I am a metaphysical naturalist. The reason is simple. We know
1) that many things perfectly operate under the assumption of blind and a-teleological mechanisms.
2) even more, we have, in fact, much more success in explaining things under the assumption of naturalism, than under the assumption...
In my experience such replies mean: let us hope she does not know what post I mean.
That is usually what people do when they have a problem and hope that the source of the problem is forgotten, or difficult to retrieve.
a common tactics among creationists.
so, i would strongly suggest, in...
Yes.
Yes.
You seem to assume that there is a mathematical infinity that cannot be surpassed by any other nfinity. Can you prove that, before putting God oil that category?
Since She does not exist, I wonder how She can claim to be the greatest possible being.
Well, then show me how you...
How does not that answer your post? I do not claim omniscience here , so I might have really failed here. I am a human, after all.
So, can you make it please explicit how I did not answer that? So that I correct my error. What was it?
Ciao
- viole
I can't wait to discuss those.
what does that mean?
Yes, I am happy He is into abortion.
I am an atheist. That is, I belong to a non-prophet organization.
Unfortunately, I am not aware of any two humans sharing the same moral worldview.
Spiritual nonsensical language. There is no God. That...
Are you telling us that belief in Gods, no matter which ones, are functional towards survival?
I might have no quarrel with that, depending on your reply.
Ciao
- viole
There is no proof that little invisible fairies are not the ones ravaging my garden, either.
So, why should I promote gods to a higher level of invisible garden fairies?
Either I know that both God and the invisible garden fairies do not exist, or I both claim equal levels of agnosticism...
Well, you should have. Since that is exactly what I claim to know.
I know there is no god. And I claim that everybody else should know that too.
And that is why I qualify as a gnostic atheist.
Ciao
- viole
Of course you misunderstood. It is not "Viola". It is "viole".
And how does that defeat my claim to know that there is no god? In fact, it should be pretty clear that there is no god, don't you think so?
Let me ask you this: what makes God more likely than, say, Mother Goose?
Ciao
- viole
Good for you. I personally do not simply lack belief in God. In fact, I claim knowledge that God does not exist, and that is because I do not simply hide behind the "no evidence" thing. So, I know that not because of lack of evidence, but because of the obvious presence of counter-evidence. At...
I am one of the few atheists I know who considers that a sort of intellectual laziness. OK, I lack belief in God, therefore I am not involved in providing any justifications at all... problem solved. I don't think it is intellectually kosher.
If we forget for a moment the funny versions of the...
I think the two statements are different only when we have no concept of what we are supposed to believe or disbelieve. Ergo, when we cannot possibly develop a belief, not even in principle, since we cannot possibly assess the ontological status of something we do not conceive.
For example, the...
Is the belief that no Gods exists (my position) the same as lacking belief that God exists (held by a possibly bigger set of atheists)?
In other words, is no belief in X, the same as belief in non-X? or is it weaker?
I think the two claims are equivalent, and I think the former is a sort of...
I could use the same argument to prove that there is no God connected to Corinthians.
Premise: God is not the author of confusion.
Observation: people believe and believed in thousands of mutually contradicting gods. Even within the same belief bubble. A theological mess.
Conclusion: either the...
Can you tell us more how quantum entanglement makes your case? My first impression is that you use big words hoping that nobody will call you out. New ageists, for instance, like to entertain themselves with QM, or try to impress the gullible, without understanding a iota of it.
but I give the...
Technically, that is not true. In fact, we do not attack believers, since most believers have no issues with evolution. Nor with the Big Bang, and many of them are quite scientifically fit. Even though they would still count as creationists, albeit in a weaker sense.
So, it is not a fight...
For a Christian to accept Buddha, or Allah, or Zeus, is logical nonsense. and the other way round.
All these divinities are mutually exclusive. So, it would be like asking a physicist to accept the theory of flat earth. It won't do.
So, the only belief you all guys should embrace in the...