Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[ibowatjesusfeet]

Well, Zakath did what any good atheist would do: he put the burden of proof on the believer. However, that's all he did. I think he should have said something about his position, but it didn't seem like he did.

[Chris Chrusher]

I occasionally visit these boards although I rarely post. But every time I visit, I see that stupidity and atheism are two things that go hand-in-hand.

Atheists argue meaningless and petty details all while avoiding the big picture. Their shameless avoidance to answer simple, yet crucially important questions shows that they fear answering. Something they do because they know that they are fighting a lost cause and their own words will render their own points utterly ineffective.

The fact is... they have no foundation to stand any of their arguments on, because their own belief system renders all arguments useless... including their own. So their only method of arguing is NOT to prove THEIR point, but via discrediting their opponent (whether or not it's true, they don't care), all the while babbling on and on about absolutely nothing.

This debate will doubtlessly prove my point and I can't wait for it to get underway.

[Hilston]

I'm curious -- and relatively new to this part of the Theology Online forums: what kind of atheist does Zakath claim to be? One who denies the existence of God? Or one who just says that the evidence thus far does not prove God's existence?

Jim

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm new here, and I wonder what Zakath's worldview is, beyond his criticism of the Christian worldview.

[ibowatjesusfeet]

I'm pretty sure that he completely denies Gods existance. If he claimed that there wasn't enough info to prove God, he would be in a better position because then the burden of proof is on the believer. He seemed to take the latter position (though it could have just been because he went first) in his first post.

[Shane]

David Eddings is an amazing author. Zakath, you have great taste. I enjoyed your first post and am looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

[Emmaus Road]

I aammm not sure as some of you are...I think Zakath hit the right note.

Define God.
What evidence.

I do disagree with him however, on the area of philosohy....it will take some very heavy philosophy to prove God.

Kant, Descartes, Aristotle's Prime Mover, all stepped up the plate and did very well.

Historically, most heavy hitting philosophers did believe in God.

[Heathen]

Oh what enjoyment this topic should bring for both sides.

An atheist (or is that... a theist...I get confused) by denying that God exists, proclaims the very same to be in existence by acknowledging his absence. ( How can one deny something that doesn't exist unless he first realize that it is present to be denied?)

Since I am new to this forum, and admittedly somewhat inexperienced at philosophical debates, I hope to learn as well as observe. Having spent some time reading throughout this website, I must thank its creator for this opportunity to share.

I eagerly await the TKO. Happy sparring to both participants.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Emmaus Road
it will take some very heavy philosophy to prove God.

Kant, Descartes, Aristotle's Prime Mover, all stepped up the plate and did very well.

Not really. I haven't really studied Descartes' or Aristotle's methods, but I did study Kant, and he set out to prove the existence of God by trying to disprove God, hoping that by failing to disprove God he would in fact prove God. The only thing he accomplished, though, was failing to prove the negative (as was his intent). Unfortunately, failing to disprove a negative does not prove a positive, which is something Kant didn't quite get. In the end, he only managed to prove that he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, but he was no closer to being able to prove he does.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Hilston
I'm curious -- and relatively new to this part of the Theology Online forums: what kind of atheist does Zakath claim to be? One who denies the existence of God? Or one who just says that the evidence thus far does not prove God's existence?

Jim

Of the two you presented, only one is an atheist position. The latter is an agnostic position, not atheist.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Chris Chrusher
I occasionally visit these boards although I rarely post. But every time I visit, I see that stupidity and atheism are two things that go hand-in-hand.

Atheists argue meaningless and petty details all while avoiding the big picture. Their shameless avoidance to answer simple, yet crucially important questions shows that they fear answering. Something they do because they know that they are fighting a lost cause and their own words will render their own points utterly ineffective.

The fact is... they have no foundation to stand any of their arguments on, because their own belief system renders all arguments useless... including their own. So their only method of arguing is NOT to prove THEIR point, but via discrediting their opponent (whether or not it's true, they don't care), all the while babbling on and on about absolutely nothing.

This debate will doubtlessly prove my point and I can't wait for it to get underway.

Funny thing is, if you exchange the word "atheist" for the word "religionist" throughout this post, it will be equally applicable.

[RogerB]

Did anyone really expect aomething different from Zak's first post? Next he's going to ask for flesh and blood, gotta see it with my own two eyes proof. As if man can even begin to define God in terms we understand or limit His existence to what we will accept as logical.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
I think its generally a good idea to make some sort of statement as to what your stance is going to be regarding the topic in your opening statement.

You didn't sufficiantly state your position - actually you didn't state your position at all!

But hey, I am not going to fight this battle for you, I am just telling you why I thought your first post sucked.

No offense.

It's been stated more than once that I'm an atheist. Bob knows this, most of the readers, perhaps excluding yourself, know this...

atheist - noun
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

What more statement of my position do you need?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Did anyone really expect aomething different from Zak's first post? Next he's going to ask for flesh and blood, gotta see it with my own two eyes proof. As if man can even begin to define God in terms we understand or limit His existence to what we will accept as logical.

Some people will see, perhaps not you or Novice, but some will...

[RogerB]

Some people will see, perhaps not you or Novice, but some will...

The only people who will "see" your point are those too blind to really see.