What's new
By:

🕯️ Traditions What is atheism - a common misconception

Status
Not open for further replies.
JackFrost10, post: 10111911, member: 1309305"]I dont know, I dont have any metrics to measure the absolute/ultimate reality.



That is one of my point why I am always mentioning of absolute/ultimate truth/reality. If we do not know of absolute or ultimate reality, then we can not establish atheism as the ultimate or absolute truth/reality. It is hence, a belief. If we do not believe that atheism is a belief, then it must not be the ultimate truth. However, how do we know that atheism is the ultimate truth? What is the basis to be the ultimate truth? If reality is ever changing, then, atheism too is an ever changing truth.

The inquiring mind always is aiming for the truth. The mind doesn't stop to what it has known but always aims as if for the absolute or ultimate. If we only can exist or endure for eternity or infinity, we do not stop into knowing of truths. It is always the desire of the thinking intelligent being like us to know. One of the result of this non-stop aim for the truth is creativity. We always aim for the perfection, absolute beauty and perfect knowledge even if that effort is infinite.



maybe?, I don't know if you could have an example of the ultimate truth, I might have a proper answer.


I do not have an example of the ultimate truth (our mind is always aimed into being closed to the ultimate. it is an eternal quest) but I can logically show to you that there is at least an absolute truth.

If we claim that there is no absolute, then it follows that there is an absolute truth. That absolute truth is the truth that there is no absolute truth. This is like the argument of the self-refuting relativist who says there is no absolute but everything is relative when in fact he is stating the truth that there is always an absolute truth.

Again, if anyone of us can not demonstrate the existence of ultimate reality or truth,how then that atheism is not a belief? Atheism needs not of liturgies, religious ceremonies, canonical books or any mish mash rituals to be considered as a belief. It is a belief because, nobody not even the atheist can fathom the ultimate or absolute depths of reality. It can not transcend its own concept and the material reality where its concept is heavily based. It can not even go beyond the material universe/multiverse to its limits of what is there. How then can we say that atheism is the final truth? How then that atheism can not be a belief but a mere rejection?





actually I was just referring on just the GOD claim, I don't really know how all theist's mind works. you could google the burden of proof and how it works.

MY point here is that if we want to know the most vigorous or intelligent defense of the theist, then we have to go to the most intellectual of the theists. The God claim as you say can be only finely or most sophisticated to the intelligent theists. These vigorous or highly sophisticated arguments for theism should be the one you are addressing. Your idea of theism only depends on the theist/s you are exposed with. The burden of proof is both the responsibility of the theist and atheist. It has no difference in the court of law.






actually I did, its been running for around 20 years. And now it has a few branches, also you can call them. they debated all kinds of believer's and non-believer's and Rey Comfort . you can point me on the right person, I might find a video of him/her calling the show, if not I can point you to the show, you might find most of the arguments here are already discussed.



How about William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Dinesh D'souza, Alister Mcgrath, Alvin Plantinga, Francis Collins, FRank Turek, Norman Geisler, Geg Koukl, Ravi Zacharias, J warner Wallace and so on..did you examine these theists apologists? Did you dismiss their arguments according to your own scholarly scrutiny? Did you present properly their respective arguments here and then show how they are wrong according to your own philosophical analysis?





no, atheist ask questions about the GOD claim.

Atheists do not only ask questions. They put forth their arguments which they believe is the truth as opposed to the arguments of the theist/s.



well yes, asking the right questions to theist automatically label you as an atheist.


The question is not how to ask the right question because

in a number of questions...

even if some of that number can not be the right question asked...

if still if there is that number of right question asked that remains...

then, it can still be understood what was really being talked about and what defines atheism and/or theism.


The question is, how the atheist becomes an atheist? Can the atheist be labeled or considered as an atheist by merely asking questions?



ah no, you can google the burden of proof, the GOD claim haven't meet the burden of proof, until then the burden of proof will not change sides.


How do you know that that is the case? Did you venture into the citadel of the hardcore theist apologists of what they say and what really is the case? Or are you just relying on the speeches of the atheist apologists? Can I too suggest you to google?




maybe my reading comprehension is faulty, can you enlighten me?

I already pointed out why in some cases you are guilty of it.


