Atheism and logic

[omprem]

Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
comprise the
atheist belief system. If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
a fringe
religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
disappear.
Tough choice.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 11:32 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

> Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> comprise the
> atheist belief system.

"You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a belief

system.

> If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> a fringe religion for the disaffected.

I see you're still as unclear about what atheism is as you always
were. Atheism is not a relgion, and the number of people who are
atheists is growing.

> If they are addressed, atheism will
> disappear.

Go ahead, tell us why believing God exists despite your sad lack of
valid evidence that he does is an "error of fact and logic." Atheism
seems like a rational position to me.

> Tough choice.

Not really.

[Drafterman]

On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> comprise the
> atheist belief system.

The stances you have previously identified as the "atheist belief
system" are nothing more than personal stances which, while perhaps
being common to atheists are not a logically component of atheism.
This is pertinent as this is a discussion about logic.

The only stance that is a necessary logical component of atheism is
not posessing a belief that a god exists.

[dali_70]

On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

> Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> comprise the
> atheist belief system.

Atheism isn't a belief system Its a lack of belief in god(s).

>If these are not addressed, atheism will remain a fringe religion for the disaffected.

Atheism isn't a religion, its a lack of belief in god(s).

[omprem]

Kelsey: "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a
belief system."

Omprem: You have just committed the logical error know as the red
herring by introducing irrelevant material to draw attention away from
the message of the post.

Incidentally, in seeking empirical proof you commit another logical
error of overgeneralization as you seek to apply empiricism to that
which is beyond the limits of empiricism.
******************************************************************************
Omprem: " If they [the errors of fact and logic upon which atheism is
based] are addressed, atheism will disappear."

Kelsey: "Go ahead, tell us why believing God exists despite your sad

lack of valid evidence that he does is an "error of fact and logic."
Atheism seems like a rational position to me."

Omprem: Deja vue all over again. See above. You have just recommitted
the logical error of red herring in attempting to shift the
conversation to an irrelevant topic.

[omprem]

'a lack of belief' is in itself a belief.

[Drafterman]

On May 1, 3:12 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> 'a lack of belief' is in itself a belief.

Only if 'a lack of possession' is in itself a possession.

> > Atheism isn't a religion, its a lack of belief in god(s).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[omprem]

That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.

Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
exists.

The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit 'a god'.
No religion does this. Religions know God to be everywhere all the
time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God. The
atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is
not possible according to religions. If atheists want to argue against
religion they should argue against what religions actual say. As it
is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
themselves.

[Drafterman]

On May 1, 3:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.
>
> Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> exists.
>
> The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.

Wrong:
http://christianity.about.com/od/topicalbiblestudies/a/whoisholyspirit.htm
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d910201.htm
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/personhoodofthespirit.htm

> No religion does this.

Wrong. Christianity does. See above.

> Religions know God to be everywhere all the
> time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God.

Christianity, at the least, does not posit this. Evil and hell (either
literally or figuratively) are considered to be an absence of god
(where god is not).

> The
> atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is
> not possible according to religions.

There is no "atheist" notion of a god. There are only theist notions
of a god and the atheists that reject them.

> If atheists want to argue against
> religion they should argue against what religions actual say.

If you want to assert what religions actually say then perhaps you
should educate yourself in that regard.

> As it
> is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
> themselves.
>
> On May 1, 2:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > comprise the
> > > atheist belief system.
>
> > The stances you have previously identified as the "atheist belief
> > system" are nothing more than personal stances which, while perhaps
> > being common to atheists are not a logically component of atheism.
> > This is pertinent as this is a discussion about logic.
>
> > The only stance that is a necessary logical component of atheism is
> > not posessing a belief that a god exists.
>
> > > If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> > > a fringe
> > > religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> > > disappear.

> > > Tough choice.- Hide quoted text -

[Turner Hayes]

Hey, Batshit, what does "conscience" mean?

[omprem]

Argumentum ad homimem is the last resort of atheist who cannot defend
or, in this case, even articulate his beliefs.

[omprem]

Your citations do not support your contentions. But they do attest to
the insufficiency of language and all other empirically based
activities to describe or understand God.

On May 1, 3:27 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 3:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.
>
> > Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> > errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> > exists.
>
> > The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.
>

> Wrong:http://christianity.about.com/od/topicalbiblestudies/a/whoisholyspiri...http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d910201.htmhttp://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/personhoodofthespirit.htm

[omprem]

If you were not in possession of atheist beliefs you would not be
spending time on this board promoting them so vigorously.

[Medusa]

On May 1, 2:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

> That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

> Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> exists.

How so?

