• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

siti

Well-Known Member
Dear @Sanmario. You can insult me all you like - its not to my detriment - you are simply making yourself appear facile and rude.

If you want to "win" the "debate" all you have to do is post your evidence for the universe having a beginning. (I think that is either the fifth of sixth time I have made this request). Do that, and I will happily concede.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Every time you post he "wins".
Tom
Perhaps, but every time he responds he throws away the victory...and then some...he's doing 'theistic belief' no favours at all and good on him for that! The more people that read this and see how delusional the entire concept is, the better. I think I'll try and keep this thread top of the list - its actually better than any logically-developed argument against theism IMO.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
...for humans who live with monkeys and mice as to have an ape for an avatar, and think Mickey Mouse when the conversation is about God
I'm sorry my friend, I missed this gem earlier. What an excellent summation of my position! I do indeed live with mice - and a very lazy cat - which is why the mice are still there. And I really do sometimes think Mickey Mouse when the conversation is about God - that part is really true. Only one thing, the ape is not an avatar - its really me - I mean I don't actually look very much like my cousin in the picture, but I really am an ape! I am also a distant relative of the cabbage. The difference between us is that I know this. I wonder what you're gonna make of it?
 
Last edited:

Sanmario

Active Member
Dear Willamena, please, just tell me what is your concept of God, my concept of God is [in concept] the creator of everything with a beginning.
Don’t wax poetic, dear lady Willamena.

From leibowde84
I want to convince you that your argument for the existence of God is faulty (not logically sound). That is all. - Post 238 from leibowde84.

And I want to convince you, dear colleague leibowde84, that my proof on evidence, that God exists in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, that proof is NOT faulty, it is YES logically sound.
_________________

Now, this is not from me being stubborn, but being logical: and being logical [which is what everyone should be who is possessed of the faculty of reason. as to think on observation and arrive at intelligent conclusion], to be logical we must start systematically in resolving an issue, like whether God exists or not.

What do you say, dear colleagues here of all stripes, whether atheists or theists or Satanists or etc. ‘ists’, but not siti because this entity lives with chimps and mice and can’t think except in the context of chimps and mice telling him how to think and talk as to feel himself to be so smugly arrogant, though he is saying nothing that is indicative of anything in the objectival world of realities like babies and roses and the sun and the moon.

Would it be all right with you all, that you just take into your mind’s span, my concept of God, namely, in concept God is the creator and operator of everything with a beginning.

And then we all starting with leibowde84 work together as to concur that the concept of God, [in concept] as creator of everything with a beginning, insofar as concept, it is a valid concept or not a valid concept?

And that is what I mean by being logically systematic, everything else is not being logically systematic no matter how eloquent and copious is the quantity of verbiage you invest in your expatiation on an issue.

That includes also falsifiable concepts, the specialty of leibowde84 – as though before he even got to have read a guy with the name reminiscent of popcorn, there was no concepts of any worth at all unless they can be prefixed with the adjective, falsifiable – hehehehe.

Okay dear readers here, we are now going to work together as to arrive at concurrence on the concept of God, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, is it a valid concept?

First, we ask leibowde84, for he knows what is valid and what is not, as he tells me that my evidence is not valid, so there, he know what is valid and what is not.

Dear leibowde84, please enlighten us all who are – at least me I am keen to hear or read from leibowde84, what he has to tell me about what is a valid concept as opposed to an invalid concept.

So, when you anyone cares to write a post in this thread at this point in time, and it is not about valid or invalid concepts, I will not deal with you, because you are out of context for the present time - and I can sense that you could be into the perverse undertaking of disrupting the thread.


I will be back in one hour’s time, it is now in my place, 06:50 a.m., Tuesday, April 11. 2017.
 

Sanmario

Active Member
@siti



Thanks for returning.

Now, tell me in not more than 50 words, what concisely of course and precisely and in simple clear words, is the point you are driving at this this thread?

My point in this thread on Is it possible to talk with an atheist [ I am not sure what you are at this point in time though], is that my proof for God existing on evidence is beyond rebuttal.

So, dear siti, tell me what exactly is the point you are driving at in this thread of mine?
 

siti

Well-Known Member
@siti

Thanks for returning.

Now, tell me in not more than 50 words, what concisely of course and precisely and in simple clear words, is the point you are driving at this this thread?

My point in this thread on Is it possible to talk with an atheist [ I am not sure what you are at this point in time though], is that my proof for God existing on evidence is beyond rebuttal.
And mine is that it is not beyond rebuttal because your "proof" depends on the universe having had a beginning and there is no logical or evidential proof that this is necessarily so. (And that, unless you can prove that the universe did have a beginning, is a rebuttal).

