Nonsense. The starting point for any atheist is to disbelieve the claims presented for a god or gods. It is not a “worldview” it is a statement, a definition.
That an intellectual poseur pretends to have knowledge of a “Ultimate Authority” is the claim that I disbelieve until full and satisfactory evidence is offered.
Hint: Infantile metaphysical statements based on presuppositions is not “evidence” of anything but the claimants ideation.*
Now that did have me laughing. One thing that touches Captain Cat off, as he sits in my lap reading, is the complete arrogance many christians with pretentions of philosophical grandeur, present their infantile “proofs” “evidence” and “rational defence”. So a cat laugh, ear wag and tail lash to you sonny.
They just don’t seem to understand the fault at the basic premise of their argument, never mind the complete addled fallacies they come up with.
This last quote is the most egregious sample of tawdry self indulgent compost like reasoning I have seen this year on these forums.
Well you’ve got me, there’s no arguing with that kind of smarts, that thinks the premise “all men are mortal” is an unevidenced assumption,
It is in your worldview. If you disagree, then please provide the evidence for the claim that ALL men are mortal. Where have you observed that ALL men are mortal? Or, is this just something you must accept on blind faith?
Ok champ.
Glad to see you have no rational objection!
I know right, almost as if we have overwhelming evidence all men are mortal, like the fact they all live a finite life and die?
Shouldn’t be too hard for you to provide the evidence to support your claims regarding ALL men then. Where have you observed ALL men such that you can know that to be true?
Easily,
Great!! Lay it on us then. How do you know that your senses and reasoning are valid and are providing you with reliable feedback?
What about it?
It is an irrational argument according to your professed beliefs about what does and does not constitute a sound argument. Surely you can see the problem with that. Hopefully you can see that presuppositions, by definition, must be assumed before they are proven. However, only Christian Presuppositions (that God exists and the Bible is His inspired Word) can be rationally defended. That will become crystal clear(er) when (read: if) you posit your proof for the reliability of your senses and reasoning in a worldview without God. Well?
That guy’s brain is a bag of cats. You can smell crazy on him. He’s all over the place with his arguments demanding that we prove his assertions for him…wtf. Burden of proof goes to the person making claims. Not our job to do it for him.
Nonsense. The starting point for any atheist is to disbelieve the claims presented for a god or god.
So you wouldn’t profess to believe the claim that the God of the Bible is the Ultimate Authority and the foundation of your (and all) human reasoning? Is that correct?
That an intellectual poseur pretends to have knowledge of a “Ultimate Authority” is the claim that I disbelieve until full and satisfactory evidence is offered
Full and satisfactory to whom? You?
If so, do you not rely on your senses and reasoning as your ultimate authority in determining what does and does not constitute a satisfactory proof of God’s existence when such claims are presented to you for examination? Or do you claim to have some other ultimate means of examining claims and reaching conclusions apart from your senses and reasoning?
You have made claims about ultimate authority. I do not believe you.
Not only me, but primarily. If you produce evidence then for your outlandish and overweening claims, subject to the corroboration of factual, falsifiable, empirical data and review by peers I would accept such evidence as convincing.
Unfortunately you have only, to date presented the juvenile maunderings of a high school metaphysicist.
How can you or any other delusional mythological fanbois claim that you have evidence for your “creator/Ultimate Authority” (or whatever) without having exactly those powers you describe?
If your deity is “outside of time and matter” or “eternal/formless” then how do you sense it?
After reading some more of your comments I’m following up with @David_Killens warning of trolling. Either start having meaningful responses or your third strike.
Trolling/satire or actual belief in extreme views? Poe’s law is a bitch. Combine that with the Dunning-Kruger effect, and you have a killer combination.
I lean towards the Dunning-Kruger. Our little theist friend seems to have learned a few apologist arguments, but has no idea on how to conduct himself in a debate. The range of mistakes he has made is impressive, from ad hominem to more fallacies than McDonald’s fries to patronizing to trolling.
Translates to you indulging sophistry and evasion.
Nonsense, you used known logical fallacies, and haven’t the integrity to acknowledge that. The bible demonstrates nothing beyond the human propensity for story telling and superstition, and it is of course filled with errant nonsense, like the Genesis creation myth, or the risible Noah flood myth, both of which have been falsified by scientific facts, and reduced to desperate rationalisations claiming an omniscient deity dealt in vague allegory.
A bare faced lie sorry, my challenges pointed to your use of known logical fallacies, and explained them, simply lying about it know, and adding a second lie about what I’ve said is not going to fool anyone.
The challenges have been offered and you have ignored them, and are now lying about that. No one here needs your guidance on anything, that is quite hilarious.
Nonsense, you are clueless, do you really imagine the posters here will be bullied into falling for a false dichotomy fallacy. It’s your belief, the burden of proof is entirely yours, you’re making a risible and irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to insist others disprove your superstitious beliefs. You have ingored my question so I will ask it again:
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?
I think it is pretty obvious why you’ve ignored it, and why you are still dishonestly ignoring it, and trying to pass it off as “muddying the waters”, which is pretty hilarious.
You don’t get to dictate what others can say, this is a public debate forum, not a church revival tent, and the posters here set a higher standard for belief than the unevidenced woo woo, and irrational fallacies you are parroting here.
So you can demonstrate some objective evidence a deity exists and has the characteristics you assigned it in your premise then? You are funny, and no you’ve not addressed it, you’ve just denied it. Nevertheless your first premise was a begging the question fallacy.
Another lie, the starting point for atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
With a string of known logical fallacies, grandiose vapid showboating, breath-taking ignorance, and trolling, I remain unconvinced by your posturing, and I’d be surprised if I am alone in finding your drivel meaningless.
All humans die, that is axiomatic, if you want to pretend that doesn’t make them mortal then you will need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for your adherence to vapid and childish superstition. You are yet again making a lame attempt to reverse the burden of proof, and propping it up with naught but irrational posturing.
To what, your denial that humans die, and so are mortal, you are funny fair play.
In every single example we have humans die, and thus are mortal. This is an axiomatic fact, no assumption is necessary.
Same as everyone else’s, just subject my reasoning to the principles of logic, and this will demonstrate when it is valid and when not. Just as everyone here has demonstrated your religious bilge is irrational, because you used known logical fallacies.
I have expressed no such beliefs, so another of your straw man fallacies.
It was your argument not mine, so if it is irrational why would I care, since irrational arguments is all you seem to have.
Great, when will you start doing that? Or do you imagine this posturing with bare claims will be sufficient?
No true Scotsman fallacy, you’re consistent I will give you that.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?
He is consistent though, you have to give him that much.
As I said, my guess would be a teenage boy. The posturing and stridency suggest an adolescent over confidence, and the ignorance chamioned as rational reasoned argument suggest the alternative is the Dunning Kruger effect.
One more time for our theist friend then, as he will never answer anyway:
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?
Sorry you missed it David. Here it is again: this very thread devoid of any competing justification for immaterial, universal, unchanging concepts such as laws of logic, truth, knowledge, etc., from those professing a non-Biblical worldview, serves as really good evidence to support my claim (as that is my claim). In fact, one atheist (cough, cough) was even reduced to absurdity by arguing that the laws of the universe are ‘just the way they are’. Yowza!
Because in reality nothing is immaterial, universal or unchanging. You arguing for the existence of a made up concept is silly. The laws of logic are arbitrary, but useful. Truth is undefined, some even call it subjective. Knowledge is transient - as we learn more we modify what we “know” (or, more accurately, accept as the best explanation available based upon the current evidence).