> The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.
> No religion does this. Religions know God to be everywhere all the
> time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God. The
> atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is
> not possible according to religions. If atheists want to argue against
> religion they should argue against what religions actual say. As it
> is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
> themselves.

No gods exist. Period. Case closed.

Medusa

[Joe]

This seems more than anything else like a distraction tactic on the
part of atheists. Atheism, etymologically, is characterized by
positive denial of the existence of God. Insofar as it is contrasted
with Christianity, that is its main significance.

To characterize it as mere lack of belief in any gods, rather than
positive denial of God, has the effect of maximizing membership in the
class atheism. That is useful for solidarity and for moral
reinforcement but not so useful for practical discussion of the merits
or demerits of atheism.

In point of fact, the overwhelming majority of atheists who post here
do subscribe to positive denial rather than mere lack of belief. That
makes them atheists proper as opposed to agnostics, undecided, or non-
committed. It is a definite position, and as such, is something that
may be discussed.

It seems to me that atheists don't like to examine the bases of that
position, perhaps because they are aware on some level that they are
faulty. Insisting that atheism should be characterized by mere lack
of belief takes atheism as a position off the table, since mere lack
need not rest on anything at all. Christianity on the other hand, and
religion in general, always entails taking a definite position with
regard to the question of God, giving atheists something to attack,
while at the same time, if they maintain that they themselves hold no
position but merely lack one, they have nothing to defend.

Hence, the incessant atheistic refrain, "prove God first." But when a
theist says, "prove there is no God," the atheist backs off into his
safe haven of "I don't believe 'there is no God.' I merely lack
belief."

So atheism, characterized to include those on the fence, boils down to
a non-position, putting atheists in the position of not having to
defend anything, but able to attack Christianity and religion in
general. I submit that to thus define atheism is a great big copout
on the part of most of the atheists here, most of whom do actually
hold the position that there is no God, but are unwilling, or more to
the point, unable to defend it.

' "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a belief
system. ' is not a defense.

Omprem is right. The logic supporting a system of belief based on the
denial of the beliefs of others, particularly when there is no support
for such a denial, lacks severely.

On May 1, 3:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

[omprem]

Medusa: "No gods exist. Period. Case closed. "

Omprem: All you are doing is repeating the mistaken atheist belief
that religions posit individuated entities as god or gods. In doing
so, you commit the logical error of argumentum ad nauseum whereby you
mistakenly believe that the more times you repeat something the more
likely it is to become magically true and the more times others are
likely to believe your original mistake.

Besides what is your proof of that gods do not or have existed? Your
assertion does not amount to proof of the assertion unless, of course,
you think that you are God.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 12:10 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Kelsey: "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a
> belief system."
>
> Omprem:  You have just committed the logical error know as the red
> herring by introducing irrelevant material to draw attention away from
> the message of the post.

On the contrary; it is not logical to believe something without
evidence, which is the subject of your post - atheists are not
logical. No Red Herring, at all.

> Incidentally, in seeking empirical proof you commit another logical
> error of overgeneralization as you seek to apply  empiricism to that
> which is beyond the limits of empiricism.

Existence, however, is within the limits of empiricism. Your Red
Herring about empiricism failed.

> ***************************************************************************­***

> Omprem: " If they [the errors of fact and logic upon which atheism is
> based] are addressed, atheism will  disappear."
>
> Kelsey: "Go ahead, tell us why believing God exists despite your sad
> lack of valid evidence that he does is an "error of fact and logic."
> Atheism  seems like a rational position to me."
>
> Omprem: Deja vue all over again. See above.

What, you mean your Red Herring about empiricism?

> You have just recommitted
> the logical error of red herring in attempting to shift the
> conversation to an irrelevant topic.

Evidence that something (God) exists is a reasonable requirement,
therefore atheism is a logical stance, and since your topic is
"Atheism and logic," and your contention is that atheists are not
logical, this exposes YOUR red herring - logic is NOT an irrelevant
topic, and I WASN'T shifting the conversation.

> On May 1, 2:44 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 11:32 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > comprise the
> > > atheist belief system.
>
> > "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a belief
> > system.
>
> > >  If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> > > a fringe religion for the disaffected.
>
> > I see you're still as unclear about what atheism is as you always
> > were. Atheism is not a relgion, and the number of people who are
> > atheists is growing.
>
> > >  If they are addressed, atheism will
> > > disappear.
>
> > Go ahead, tell us why believing God exists despite your sad lack of
> > valid evidence that he does is an "error of fact and logic." Atheism
> > seems like a rational position to me.
>
> > > Tough choice.
>

> > Not really.- Hide quoted text -

[omprem]

Atheists lack the courage of their own convictions. That they do so
suggests that not even they believe whole-heartedly in what they
claim.

