Enigma:

I repeat below basically what I said in another related thread.

In broad terms, {it was the kind of argument in that second link} that convinced one of the atheists' champions of all time, i.e. Antony Flew, to deism and belief in God eventually. When you hear atheists talk of the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in argument, they are ultimately parroting (OK, borrowing from) Antony Flew. At least Antony Flew had the integrity to "follow wherever the evidence leads" as he put it.

Funny enough, some atheists found  the earthquake of Flew's conversion to atheism Deism so unbearable that they try to say Flew did not really renounce atheism, he had mentally weakened at the time etc etc ---- na so! 

Mad_Max:

I sort of agree with most of this. But there is a patronising tendency for atheists to bandy the word 'delusion' about with regards to theists. It's superior and irritating. You've decided it's the 'height of delusion' to claim there's a God without 'evidence'. But there is no univesal consensus as to what that evidence should be. Different individuals and groups have different definitions as to what should constitute evidence for God, depending on where they're coming from.

Mad_Max:

Theism and atheism are equally valid world outlooks. We should just respect the other's stand on religion and leave it be. It's not hard to understand why people would be atheists. It makes more sense than theism, in a way, and is certainly more rational than the menu most of the world's religions give you to choose from. But atheism is not the only thing that makes sense; it's not the be-all and end-all of religious stances and opinionating. 

Breeze5000:

Nobody is truly an atheists. But at the time of death, some get scared wondering if they have toyed with this illusion for too long.

Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful!

You see an empty house in a Forrest and believes it has no builder. It suddenly appears there by itself. Yeah right! 
That the house is there in the first place is enough proof that  somebody built it, even though you were not there when it was built, neither would you ever come in contact with it's builder. I don't do magic, so I believe just like a house, car, plane or chair has it's maker  so also does the Sun, Moon, Stars, Man has it's maker.

thehomer:

Which God did Anthony Flew believe in?

thehomer:
Another thing to note here is citing Anthony Flew here is simply an argument from authority. You actually need to present the argument you're making rather than just name dropping.

Breeze5000:
. . .  A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes, Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . .

Enigma:

Oh ho! Instead many of them, especially the evangelical atheists, would (a) rather play the sleight of hand that only the theists/deists have a burden of proof and/or (b) engage in childish sophistry asking the theist/deist to "define" "god"---- pretending not, or too ignorant, to see the obvious ---- i.e. they can simply "define" or explain which "god" they are arguing does not exist or themselves simply "define" what a "god" is.

Cool!   

Enigma:

^^^ Just like you are ignorant and have no clue about what you disbelieve and are trying to disprove? Cool! 

Enigma:

Have I ever talked to you about anything? Have I ever asked you to believe anything? And, even now, am I asking you to believe anything?

Enigma:

You come announcing you don't believe something and want to "disprove" it --- yet you do not even know what that something is! Wunderbar!

Who is the ignorant one then?

Enigma:


PS You need to demonstrate better comprehension and to go back and read my post from which you are picking the word "obvious" and ascertain what I referred to as "obvious"!

Idehn:

What are you talking about now? I was responding to you saying that it is "childish sophistry" to ask for some ontology for God.  You are the one who cannot be bothered to tell people what you are even talking about. Once again, if you are incapable of even telling people what you are talking about, then you have no business telling people what is "obvious" on the matter of "God".

Idehn:
 
Please, show me where I announced that I do not believe in God and I want to "disprove" it. Go ahead. Take all the time you need.

Idehn:

Enigma link=topic=715030.msg8756785#msg8756785 date=1311195527:

This is one thing that many atheists do not want to face; instead they try to play the sleight of hand that the burden of proof is on the theist/deist ---- yeah right, tell it to the birds! 

Can someone here actually define what it is they want disproved? I am tired of being asked to provide evidence against something that does not even have a clear, coherent, and meaningful ontology. It is almost as if you made up a word, blaormoga, and have started asking other people to provide evidence that it does not exist.

Idehn:
I do not think you comprehend what I am saying. I have no idea what you mean when you say God. I have no opinion on the existence/non-existence of the thing God you are referring to. Until you give a definition of what God is I will continue to do so. I have no interest whatsoever in defining what God is for you. Where have I said/implied otherwise. There is nothing "obvious" about the definition of what you are referring to as God beyond the fact that no one knows what you are talking about including you it seems.