The theist claims there is a GOD atheist rejects it - the burden of proof is on the theist.

The burden of proof is on both the atheist and theist.
(why? they both argue. They will say why that is the case and so so...)


The atheist claims there is no GOD theist rejects it - the burden of proof is on the atheist.

Both (why? they both argue. They will say why that is the case and so so...)


google the burden of proof.

google the burden of proof



limited in which metric?
true atheist don't have that exclusivity, that doesn't mean atheism is a belief.
true you can call me an agnostic still a synonym of atheism.

Then believe that atheism is not a belief.
Agnostic is not synonymous to atheism. Although, they are related. Relatedness does not always mean synonymous else is semantic silliness.

There are people who confess as Christian agnostic, atheist agnostic, christian atheist and so on..




well if I claim that the sun doesn't exist, anyone that argues with me believes there argument is true? would that make them a sun believer? like paganism?actually I just want to know if it would require a belief to form a counter-argument on the suns existence.


Let us consider the mind of the theist. Do you think the theist's does not also operate practically, philosophically and scientifically just as the atheist? They only differ in conceptualizing or defining reality. Is not that your example of the sun's existence is too simplistic not for the theist to grasp the material phenomenon (sun's existence)? In fact, the atheist and theist both agree that the sun exists, but the question on the atheism-theism is not so simple like that. In an infinite possibilities of logical argumentation, the material phenomenon(sun's existence is just part of it. Any material phenomenon or concepts can be utilized into the atheism-theism debate.



also, the debate is on a stalemate because the burden of proof has not been meet by the god claim therefore it will not switch to the atheist side


That is your belief. The theist apologist says otherwise.
 
bandwagon said:
JackFrost10, post: 10111911, member: 1309305"]I dont know, I dont have any metrics to measure the absolute/ultimate reality.



That is one of my point why I am always mentioning of absolute/ultimate truth/reality. If we do not know of absolute or ultimate reality, then we can not establish atheism as the ultimate or absolute truth/reality. It is hence, a belief. If we do not believe that atheism is a belief, then it must not be the ultimate truth. However, how do we know that atheism is the ultimate truth? What is the basis to be the ultimate truth? If reality is ever changing, then, atheism too is an ever changing truth.

The inquiring mind always is aiming for the truth. The mind doesn't stop to what it has known but always aims as if for the absolute or ultimate. If we only can exist or endure for eternity or infinity, we do not stop into knowing of truths. It is always the desire of the thinking intelligent being like us to know. One of the result of this non-stop aim for the truth is creativity. We always aim for the perfection, absolute beauty and perfect knowledge even if that effort is infinite.



maybe?, I don't know if you could have an example of the ultimate truth, I might have a proper answer.


I do not have an example of the ultimate truth (our mind is always aimed into being closed to the ultimate. it is an eternal quest) but I can logically show to you that there is at least an absolute truth.

If we claim that there is no absolute, then it follows that there is an absolute truth. That absolute truth is the truth that there is no absolute truth. This is like the argument of the self-refuting relativist who says there is no absolute but everything is relative when in fact he is stating the truth that there is always an absolute truth.

Again, if anyone of us can not demonstrate the existence of ultimate reality or truth,how then that atheism is not a belief? Atheism needs not of liturgies, religious ceremonies, canonical books or any mish mash rituals to be considered as a belief. It is a belief because, nobody not even the atheist can fathom the ultimate or absolute depths of reality. It can not transcend its own concept and the material reality where its concept is heavily based. It can not even go beyond the material universe/multiverse to its limits of what is there. How then can we say that atheism is the final truth? How then that atheism can not be a belief but a mere rejection?





actually I was just referring on just the GOD claim, I don't really know how all theist's mind works. you could google the burden of proof and how it works.

MY point here is that if we want to know the most vigorous or intelligent defense of the theist, then we have to go to the most intellectual of the theists. The God claim as you say can be only finely or most sophisticated to the intelligent theists. These vigorous or highly sophisticated arguments for theism should be the one you are addressing. Your idea of theism only depends on the theist/s you are exposed with. The burden of proof is both the responsibility of the theist and atheist. It has no difference in the court of law.






actually I did, its been running for around 20 years. And now it has a few branches, also you can call them. they debated all kinds of believer's and non-believer's and Rey Comfort . you can point me on the right person, I might find a video of him/her calling the show, if not I can point you to the show, you might find most of the arguments here are already discussed.