You are right to claim that atheists love to parrot, 'prove God
first'. But they do so without ever once examining what the basis of
that proof should consist of. In addition they are unable to accept
or even understand the methods suggested by religionists for becoming
aware of God.

I think that you are incorrect that religionists say, 'prove there is
no God'. I have never heard a religionist challenge an atheist with
that notion. Perhaps you mean that religionists say, 'prove the
validity of your assertions and the grounds on which you make them'
which is a much different issue and a very key challenge that
atheists avoid like the plague.

[Neil Kelsey]

Hey Joe, omprem isn't a Catholic.

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Turner Hayes]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hey Joe, omprem isn't a Catholic.

No one really knows WHAT he/it is, besides insane.

[Medusa]

On May 1, 2:59 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

> Medusa: "No gods exist.  Period.  Case closed. "
>
> Omprem: All you are doing is repeating the mistaken atheist belief
> that religions posit individuated entities as god or gods. In doing
> so, you commit the logical error of argumentum ad nauseum whereby you
> mistakenly believe that the more times you repeat something the more
> likely it is to become magically true and the more times others are
> likely to believe your original mistake.
>
> Besides what is your proof of that gods do not or have existed? Your
> assertion does not amount to proof of the assertion unless, of course,
> you think that you are God.

Yeah, right. I believe that I am a god.

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof. The onus of proof
of a god is on you.

Medusa

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 1:10 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Atheists lack the courage of their own convictions. That they do so
> suggests that not even they believe whole-heartedly in what they
> claim.
>
> You are right to claim that atheists love to parrot, 'prove God
> first'. But they do so without ever once examining  what the basis of
> that proof should consist of.

We say, over and over, that that proof should consist of objective and
verifiable and falsifiable evidence. Just because you don't grasp the
concept of proof doesn't mean atheists don't either.

> In addition they are unable to accept
> or even understand the methods suggested by religionists for becoming
> aware of God.

I understand your methods, I've tried your methods (we all have), and
based on the complete lack of success in applying your methods, I
don't accept your suggested method. Have you got any others?

> I think that you are incorrect that religionists say, 'prove there is
> no God'. I have never heard a religionist challenge an atheist with
> that notion.

They say it on a regular basis, in this very newsgroup.

> Perhaps you mean that religionists say, 'prove the
> validity of your assertions and the grounds on which you make them'
> which is a much different issue and a very key challenge that
> atheists avoid like the plague.

You don't think atheists mean it when they say "I fail to believe your
claim that God exists," said on the grounds that theists have no valid
evidence to back up their claims?

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Medusa]

On May 1, 3:10 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

> Atheists lack the courage of their own convictions. That they do so
> suggests that not even they believe whole-heartedly in what they
> claim.

I had almost forgotten how obnoxious you are. I do not lack "the
courage of my convictions."

> You are right to claim that atheists love to parrot, 'prove God
> first'. But they do so without ever once examining  what the basis of
> that proof should consist of.  In addition they are unable to accept
> or even understand the methods suggested by religionists for becoming
> aware of God.
>
> I think that you are incorrect that religionists say, 'prove there is
> no God'. I have never heard a religionist challenge an atheist with
> that notion. Perhaps you mean that religionists say, 'prove the
> validity of your assertions and the grounds on which you make them'
> which is a much different issue and a very key challenge that
> atheists avoid like the plague.

I am not making the extraordinary claim of a supernateral, all-
powerful being; you did.

Now give evidence for your assertations or shut up.

Medusa

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 1:28 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Joe, omprem isn't a Catholic.
>
> No one really knows WHAT he/it is, besides insane.

Which is why I am doing my part to provoke what might become a classic
episode of 'Duelling Narcisstic Personality Disorders." Up until now I
never saw them in the same room at the same time...

[John Stockwell]

Atheism is not a religion.

[omprem]

Kelsey: "Existence, however, is within the limits of empiricism."

Omprem: Empiricism relies on difference: there must be A and non-A for
empiricism to function. God is One without an other therefore
empiricism cannot be used to know God.

Far from being a red herring, 'empiricism' addresses directly the
illogical foundation of your plea for empirical evidence of God's
existence.

You are committing the logical error of equivocation in that you use
'existence' to mean existence within time and space, whereas God is
existence without time and space, in fact, God is the source of time
and space.

[John Stockwell]

On May 1, 1:12 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> 'a lack of belief' is in itself a belief.

Is baldness a hair color?

[omprem]

Argumentum ad hominen such as you project is the last resort of the
atheist who cannot articulate or defend his atheist beliefs.




On May 1, 4:28 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

[omprem]

To know God learn and apply the methods for accessing God (but first
dump that empiricist thing, it won't work).

