Need help arguing my atheistic stance:

[Trylan]

So i'm talking to a guy online, and i say i'm an atheist, and dont feel like explaining why. Now its not like i just one day woke up and decided to be an atheist, i gave it a lot of careful though, not to mention all the science, religion, and philosophy courses i've done (no degrees in anything).

I just really suck at arguing...no matter what i know, i cant express it online or IRL (its sad, really).

So here's his response:

Every atheist philosopher has been trumped many times. Why? Because to prove a philosophical God, is easy as fucking your little sister. Most Atheists are of the belief that they are "too smart" to believe in a God, which I find extremely amusing.

I have BA in Philosophy, and if you actually take a class, or even sit in on one, any professor will tell you - atheism just doesn't work. Not for practical or academic arguements, it's just not a well founded basis for anything. But I don't expect you to understand that since you probaly have only read Nietzsche like all the other pseudo-intellectual idiots.

The root in atheism lies within teenage rebellion. 'Rebel without a cause' syndrome. Too bad it's played out, and no one cares what you do or do not believe in, so take your Goth friends, your Linkin Park CD, and go home. Atleast there you can wonder why the world doesn't understand you without bugging anyone but your parents.


Its obvious to me that the this argument is retarded, but i suck at picking arguments apart. Anyone wanna assist?

[EGGO]

You can tell him for one that stereotyping isn't helping his argument at all, because I'm not goth and I don't listen to Linkin Park.

You can also tell him that the root of atheism lies in self-awareness and simple logic, whereas religion is a psychological reliever (as well as a stressor with their rules).

With atheism, I've been able to see a whole bunch of things more objectively than any other dictoral cult/religion telling me how to think.

The reason why atheism does not work (well...it does work, but let's tend to his case anyway for a good laugh) is because it's simply not mainstream. I don't know why he says atheism doesn't work, I can stand on so many examples on how life, not limited by a philisophical being (which is being found out to be a psychological thing in the human mind as studies show not conducted by atheists).

Ask him just how does he know God exists, without giving confirmation bias or anectdotal evidence, since this is what theists usually use to solidify their case.

Heck, I just got done talking to a person who said his concrete evidence for God was...

I had those really horrible nightmares you can’t wake up from? Ever had those? They’re a real b*tch… I had ones filled with darkness and vile creatures, like clowns… anyway, everything I tried to do couldn’t wake me up, until I uttered the words “Help me God” and I woke up. Eh? How’s that for a miracle?

[Haylow]

Hi

I don't think its even worth argueing about you don't have to belive in god your free to chose

Its impossiable to win, because theism deals with an all powerful
creator and athesim deals with magic that the universe just poped out of nothingness

How can anyone possiable win here, just go with the one that you feel most logical and express your opinions but there is nothing to win, you will just be doing this:banghead:

[Trylan]

Hm, thanks for the reply EGGO, you're definitely giving me somethign to go on.

And Haylow....are you being sarcastic, or mocking me? I could go into why the universe existing without a creator isn't magical, but i would be wasting my breath apparently. Unless of course you're just being sarcastic, then ignore this. :p

[pmurray]

Originally quoted by Trylan

Every atheist philosopher has been trumped many times. Why? Because to prove a philosophical God, is easy as fucking your little sister.

I wonder how this person came by the opinion that fucking one's little sister was easy? Personal experience, perhaps? Maybe that's how certain gap-toothed banjo-playing redneck inbreds live, but I personally wouldn't know.

Most Atheists are of the belief that they are "too smart" to believe in a God, which I find extremely amusing.

And I personally may find the stupid people who do belive in a god amusing, but I wouldn't use it in an argument because that is pure ad-hominem.

I have BA in Philosophy, and if you actually take a class, or even sit in on one, any professor will tell you - atheism just doesn't work.

No professor would ever say any such thing, except perhaps at an unacreddited loony fundy christian creationist pretend university. Where did this person get his BA, if he is not - as is extremely likely - just telling a straight, bald-faced lie? They do that a lot, you know. Christians. "Lying for Jesus", we call it.