How about William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Dinesh D'souza, Alister Mcgrath, Alvin Plantinga, Francis Collins, FRank Turek, Norman Geisler, Geg Koukl, Ravi Zacharias, J warner Wallace and so on..did you examine these theists apologists? Did you dismiss their arguments according to your own scholarly scrutiny? Did you present properly their respective arguments here and then show how they are wrong according to your own philosophical analysis?





no, atheist ask questions about the GOD claim.

Atheists do not only ask questions. They put forth their arguments which they believe is the truth as opposed to the arguments of the theist/s.



well yes, asking the right questions to theist automatically label you as an atheist.


The question is not how to ask the right question because

in a number of questions...

even if some of that number can not be the right question asked...

if still if there is that number of right question asked that remains...

then, it can still be understood what was really being talked about and what defines atheism and/or theism.


The question is, how the atheist becomes an atheist? Can the atheist be labeled or considered as an atheist by merely asking questions?



ah no, you can google the burden of proof, the GOD claim haven't meet the burden of proof, until then the burden of proof will not change sides.


How do you know that that is the case? Did you venture into the citadel of the hardcore theist apologists of what they say and what really is the case? Or are you just relying on the speeches of the atheist apologists? Can I too suggest you to google?




maybe my reading comprehension is faulty, can you enlighten me?

I already pointed out why in some cases you are guilty of it.


The theist claims there is a GOD atheist rejects it - the burden of proof is on the theist.

The burden of proof is on both the atheist and theist.
(why? they both argue. They will say why that is the case and so so...)


The atheist claims there is no GOD theist rejects it - the burden of proof is on the atheist.

Both (why? they both argue. They will say why that is the case and so so...)


google the burden of proof.

google the burden of proof



limited in which metric?
true atheist don't have that exclusivity, that doesn't mean atheism is a belief.
true you can call me an agnostic still a synonym of atheism.

Then believe that atheism is not a belief.
Agnostic is not synonymous to atheism. Although, they are related. Relatedness does not always mean synonymous else is semantic silliness.

There are people who confess as Christian agnostic, atheist agnostic, christian atheist and so on..




well if I claim that the sun doesn't exist, anyone that argues with me believes there argument is true? would that make them a sun believer? like paganism?actually I just want to know if it would require a belief to form a counter-argument on the suns existence.


Let us consider the mind of the theist. Do you think the theist's does not also operate practically, philosophically and scientifically just as the atheist? They only differ in conceptualizing or defining reality. Is not that your example of the sun's existence is too simplistic not for the theist to grasp the material phenomenon (sun's existence)? In fact, the atheist and theist both agree that the sun exists, but the question on the atheism-theism is not so simple like that. In an infinite possibilities of logical argumentation, the material phenomenon(sun's existence is just part of it. Any material phenomenon or concepts can be utilized into the atheism-theism debate.



also, the debate is on a stalemate because the burden of proof has not been meet by the god claim therefore it will not switch to the atheist side


That is your belief. The theist apologist says otherwise.
Click to expand...
now your just dodging by appealing to probability.

you cant prove that atheism is not the absolute and ultimate truth, therefore you cant call it a belief yet.

- see I could appeal to probability too.

The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.
- so what does the atheist is claiming to carry a burden of proof?
 
Ylorcan_2018 said:
sumakit ang ulo ko ts.
anyway lahat tayo may kanya kanyang opinion at paniniwala
lets just respect each other! just saying
Click to expand...
actually sir this is called "the problem of Hard solipsism".
it's possible that we live in a simulation, that everything we think we know that is true are false, and thus everything becomes a belief that the reality we are in is the true reality.
 
JackFrost10 said:
now your just dodging by appealing to probability.

you cant prove that atheism is not the absolute and ultimate truth, therefore you cant call it a belief yet.

- see I could appeal to probability too.

The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.
- so what does the atheist is claiming to carry a burden of proof?
Click to expand...

Where is your substantial analysis that I am dodging you?

How does probability come into the discussion?

I have many arguments that I made why the atheist must also carry the burden of proof. You mean we'll go back to zero or starting line?
 