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 2:08 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Argumentum ad hominen such as you project is the last resort of the
> atheist who cannot articulate or defend his atheist beliefs.

Inisanity is a rational explanation for your insane writings - no
argumentum ad hominem.

[omprem]

Kelsey: "We say, over and over, that that proof should consist of

objective and
verifiable and falsifiable evidence."

Omprem: God in One without an other or, if you like, its all God.
Objectivity requires a subject and an object, an observer and an
observed, but because God is everything there can be no observer for
no one is outside of God.

Kelsey: " I understand your methods, I've tried your methods (we all

have), and based on the complete lack of success in applying your
methods, I don't accept your suggested method."

Omprem: It is a poor workman who blames his tools. According to your
theory, if someone flunks out of med school we should deny the
validity of medicine and vilify it. Not too bright. The truth is you
just were incompetent in learning and applying those methods. I know
it is a face-saving gesture to denigrate religion in an attempt to
gloss over your own incompetence but doing so actually highlights your
incompetence.

[omprem]

Medusa: "I am not making the extraordinary claim of a supernateral,

all-
powerful being; you did."

Omprem: I made no claim for an individuated being. In fact, I
specifically rejected that notion.

[Turner Hayes]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 2:08 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Argumentum ad hominen such as you project is the last resort of the
> atheist who cannot articulate or defend his atheist beliefs.

Inisanity is a rational explanation for your insane writings - no
argumentum ad hominem.

I don't know why people continue to reply to Batshit. I thought everyone agreed he was beyond all hope.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 2:25 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 2:08 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> > > Argumentum ad hominen such as you project is the last resort of the
> > > atheist who cannot articulate or defend his atheist beliefs.
>
> > Inisanity is a rational explanation for your insane writings - no
> > argumentum ad hominem.
>
> I don't know why people continue to reply to Batshit. I thought everyone
> agreed he was beyond all hope.

Oh right, we were snubbing him, weren't we? I forgot.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

Kelsey: "We say, over and over, that that proof should consist of

objective and
verifiable and falsifiable evidence."

Omprem: God in One without an other or, if you like, its all God.
Objectivity requires a subject and an object, an observer and an
observed,  but because God is everything there can be no observer for
no one is outside of God.

Kelsey: " I understand your methods, I've tried your methods (we all

have), and  based on the complete lack of success in applying your
methods, I  don't accept your suggested method."

Omprem: It is a poor workman who blames his tools. According to your
theory, if someone flunks out of med school we should deny the
validity of medicine and vilify it.  Not too bright. The truth is you
just were incompetent in learning and applying those methods. I know
it is a face-saving gesture to denigrate religion in an attempt to
gloss over your own incompetence but doing so actually highlights your
incompetence.

Haha! Horseshit's back.

We're still waiting for you to perform Rapp's infamous experiment so that you can prove your premise is true.

My camera is ready and waiting and I'll happily drive up to witness and photograph proof of the miraculous event.

Well?
 

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Turner Hayes]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 1, 2:25 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 2:08 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> > > Argumentum ad hominen such as you project is the last resort of the
> > > atheist who cannot articulate or defend his atheist beliefs.
>
> > Inisanity is a rational explanation for your insane writings - no
> > argumentum ad hominem.
>
> I don't know why people continue to reply to Batshit. I thought everyone
> agreed he was beyond all hope.

Oh right, we were snubbing him, weren't we? I forgot.

I have a filter set to funnel his posts straight to the trash, so I didn't even realize he had flared up again until I saw his replies in others' posts.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 2:19 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Kelsey: "We say, over and over, that that proof should consist of
> objective and
> verifiable and falsifiable evidence."
>
> Omprem: God in One without an other or, if you like, its all God.
> Objectivity requires a subject and an object,

In God's case, you need to prove that the subject exists.

> an observer and an
> observed,  but because God is everything there can be no observer for
> no one is outside of God.

Bare assertions that God is everything is not evidence that God is
everything.

> Kelsey: " I understand your methods, I've tried your methods (we all
> have), and  based on the complete lack of success in applying your
> methods, I  don't accept your suggested method."
>
> Omprem: It is a poor workman who blames his tools.

I'm blaming YOUR tools. They are insufficient to become aware of God.

> According to your
> theory, if someone flunks out of med school we should deny the
> validity of medicine and vilify it.

That is a poor analogy, since doctors exist and medical schools can be
shown, empirically, that they are a step towards becoming a doctor.

>  Not too bright.

Calling me names is not evidence that God exists.

> The truth is you
> just were incompetent in learning and applying those methods.

Bare assertions, name calling, and No True Scotsman fallacies are not
evidence that God exists.

