The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not pass the test of natural theology and therefore negligible. Atheism are impressed and amused with correlations between God, the God of natural theology, and imaginary creatures such as the FSM because generally the are not curious, scholarly nor skeptical enough to ensure that they understand that which they are arguing against.

Thus, atheists are only successful in arguing against caricature straw-men of the own making.

“goin2hell” is likewise indicative of modern day atheism: that person simply states “I’m not here to argue” then positively assert God’s non-existence and then move on to do another drive by pseudo-intellectual remark elsewhere.

I find it quite sad.

aDios,
Mariano

I have a likewise story: whenever I ask an atheist about anything and everything in the universe their ultimate answer is “It just is.”

Even as a child, I noticed the things I was being taught did not add up. When questioning this, I was told it was a “It just is”, or scientists are working on it.

In fact, atheism is tantamount to slavery. The first thing the atheist mind virus does is remove the believer’s ability to reason. Everything must be strained through a special materialist-filter.

As far as “prove the existence of a god or gods” I am not sure how one can “prove” but what would you consider proof?

Nothing happened to me to cause this point of view as fundamentalists have suggested.

Even as a child, I noticed the things I was being taught did not add up. When questioning this, I was told it was a “mystery”, or just to shut up and believe.

A mystery it is! It’s a mystery to me as to why people refuse to come to their senses.

I don’t feel the need to disprove the existence of any god(s), because I know there are no gods. If anyone is worried about it, I suggest they prove the existence of a god or gods.

By the way, the existence of trees, the number of species on Earth, the perceived “complexity” of life or the fact that fundamentalists reject science is not evidence.

Religious faith is tantamount to slavery. The first thing the faith mind virus does is remove the believer’s ability to reason. Everything must be strained through a special faith-filter.

I would go to war and fight for anyone’s right to believe whatever they want to believe. However, the current American version of Christian fundamentalism has become a particularly virulent political disease.

People infected with this disease become automatons, performing as they are commanded—as their “god” sees fit. This is not only dangerous, it’s unconstitutional. It’s also make-believe.

I wish more would just come out and say that they will positively affirm God’s non-existence because there is no evidence.

Most atheists today are agnostics but don’t know it, or don’t realize it, or don’t admit it, or I don’t know what.

By the way, what does it mean to “live like there is no God.”

Thanks,

Mariano

By the way, what does it mean to “live like there is no God.”

Thanks,
Mariano

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” — Aristotle

I’ve never experienced a divine revelation, and I believe that what people call revelation is not evidential. Rather it is a need, a desire to believe. A desire so overwhelming that it finally refuses to accept evidence and relies instead on what Stephen Colbert refers to as “truthiness.” Or, in other words, inductive reasoning.

However, could you show me an instance of good, well-done science in which a consequent is asserted and then preserved as true when not borne out by experiment? That’d be interesting. It would also, to me, encapsulate faith in the divine fairly well. The point of scientific examination is to avoid the pitfalls of inductive reasoning.

The TAG is invalid, because it consists, in essence, of arguing that one cannot open the box without the crowbar inside. It’s hard for me to understand your argument that science is inductive and presuppositional when your philosophy appears to rest on one hell of a presupposition.

Since I have never found any convincing evidence for the existence of any kind of god, much less the gods professed by the more popular religions … and furthermore since many of our observations about the world are in opposition to what one would expect given a god of the types most people would evoke … my pragmatic stance is atheism.

So, my answer to Daniel’s question is “yes” to both. I don’t believe in god. And, I’m convinced that there is no god. Mind you, this is a tentative conclusion and I’m always open to evidence that might lead to me changing my mind. But, until and unless that evidence is brought forth, I see no more difficulty in saying “there is no god” than I do in saying “there is no tooth fairy.”

Regarding my evidence for God—my criteria for evidence is entirely different than yours so I doubt you’d be impressed with my evidence, just as I am not impressed with your evidence. That’s why presuppositions matter.

I claimed that science is “wrong”? I believe science works—as in, allows us to achieve our ends (pragmatism). But I do not believe we can ever know whether something is true using science since the scientific method uses induction and asserts the consequent—both are logically fallacious and can never guarantee the conclusion.

My arguments for God don’t use scientific evidence, consequently. Rather, the premises come from revelation (the Bible, specifically). I’m sure you are familiar with the transcendental argument for the existence of God, which is an argument based on the premise that the Christian God is the precondition for knowledge. (Hence for the atheist to argue against God he must presuppose the very thing he wishes to deny.) Anyway, you’re probably familiar with TAG so I won’t ramble on about that.

Even rocks falling to the ground involve philosophical biases, but these biases are so latent that we don’t stop and think about them.

Indeed, Dan, since you are so well-versed in scripture you know that kindness and charity means agreeing with your opponent (however that is possible). Good job. I’m sure that if I used “nice” words you’d suddenly fall on your knees and repent.

Dwight: then, when the tables are turned, sarcasm is the response.

If you want to see some good Christian sarcasm you should really read Christ’s dialogues with the pharisees or Elijah’s interaction with the Baal-worshippers.

Eamon: Well, that looked like the beginning of an exposition of Presuppositionalism, but it seems to have been short-circuited by an attack of bile. No matter: presupp’ism is still crap.

Even if I was an atheist I’d be a presuppositionalist. Presuppositionalism is simply the belief that everyone reasons according to assumptions. You’re assumption is that you are the authority, mine is that God is the authority. Hence we’re both presuppositionalists. The term is used so often by Christians, however, that people tend to think that only Christians are presuppositionalists.

If you *insist* that nothing can exist without having been created, then why don’t you insist that something must have created God? That’s an inconsistent level of query. Your inquiry simply stops when you get to the puffy clouds and harp music.