JackFrost10 said:
actually sir this is called "the problem of Hard solipsism".
it's possible that we live in a simulation, that everything we think we know that is true are false, and thus everything becomes a belief that the reality we are in is the true reality.
Click to expand...

Your statement above if we take it in its face value debunks atheism and also your belief that atheism is not a belief is in peril. If the simulation theory is the ultimate, then your atheism is just concepts or truths being fed to you by the creator/s of simulation who make you to believe that atheism is so and so so blah blah...besides, any argument all about realities doesn't change. If we take for granted that the simulation theory is true, it doesn't make this reality less real to the one/s that created the simulation. This supposed simulacrum we are made of is no less real than the reality behind all these things...

I have arguments though that the simulation theory (the simulation theory is different from solipsism. Pls see nick bostrom and elon musk. Or even their idea is anticipated by some Greek philosophers like Plato's Idea-lism , the French rationalist Descartes, existentialist Sartre and the German Wittgenstein) is likely absurd but that will be tackled perhaps in some other time and place. One hint that make the simulation theory as absurd and redundant is the existence of logical truths.
 
bandwagon said:
Where is your substantial analysis that I am dodging you?

How does probability come into the discussion?

I have many arguments that I made why the atheist must also carry the burden of proof. You mean we'll go back to zero or starting line?
Click to expand...

you've been appealing to probability since the beginning

bandwagon said:
In short, atheism is a belief. A belief among other beliefs unless you can establish atheism as the default standard to all questions, knowledge and endeavors in life all across space-time, dimensions and realities. However, to do this, you need to live of alll space-time, dimensions and realities and the truth is, it is impossible. Therefore, our belief is relative to our lifetime, observation and experience, present knowledge and conviction.
Click to expand...

also you have 1 argument that atheism is a belief and your appealing to the probability that the reality we are in can be a false reality therefore everything we think as an absolute truth is a belief that it is absolute.

bandwagon said:
Your statement above if we take it in its face value debunks atheism and also your belief that atheism is not a belief is in peril. If the simulation theory is the ultimate, then your atheism is just concepts or truths being fed to you by the creator/s of simulation who make you to believe that atheism is so and so so blah blah...besides, any argument all about realities doesn't change. If we take for granted that the simulation theory is true, it doesn't make this reality less real to the one/s that created the simulation. This supposed simulacrum we are made of is no less real than the reality behind all these things...

I have arguments though that the simulation theory (the simulation theory is different from solipsism. Pls see nick bostrom and elon musk. Or even their idea is anticipated by some Greek philosophers like Plato's Idea-lism , the French rationalist Descartes, existentialist Sartre and the German Wittgenstein) is likely absurd but that will be tackled perhaps in some other time and place. One hint that make the simulation theory as absurd and redundant is the existence of logical truths.
Click to expand...

yes it is.

bandwagon said:
One hint that make the simulation theory as absurd and redundant is the existence of logical truths.
Click to expand...

actually math and science would disagree, like pi and the 2 slit experiment and quantum mechanics where we use probability to explain it.
 
"JackFrost10, post: 10169742, member: 1309305"]you've been appealing to probability since the beginning

In what sense I used probability? Can you present your analysis? Is my argument based on probability? When you say "since from the beginning" then I am glad for you to present the evidence or you are just nit picking into some few instances on my probabilistic account whereas my whole argument is not concentrated there.

What about the volumes of my arguments? You are not addressing them. you are avoiding them. I think this discussion is over.



also you have 1 argument that atheism is a belief and your appealing to the probability that the reality we are in can be a false reality therefore everything we think as an absolute truth is a belief that it is absolute.

Well, I think this is over. Your reading comprehension is problematic. I never asserted that there is a probability that this reality is a false reality. You are hallucinating. You are putting words into my mouth.

Part of my argument is that our intellect is always aiming for the absolute and/or ultimate. It is natural for a thinking human like us to desire for the ultimate or absolute even in our lifetime or physical limit we can not full comprehend it. For example, we can think of infinite number/s but we can not actually count the infinite. We think of infinite space-time, but we can not actually contain space or physically live time. Do you get me? Our mind is naturally has ascent to the ultimate of things even if we actually can not attain that, it doesn't mean the intellects ascension to the ultimate is a false struggle. It is a wonderful and scintillating occupation for the mind to aim for the ultimate even the quest is eternal and/or infinite. What is atheism if it is not a belief? No matter how you argue and twist things, you can not bent logic. Atheism can not be ultimate because we are not there yet and to seek the absolutes and ultimate/s is an eternal quest and yet not without reward. A dogmatic atheist who is so absurd and so closed minded will never open his mind and will say that atheism is the final of things.....