Not for practical or academic arguements, it's just not a well founded basis for anything. But I don't expect you to understand that since you probaly have only read Nietzsche like all the other pseudo-intellectual idiots.

One is not an Atheist because it is a basis for other things. This is why theists are theists - they would like to belive that someone "up there" is taking care of them, or approves of their behaviour, so they choose to belive. Atheists are atheists, generally, because they are convinced that it happens to be true.

The root in atheism lies within teenage rebellion. 'Rebel without a cause' syndrome. Too bad it's played out, and no one cares what you do or do not believe in, so take your Goth friends, your Linkin Park CD, and go home. Atleast there you can wonder why the world doesn't understand you without bugging anyone but your parents.

Ah. This person has read "The Shattered Image", or some other tripe. It's better to be a teenage rebel than an infant "little child" of God.

In any case, this person has made up their mind. Don 't bother. Every one of his points is an unsupported assertion. The only answer is "Oh really? How do you know that?". But don't expect a reasonable response.

[Trylan]

Thanks for breaking that down pmurray. I honestly started thinking after reading that I could write a textbook on logical fallicies based solely on that guy's response.

[Division By Zero]

Heck, I just got done talking to a person who said his concrete evidence for God was...

I had those really horrible nightmares you can’t wake up from? Ever had those? They’re a real b*tch… I had ones filled with darkness and vile creatures, like clowns… anyway, everything I tried to do couldn’t wake me up, until I uttered the words “Help me God” and I woke up. Eh? How’s that for a miracle?

That's very interesting, because I can force myself out of a nightmare whenever I please. I must be God.

Now, I should see about performing some real miracles. I think I'll start by curing AIDS and cancer, and maybe some other diseases too, and then eliminate war and world hunger before I break for lunch.


As for Trylan's opponent, pmurray pretty much said all that needs to be said. Trylan, is this "discussion" being held on a message board? If so, which one?

[Wyz_sub10]

You might want to ask him how easy it is for him to fuck his little sister.

That was one bizarre comment in a sea of absolute stupidity. Tell him to pack his year-one philosophy knowledge in a bag and come pay us a visit.

I'll also add that I've never met a philosophy prof who was a Christian (although I do know some that are theists), and as far as the waking from nightmares, I wake myself from my sleep all the time - fully aware.

It's cute that he though god was saving him from the images of the scary clowns, though. (Maybe god should focus on the people in real danger, rather than bullshit dreams).

[Trylan]

I did in fact tell this guy of this board, like so:
oh and if anyone's never heard of it, www.infidels.org has a good message board with lots of theists and atheists, real intelligent people.

and his response was Your standards must be really fucking low. Real intelligent people can easily prove a philosophical existence of God.

It was in fact a discussion online, at www.bemanistyle.com (one of the many websites devoted to arcade and consumer soft games produced by the bemani division of konami of japan).

http://www.bemanistyle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=269

Its not really a serious discussion....someone asked about everyone's views on the metaphysical...i just posted i was an atheist, and some guy was bagging on me. So i figured someone here would have much clearer thinking than myself (and how right i was :notworthy )

[JaeIsGod]

Seriously , this guy isnt even worth responding too. His post is nothing but insulting empty bullshit.
If its so easy to prove god , let him come over here and show us.

[Wyz_sub10]

Real intelligent people can easily prove a philosophical existence of God.

And really intelligent people know that it's "really intelligent" and not "real intelligent".

Seriously, you need to laugh it off because this guy has nothing. I'm not sure what he means by "low standards", but I doubt he's familiar with this place.

I doubt he has the tools to last with the heavy hitters here.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Trylan
So i'm talking to a guy online, and i say i'm an atheist, and dont feel like explaining why. Now its not like i just one day woke up and decided to be an atheist, i gave it a lot of careful though, not to mention all the science, religion, and philosophy courses i've done (no degrees in anything).

I just really suck at arguing...no matter what i know, i cant express it online or IRL (its sad, really).