> I know
> it is a face-saving gesture to denigrate religion in an attempt to
> gloss over your own incompetence but doing so actually highlights your
> incompetence.

"You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not denigrating
religion.

[Trance Gemini]

Horseshit:

Here's the reference to the experiment. In case you forgot.

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/e78b87e95dc43389?hl=en

Here's your chance Pompom to prove your claims true.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 2:07 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Kelsey: "Existence, however, is within the limits of empiricism."
>
> Omprem: Empiricism relies on difference: there must be A and non-A for
> empiricism to function.   God is One without an other therefore
> empiricism cannot be used to know God.

Special pleading does not disqualify you from providing evidence for
God's existence.

> Far from being a red herring, 'empiricism'  addresses directly the
> illogical foundation of your plea for empirical evidence of God's
> existence.
>
> You are committing the logical error of equivocation in that you use
> 'existence' to mean existence within time and space, whereas God is
> existence without time and space, in fact, God is the source of time
> and space.

Provide evidence that anything exists outside of time and space.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[John Stockwell]

On May 1, 12:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> comprise the

> atheist belief system. If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> a fringe
> religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> disappear.
> Tough choice.

Assumptions:
1) God exists
2) God is omnipotent

2) implies that God can create a situation where
(A and not A) is true. However, if A and ~A are true, then
the system fails as logic. Hence God cannot be both omnipotent
and logical. Because omnipotence is a defining property of God,
then God does not exist.

[Skeptic]

On May 1, 12:39 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Argumentum ad homimem is the last resort of atheist who cannot defend
> or, in this case, even articulate his beliefs.

Argumentum ad hominem is trying argue that someone is right or wrong
because of who he is, rather than addressing /what/ he is saying.

None of us here know who you are. All that known about you is in fact /
what/ you are saying. And if we turn our attention to /what/ you are
saying, it is the work of a pitiful, desperate imbecile.

That is not an argument ad hominem, but a perfectly fair, objective
characterization of the drivel that emanates from your posting account
unto this forum.

[e_space]

ive tried to explain to them that they are bucking the words of men,
ie the bible, which has no direct relationship to 'god', only their
interpretation or representation of such. that fact doesnt seem to
make any significant dent in their cranium. although ure intentions
seem to be good, u are definately speaking to a void that will not
respond outside of their standard rebuttal statements. have fun
though! ;-^)

On May 1, 3:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.
>
> Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> exists.
>
> The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.
> No religion does this. Religions know God to be everywhere all the
> time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God. The
> atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is
> not possible according to religions. If atheists want to argue against
> religion they should argue against what religions actual say. As it
> is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
> themselves.
>
> On May 1, 2:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > comprise the
> > > atheist belief system.
>

> > The stances you have previously identified as the "atheist belief
> > system" are nothing more than personal stances which, while perhaps
> > being common to atheists are not a logically component of atheism.
> > This is pertinent as this is a discussion about logic.
>
> > The only stance that is a necessary logical component of atheism is
> > not posessing a belief that a god exists.

>
> > > If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> > > a fringe
> > > religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> > > disappear.

> > > Tough choice.- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

nothing u would consider as valid lol

On May 1, 3:30 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, Batshit, what does "conscience" mean?

>
>
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > comprise the

> > atheist belief system. If these are not addressed, atheism will remain

[e_space]

case closed to u...but it was never open was it?...u are in no
position to make factual claims...after all...ure whole thing is based
on non-belief in someone elses belief...not much to go on is it? give
ure snake infested head a shake is my suggestion

On May 1, 3:54 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 1, 2:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.
>

> Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

>
> > Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> > errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> > exists.
>

> How so?

>
> > The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.
> > No religion does this. Religions know God to be everywhere all the
> > time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God. The
> > atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is
> > not possible according to religions. If atheists want to argue against
> > religion they should argue against what religions actual say. As it
> > is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
> > themselves.
>

> No gods exist.  Period.  Case closed.
>

> Medusa

[e_space]

not bad...unfortunate that u are talking to void space and they will
not understand ure argument

> ' "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a belief

> system. ' is not a defense.
>
> Omprem is right.  The logic supporting a system of belief based on the
> denial of the beliefs of others, particularly when there is no support
> for such a denial, lacks severely.
>

> On May 1, 3:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 3:12 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > 'a lack of belief' is in itself a belief.
>
> > Only if 'a lack of possession' is in itself a possession.
>

> > > On May 1, 2:52 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > > > comprise the
> > > > > atheist belief system.
>

> > > > Atheism isn't a belief system Its a lack of belief in god(s).

>
> > > > >If these are not addressed, atheism will remain a fringe religion for the disaffected.
>

> > > > Atheism isn't a religion, its a lack of belief in god(s).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

yawn ad nauseum

On May 1, 4:37 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[e_space]

i wouldnt have thought that u could forget anything at all about
obnoxious...after all im sure u look in the mirror when u are combing
ure snakes...right?