It is better to say "I don't know".




actually math and science would disagree, like pi and the 2 slit experiment and quantum mechanics where we use probability to explain it



I think that you have a short understanding of logic. Logic is universal. Mathematics' intellectual mother is logic. So does science. Philosophy's backbone is logical thinking. To understand probabilities, you need a logical mind...goodness, as if probabilities can exist without a logical mind. Logic is unchanging truth. Whatever realities, dimensions, or universes, or whatever Gods, logic is the same everywhere. Logic is the most basic language of realities/ God/s. .....

It is better to say "I do not know" rather than asserting something that even you are not sure of its ultimacy and finality. .in this sense, I am an agnostic rather than a close minded atheist.
 
bandwagon said:
"JackFrost10, post: 10169742, member: 1309305"]you've been appealing to probability since the beginning

In what sense I used probability? Can you present your analysis? Is my argument based on probability? When you say "since from the beginning" then I am glad for you to present the evidence or you are just nit picking into some few instances on my probabilistic account whereas my whole argument is not concentrated there.

What about the volumes of my arguments? You are not addressing them. you are avoiding them. I think this discussion is over.



also you have 1 argument that atheism is a belief and your appealing to the probability that the reality we are in can be a false reality therefore everything we think as an absolute truth is a belief that it is absolute.

Well, I think this is over. Your reading comprehension is problematic. I never asserted that there is a probability that this reality is a false reality. You are hallucinating. You are putting words into my mouth.

Part of my argument is that our intellect is always aiming for the absolute and/or ultimate. It is natural for a thinking human like us to desire for the ultimate or absolute even in our lifetime or physical limit we can not full comprehend it. For example, we can think of infinite number/s but we can not actually count the infinite. We think of infinite space-time, but we can not actually contain space or physically live time. Do you get me? Our mind is naturally has ascent to the ultimate of things even if we actually can not attain that, it doesn't mean the intellects ascension to the ultimate is a false struggle. It is a wonderful and scintillating occupation for the mind to aim for the ultimate even the quest is eternal and/or infinite. What is atheism if it is not a belief? No matter how you argue and twist things, you can not bent logic. Atheism can not be ultimate because we are not there yet and to seek the absolutes and ultimate/s is an eternal quest and yet not without reward. A dogmatic atheist who is so absurd and so closed minded will never open his mind and will say that atheism is the final of things.....

It is better to say "I don't know".




actually math and science would disagree, like pi and the 2 slit experiment and quantum mechanics where we use probability to explain it



I think that you have a short understanding of logic. Logic is universal. Mathematics' intellectual mother is logic. So does science. Philosophy's backbone is logical thinking. To understand probabilities, you need a logical mind...goodness, as if probabilities can exist without a logical mind. Logic is unchanging truth. Whatever realities, dimensions, or
universes, or whatever Gods, logic is the same everywhere. Logic is the most basic language of realities/ God/s. .....

It is better to say "I do not know" rather than asserting something that even you are not sure of its ultimacy and finality. .in this sense, I am an agnostic rather than a close minded atheist.
Click to expand...

see then you just misunderstood atheism, atheism is saying "I do not know" thats what atheism is, you don't know what's the truth therefore you just say you don't know, not claiming that a GOD exist or a GOD do not exist.

you don't know therefore you don't assert by appealing to probability that it might be true in the future because intellect is always searching for the truth. atheism is just questions based on the current understanding of reality that is currently unknown.

you defined atheism as a belief because if you make an argument you believe your argument is true. -false
you make an argument based on the understanding of the current reality, it doesn't require a belief.

bandwagon said:
I think that you have a short understanding of logic. Logic is universal. Mathematics' intellectual mother is logic. So does science. Philosophy's backbone is logical thinking. To understand probabilities, you need a logical mind...goodness, as if probabilities can exist without a logical mind. Logic is unchanging truth. Whatever realities, dimensions, or universes, or whatever Gods, logic is the same everywhere. Logic is the most basic language of realities/ God/s. .....
Click to expand...

this is an assumption, we do not have any other realities, dimensions, or universes that we can compare to ours, your just assuming that logic is the same everywhere. pi cannot be explained by logic yet it can be used in math, maybe you haven't heard of a logical paradox.
 