So here's his response:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every atheist philosopher has been trumped many times. Why? Because to prove a philosophical God, is easy as fucking your little sister. Most Atheists are of the belief that they are "too smart" to believe in a God, which I find extremely amusing.

I have BA in Philosophy, and if you actually take a class, or even sit in on one, any professor will tell you - atheism just doesn't work. Not for practical or academic arguements, it's just not a well founded basis for anything. But I don't expect you to understand that since you probaly have only read Nietzsche like all the other pseudo-intellectual idiots.

The root in atheism lies within teenage rebellion. 'Rebel without a cause' syndrome. Too bad it's played out, and no one cares what you do or do not believe in, so take your Goth friends, your Linkin Park CD, and go home. Atleast there you can wonder why the world doesn't understand you without bugging anyone but your parents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Its obvious to me that the this argument is retarded, but i suck at picking arguments apart. Anyone wanna assist?

You can start by observing that he is making false claims, such as:

any professor will tell you - atheism just doesn't work

There are quite a number of atheist philosophy professors, and very few who have conventional attitudes toward religion.

You can also point out the fact that he has given absolutely no reason or evidence for any of his claims. Atheism, he says, is absurd. Ask him to prove it, rather than simply claim it.

But really, JaeIsGod sums up the matter rather well:

Originally posted by JaeIsGod
Seriously , this guy isnt even worth responding too. His post is nothing but insulting empty bullshit.
If its so easy to prove god , let him come over here and show us.

[joedad]

Or you can respond with:'Every theist philosopher has been trumped many times. Why? Because to prove a philosophical god, is as easy as not fucking your little sister. Most theists are of the belief that they are "too smart" to not believe in a god, which I find extremely amusing.'But only if you want to stir things a bit.

I wouldn't give him a personal audience. Invite him hither!

[Shadowy Man]

Yes invite him to this board and tell him to put up or shut up.

[Evolutionist]

hell, where did you find him? i'll go there and debate him myself!

[Trylan]

Evolutionist: http://www.bemanistyle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=269

Although i cant be sure he's not just fucking around, you know trying to stir the pot. At least....i would hope not.

[Wyrdsmyth]

Every atheist philosopher has been trumped many times. Why? Because to prove a philosophical God, is easy as fucking your little sister. Most Atheists are of the belief that they are "too smart" to believe in a God, which I find extremely amusing.

Any time one outgrows believing in something, some myth or belief that is discovered to be implausible, it is true they feel they are "too smart" to believe in it anymore. This applies to Santa Claus just as it does to God. But theists don't want to hear this. They don't want their god compared to other supernatural beings, which they consider implausible -- like Santa Claus, leprechauns, genies, other gods of other religions, and so on. But not believing in these sorts of things is not a result of believing one is "too smart" for them, but of simply finding them implausible.

I have BA in Philosophy, and if you actually take a class, or even sit in on one, any professor will tell you - atheism just doesn't work. Not for practical or academic arguements, it's just not a well founded basis for anything. But I don't expect you to understand that since you probaly have only read Nietzsche like all the other pseudo-intellectual idiots.

This is untrue. Professors have a wide range of beliefs, just like their students. And even if all professors did say this, citing the above would be the logical fallacy of arguing from authority (So-and-so says X, so X must be true). And calling Nietzsche or other atheist thinkers "psuedo-intellectual idiots" is an ad hominem fallacy, and in no way is a refutation of them.

The root in atheism lies within teenage rebellion. 'Rebel without a cause' syndrome. Too bad it's played out, and no one cares what you do or do not believe in, so take your Goth friends, your Linkin Park CD, and go home. At least there you can wonder why the world doesn't understand you without bugging anyone but your parents.

This is just buying into a stereotype, with no real effort put forth to understand a differing view. It's called bigotry.

[Evolutionist]

urgh, it's one of those forums where grown adults have pics of dragon ball Z characters and gandalf... :rolleyes:

[Magic Primate]

If I really wanted to rebel against my parents I would have become a Christian.

"athesim deals with magic that the universe just poped out of nothingness"

Which atheist (or scientist) ever said this?