On May 1, 4:44 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[e_space]

wikipedia "The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs,
myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement, institution,
class or group." ....which one do u adhere to johnny?

[e_space]

hmmm....never heard of inisanity...whats it like?

[thetard]

u won't like this forum because the atheists r too stupid to
understand what u wrote

On May 1, 11:32 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that

[thetard]

this one is the stupidest of all omprem

On May 1, 12:54 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 1, 2:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> > errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> > exists.
>

> No gods exist. Period. Case closed.
>

> Medusa

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 3:44 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hmmm....never heard of inisanity...whats it like?

Lamely pointing out typos is not evidence that omprem is not insane.

[thetard]

medusa is stupidest but trans is most evil

On May 1, 2:26 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Haha! Horseshit's back.

[Medusa]

On May 1, 4:26 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Haha! Horseshit's back.
>
> We're still waiting for you to perform Rapp's infamous experiment so that
> you can prove your premise is true.
>
> My camera is ready and waiting and I'll happily drive up to witness and
> photograph proof of the miraculous event.
>
> Well?

LMAO! I forgot that we decided to call he/she/it "Horseshit!"

They must have let "it" out from the rubber room!

Medusa

[Skeptic]

On May 1, 2:07 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Kelsey: "Existence, however, is within the limits of empiricism."
>
> Omprem: Empiricism relies on difference: there must be A and non-A for
> empiricism to function.   God is One without an other therefore
> empiricism cannot be used to know God.

Only empiricism can be used to know anything at all about the world.

Statements about the world which are not rooted in empiricism are not
knowledge.

Regarding them as knowledge is self-deception.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:01 PM, thetard <bbcu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 this  one is the stupidest of all omprem

She's got your brain cell beat by a mile XNun.
 

On May 1, 12:54 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 1, 2:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>

> > Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> > errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> > exists.
>

> No gods exist.  Period.  Case closed.
>
> Medusa

[Trance Gemini]

LOL.
 

Medusa

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:05 PM, thetard <bbcu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 medusa is stupidest but trans is most evil

Do you dress like a guy when you post as Thetard, XNun.

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot Thetard is your "SO".

Does he know you were coming on to Turner?

Turner's a cutie but I doubt he's into hate/sex with crazed XNuns.
 

On May 1, 2:26 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Haha! Horseshit's back.

[Turner Hayes]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Medusa <Medus...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 1, 4:26 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Haha! Horseshit's back.
>

> We're still waiting for you to perform Rapp's infamous experiment so that
> you can prove your premise is true.
>
> My camera is ready and waiting and I'll happily drive up to witness and
> photograph proof of the miraculous event.
>
> Well?

LMAO!  I forgot that we decided to call he/she/it "Horseshit!"

I still prefer "Batshit", but to each her own.

[Turner Hayes]

You're the expert here.

[Medusa]

On May 1, 6:01 pm, thetard <bbcul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>   this  one is the stupidest of all omprem

And this one is one of Xnun's sockpuppets.

Being called stupid by that wench is a compliment.

Medusa

[dali_70]

On May 1, 3:12 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> 'a lack of belief' is in itself a belief.
>

Aabout as much as bald is a hair color.

[Drafterman]

On May 1, 3:45 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Your citations do not support your contentions.

Wrong.

> But they do attest to
> the insufficiency of language and all other empirically based
> activities to describe or understand God.

They attest to your dishonest restructuring and ignorance of language
to suit your own agenda.

>
> On May 1, 3:27 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On May 1, 3:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.
>

> > > Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> > > errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> > > exists.
>

> > > The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.
>

> > Wrong:http://christianity.about.com/od/topicalbiblestudies/a/whoisholyspiri...
>
> > > No religion does this.
>
> > Wrong. Christianity does. See above.

>
> > > Religions know God to be everywhere all the
> > > time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God.
>

> > Christianity, at the least, does not posit this. Evil and hell (either
> > literally or figuratively) are considered to be an absence of god
> > (where god is not).

>
> > > The
> > > atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is
> > > not possible according to religions.
>

> > There is no "atheist" notion of a god. There are only theist notions
> > of a god and the atheists that reject them.

>
> > > If atheists want to argue against
> > > religion they should argue against what religions actual say.
>

> > If you want to assert what religions actually say then perhaps you
> > should educate yourself in that regard.