"JackFrost10, post: 10176434, member: 1309305"]see then you just misunderstood atheism, atheism is saying "I do not know" thats what atheism is, you don't know what's the truth therefore you just say you don't know, not claiming that a GOD exist or a GOD do not exist.


therefore let us dissolve the term agnostic? isn't confusing? ...but there are people who confess as agnostic atheist.


you don't know therefore you don't assert by appealing to probability that it might be true in the future because intellect is always searching for the truth. atheism is just questions based on the current understanding of reality that is currently unknown.


this is actually an endless debate. atheism as i am always saying to you asserts through its arguments..when it asserts, it means it is not only question that defines itself but positive claims which require proofs.


you defined atheism as a belief because if you make an argument you believe your argument is true. -false..you make an argument based on the understanding of the current reality, it doesn't require a belief.this is an assumption, we do not have any other realities, dimensions, or universes that we can compare to ours, your just assuming that logic is the same everywhere. pi cannot be explained by logic yet it can be used in math, maybe you haven't heard of a logical paradox.

yes true in some, and only in some case, we base our argument on our current understanding of reality, however, it is the thinking mind or logical mind that refines and decides and defines this reality. this kind of intellectual judgment or action is not a physical action. It is the logical or timeless action of the mind. In other words, it depends on the mind on how it takes reality..is reality is like this or like that? is this reality a random occurrence or caused by God? and so on and so on...

well your understanding of logic and math I will respect..I think you need not to speak to me of logical paradoxes..im personally studying Wittgenstein, Ramsay, Frege, Russell, Hilbert...meanwhile on the exisntialist I study Kierkegaard, Sartre, CAmus, PAulTillich, Heidegger, Martin Buber...also I am impressed by the philosophy of Derrida...but this is another story..

now going back to my statement that "only in some cases"..why did I say only in some cases? because, the reasoning mind isn't only thinking the "here and now" it thinks of the future..it opens itself of what to come in the future, in the not so far future, in the far far future, in the so far far distant future, in the infinite future...a truly open mind will not only judge reality in just like say in the day it learned to read and write, in one's lifetime (80 years, ex) not only in hundred of years of history, not only in thousands of years of written history, not only of the millions/hundred of millions of evolutionary history, not only of the billions of years of the origin of the universe which we belong..but the mind will even go further in that into infinity...if nature can allow as to live for infinity,,,do you think the mind will not allow itself to embrace fresh knowledge on this infinite process? this is what I mean...we only belief our arguments of today as the truths...but in eons of years, we do not know..we do not even know yet if there are parallel universes, multidimensional realities (see for example Michio Kaku on the 11 dimensional universe...as of today we only experience 4 dimensional reality..) These are not assumptions but a character of what a truly scientific, free thinking and open mind should be..here I conclude my statements and thank for your time in this topic. you have the last say. maybe will see you in another thread if by happenstance..
 
bandwagon said:
this is actually an endless debate. atheism as i am always saying to you asserts through its arguments..when it asserts, it means it is not only question that defines itself but positive claims which require proofs.
Click to expand...
Atheism don't assert anything, it appeals to the current understanding and studies, the gumball analogy by matt dillahunty explains Atheism on its simplest form.

bandwagon said:
yes true in some, and only in some case, we base our argument on our current understanding of reality, however, it is the thinking mind or logical mind that refines and decides and defines this reality. this kind of intellectual judgment or action is not a physical action. It is the logical or timeless action of the mind. In other words, it depends on the mind on how it takes reality..is reality is like this or like that? is this reality a random occurrence or caused by God? and so on and so on...

well your understanding of logic and math I will respect..I think you need not to speak to me of logical paradoxes..im personally studying Wittgenstein, Ramsay, Frege, Russell, Hilbert...meanwhile on the exisntialist I study Kierkegaard, Sartre, CAmus, PAulTillich, Heidegger, Martin Buber...also I am impressed by the philosophy of Derrida...but this is another story..