[Trylan]

Lol not really evolutionist, its a forum for hardcore gamers like myself who play games such as Dance Dance Revolution (http://www.aaroninjapan.com/ddr7.html) or Beatmania II DX (http://www.konami.co.jp/am/bm2dx/bm2dx1/overall_e.html).

Of course, there are the few mega nerds there, but same goes with just about any other message board :p

[Keith Russell]

Far from wanting to wake up, I enjoy my nightmares...

K

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Far from wanting to wake up, I enjoy my nightmares...

K

Well, then they're not actually nightmares, now are they?

[Jobar]

If this guy were to come here and try that statement, we mods would crawl all over him for his insults. Just for kicks, how would I moderate that?...

Every atheist philosopher has been trumped many times. Why? Because to prove a philosophical God, is easy as [deleted]. Most Atheists are of the belief that they are "too smart" to believe in a God, which I find extremely amusing.

I have BA in Philosophy, and if you actually take a class, or even sit in on one, any professor will tell you - atheism just doesn't work. Not for practical or academic arguements, it's just not a well founded basis for anything. But I don't expect you to understand that since you probaly have only read Nietzsche like all the other [deleted].

The root in atheism lies within teenage rebellion. 'Rebel without a cause' syndrome. Too bad it's played out, and no one cares what you do or do not believe in, so take your Goth friends, your Linkin Park CD, and go home. Atleast there you can wonder why the world doesn't understand you without bugging anyone but your parents.

All these statements are assertions without proof, and the deleted ones were ad hominem fallacies- which any holder of a Philosophy degree would recognize. Further such insults will put your posting privileges in this forum in jeopardy. Jobar, moderator.

Trylan, just ignore the lout. I doubt anything anyone says to him will serve to alleviate his ignorance.

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

Well, I have almost no formal philosophical training, but I don't think one has to have much to realize:

... to prove a philosophical God, is easy as fucking your little sister.
Argument by insult and shock value is poor form at best. My guess is that if the guy wasn't just being crude and stupid, he was hoping the swear word and vile image would be enough to blunt the forward motion of your argument for a moment. It's similar to what Ayn Rand did in her intro to The Virtue of Selfishness: Asked why she used "selfishness" to describe a virtuous quality, she said, "For the same reason that makes you afraid of it." Philosophy this ain't.

I have BA in Philosophy, and if you actually take a class, or even sit in on one, any professor will tell you - atheism just doesn't work.
I did take one freshman Ethics course in college, and one of my professor's favorite points was, "Define your terms." Whether or not something "works" depends heavily upon who gets to ask the questions and define the problem to begin with ... and who benefits (and who suffers) from the solution. If you define the problem as, "The German race is full of pollution and impurities," Hitler's solution -- kill off those elements -- would certainly have "worked." If you define the problem as, "How can I/we reduce a large portion of the population to subservience with as few shots as possible being fired," then religion certainly "works"; indeed, one of the best definitions of it I've heard (I forget where) is "a means to convince the poor and downtrodden that it is to their advantage to remain so."

Most Atheists are of the belief that they are "too smart" to believe in a God, which I find extremely amusing.
"Amusing" is meant to imply that your argument is somehow beneath him. And as for "too smart," who did this twink vote for for president -- Forrest Gump? I never did find out how stupidity equates to virtue.

Also keep in mind that the typical theist "argument" is not meant to provide deeper and more meaningful understanding of the questions and issues raised, but merely to win converts -- put as many souls on the "God-owned" side of the scoreboard as possible. In essence, it's as though your opponent expects you to use reason to conclude that you should slagheap all reason and live by (his) faith!

Hope this helps.

Deacon Doubtmonger

[Haylow]

Originally posted by Trylan
Hm, thanks for the reply EGGO, you're definitely giving me somethign to go on.

And Haylow....are you being sarcastic, or mocking me? I could go into why the universe existing without a creator isn't magical, but i would be wasting my breath apparently. Unless of course you're just being sarcastic, then ignore this. :p


No i'm not mocking you or being sarcastic, if you can put forward a very simple argument, that i have no reply for then i will accept that as the truth,
i try and stay away from complicated aurguements because i find there is no truth there only whoever can complicate the argument the best.

