Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you’ve heard the plaintiff’s attorney explain that his client and mine entered into a valid and enforceable contract. You’ve heard him explain that my client broke one of the important parts of that contract. You’ve heard him explain that the plaintiff was damaged extensively by my client’s actions and that it cost his clients great sums of money to repair the damage, including the need to hire an expensive lawyer. You’ve heard that the plaintiff can recover all of that money through this lawsuit. But, when you go to deliberate, I ask you to consider just one important question: Where’s the coherent philosophy?
dear god man - don’t you know you just gave him a closing argument?
“There are no gods” is coherent enough for me. What makes you think anything “comes afterwards?”
He assumes that because we don’t have religion, we’re apathetic and will never accomplish anything - he assumes that ‘atheism’ must be some form of ‘system of belief’ similar to his ‘Christianity’ -
He fails to realize that -
Christianity == ‘theism’ ++ religious crap on top of it
and that Atheism does not require any of that nonsense - it is complete and coherent for that portion of it.
I think this is the problem.
God’s existence is irrelevant to the existence of theists or atheists. It’s the belief in god that drives theism and the belief that god doesn’t exist that drives atheism. God’s existence doesn’t have anything to do with either the existence of theism or atheism.
pchaos, you keep mentioning your desire for a personal connection with a god of a religion that really makes a difference in your life. As much as that sounds like you’re a perfect candidate for Scientology, I can’t recommend it to you. Frankly, I’m concerned that you’d understand Scientology. Instead, I will offer you a much better religion - one that will truly make an impact on your life.
You currently seem to follow a three one-thirds god whose worship fractured into hundreds of groups. I offer you an opportunity to join the tens of us who follow the one true way. (Indeed, the way is written on clay tablets, and we’ve had a hard time changing them.)
When my crops were failing and the cattle and sheep failed to breed, the local Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and Church of Christs couldn’t help me. Just pray and hope and maybe the drought would end. So, I started digging. You might know my god as a boogyman from your bible, but you should know that my god’s father is one of the thirds that you worship. After I built a temple to my god (and a mirrored one to his other father), the drought ended. He doesn’t have many followers any more, so it’s easy to get his attention. I have a personal connection with him - he’s been ignored for so long, he’s happy to talk with any new followers. As long as I follow his will, which again, is helpfully written in clay, I have nothing to fear from drought.
Therefore, I offer you the opportunity to throw away two-thirds of your upstart god and join me in worshiping Baal the Conqueror.
Oh, and you atheists, continue to deny Baal at your peril.
Everyone is born atheist
Look my Pastor went to seminary and has a Ph.d in Sociology from Stanford. I’m not saying he’s a great Pastor, even though I think he is.
Give the theists some credit for at least common sense. Don’t you think that some of us have thought of the possibility that there’s no God. Yet, we’ve gone beyond that and continue going to Church. By the way, I just got out of Mass.
Perhaps you thought I was being facetious when I said that even if scientists could demonstrate there was no God, people would still go to church. Nope, it’s a serious argument.
I also believe what my philosophy professor told me. After the age of 21 people do not change their basic beliefs.
What does your pastor’s understanding have to do with your errors?
Not so. The late Joseph McCabe was one of the most brilliant world scholars the world has ever known, and the Catholics were proud to have had a man of his intellect. But as he continued his studies, he became an atheist and never turned back. Michael Shermer was once a fundamentlist Christian, but it wasn’t until during his graduate studies he lost his faith, and is now one of the leading skeptics. The late Farrell Till was a fundamentalist preacher at one time before losing faith later in life. In fact, here are over 400 preachers that have left their faith in just the last two years.
No, no, he’s a pretty good troll. He’s getting people to respond to him in droves, even in this thread where it’s patently obvious that he’s trolling. Compare that to kp_numbers, who got banned in the first thread he started making waves in, well before it took off.
You’re close. It depends on the premises you start with. As an example, an atheist who happens to be an empiricist. Will start with the basic scientific method. However, a religious person has the 5 basic senses and includes others. When there’s a given event, let’s say Pope Benedict’s resignation, each will give a rational explanation and then come up with different conclusions.
Being a great pastor doesn’t mean someone is intelligent or reasonable. It means they want an easy job dispensing platitudes for unskeptical people.
Theists, by being theists are demonstrating a particular lack of common sense. They believe something without any evidence at all to support it.
It doesn’t mean they’re generally stupid, but theism itself is an inherently stupid act.
Of course, because theism is about believing nonsense that comforts you without evidence.
It may be less likely, but it does happen.
Of course, if you’re a theist because of stupidity or inability to reason, you’re unlikely to suddenly grow out of that.
True, he’s getting replies, but at his expense, so this isn’t so bad if he has to be confined to the pit. All replies have been like water off of a duck’s back though.
I can’t think of anyone I know that would crave the negative kind of attention he has gotten over the last few months without thinking they have to have some serious personality or mental disorder. Hell, even those suffering from a martyr complex are seeing this in disbelief, and thinking “Sheeetttt! Stay down pchaos, just stay down, god damn, I can’t take just seeing it anymore! And Jesus has got to be thinking his cross days weren’t so bad after all.
On a slightly different note:
Unless you really want to destroy your arguments even further (assuming that is possible; I’m not sure it is) by showing people you are even more full of sh-t than you initially appeared to be, you can’t wave away your statement that you’re a lawyer with a simple “forget I said that”; no, people won’t forget you said that. Again, what is your area of practice?
Of course, he can’t truthfully answer that he isn’t a lawyer, after playing one on the internet all this time, because the gig would be up, and it would be lights out for pchaos on SD. However, after this many has challenged him on being a lawyer, and if he actually was one, surely a person would want to defend his reputation by giving us something to go on. He doesn’t, which makes it more obvious he isn’t.
Granted, perhaps there are exceptional people that change their beliefs. But the vast majority of people don’t. So if normally a mass has 200 people attending, then the week after finding there’s no God. The number will drop to 198. Then a year later when some scientist says there’s a God. The number will go up to 202. And of course this is in my opinion.
So, is the dude a lawyer or is he lying? Is there proof?
Has it occurred to you that I don’t particularly care what you think on that issue. I’m simply complying with what OP requested.
Also, I’m a great believer that logic stands on it’s own merit.
When I make an argument that gets a lot of responses, my inclination is to believe that I made a rational argument and people are responding because they are coming from different premises and want to draw a different conclusion than mine.
Your inclination here is, not surprisingly, incorrect - we (or atleast I) respond because of the sheer ignorance of your ‘arguments’ - of which you have yet to make any reasonable ones.
Of course - you hold your own definitions for ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ that are the polar opposite of what the words actually mean - so its no surprise that you would think your arguments are ‘rational’ or ‘logical’.
As to the matter of you being a lawyer - you brought it up - you even wagged your credentials with an incredible ineptitude in another thread - it cannot and will not be forgotten.
If you are a lawyer - post one thing that would prove it - otherwise - admit that you are not and be done with it.