>
> > > As it
> > > is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
> > > themselves.
>

> > > On May 1, 2:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > > > comprise the
> > > > > atheist belief system.
>

> > > > The stances you have previously identified as the "atheist belief
> > > > system" are nothing more than personal stances which, while perhaps
> > > > being common to atheists are not a logically component of atheism.
> > > > This is pertinent as this is a discussion about logic.
>
> > > > The only stance that is a necessary logical component of atheism is

> > > > not posessing a belief that a god exists.

>
> > > > > If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> > > > > a fringe

> > > > > religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> > > > > disappear.

> > > > > Tough choice.- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On May 1, 3:47 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> If you were not in possession of atheist beliefs you would not be
> spending time on this board promoting them so vigorously.

I profess my personal belief which may or may not be related to my
atheism.

>
> On May 1, 3:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 3:12 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > 'a lack of belief' is in itself a belief.
>

> > Only if 'a lack of possession' is in itself a possession.
>

> > > On May 1, 2:52 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > > > comprise the
> > > > > atheist belief system.
>

> > > > Atheism isn't a belief system Its a lack of belief in god(s).
>

> > > > >If these are not addressed, atheism will remain a fringe religion for the disaffected.
>

> > > > Atheism isn't a religion, its a lack of belief in god(s).- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On May 1, 3:54 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This seems more than anything else like a distraction tactic on the
> part of atheists.  Atheism, etymologically, is characterized by
> positive denial of the existence of God.

Your fellow Catholics disagree with that universal assessment.

> Insofar as it is contrasted
> with Christianity, that is its main significance.
>
> To characterize it as mere lack of belief in any gods, rather than
> positive denial of God, has the effect of maximizing membership in the
> class atheism.

So? That's the definition. Deal with it.

> That is useful for solidarity and for moral
> reinforcement but not so useful for practical discussion of the merits
> or demerits of atheism.

Oh well. Too bad that that's the definition.

[e_space]

or that u make any valid points

[omprem]

Argumentum ad hominem. No substance.

On May 1, 5:25 pm, Turner Hayes <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 2:08 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> > > Argumentum ad hominen such as you project is the last resort of the
> > > atheist who cannot articulate or defend his atheist beliefs.
>
> > Inisanity is a rational explanation for your insane writings - no
> > argumentum ad hominem.
>

> I don't know why people continue to reply to Batshit. I thought everyone
> agreed he was beyond all hope.

[omprem]

Kelsey: "In God's case, you need to prove that the subject exists"

Omprem: Cutely evasive. You are still insisting that there is a
subject and an object when it comes to God. There is not. In making
your statement you commit the logical fallacy of equivocation in that
you use subject in the grammatical sense mistakenly as proof that God
is amenable to empirical investigation. This is not only equivocation
but it verges very close to fraud.

FYI: There is not such thing as a No True Scotsman logical fallacy.
That bit of nonsense was made up by an atheist to deflect attention
away from his inability to use the appropriate methods for accessing
the divine much the same as you are attempting to do about your own
failed attempts.


On May 1, 5:33 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:19 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Kelsey: "We say, over and over, that that proof should consist of
> > objective and
> > verifiable and falsifiable evidence."
>
> > Omprem: God in One without an other or, if you like, its all God.
> > Objectivity requires a subject and an object,
>
> In God's case, you need to prove that the subject exists.
>
> > an observer and an
> > observed,  but because God is everything there can be no observer for
> > no one is outside of God.
>
> Bare assertions that God is everything is not evidence that God is
> everything.
>
> > Kelsey: " I understand your methods, I've tried your methods (we all
> > have), and  based on the complete lack of success in applying your
> > methods, I  don't accept your suggested method."
>
> > Omprem: It is a poor workman who blames his tools.
>
> I'm blaming YOUR tools. They are insufficient to become aware of God.
>
> > According to your
> > theory, if someone flunks out of med school we should deny the
> > validity of medicine and vilify it.
>
> That is a poor analogy, since doctors exist and medical schools can be
> shown, empirically, that they are a step towards becoming a doctor.
>
> >  Not too bright.
>
> Calling me names is not evidence that God exists.
>
> > The truth is you
> > just were incompetent in learning and applying those methods.
>
> Bare assertions, name calling, and No True Scotsman fallacies are not
> evidence that God exists.
>
> >  I know
> > it is a face-saving gesture to denigrate religion in an attempt to
> > gloss over your own incompetence but doing so actually highlights your
> > incompetence.
>
> "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not denigrating
> religion.

>
> > On May 1, 4:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 1:10 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Atheists lack the courage of their own convictions. That they do so
> > > > suggests that not even they believe whole-heartedly in what they
> > > > claim.
>
> > > > You are right to claim that atheists love to parrot, 'prove God
> > > > first'. But they do so without ever once examining  what the basis of
> > > > that proof should consist of.
>

> > > We say, over and over, that that proof should consist of objective and
> > > verifiable and falsifiable evidence. Just because you don't grasp the
> > > concept of proof doesn't mean atheists don't either.