To me a creator is more logical than a poof in nothingness from nothingness

[Jinto]

Being the ass that I am, I would have responded as follows:

Every atheist philosopher has been trumped many times.

Lie. In order to know every atheist philosopher has been trumped many times means you would have to know every atheist philosopher. Since this is clearly impossible, you cannot logically hold this position.

Why? Because to prove a philosophical God, is easy as fucking your little sister.

Correct. Fucking my little sister would be impossible on the grounds that I do not have a little sister. Thus, you are implying that proving a philosophical God is impossible, which it is.

Most Atheists are of the belief that they are "too smart" to believe in a God, which I find extremely amusing.

Actually, most atheists are of the belief that the idea of a God is too implausable to be taken seriously by anyone with a functioning brain. Intelligence has very little to do with it.

What's amusing about this statement though, is that even if an atheist were to make that claim, he would be supported by the evidence. (http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm) You know, that thing I keep asking theists to give me and they seem strangely unable to find.

I have BA in Philosophy

Then you should know that arguments from authority are not valid.

, and if you actually take a class, or even sit in on one, any professor will tell you - atheism just doesn't work.

This would be the same class that taught you to lace your arguments with condescension and ad hominems?

Not for practical or academic arguements, it's just not a well founded basis for anything. But I don't expect you to understand that since you probaly have only read Nietzsche like all the other pseudo-intellectual idiots.

And to poison the well?

The root in atheism lies within teenage rebellion.

If I wanted to rebel against my parents, I would have become a mormon.

'Rebel without a cause' syndrome.

More like "idiot without a case." :rolleyes:

Too bad it's played out, and no one cares what you do or do not believe in, so take your Goth friends, your Linkin Park CD, and go home. Atleast there you can wonder why the world doesn't understand you without bugging anyone but your parents.

I have no goth friends, I've never heard of Linkin Park, and I am quite appauled (sic) that you would ignore Galatians 5:14 so blatantly. Not only was your post completely devoid of any intellectual content whatsoever, but you are apparently as immoral as you are stupid.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Haylow
To me a creator is more logical than a poof in nothingness from nothingness

Who believes in "nothingness from nothingness"? I'm not even sure what this means.

I take it you are equating the position that we cannot trace the universe's origin to before a split-second after the big bang to "everthing came from nothing."

This is a simplistic view for which you have accepted an even more simplistic solution - goddidit.

A creator only grants you a stay of execution. Not a pardon.

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
A creator only grants you a stay of execution. Not a pardon.

A stay of execution lasting not a whit longer than the original scheduled execution, and it imposes a more complicated death penalty, all the more horrible to deal with.

[JaeIsGod]

Originally posted by Jobar


[i]All these statements are assertions without proof, and the deleted ones were ad hominem fallacies- which any holder of a Philosophy degree would recognize.

Haha , I have never had any education in philosophy and even I could see the holes in his bull ;)

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Haylow
Hi

I don't think its even worth argueing about you don't have to belive in god your free to chose

According to Carl Sagan, thought is nothing more than electrons colliding in the brain. If that is true, then thought is a purely material function, determined like all other material functions by laws of physics.
You are no more "free to choose," than you are free to fly or breathe under water (without SCUBA gear).

Its impossiable to win, because theism deals with an all powerful
creator and athesim deals with magic that the universe just poped out of nothingness

How can anyone possiable win here, just go with the one that you feel most logical and express your opinions but there is nothing to win, you will just be doing this:banghead:

What is the significance of "feel" most logical?

[Haylow]

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Who believes in "nothingness from nothingness"? I'm not even sure what this means.

I take it you are equating the position that we cannot trace the universe's origin to before a split-second after the big bang to "everthing came from nothing."

This is a simplistic view for which you have accepted an even more simplistic solution - goddidit.

A creator only grants you a stay of execution. Not a pardon.