Idehn:
Please acquire  comprehension of epistemology. I suggest you start with Ontology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology#Some_fundamental_questions since from your comment you seem to have difficulty understanding the importance of plain definitions.

Idehn:
Again if you have no idea what you are talking about Enigma, then please withhold your pretense of knowledge.

Enigma:

By the way it does not make you look good to project your ignorance onto others.

Enigma:

I don't need much time, mate; here you go!
Can someone here actually define what it is they want disproved? I am tired of being asked to provide evidence against something that does not even have a clear, coherent, and meaningful ontology. It is almost as if you made up a word, blaormoga, and have started asking other people to provide evidence that it does not exist.


^Here you quote me as asking for what I want disproved --- with the implicit suggestion that if I provide the what (i.e. definition of "god", you can disprove it. Meanwhile, I never did ask you to believe/disbelieve, prove/disprove anything. All I did was make an observation that atheists contend/pretend that the burden of proof is on the theist/deist.

can you provide a clear incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist, irrespective of the obvious that could the order on this earth be without a Controller Who maintains the order?

Enigma:

One thing that I (and even you) have demonstrated is that you have no idea at all of what you are talking about other than the usual evangelical atheist codswallop. You will only be able to make an impression if you can define the god/s that you do not believe and want to disprove.

Idehn:

. . . Now it is you he needs reading comprehension. YOU entered this discussion by asserting that atheist are trying to "disprove" this thing you call God just as sweetnecta did below.

Idehn:
I asked YOU to clarify what it IS you have now repeatedly asserted atheist are trying disprove. Are you talking about gravity like it seems sweetnecta was because I am certainly not trying to disprove gravity. If God=gravity then God exist in so far as gravity does.

Idehn:
If you cannot say what God is then stop telling(making the observation LOL) that people are out to disprove the thing you are calling God. Once again no one knows what you are even talking about and you refuse/unable to tell anybody. Once again, you have no business telling people what is "obvious"  when you refer to God.

Enigma:

Another example of poor comprehension or deceit and lies. People of proper comprehension and honesty can follow my posts from the very first one and see your statement for the lie it is. 

When you can identify and define what it is you are trying to disprove, go ahead and disprove it. 

Yet another poor comprehension or deceit; anyway, if you cannot define the god/s that you are trying to disprove then stop wasting people's time! 

Homer:

I don't see what the big deal is in calling theistic ideas delusional. What has so far been presented as evidence for most of the theistic Gods are really nothing more than wishful thinking or cultural indoctrination.

Sorry but I don't think they're both equally valid outlooks. As you've said above, one of them is more rational based on the information we have than the other.
Also, atheism isn't a religious stance. If anything, it is against a stance usually borne in religions.

Enigma:

Why don't you answer the question yourself - and prove to all how informed and smart you really are? 

Enigma:

This is either deceit or poor comprehension. Read my post again and see if I was trying to make any argument or simply pointing out a matter of fact and records. 

Enigma:

Oh ho! Instead many of them, especially the evangelical atheists, would (a) rather play the sleight of hand that only the theists/deists have a burden of proof and/or (b) engage in childish sophistry asking the theist/deist to "define" "god" ---- pretending not, or too ignorant, to see the obvious ---- i.e. they can simply "define" or explain which "god" they are arguing does not exist or themselves simply "define" what a "god" is.

And they expect sensible people to engage them in debate --- and can't see why most sensible people just ignore them to their interminably boring rantings?

Cool!   

Mad_Max:

No evidence has been advanced against the existence of God either. That doesn't mean atheists should be insulted. Though we still don't know the origins of life, natural selection is a brilliant,elegant explanation for the complexity of biological life, an alternative to ancient creation myths. It's a breath of fresh air, but it has nothing to do with God. Atheism is a religious stance. What other kind of stance is it, an economic one? You don't see the big deal in calling people who don't share your beliefs delusional? Speaks volumes.

