3 Agnostic. Position 1 and 2 either affirms or deny the existence of deity and has to provide support. Position three is the only one that gets to sit on the fence. Amazing how many want to be identified as atheist but then want to change the definition. What it comes down to is that many want to deny the existence of deity in order to live a lifestyle contrary to a theistic worldview, but want to continue ontologically with theistic ideas for their benefit. Following Atheism to a logical conclusion there is no meaning or purpose in life, no objective morality. Basically want to sit on the fence with the Agnostic and reap the benefits of both sides of the debate. I say ‘man up’. If Atheist embrace everything that is Atheist. Cut the umbilical cord from Theism, and go happily into oblivion with fear and despair to which only a Nietzsche or a Jean Paul Sartre can do full justice.

“‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” J. J. C. Smart

towerwatchman

To cofty

Yes there are a cadre of theists who love it when some mug joins and spouts all the vacuous nonsense they wish they had the courage to post. You will get lots of PMs and plenty warnings about me and others. Remember those same theists tried out all your fallacies already and had it explained to them why it was wrong.

No warnings, rather the consensus is you are getting your a** kicked. And I am only using one hand.

Don't let it go to your head. Despite what they tell you, you haven't said anything interesting yet.

Nothing is getting my head. Sadly this is getting boring. Other forums where I discussed these topics people actually have material to exchange.

You are parroting lots of Wm L Craig bullshit

Not only Craig, but Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Stephen C. Meyer, William A. Dembski, Norman Geisler, Isaac Newton, and St Augustine to name a few.

and not engaging in genuine conversation with anybody. If you ever slow down and engage in genuine dialogue you will realise how much you have to learn.

Typical position of ignorance. Instead of addressing the topics attack my character. BTW still waiting on you.

Finkelstein

BTW. When in checkmate, the last position of ignorance is to insult the opponent and not address the topic.

Your too full of yourself Watchtower people leave out of a lack of engaging honest discussion and this happens quite often when debating theism or personal beliefs..

Think about this for a minute....... its known and accepted that asteroids are moving about the universe and some over time have hit earth causing catastrophic damage to all living things on this planet, ie. the end of dinosaurs

If another large asteroid was on route to collide with earth and it was known that all life on earth was to be destroyed once again, would it still make logical sense to proclaim that a intelligent designer / deity created the universe ?

towerwatchman

To

Possibly the best example of gibberish in the history of the forum
You actually are ridiculous.
It's like trying to explain calculus to somebody who can't count to ten.

This is the best you can do. Pity

towerwatchman

To Cofty

Natural evil is proof that the god of christian theism does not exist.

When one asserts that there is such a thing as evil, one must assume there is such a thing as good. When one assumes there is such a thing as good, he or she must also assume there is an objective moral law by which to distinguish between good and evil. When you assume an objective moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver—the source of the moral law. [Ravi Zacharias]

towerwatchman

To Slimboyfat

Another problem with the assertion is that there are many millions of believers who do believe in God who are well aware of suffering. Many Christians have reflected on the subject and philosophers have explored solutions. They don't think it's proof God doesn't exist.

Agree.

The horrible suffering in the world certainly seems to be evidence of God's absence. But as one colleague once wisely remarked to me, as a philosopher I am called upon to say what I think about some questions, not how I feel about it. And as difficult as the problem of suffering may be emotionally, that is no reason in and of itself to think that God does not exist.

towerwatchman

To cofty

What do you mean by moral truth?

What a society or individual believes to be morally true.

towerwatchman

To cofty

Designing a world that inevitably blows up and randomly kills millions of its inhabitants is not something an all-powerful and loving god would do. Either he is a bad designer or a sadist. Either way he is not the god of christian theism. This is not a bold claim.

For argument sake let's say you are right and the deity that rules is a sadist. All you have proven is that the deity that rules this universe is not a kind deity. You have not proven the non existence of any deity.

Atheism = self defeating.

Share this