Is this not the goal of life to simple simplify does not the majority
seek to make life easier than harder.
If your of the opinion that god is just a simplistic solution then god is the solution, why would you deny this part of your instincts that you apply to other parts of your life.

god danm it people, ethier you do belive in god or you don't belive in god whats the difference your still beliveing in something
which some people say that it is stupid to belive in something without facts or proof, just how in hell do you do such a thing.
How can these people not belive in god without there facts or proof and then tell other people there stupid for beliveing in something.

[ComestibleVenom]

Haylow,

Whether or not we have choice in a meaningful sense is independent of determinism.

The question of whether we could have done something has less to do with the precise microscopic situation in which you find yourself than the whole range of proclivities and evitability in all manner of similar situations.

If all paths lead to an outcome, sure, we can say your hand is forced. But if in slightly different circumstances -perhaps being a little less attentive in science class, being a little less scrupulous in following through on the incongruities you find inside your mind - you may very well have been in a situation where choosing god was a legitimate option.

In my view, I was not forced not to believe in God because of the physical configuration of the world. (although that's just what happened), it's because stretching forth around me in all directions is the inability to accept the outrageously improbable claims of certain social institutions.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally posted by Unknown Theist
Because to prove a philosophical God, is easy

You've already got him where you want him. He's placed the burden of proof squarely on his own shoulders. Now, you simply need to ask him to provide this easy proof.

From there, it's simple. ;)

[Trylan]

hahahaha....

Originally wrote by TheNakedZealot
As for my "unsupported assertions", I call those "sterotypes from an asshole" (that's me!). It seems I hurt your sensitive feelings, as if you had an open wound, and I rubbed glue on my dick, stuck it in a bucket of salt, and fucked the wound many times with much force. But the fact is, stereotypes have a sizeable degree of truth to them. Don't get me wrong though, there are lots of idiot theists aswell.

Moving onto "infidels.org.gov.net", I think I'll pass on a forum full of atheists. I normally don't waste time on an atheist, let alone many. I'm not a masochist, I'm a sadist, sweetums. But, if you resurrect David Hume, and convince him to join your merry band of Goths on the inter-cyber-net-highway, I'll reconsider it.

As for proofs of God - beat Anselm (Not really that hard, but hey, I'm lazy, and I don't like you), then we'll talk.

Incase you don't know, it's as follows...

1. The Fool asserts that God does not exist.

2. What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived."

3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.

4. To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality.

5. But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone.

6. So, the Fool believes that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is "a being than which a greater can be conceived" which is impossible.

7. Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality.

8. Therefore, God exists.

I guess you guys are right, it ain't worth my time. I havnet seen a weaker argument in my entire life.

[Mullibok]

This guy obviously has some scary fetishes. He's right about one thing though, defeating Anselm isn't that hard. If you want to continue, just quote Kant, existence isn't a predicate.

[Samnell]

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
I'll also add that I've never met a philosophy prof who was a Christian (although I do know some that are theists), and as far as the waking from nightmares, I wake myself from my sleep all the time - fully aware.

I had a philo prof that was a Catholic at a community college. He claimed that he was once an atheist and ultimately converted over to kissing the Pope's ring. The guy had no standards of evidence for anything. He bought into every New Agey pseudoscience he found and kept waving the Shroud around as proof of a deity.

[Trylan]

Aye mullibok, i was already considering how to best refute his ontological argument. I suppose Kant will do, he is the most used objection after all.

[Division By Zero]

Originally posted by Trylan
As for my "unsupported assertions", I call those "sterotypes from an asshole" (that's me!). It seems I hurt your sensitive feelings, as if you had an open wound, and I rubbed glue on my dick, stuck it in a bucket of salt, and fucked the wound many times with much force.
If you're going to continue debating this guy, I suggest not even responding at all to garbage like this- if you do, it only makes him think his time in coming up with them is well-spent. Stick to his "arguments."

But the fact is, stereotypes have a sizeable degree of truth to them.
Wrong.