So for the umpteenth time of asking: please post your evidence to prove that the universe had a beginning.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
@ALL readers and posters, in particular folks who think on reason and observation as to come to intelligent conclusion, instead of behaving so smugly arrogant as to not even realize that they are talking all inside their brain, and when outside their brain they are mindless, because they live with chimps and have one for an avatar, and with mice, one of which is all inside their brain namely Mickey Mouse.
This is incoherent. Can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
Dear readers and posters here, siti is no different from atheists whose only argument against God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, is to insult God with ridiculous groundless analogies, like with siti in his smugly arrogant brain, with comparing God to Mickey Mouse.
He wasn't comparing God to Mickey Mouse. He was saying that you can prove that Mickey Mouse exists if you merely claim that Mickey Mouse is the creator of everything with a beginning. Your argument is logically fallacious because you are assuming your conclusion in your definition of God. It's like saying, "God is the creator of pop tarts. If pop tarts exist, God must exist." It doesn't get you anywhere. You say that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, so it is up to you to answer the following:
1. Why is God the only option for being the creator of everything with a beginning?
2. Does the cosmos have a beginning? How do you know for sure?
3. Why is God necessary for things with a beginning? Why can't those things exist without God?
Do you notice, dear readers and posters here, that with atheists which I see siti to be emulating to fit into, it is all ridiculous insults to God with them atheists; I tend to think siti is one for adopting also the perverse attitude of no thinking at all but all hurling insults with absurd analogies against God, Who is in concept the creator of everything with a beginning.
You are being absurd here. If someone doesn't believe in God, they are free to hurl any insults toward God that they want. I assume that you don't believe in Apollo or Zeus (Greek gods). So, I would assume that you wouldn't have an issue with me saying that "Apollo has the same likelihood for existence as Mickey Mouse". If you don't have a problem with that, then you must be reasonable and accept that for those of us who don't believe in God, insulting God isn't a problem. It is selfish to assume that atheists would be respectful towards an entity that, to them, doesn't even exist.

There, that is, forgive me though, my assessment of siti, he with a chimp for an avatar and living with monkeys and mice, but so pretentious as to dwell in smug arrogance that he can write in a net forum, when all he can do is to think up nonsense thoughts all inside his brain only.
His argument is far more logical than yours, based on nothing more than God being the creator of everything with a beginning ... which is completely baseless and without merit.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
And then we all starting with leibowde84 work together as to concur that the concept of God, [in concept] as creator of everything with a beginning, insofar as concept, it is a valid concept or not a valid concept?
It is a valid concept, I guess, but you have taken on the burden of proving certain things, if you want to prove the existence of God.
1. You must show that everything has a beginning and that everything with a beginning cannot exist without God. That is a tall order that you are taking on voluntarily, and you have failed to even address it. We already know how babies, butterflies and roses are formed naturally. There is no need for God with any of these things. Even the cosmos didn't necessarily have a beginning ... we just don't know that yet. So, it is possible that there were no beginnings necessitating any god. So, we know that God cannot be the creator of everything with a beginning, as roses, babies, and butterflies naturally "begin" without God. So, in other words, your concept doesn't help your argument in any way.
That includes also falsifiable concepts, the specialty of leibowde84 – as though before he even got to have read a guy with the name reminiscent of popcorn, there was no concepts of any worth at all unless they can be prefixed with the adjective, falsifiable – hehehehe.
Not sure what you are trying to say here, but it is common knowledge that the first step in any debate about the existence of anything is defining that thing in a falsifiable way. That isn't me, it is basic logic.

Dear leibowde84, please enlighten us all who are – at least me I am keen to hear or read from leibowde84, what he has to tell me about what is a valid concept as opposed to an invalid concept.
It isn't a valid or invalid concept, it is whether you want to have a worthwhile debate. If you are defining God in a way that is so vague that it cannot be debated, then it isn't worthwhile. I am merely asking that you are more specific with what God is and isn't. Define what it means to "have a beginning". Define what it means for God to "create" something. If it can be shown that things with a beginning can exist without the help of God, does that prove that God does not exist (according to you definition)?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
@siti


[N.B. Better not to read my message here, because I am into hyperbole, still the substance of my thought is clear and relevant in regard to the title of this thread, Is it possible to talk with an atheist, or a wannabee atheist?]

@ALL readers and posters, in particular folks who think on reason and observation as to come to intelligent conclusion, instead of behaving so smugly arrogant as to not even realize that they are talking all inside their brain, and when outside their brain they are mindless, because they live with chimps and have one for an avatar, and with mice, one of which is all inside their brain namely Mickey Mouse.


Dear siti, please do not run away and again throwing a stink bomb on the way to the exit.

Return, because I like very much to tell you that you are so smugly arrogant with your narrow brain reach, but you never go into the objective world of babies at home and roses in the garden and the moon in the evening sky and the sun in the morning sky.