now going back to my statement that "only in some cases"..why did I say only in some cases? because, the reasoning mind isn't only thinking the "here and now" it thinks of the future..it opens itself of what to come in the future, in the not so far future, in the far far future, in the so far far distant future, in the infinite future...a truly open mind will not only judge reality in just like say in the day it learned to read and write, in one's lifetime (80 years, ex) not only in hundred of years of history, not only in thousands of years of written history, not only of the millions/hundred of millions of evolutionary history, not only of the billions of years of the origin of the universe which we belong..but the mind will even go further in that into infinity...if nature can allow as to live for infinity,,,do you think the mind will not allow itself to embrace fresh knowledge on this infinite process? this is what I mean...we only belief our arguments of today as the truths...but in eons of years, we do not know..we do not even know yet if there are parallel universes, multidimensional realities (see for example Michio Kaku on the 11 dimensional universe...as of today we only experience 4 dimensional reality..) These are not assumptions but a character of what a truly scientific, free thinking and open mind should be..here I conclude my statements and thank for your time in this topic. you have the last say. maybe will see you in another thread if by happenstance..
Click to expand...

I understand, I only want to clarify the simplest form of Atheism which is counting the candies in the jar before claiming it has an even number of candies inside.
 
update:

kung gusto nyu pong maka panood ng debate at discussion about religion and beliefs punta lng po kayo sa You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. or pwede nyu rin po silang eh search sa youtube, ito po ay isang internet call-in show, tumatangap po sila ng tawag mula sa ibat-ibang religious and non-religious sectors at nag didiscuss ng issues or arguments ng caller.
 
Para naring sinabi na pag di ka naniniwala sa diyos o may lalang na human-like, "GOD" E! satanismo kana sa mga mata ng believers. Para sakin lang "di nga naniniwala sa GOD, EVIL pa kaya w/c i think created in the name of GOD. but i strongly believe that there exist "The Good" and "The Bad" in Us but not to the extent of such...
 
Atheism reject God = false
I'm an atheist too but I rejected God in the Bible kasi obvious naman logically and scientifically

Anyway it is just only my opinion if ever mali ako para sa ibang atheists who cares hahaha
 
Mjlove said:
Atheism reject God = false
I'm an atheist too but I rejected God in the Bible kasi obvious naman logically and scientifically

Anyway it is just only my opinion if ever mali ako para sa ibang atheists who cares hahaha
Click to expand...
sir pag sinabi mo kasing you reject something or someone,it implies na it's there but you are not convince that its there.
I reject the GOD claim, its one step above, parang sinabihan mo sila na hindi ka naniniwala sa sinasabi nila kaysa sa hindi ka na niniwala sa dyos nila, so magiging sila ung hindi convincing then mag reresearch sila para ma convince ka din hopefully ma rerealize nila na talagang hindi convincing ang GOD claim nila then they would start to question everything.
 
JackFrost10 said:
sir pag sinabi mo kasing you reject something or someone,it implies na it's there but you are not convince that its there.
I reject the GOD claim, its one step above, parang sinabihan mo sila na hindi ka naniniwala sa sinasabi nila kaysa sa hindi ka na niniwala sa dyos nila, so magiging sila ung hindi convincing then mag reresearch sila para ma convince ka din hopefully ma rerealize nila na talagang hindi convincing ang GOD claim nila then they would start to question everything.
Click to expand...
Tama yun nga ibig sabihin ko wordplay yang ganyan bisaya kasi ako kaya mahilig akong mag shortcut ng mga salita
 
Update:

Logical Fallacies

strawman -
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

false cause -
You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

personal incredulity -
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true

bandwagon -
You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation

black-or-white -
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

appeal to emotion -
You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

tu quoque -
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

appeal to authority -
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

loaded question -
You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.

burden of proof -
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About this Thread

  • 734
    Replies
  • 17K
    Views
  • 65
    Participants
Last reply from:
Fight me

New Topics

Trending Topics

Online now

Members online
651
Guests online
710
Total visitors
1,361

Forum statistics

Threads
2,274,580
Posts
28,956,967
Members
1,234,320
Latest member
adobwbiyyy
Back
Top