Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of nswoll

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - nswoll

1
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Atheists fall into the following categories
« on: September 30, 2020, 12:10:00 pm »
Well, I can dismiss the OP as false because I am an atheist and I don't fall into on of those 4 categories so......
Exactly.

2
Until you provide evidence of someone prior to 1967 having this interpretation this is just a retcon. It's easy to make prophecies fit after they happen.

3
Why are most the athiests in North America and Europe white males?

For the same reason most of the soccer fans, famous authors, political leaders, etc are white males.  If you look at almost any group of people from North America and Europe they will predominantly be white males.

4
The whole debate will be arguing the definition of faith. Faith means belief without evidence. I don't have faith that my mom exists. I don't have faith that rain exists. I don't have faith that gravity exists.
Example:
I believe Jesus' mother was a virgin when he was born.
I believe Jesus' mother was NoT a virgin when he was born.

Theists would redefine faith to make it seem like you need faith to believe both options but that's nonsense. You only need faith to believe option 1.

5
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What would an Atheistic world be like?
« on: July 11, 2020, 08:54:07 pm »
Japan, Sweden, etc. It's not hard to see that such a world is fine.

Regarding morality, would anyone dare to claim that religious people are only moral because of religion? Like, that's the only thing keeping them from immorality?

6
So if I'm just a mind then theism is true. But if I'm just a mind then who cares if theism is true? And good luck trying to convince theists they're just a mind. This is just such a pointless idea.

7
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The problem of Good
« on: June 26, 2020, 09:09:37 am »
Ha ha talk about a non sequitur - I always whip out a yardstick when I’m telling my wife how much I love her.

“ To measure 2 meters one does not need a non-meter, a standard of a meter is enough.”

Don’t look now, but I think you made my point.  Meters are metric and goods are good.  Americans need a “non-meter” point of reference to understand what a meter is.  Telling them about a kilometer won’t do it.  In like manner, it takes some “not good” to understand the substance of good.  I would argue that commensurate magnitude of opposites is necessary for full clarity.

On second thought, I’ll stick with the sound argument I offered.  We can quibble about definitions if you like, but I’d rather discuss the substance of the concept.

Or look at this way. One can enjoy good sex without having experienced evil sex (rape). In fact one can enjoy good sex without ever knowing that evil sex exists.  Good can be a spectrum without evil.

8
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The problem of Good
« on: June 26, 2020, 09:00:09 am »
There's a few problems with this.
1. There's no need for the excess of evil we experience. If it is possible for one person to enjoy the "good" of the afterlife without having experienced the "evil" of being raped as a child, then it should be possible for all. (Or getting cancer, or starving to death, etc) Your argument only works if every single person experiences identical "evil".

2. Your argument presupposes a non-omnipotent god that is unable to create us in such a way that we can experience "good" without "evil"; yet the entire problem of evil argument presupposes an omnipotent god.


Every continuum has two termini, and a center point of ensured ignorance.  The magnitude of one termini helps us understand the magnitude of the other.

God wants us to understand just how really bad evil and sin are.  For you to say that there is no need for the excess of evil that we experience fails to understand the purpose of God’s allowance for that evil.

But you have to admit that not everyone experiences the worst possible evil. Since god seems to be ok with some people experiencing less evil than others; it seems to follow logically that your argument is invalid.

9
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Dilemma of Naturalistic Rationality
« on: June 25, 2020, 09:38:04 am »
Of course the alternative is worse. If our brains are a product of a creator then we know we can't trust them.  Any thoughts we have about a creator could be completely irrational and we wouldn't know it.

(If you believe you were created by a god, and you believe that god is good, you have no rational reason to believe that. It's just as likely that the god created you to think they are good.)

10
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The problem of Good
« on: June 24, 2020, 09:17:37 am »
There's a few problems with this.
1. There's no need for the excess of evil we experience. If it is possible for one person to enjoy the "good" of the afterlife without having experienced the "evil" of being raped as a child, then it should be possible for all. (Or getting cancer, or starving to death, etc) Your argument only works if every single person experiences identical "evil".

2. Your argument presupposes a non-omnipotent god that is unable to create us in such a way that we can experience "good" without "evil"; yet the entire problem of evil argument presupposes an omnipotent god.

11
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How to defeat any Christian apologist
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:28:45 am »
Generally I avoid biblical debate simply because it's an absolute slog. It takes two sentences to quote a verse our of context and demand an explanation, whereas it can take days or weeks to properly study the historical context of the quote.

I did it for a little while, but I'd come back with volumes of history and then my debate partner would simply abandon that verse and pick a new one. Then it was back to the drawing board with a few more weeks of study.

I mean heck it was good Bible study, but most apologists don't get into the weeds because it's a debate that allows the atheist apologist to bury the Christian Apologist in gargantuan amounts of required reading.

If only the Christian god were a better communicator. At least we know he's not perfect.

12
Community Debates Forum / Re: Do Atheists Believe in Fairy Tales?
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:11:19 am »
Your argument is basically "hey if we don't accept any of the miraculous events in the Bible as actually being miraculous then we've stumped the athiest". It seems like that is more damning to the theist than to the athiest. You're admitting that your god can't do "miracles" (something that defies the laws of physics) but must use physics to accomplish the marvelous events recorded in the Bible.

13
 If one assumes our universe came into existence due to the "death" of the previous universe than the entire premise of "timeless, personal,  immaterial" completely falls apart.  And this assumption is much more plausible than a god.

Pages : [1]