Spearthrower wrote:1) Life without gods is meaningless.

2) Materialism is the alternative to believing in a deity.

3) Life in a materialistic perspective has no point.

3) Gods are required to explain the nature of reality.

4) I am an atheist


Which is the odd one out?

You have two x option 3).
What do I win ?

byofrcs wrote:
You have two x option 3).
What do I win ?

GAH! Edited!

You win... half a dollop of meaning, and 2 quarts of 'point to existence'... congratulations!

I can't be arsed to plough through four pages, so apologies if this has already been said

Andrew4Handel wrote:The alternative to god/s is nothing.

No. Simply wrong. There's a whole cosmos out there. That isn't nothing.

Andrew4Handel wrote:There is no alternative explanation for the existence of reality.

There are gaps in our knowledge. Only a complete cunt would claim to know everything, and confidently assert that there is only one possible explanation for the cosmos; god.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Noone has presented a genuine alternative ...

Not yet, maybe. Have some fucking patience, for fuck's sake!

Andrew4Handel wrote:... except ignorance.

You'd know all about that. Well done.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

CookieJon wrote:You said everything has a cause, as if you know. I simply asked what the cause of God is.

Why can't you answer?

How the F**ck am I supposed to know the cause of god? Why don't you ask him?

The cause of God is absolutely NO LESS problematic than the cause of the universe they are equal problems EQUAL!!!

Dude, if you're going to accuse the forum membership of being guilty wankers you can spell out 'fuck'. Sheesh.

So you've gone from 'no alternative to god' to the creator-god concept being just as problematic and no solution at all. Even William Lane Craig could see this problem quicker...it's why he dwells on what 'began to exist' to try to give his god a free pass.

So after all of this, what is Andrew, undercover? Theist? Atheist? ...wanking? Who knows.

It's quite evident that Andrew is a theist of some sort, probably a deist. I wonder what's up with all the denial? Is the intention just something like - "Hey guys, I'm just like you, so don't be too hard on me?" Personally, I would respect an honest and straightforward theist more than a dishonest atheist.

iamthereforeithink wrote:It's quite evident that Andrew is a theist of some sort, probably a deist. I wonder what's up with all the denial? Is the intention just something like - "Hey guys, I'm just like you, so don't be too hard on me?" Personally, I would respect an honest and straightforward theist more than a dishonest atheist.

It might screw up a miraculous & dramatic "conversion"?

Having said that I don't think there's real evidence of dishonesty here... just a lot of confusion and addled thinking. Rather, at least enough evidence of the latter to give Andrew the benefit of the doubt on the former.

IT'S TRUE! PRAISE HIS NOODLENESS!!

virphen wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:It's quite evident that Andrew is a theist of some sort, probably a deist. I wonder what's up with all the denial? Is the intention just something like - "Hey guys, I'm just like you, so don't be too hard on me?" Personally, I would respect an honest and straightforward theist more than a dishonest atheist.

It might screw up a miraculous & dramatic "conversion"?

Having said that I don't think there's real evidence of dishonesty here... just a lot of confusion and addled thinking. Rather, at least enough evidence of the latter to give Andrew the benefit of the doubt on the former.

Just as one example from this thread Virphen:

Andrew4Handel wrote:Absolutely no alternative to a deity has been presented.

Full stop.

You think otherwise?

You are fooling yourselves.

How can someone be an atheist and at the same time think that there is no alternative to a deity? It's just diametrically opposed, like drowning from dehydration.

Spearthrower wrote:
How can someone be an atheist and at the same time think that there is no alternative to a deity? It's just diametrically opposed, like drowning from dehydration.

I saw that, and the others, but a mind that can rationalise sterilisation of the entire species as moral can hold all sorts of whacky, contradictory and confused views. It doesn't make him necessarily a liar. I am not saying he is definitely an atheist, just that there is still room for some benefit of the doubt to be given.

And as I would take it as an insult if you called me a theist, it's not too far-fetched to consider saying it of Andrew a personal attack.

virphen wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
How can someone be an atheist and at the same time think that there is no alternative to a deity? It's just diametrically opposed, like drowning from dehydration.

I saw that, and the others, but a mind that can rationalise sterilisation of the entire species as moral can hold all sorts of whacky, contradictory and confused views. It doesn't make him necessarily a liar. I am not saying he is definitely an atheist, just that there is still room for some benefit of the doubt to be given.

And as I would take it as an insult if you called me a theist, it's not too far-fetched to consider saying it of Andrew a personal attack.

"... He loved Big Brother."

Spearthrower wrote:How can someone be an atheist and at the same time think that there is no alternative to a deity? It's just diametrically opposed, like drowning from dehydration.

Oh, you think you're so smart...

Australian professional swimmer almost drowns due to dehydration

Her hand was up, about two feet under water so I was able to reach down and grab her and pull her up,” he went on to say. “She gasped for air. We finally got her into the boat and she just passed out. So I don’t think she was coming back up.”

Brookes-Peterson was eventually revived without serious injury but had suffered from dehydration and exhaustion during the race according to published reports. It was the quick action of Walker that saved her life.

tytalus wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:How can someone be an atheist and at the same time think that there is no alternative to a deity? It's just diametrically opposed, like drowning from dehydration.

Oh, you think you're so smart...

