May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

We're talking ideas, not science. I was pointing out, the conclusions that any ideas force. The ideas  and conclusions that atheism, at least as largely expressed here, point to, ultimately don't seem very rational to me.

Atheism is philosophical position on a single issue. Atheism is the rational conclusion of the complete lack of evidence for God, gods and goddesses and the complete lack of any flawless philosophic arguments for god, gods or goddesses.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Not that science and sprituality are at odds. They are not. 

Science provides "spirituality" no support whatsoever. "Spirituality" a vague term anyway.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But, again, I'm talking about looking at a proposal, or idea, taking a step back, looking at where it leads, and then weighing it accordingly.

By that standard, some claims made by atheism are, well, incredible and difficult to accept from a reasonable point of view. 

Atheism makes no claims at all. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, gods and goddesses. Considering that no evidence of god, gods and goddesses has been presented and no sound arguments for deities have been ever presented, atheism is a very reasonable conclusion.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And yes, absolutey, "evidence" is a matter of perspective.

No it's not. Evidence is something we can all agree upon. If it isn't, it isn't evidence.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There is ample evidence to give a reasonable person cause to think God exists.

No there isn't. If there was such evidence, how come it is never presented here?

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Strarting with -- our own ability to reason. 

Our ability to reason provides us with the tools to clearly draw up conclusions about the claims of others and reject them when no evidence or reason is presented.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

To deny that is to deny the obvious, and merely a weak attempt to claim atheism has a monopoly on something it simply does not.

Atheism isn't a "religion" or even something that can claim anything. It is a lack of belief in god, gods and goddesses. You really don't get it, do you? Even after all we've said to you.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Every idealogy (sic)...

Stop right there, buster. Atheism is NOT and I repeat NOT an ideology. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, gods and goddesses.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

that wants a monopoly insists that things can be framed only a certain way

Strawman. Atheism is not an ideology.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And every such idealogy (sic) tends to get huffy whenever somebody simply steps outside that frame, and points out the inherent flaws.

Strawman. Atheism is not an ideology. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, gods and goddesses.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Hence, atheism continuing to pound the table

Atheism is a lack of belief in god, gods and goddesses. 

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

and insist upon "evidence" -- when the evidence is more than ample

The onus of proof is on the case for the affirmative. You are the one with a claim and it is up to you to support your claim with evidence and reason. We needn't do anything as atheists, it is theists who have to bring some proper evidence and sound reasoning to the table. So far, you have brought nothing to the table. That's not the fault of atheists.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I once read that it's like a man sitting on a pile of leaves and insisting "there is no tree."

There is no evidence of god and all the philosophical "armchair" arguments for the existence of god or gods have been shot down a long time ago, sometimes by people within the Christian church itself.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The more time I spend on these boards, the more I see that. 

You can fix everything: bring some evidence and reason to the table. We can look at it and judge it.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Anyway, let's continue:

Also "Written accounts" seems like a weak deflection. And misses the point. Either way, you're making an incredible claim about someting that's obvioulsly there. That being, those figures' influence on human history. 

All sorts of people have influenced human history. Your point?

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There's no a priori assumption of the "supernatural" (whatever that is supposed to be) needed to see what is obvious. That is purely a straw man on your part.

The evidence of those figure's influence on humanity and human history is plain as day. What conclusions can be drawn from that then becomes a matter of perspective. I find the perspective that they were, in fact Manifestations of and aided by a higher power to be ultimately far more rational and reasonable than attempts to explain that away.

Then why has what they all have said been so humdrum, frequently derivative of the work of other men, often unworthy and frequently bigoted? Jesus Christ believed in God's gulag and eternal punishment. Muhammad was a pedophile. Bahá'u'lláh was a homophobe. We can dismiss the teachings of such men.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

"Sensory experience" is also hugely missing the point.

The Argument from Person Experience is dead, knackered, belly-up and buggered here. Ask Peter Sutcliffe!

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Once again, you're getting hung up on the hardware.

Atheists are getting hung up on nothing. You're the one with his knickers in a knot. 

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Which seems to happen over and over -- whenever I challenge you to consider sapience -- not just mere "intelligence."

Seriously, you'll have to do better than that if you're going to prove anything.

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And who is "us." What is it with posters here refering to themselves in the royal third person?

Well, d'uh. Please don't be dopey. We are a group of people and any one of us may use this term when speaking for this particular group of people. 

May 4, 2012 -- 8:18PM, fodaoson wrote:

If we define “God “ as the creator, then the creation is evidence of that creator. 

If we define the Tooth Fairy as the creator, the the creation is the evidence of that creator. Do you know about circular arguments and assuming your conclusion? The universe is a formation. Try changing your terms. The universe formed. It is a formation. 

The creator methodology may appear to the created as a big bang

The big bang formed formed the universe as we see it today. Learn to use the words "formed", "form", "forming" and "formation". This will help you out of your theology over time.

, as something from nothing, mudballs into flesh etc.

Do you know about virtual particles? What do you thing about organic molecules being found in solar system forming nebulae? Interesting, huh? This might suggest that basic life might be a fairly common formation, doesn't it?

 but the beginning is that creation came from a creator or creator event tah ahs been called “God”..   

Baloney. Prove it. You're assuming your conclusion again, too! Back to the drawing board me ol' mucker!

May 4, 2012 -- 8:11PM, Ken wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And yes, absolutey, "evidence" is a matter of perspective. There is ample evidence to give a reasonable person cause to think God exists. Strarting with -- our own ability to reason.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are purely naturalistic explanations for our ability to reason. Unless you can discredit those explanations and show that divine agency is the likeliest source of that ability, you can hardly offer it as evidence.

The problem with circular arguments is when the circle is broken the argument fails. Completely. 

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The evidence of those figure's influence on humanity and human history is plain as day. What conclusions can be drawn from that then becomes a matter of perspective. I find the perspective that they were, in fact Manifestations of and aided by a higher power to be ultimately far more rational and reasonable than attempts to explain that away.

The evidence of many figures' influence on humanity is no different from other figure's influence for good and for evil that did not use the God meme to buttress their blatherings.  One would have to show independently of the God meme that their ideas were influenced and/or aided by some mythical higher power.  Additionally one would have to show that all other popular influencers using a different God meme are not in the same class as those claimed to be influenced by some special God. 

Why for instance is Baha'u'llah some special Manifestation and the Trancendentalists, Dispensentionalists, Whitmanists, and others with a similar influence are not.  

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

whenever I challenge you to consider sapience...

Just who is this "you" you are challenging.  Might it be "us?"

Wow ... Insults ... VERY convincing (IF one is an "Idiot") ...

May 4, 2012 -- 8:57PM, JCarlin wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 8:18PM, fodaoson wrote:

If we define “God “ as the creator, then the creation is evidence of that creator.

If we define "God" as the idiot, then all the idiots running around believing there is a God is proof of that idiot.