Don't get me wrong though, there are lots of idiot theists aswell.
So? Does he think admitting this is going to convince you to agree that his stereotype of atheists is accurate?

Moving onto "infidels.org.gov.net", I think I'll pass on a forum full of atheists. I normally don't waste time on an atheist, let alone many. I'm not a masochist, I'm a sadist, sweetums. But, if you resurrect David Hume, and convince him to join your merry band of Goths on the inter-cyber-net-highway, I'll reconsider it.
So he's obviously not interested in any actual discussion. Gee, who knew?

As for proofs of God - beat Anselm (Not really that hard, but hey, I'm lazy, and I don't like you), then we'll talk.
Why is he even bothering with this if he knows it's worthless? Existence isn't "greater" than non-existence. If Zeus exists, he is no "greater" than if he didn't exist- he's still the same old Zeus. There, Anselm beaten.

Besides, I can think of a hell of a lot "greater" gods than the Christian one.

[Drew J]

I was ready to pounce on that absurd rant by the one Christian we were all made aware of, but that is unnecessary. On another board I post on, there is a clown Christian who uses the same stereotypes about goth kids and music like linkin park and marilyn manson. And not surprisingly, both of them use the same fallacies...the adhominem and the appeal to authority. They also make claims and then offer no evidence. Normally this stuff would enrage me, but I'm glad I've learned to just mellow out and laugh at it.

[Jinto]

Why would you need to quote kant? The argument doesn't even follow, regardless of whether existence is a predicate.

1. The Fool asserts that God does not exist.

As does the butcher, the banker, the candlestick maker, and Stephen Hawking. How is this relevant?

2. What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived."

Definition.

3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.

Wrong. The concept of said being exists in his mind. Let us keep that distinction clear.

4. To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality.

Let me clarify: it is to say that only the concept exists. The actual being does not.

5. But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone.

Therefore, the concept of a GPB is not in fact a GPB. No duh.

6. So, the Fool believes that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is "a being than which a greater can be conceived" which is impossible.

No. This "fool" believes that the concept of a GPB exists. He, being smarter than you, does not believe that the concept is a "being than which a greater can be concieved," or in fact a being of any sort.

7. Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality.

8. Therefore, God exists.

Since 6 is wrong, the rest does not follow. Ultimately, the whole argument rests on the premise that existence of a concept is the same as existence of an actual thing, which it is not.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Haylow
Is this not the goal of life to simple simplify does not the majority seek to make life easier than harder.

Not necessarily. Do you not challenge yourself? Do you not know those who climb mountains, run marathons, etc., for the primary purpose of testing themselves?

If your of the opinion that god is just a simplistic solution then god is the solution, why would you deny this part of your instincts that you apply to other parts of your life.

As above - this it not a pervasive "instinct", and I certainly don't apply it everythingin my life.

But the real issue is that what is easier is not necessarily what is correct. It's easier to think that everyone else is a problem and that I need not ever correct or monitor my behaviour. Certainly this would be easier. But would you recommend it?

god danm it people, ethier you do belive in god or you don't belive in god whats the difference your still beliveing in something which some people say that it is stupid to belive in something without facts or proof, just how in hell do you do such a thing.

You lost me here. I don't believe in god. Clear enough?

How can these people not belive in god without there facts or proof and then tell other people there stupid for beliveing in something.

Because you're taking a position based on facts you think exist. Please don't act that the two position are analagous.

Is believing in the Tooth Fairy - for which there is no proof - just as reasonable as not believing?

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Division By Zero
Why is he even bothering with this if he knows it's worthless?

I'd say he's trying to play it as safe as possible. If the other person can't refute an argument he says is easily shown to be wrong, he looks superior. However, if the other person does refute it, he can just say something like "see it must be easy if someone like you can figure it out" while avoiding giving any arguments he thinks are good that risk his exposure as being wrong about how superior his position is.

If I wanted to continue debating this guy, I would yawn, post a counter to Anselm, and then tell him to either cut the crap and actually give a reason that he thinks his philosophical position is the correct one, or stop wasting everyone's time.