Australian professional swimmer almost drowns due to dehydration

Her hand was up, about two feet under water so I was able to reach down and grab her and pull her up,” he went on to say. “She gasped for air. We finally got her into the boat and she just passed out. So I don’t think she was coming back up.”

Brookes-Peterson was eventually revived without serious injury but had suffered from dehydration and exhaustion during the race according to published reports. It was the quick action of Walker that saved her life.

Reality has no meaning for me any more! Anything is clearly possible!

Spearthrower wrote:

virphen wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:It's quite evident that Andrew is a theist of some sort, probably a deist. I wonder what's up with all the denial? Is the intention just something like - "Hey guys, I'm just like you, so don't be too hard on me?" Personally, I would respect an honest and straightforward theist more than a dishonest atheist.

It might screw up a miraculous & dramatic "conversion"?

Having said that I don't think there's real evidence of dishonesty here... just a lot of confusion and addled thinking. Rather, at least enough evidence of the latter to give Andrew the benefit of the doubt on the former.

Just as one example from this thread Virphen:

Andrew4Handel wrote:Absolutely no alternative to a deity has been presented.

Full stop.

You think otherwise?

You are fooling yourselves.

How can someone be an atheist and at the same time think that there is no alternative to a deity? It's just diametrically opposed, like drowning from dehydration.

(MY bold.)

Saying that no alternative has been presented is not the same as stating there is no alternative.

[/devil's advocate.]

Andrew4Handel wrote:The alternative to god/s is nothing.

There is no alternative explanation for the existence of reality.

Noone has presented a genuine alternative except ignorance.

When will theists realise that their God is devoid of any explanatory power?

When will theists and many other people besides realise that there is nothing wrong with admitting ignorance?

redwhine wrote:
Saying that no alternative has been presented is not the same as stating there is no alternative.

[/devil's advocate.]

Everyone's being so pedantic tonight!

I think it's clear he means in general rather than in this thread.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:So...therefore god?

What is the other option? A universe and reality that mysteriously creates itself for no reason?<snip>

So this god you imagine - how would you demonstrate that it cares about you and adds that meaning your life that you need so badly?

I don't have direct evidence of God and his/her character and traits. But I Just know a materialist non created purposeless universe intuitively doesn't make sense.

I don't understand cancer that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have a cure or explanation. You can derive valid inferences from existence without full explanations. A creatorless meaningless purposeless universe does not seem like a valid inference from the complex multifarious phenomenal evidence.

I think a meaniningless coincidental universe is pointless and can be percieved as so easily despite the occassional pleasent distraction like the countryside and handel and bach and cathedral which does not compensate for mortality and the deficiencies of the human body.

Buddhism and reincarnation..possibly..Our genes are apparently reincarnations.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't have direct evidence of God and his/her character and traits. But I Just know a materialist non created purposeless universe intuitively doesn't make sense.

I don't understand cancer that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have a cure or explanation. You can derive valid inferences from existence without full explanations. A creatorless meaningless purposeless universe does not seem like a valid inference from the complex multifarious phenomenal evidence.

I think a meaniningless coincidental universe is pointless and can be percieved as so easily despite the occassional pleasent distraction like the countryside and handel and bach and cathedral which does not compensate for mortality and the deficiencies of the human body.

Buddhism and reincarnation..possibly..Our genes are apparently reincarnations.

Er no

Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't have direct evidence of God and his/her character and traits. But I Just know a materialist non created purposeless universe intuitively doesn't make sense.

You just know, huh? As others don't seem to share your hangup, what reason we have to suppose it is anything more than just that? Certainly no evidence, as you've stated.

I don't understand cancer that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have a cure or explanation. You can derive valid inferences from existence without full explanations. A creatorless meaningless purposeless universe does not seem like a valid inference from the complex multifarious phenomenal evidence.

It's true, but they have to be valid. Without any evidence, your view is certainly not validated. You simply can't (or won't) believe that it could be otherwise. That's the problem.

I think a meaningless coincidental universe is pointless and can be percieved as so easily despite the occassional pleasent distraction like the countryside and handel and bach and cathedral which does not compensate for mortality and the deficiencies of the human body.

So you feel that the universe not having an inherent meaning would invalidate any sort of meaning you've gleaned from anything? Or, as you seem to be saying, a universe not made by god so obviously makes sense that it can't possibly be right? You admit your crutch, while claiming that walking with a crutch is the only way to move.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't have direct evidence of God and his/her character and traits. But I Just know a materialist non created purposeless universe intuitively doesn't make sense.

I don't understand cancer that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have a cure or explanation. You can derive valid inferences from existence without full explanations. A creatorless meaningless purposeless universe does not seem like a valid inference from the complex multifarious phenomenal evidence.

I think a meaniningless coincidental universe is pointless and can be percieved as so easily despite the occassional pleasent distraction like the countryside and handel and bach and cathedral which does not compensate for mortality and the deficiencies of the human body.

Buddhism and reincarnation..possibly..Our genes are apparently reincarnations.

And if I 'just know' that god doesn't exist and that you're wrong, how do we decide? Fucking thumb wrestle? Sorry, but your intuition fails on spec. As would mine -- which is why I don't use it to try to demonstrate claims.

The lack of a creator, of meaning, of purpose are evident and are not inferred or assumed to be. The skeptic need not (and I do not) believe in these things. I haven't found any of these, so I get by without them. That is all.