Please, siti, try to look into yourself, and see whether you are not all the time into a most awful psychological condition of smug arrogance, and nothing of any genuine cognitive depth and substance.

Dear readers and posters here, siti is no different from atheists whose only argument against God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, is to insult God with ridiculous groundless analogies, like with siti in his smugly arrogant brain, with comparing God to Mickey Mouse.

In that groundless comparison siti has already proven to his own smug arrogant heart and brain that he is just viable only to talk with chimps and mice, but nothing else of genuine human reasoning on observation as to come to intelligent conclusion, on the reality of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

Do you notice, dear readers and posters here, that with atheists which I see siti to be emulating to fit into, it is all ridiculous insults to God with them atheists; I tend to think siti is one for adopting also the perverse attitude of no thinking at all but all hurling insults with absurd analogies against God, Who is in concept the creator of everything with a beginning.

Dear readers and posters here, let us sit back and witness whether siti has the intellectual guts to return and continue our exchange, or he is inanely happy to stay away and continue to nurse his vacuous - shame to him - hot foul stench of smug arrogance.

There, that is, forgive me though, my assessment of siti, he with a chimp for an avatar and living with monkeys and mice, but so pretentious as to dwell in smug arrogance that he can write in a net forum, when all he can do is to think up nonsense thoughts all inside his brain only.

Again, that is for comic relief, but didactic I hope reading for siti, in aid of self-examination by himself of his cognitive inanity and vacuity.


And don’t imitate me, dear readers and posters here, in my comic relief.

But do read and think on reason and observation as to reach intelligent conclusion, on any issue of genuine relevance in our search for pure gold wisdom on the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

Annex
In the interest of simplicity, I am going to ask a few question at a time.

Why is God necessary for the creation of everything with a beginning? Why is God necessary for the creation of a baby? Why is God necessary for the creation of a rose?

In other words, you claim that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, but you have failed to explain why God is necessary for the creation of everything with a beginning. You must prove that first before your argument can continue.
 

Sanmario

Active Member
@siti


Thanks for telling me what is your point in talking here in my thread.

Now, you say that I don't produce evidence of the universe having a beginning.

Let us now talk on what is evidence, in re universe having a beginning, and also very important what is universe, both in connection with my proof of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

So, dear siti, two items for us to work on as to concur on their meanings:
1. What is evidence?
2. What is universe?

Is that all right with you?


And mine is that it is not beyond rebuttal because your "proof" depends on the universe having had a beginning and there is no logical or evidential proof that this is necessarily so. (And that, unless you can prove that the universe did have a beginning, is a rebuttal).

So for the umpteenth time of asking: please post your evidence to prove that the universe had a beginning.
 

Sanmario

Active Member
@leibowde84


Dear colleague leibowde84, I think you conveniently skip what I request you and everyone to use his brain on at this point in time, in particular you because you know what is valid and what invalid.

See in Annex below, the text I put in bold, requesting you in most particular to tell me what is a valid concept as opposed to an invalid concept.

So, when you write again here, first and foremost tell me what is a valid concept, because we are going to determine whether the concept of God, to wit, as the creator of everything with a beginning, is a valid concept or not.


Dear readers here, let us all sit back to witness with bated breath how siti and leibowde84 are going to collaborate with me on my quest to get them, with siti: to tell me what is his concept of evidence and of universe, and with leibowde84: what is his idea of valid concept.

Annex
[Full text of this post follows below after this excerpt.]

[...]

First, we ask leibowde84, for he knows what is valid and what is not, as he tells me that my evidence is not valid, so there, he know what is valid and what is not.

Dear leibowde84, please enlighten us all who are – at least me I am keen to hear or read from leibowde84, what he has to tell me about what is a valid concept as opposed to an invalid concept.


So, when you anyone cares to write a post in this thread at this point in time, and it is not about valid or invalid concepts, I will not deal with you, because you are out of context for the present time - and I can sense that you could be into the perverse undertaking of disrupting the thread.


I will be back in one hour’s time, it is now in my place, 06:50 a.m., Tuesday, April 11. 2017.

Dear Willamena, please, just tell me what is your concept of God, my concept of God is [in concept] the creator of everything with a beginning.
Don’t wax poetic, dear lady Willamena.

From leibowde84
I want to convince you that your argument for the existence of God is faulty (not logically sound). That is all. - Post 238 from leibowde84.

And I want to convince you, dear colleague leibowde84, that my proof on evidence, that God exists in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, that proof is NOT faulty, it is YES logically sound.
_________________

Now, this is not from me being stubborn, but being logical: and being logical [which is what everyone should be who is possessed of the faculty of reason. as to think on observation and arrive at intelligent conclusion], to be logical we must start systematically in resolving an issue, like whether God exists or not.

