• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Old and New Atheists

<alt>doxygen said:
Demonstrably false. The 4 horsemen you theists love to vilify are quite different. The fact that Harris accepts the idea of spirituality is enough of an example. He just doesn't attach it to god as theists insist on doing. That puts him more in the Buddhist camp. I won't get into the others.

There is also a good bit of projection in that last paragraph. No atheist ever tried to convert me. Christians on the other hand are commanded to convert people by their holy book.
Click to expand...

I am not a theist, I never said I was. I am also not an atheist.
 
gfm7175 said:
Fallacies are not nonsense... A fallacy is an error of logic, much like how what we call a "math error" is an error of mathematics. I expect conversations I have with people to be logical and substantive... So far, you're showing me that you are completely incapable of both...
Click to expand...

But most of the time when the "logical fallacy" argument is used, it is illogical.
 
Good4Nothin said:
But most of the time when the "logical fallacy" argument is used, it is illogical.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know what the "logical fallacy argument" that you are referring to is, unless you're referring to something along the lines of "you committed a logical fallacy, therefore your conclusion can not possibly be true"... That would be a non-sequitur (which is illogical).
 
<alt>doxygen said:
You are a non-theist idealist? That's pretty rare. Personally I'm agnostic.
Click to expand...

I am an agnostic who agrees with the scientists who believe the universe is made of information.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I am an agnostic who agrees with the scientists who believe the universe is made of information.
Click to expand...


Not sure where you're going with this but I probably agree. But I am not agnostic.
 
davidhume said:
Logic analogy: If there is no car in the garage do I have to prove there is no car there?
Click to expand...
Presumably you looked into the matter in some way and "proved" it to your satisfaction that there is no car in the garage.
You didn't rely on the claims of others that there is a car in the garage to arrive at your belief that there is no car there.
The latter is the nonsense Dawkins-style atheists try to rely on in order to shirk responsibility for their belief that there is no God in the garage.
As an argument it is absurd.
 
davidhume said:
Correct. That's the issue. If I don't 'see' God in the universe I don't have to prove I don't see God.
Click to expand...
But unlike the New Atheist, you, being old-school, acknowledge that your belief in the absence of God is by reason of your own personal inquiry into the matter.
 
Angel said:
Presumably you looked into the matter in some way and "proved" it to your satisfaction that there is no car in the garage.
You didn't rely on the claims of others that there is a car in the garage to arrive at your belief that there is no car there.
The latter is the nonsense Dawkins-style atheists try to rely on in order to shirk responsibility for their belief that there is no God in the garage.
As an argument it is absurd.
Click to expand...


I really don't care about Dawkins. Argue with someone who does.
 
Angel said:
But unlike the New Atheist, you, being old-school, acknowledge that your belief in the absence of God is by reason of your own personal inquiry into the matter.
Click to expand...


Yes. As I stated just before, I don't have any interest in Dawkins.
 
davidhume said:
I really don't care about Dawkins. Argue with someone who does.
Click to expand...
What do you care about then? That is to say, what are your posts presenting in the way of a point-of-view? You're obviously smart and acquainted with philosophy. What's your stake in this old-new atheist topic?
 
Angel said:
What do you care about then? That is to say, what are your posts presenting in the way of a point-of-view? You're obviously smart and acquainted with philosophy. What's your stake in this old-new atheist topic?
Click to expand...


I have none. Wasn't aware that was the topic.
 
davidhume said:
I really don't care about Dawkins. Argue with someone who does.
Click to expand...

So your disbelief in "god" is unrelated to the neo-Darwinist evolution theory?
 
Angel said:
Aristotle is good. Do you then or can one assume that you do then embrace the concept of an "unmoved mover"?
Click to expand...


Yes. A human is an unmoved mover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom