Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Quag]

See above.

What a surprise you are still refusing to even try and support your statement.

 

[Quag]

I'm right here. Not going anywhere.

Posting nonsense isntead of trying to support your statement is running away

 

[Frank Apisa]

What a surprise you are still refusing to even try and support your statement.

I hope it was a pleasant surprise.

 

[Logician Man]

As I see it, the only people who are atheists...are people who say, "I am an atheist."

I certainly do not follow the herd...and I do not believe any gods exist. But I am not an atheist. (I also do not believe there are no gods. I simply do not do any "believing" on the question, "Do any gods exist or not."

 

[Frank Apisa]

Posting nonsense isntead of trying to support your statement is running away

See my posts #2525 and #2520.

 

[Quag]

I hope it was a pleasant surprise.

Still running

 

[Quag]

See my posts #2525 and #2520.

Still running

 

[Frank Apisa]

Still running

Still running

See my post #2525.

 

[Quag]

See my post #2525.

See above

 

[Frank Apisa]

See above

See my post #2525.

Not sure why you want to keep this up, but it is foolish.

I will continue to be here. I am not running anywhere. Refer yourself back to this post if you want to continue the nonsense.

 

[Quag]

See my post #2525.

Not sure why you want to keep this up, but it is foolish.

I will continue to be here. I am not running anywhere. Refer yourself back to this post if you want to continue the nonsense.

Not sure why you think coming to a debate forum making statements and refusing to support them is engaging in debate and not running away from one
I will continue to be here to point out how you are running away
Refer back to this post next time you get called out for making on a statement then refuse to even try to support it.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

St. Anselm's ontological argument...and the more famous ontological argument offered by St. Thomas Aquinas...both are hogwash. I have offered detailed arguments against the Aquinas argument at length in long essays in other forums.

If Aquinas ever offered an ontological argument, it definitely is not as famous as Anselm's.

It seems unlikely to me that he made one at all, since he not only rejected Anselm's ontological argument, but rejected the very idea that the existence of God could be ontologically deduced.

However, I have never suggested that valid ontological arguments are impossible

If it is possible that there are no gods, then it is impossible for a valid ontological argument to ever be made, since valid ontological argument would prove that it is not possible that there are no gods. Those are mutually exclusive possibilities, so asserting the possibility of one is asserting the impossibility of the other.

 

[Frank Apisa]

If Aquinas ever offered an ontological argument, it definitely is not as famous as Anselm's.

It seems unlikely to me that he made one at all, since he not only rejected Anselm's ontological argument, but rejected the very idea that the existence of God could be ontologically deduced.

The ontological argument that Aquinas offered was that only God could make the ontological argument...not a human. It not only was famous...it changed the way Christian scholars treated the question of "proof" of the existence of gods.

I consider that to be hogwash.

If it is possible that there are no gods, then it is impossible for a valid ontological argument to ever be made, since valid ontological argument would prove that it is not possible that there are no gods. Those are mutually exclusive possibilities, so asserting the possibility of one is asserting the impossibility of the other.

Prove that it is impossible for a valid ontological argument to be made.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The ontological argument that Aquinas offered was that only God could make the ontological argument...not a human. It not only was famous...it changed the way Christian scholars treated the question of "proof" of the existence of gods.

I consider that to be hogwash.

That was not an ontological argument. It was a rejection of Anselm's ontological argument.

Prove that it is impossible for a valid ontological argument to be made.

You are the one who asserted that it is impossible for an ontological argument to be made, so you should be the one to prove it. For myself, I don't have any way of knowing for sure whether it is impossible or not.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That was not an ontological argument. It was a rejection of Anselm's ontological argument.

The argument had to do with ontological arguments. You noted that yourself. An argument about who can and cannot make ontological arguments ARE ontological arguments. They are arguments about ontological arguments.

If it will make your day go any better, though, the long essay I mentioned earlier was about Aquinas' proofs of the existence of god. I made a mistake.

You are the one who asserted that it is impossible for an ontological argument to be made, so you should be the one to prove it. For myself, I don't have any way of knowing for sure whether it is impossible or not.

I do not remember making an assertion that it is impossible for an ontological argument to be made. If I did, I take it back, but I think I did not make such an assertion. It would be stupid to do so, because Anselm did make such an argument.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The argument had to do with ontological arguments. You noted that yourself. An argument about who can and cannot make ontological arguments ARE ontological arguments.

No, they aren't.

They are arguments about ontological arguments.

Correct, But arguments about ontological arguments are not actually ontological arguments, any more than arguments about gods are actual gods.

I do not remember making an assertion that it is impossible for an ontological argument to be made. If I did, I take it back, but I think I did not make such an assertion. It would be stupid to do so, because Anselm did make such an argument.

Anselm did not make a valid ontological argument. A valid ontological argument would prove that the proposition "it is possible that there are no gods" is false. If the proposition "it is possible that there are no gods" is true, then the proposition "it is possible to make a valid ontological argument" is false, and vice versa.

 

[Frank Apisa]

No, they aren't.

Yes they are.

Correct, But arguments about ontological arguments are not actually ontological arguments, any more than arguments about gods are actual gods.

I stand by what I wrote...and if you disagree...fine with me. I will live through that.

Anselm did not make a valid ontological argument. A valid ontological argument would prove that the proposition "it is possible that there are no gods" is false. If the proposition "it is possible that there are no gods" is true, then the proposition "it is possible to make a valid ontological argument" is false, and vice versa.

I did not say anything about the argument being valid. The question was about whether or not an ontological argument could be made. It can be.

 

[devildavid]

People who use atheist as a self-descriptor do so because of belief.

They either believe there are no gods or believe it is more likely that there are no gods.

They like to pretend they use atheist because they lack a belief in any gods. But that isn't it.

So tell me...are you saying you do not believe there are no gods or believe it is more likely there are no gods?

Thanks for making all these false claims about something you don’t understand and are hostile toward. Just another pile of straw added to all the other straw man arguments about atheism and atheists.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I did not say anything about the argument being valid.

Quoth thee:

I have never suggested that valid ontological arguments are impossible...

 

[Frank Apisa]

Quoth thee:

You are the one who asserted that it is impossible for an ontological argument to be made, so you should be the one to prove it. For myself, I don't have any way of knowing for sure whether it is impossible or not.

My reply was:

I do not remember making an assertion that it is impossible for an ontological argument to be made. If I did, I take it back, but I think I did not make such an assertion. It would be stupid to do so, because Anselm did make such an argument.

I stand by what I said.


But nice try.

 

[renee]

I do not deny logic.

Atheists are funny when they speak with agnostic types.

They much prefer speaking to theists...where they try to show their blind guesses are better than theistic blind guesses.

So a woman turning into a pillar of salt is logical? So the Red Sea parting is logical so an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything fell into place is logical.?
A man turning water into wine is logical ?I can go on and on if you want

 

[Frank Apisa]

So a woman turning into a pillar of salt is logical?

Not in any way. What does that have to do with whether any gods exist or not?

So the Red Sea parting is logical so an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything fell into place is logical.?

Not in any way. What does that have to do with whether or not any g ods exist?

A man turning water into wine is logical ?I can go on and on if you want

You haven't offered anything yet. Go on...stop. Whatever.

 

[watsup]

You are the last poster to claim a command of basic logic, since I've chronicled actual lies you have posted and you have not corrected your untruths.

I find it hilarious that you are accusing me of poor logic and yet supporting the nonsense of Frank and DrewPaul. What that shows is that you are more interested in partisanship in this regard than in any sort of objectivity.

 

[watsup]

And it remains the belief of atheists that science explains everything, hence their rote insistence upon what they define as "evidence."

Yes, we are fully aware that you prefer spend your time carrying water for the theists and religionists.

 

[watsup]

You represented the complexity argument in support of atheism and I pointed out that theists have used it as well.

A double-down on that lie. I merely pointed out that DrewPaul refuses to complete his claim by bypassing attempt as to where this so-called Creator of his came from. He apparently does not understand that this undermine his whole argument. Apparently you don’t either.