Mad_Max:

There are thousands of Gods across many cultures worldwide. Why aren't adherents of these Gods fighting evolution?Because the theoy of evolution came out of the American and European traditions, so only their God feels threatened by it. Indian and Chinese and African Gods don't care, and aren't bothered by evolutionary theories. I'm not suggesting atheism is more rational than theism, only that it's logic is easier to follow.

Mad_Max:

Some atheists keep going beyond the facts. Thinking atheists don't arrogantly dismiss a Maker. The sum total of all human knowledge simply isn't enough for that. What atheists- the ones I take seriously anyhow- dismiss are the Gods that the convenional religions insist on shoving down people's throats. Theism makes far more sense to many than atheism, otherwise atheists wouldn't be a tiny minority. A theist can accept atheism as valid because there are no ways to determine the 'right' or 'wrong' of religious outlooks; it's all entirely subjective, it's all personal experience and opinion. A person simply has a right to belief or non-belief and neither is 'better' than the other. Both are valid, as there are no universal measures for these things.

thehomer:

I wasn't aware that he believed in any particular God. Your post seemed to indicate otherwise. So which God was it?

thehomer:
If you weren't making any argument, then what was the point of declaring Anthony Flew and attaching to him the title of "atheist champion of all time"? It seems yet again that some are unable to understand what they post.

thehomer:
It seems you don't know what sophistry is because it is what you do when you keep running from clearly identifying what you're referring to in these sorts of discussions.

Enigma:

Your ignorance (or lack of awareness) is your own problem, not mine; what a wise person would do in those circumstances would be to go and inform himself. You could start by asking your fellow evangelical atheists here; one of them has been going on about which god Flew believed and which he didn't.

Enigma:

If you don't get my point, that is your problem, not mine; I can't continue giving all these comprehension lessons!

Enigma:

OK

thehomer:

As usual, when you make blind assertions and are called on them, you try to dance around and obfuscate issues. My advice to you is that you learn to clearly say what you mean in order to avoid appearing ignorant or deceptive.
I'm asking what you think not what someone else thinks.

thehomer:
Again, you have failed to show that you even understand what you were saying. This appears to be a common problem with your posts.

- What if God is not a psychopath run amok(as those scriptures suggest)?
- What if God does not live only in the scriptures of these so-called 'world religions'?
- What if God does not need our worship via these religions or any other, for that matter(as the scriptures claim)?
- What if God does not need our daily praise?
- What if God does not have a "chosen people or culture", as the world religions suggest?
- What if God has no preferred religion?
- What if God leaves us to create and adjust our morality and ethics as we grow and evolve, instead having them handed down to us via scriptures?
- What if God has created no hell, except the one we create for ourselves here on earth?
- What if there is no paradise except the one we create for ourselves here on earth?
- What if God wants only wants our continual intellectual, mental, psychical, spiritual and physical evolution via our daily interactive experiences with the physical universe around us and beyond through every means available without restrictions?
- What if God only wants to stay in the background and watch us evolve in all these areas and levels without interfering in any way, except to merely set the stage.

Enigma:

Again you show yourself to be of poor comprehension or very deceitful; point to the assertion that I made; point to the calling on them that I have failed to defend.

Enigma:

That you keep getting so near to zero for comprehension makes me lean towards the conclusion that you are just deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

Enigma:

Fact of the matter is Flew renounced atheism, converted to deism/theism. However, the real problem of you and your fellow evangelical atheists is that the arguments that you parrot here, usually being Flew's arguments, Flew later accepted that many of them are superseded by the intellectual case and evidence for Intelligent Design; in fact he referred to some of his works as "obsolete". So you see part of the problem that you and  other neophyte or sciolist evangelical atheists have is that you lot know that, for the discerning, your arguments are unimpressive --- so you try resorting to underhand and intellectually dishonest methods.       

Enigma:

^So basically you haven't got anything sensible tosay. Truth is I didn't expect anything better from you.

Enigma:

^So basically you haven't got anything sensible tosay. Truth is I didn't expect anything better from you.

mazaje:

What's the name of the God Antony Flew believes in?. . . . . . .Is the God the same God with Yahweh the God of the bible?

Enigma:

^^^ By not knowing the god that Antony Flew believed in, you confirm your ignorance contrary to what you try to portray. If you know and you are just pretending, then you confirm your duplicity and dishonesty,

Your choice.