What do you say, dear colleagues here of all stripes, whether atheists or theists or Satanists or etc. ‘ists’, but not siti because this entity lives with chimps and mice and can’t think except in the context of chimps and mice telling him how to think and talk as to feel himself to be so smugly arrogant, though he is saying nothing that is indicative of anything in the objectival world of realities like babies and roses and the sun and the moon.

Would it be all right with you all, that you just take into your mind’s span, my concept of God, namely, in concept God is the creator and operator of everything with a beginning.

And then we all starting with leibowde84 work together as to concur that the concept of God, [in concept] as creator of everything with a beginning, insofar as concept, it is a valid concept or not a valid concept?

And that is what I mean by being logically systematic, everything else is not being logically systematic no matter how eloquent and copious is the quantity of verbiage you invest in your expatiation on an issue.

That includes also falsifiable concepts, the specialty of leibowde84 – as though before he even got to have read a guy with the name reminiscent of popcorn, there was no concepts of any worth at all unless they can be prefixed with the adjective, falsifiable – hehehehe.

Okay dear readers here, we are now going to work together as to arrive at concurrence on the concept of God, in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning, is it a valid concept?

First, we ask leibowde84, for he knows what is valid and what is not, as he tells me that my evidence is not valid, so there, he know what is valid and what is not.

Dear leibowde84, please enlighten us all who are – at least me I am keen to hear or read from leibowde84, what he has to tell me about what is a valid concept as opposed to an invalid concept.


So, when you anyone cares to write a post in this thread at this point in time, and it is not about valid or invalid concepts, I will not deal with you, because you are out of context for the present time - and I can sense that you could be into the perverse undertaking of disrupting the thread.


I will be back in one hour’s time, it is now in my place, 06:50 a.m., Tuesday, April 11. 2017.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
So, when you write again here, first and foremost tell me what is a valid concept, because we are going to determine whether the concept of God, to wit, as the creator of everything with a beginning, is a valid concept or not.

I'll make this as simple as I can, because you keep on creating strawmen. I am more than happy to continue the debate, but you have to stop dishonestly accusing me of certain things. I simply request that you be civil and stop trying to put words in my mouth. Your concept of God is not invalid, you merely have to answer some questions in order to proceed with any valid logical proof.

In other words, I did not say that your concept of God was invalid, I said that if you would like to base a logically sound argument for the existence of God on your concept of God, your definition of God is not sufficient (not invalid).

I will explain why:

Your concept of God confirms itself using circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

In your case, you are saying that "God is the creator of everything with a beginning". Your circular argument is that, since everything has a beginning, and God is the creator of everything with a beginning, then God must exist. That is a clear use of flawed logic, depending completely on circular reasoning.

In this case, you are merely begging the question, "why is God the creator of everything with a beginning?" and "why is God necessary for creating everything with a beginning?".

Thus, to move forward with your argument, you must first answer:

1. Why is God the creator of everything with a beginning?
2. Why is God necessary for the creation of everything with a beginning rather than natural causes?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
These answers can be found with a quick Google search.
1. What is evidence?
2. What is universe?
Evidence = "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
The Universe = "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies."
 

Sanmario

Active Member
@siti


Give four examples of evidence from your meaning of evidence.

Give four examples of components of the universe.

These answers can be found with a quick Google search.

Evidence = "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
The Universe = "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies."
 

Sanmario

Active Member
@leibowde84
@siti

Sorry, dear Ieibowde84, I thought that I was replying to siti, because he is the one bringing up evidence and universe in his latest post here.

It's all right also that you take the initiative to tell me what is for you evidence and what is for you universe.

Now, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath for siti to deliver his concept of evidence and also his concept of universe.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
@leibowde84


Just tell me what is your idea of a valid concept?
Your question is an unreasonable, unanswerable one. It isn't nearly specific enough to expect an answer from anyone. But, obviously, it is not necessary to proceed in our debate.

In this specific circumstance, though, your concept is lacking (not invalid) because you must provide evidence for the claim inherent in your concept of God.

What evidence do you have to prove that God is the creator of everything with a beginning?


Concepts are neither valid nor invalid on their own. The sufficiency of a concept is based on what the concept will be used for. If a concept will be used for a logical proof (as you are using your concept of God for) it must meet certain specifications. Your concept is merely that God is the creator of everything with a beginning. Your argument uses circular logic ... as it uses the "A is the cause of B. If B exists then A must exist" logical fallacy. It begs several questions.

In regards to God, to my knowledge, there is no concept of God that could be used as the basis for a valid logical argument for God's existence. A concept that is the basis for a valid logical argument must be limited. It cannot be so vague (as yours is) that there is nothing that could be discovered that would prove it to not exist.
 
Top