>
> > > > In addition they are unable to accept
> > > > or even understand the methods suggested by religionists for becoming
> > > > aware of God.
>

> > > I understand your methods, I've tried your methods (we all have), and
> > > based on the complete lack of success in applying your methods, I
> > > don't accept your suggested method. Have you got any others?

>
> > > > I think that you are incorrect that religionists say, 'prove there is
> > > > no God'. I have never heard a religionist challenge an atheist with
> > > > that notion.
>

> > > They say it on a regular basis, in this very newsgroup.

>
> > > > Perhaps you mean that religionists say, 'prove the
> > > > validity of your assertions and the grounds on which you make them'
> > > > which is a much different issue and a very key challenge that
> > > > atheists avoid like the plague.
>

> > > You don't think atheists mean it when they say "I fail to believe your
> > > claim that God exists," said on the grounds that theists have no valid
> > > evidence to back up their claims?

[omprem]

Kelsey: "Special pleading does not disqualify you from providing
evidence for God's existence."

Omprem: There is no special pleading only stating the truth.

Kelsey: "Provide evidence that anything exists outside of time and
space."

Omprem: Another tired plea for the supremacy of empiricism in areas
that are beyond its jurisdiction. Learn how to apply those methods you
claim to know about.

On May 1, 5:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:07 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Kelsey: "Existence, however, is within the limits of empiricism."
>
> > Omprem: Empiricism relies on difference: there must be A and non-A for
> > empiricism to function.   God is One without an other therefore
> > empiricism cannot be used to know God.
>

> Special pleading does not disqualify you from providing evidence for
> God's existence.
>
> > Far from being a red herring, 'empiricism'  addresses directly the
> > illogical foundation of your plea for empirical evidence of God's
> > existence.
>
> > You are committing the logical error of equivocation in that you use
> > 'existence' to mean existence within time and space, whereas God is
> > existence without time and space, in fact, God is the source of time
> > and space.
>
> Provide evidence that anything exists outside of time and space.
>
> > On May 1, 4:06 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 12:10 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Kelsey: "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a
> > > > belief system."
>
> > > > Omprem:  You have just committed the logical error know as the red
> > > > herring by introducing irrelevant material to draw attention away from
> > > > the message of the post.
>
> > > On the contrary; it is not logical to believe something without
> > > evidence, which is the subject of your post - atheists are not
> > > logical. No Red Herring, at all.
>
> > > > Incidentally, in seeking empirical proof you commit another logical
> > > > error of overgeneralization as you seek to apply  empiricism to that
> > > > which is beyond the limits of empiricism.
>
> > > Existence, however, is within the limits of empiricism. Your Red
> > > Herring about empiricism failed.
>
> > > > ***************************************************************************­­***
> > > > Omprem: " If they [the errors of fact and logic upon which atheism is
> > > > based] are addressed, atheism will  disappear."
>
> > > > Kelsey: "Go ahead, tell us why believing God exists despite your sad
> > > > lack of valid evidence that he does is an "error of fact and logic."
> > > > Atheism  seems like a rational position to me."
>
> > > > Omprem: Deja vue all over again. See above.
>
> > > What, you mean your Red Herring about empiricism?
>
> > > > You have just recommitted
> > > > the logical error of red herring in attempting to shift the
> > > > conversation to an irrelevant topic.
>
> > > Evidence that something (God) exists is a reasonable requirement,
> > > therefore atheism is a logical stance, and since your topic is
> > > "Atheism and logic," and your contention is that atheists are not
> > > logical, this exposes YOUR red herring - logic is NOT an irrelevant
> > > topic, and I WASN'T shifting the conversation.
>
> > > > On May 1, 2:44 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > On May 1, 11:32 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > > > > comprise the
> > > > > > atheist belief system.
>

> > > > > "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a belief
> > > > > system.
>

> > > > > >  If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> > > > > > a fringe religion for the disaffected.
>

> > > > > I see you're still as unclear about what atheism is as you always
> > > > > were. Atheism is not a relgion, and the number of people who are
> > > > > atheists is growing.

>
> > > > > >  If they are addressed, atheism will
> > > > > > disappear.
>

> > > > > Go ahead, tell us why believing God exists despite your sad lack of
> > > > > valid evidence that he does is an "error of fact and logic." Atheism
> > > > > seems like a rational position to me.
>
> > > > > > Tough choice.
>
> > > > > Not really.- Hide quoted text -

[omprem]

'God' was not mentioned in the passage you cite. Your 'assumptions'
are merely red herrings intended to divert attention away from the
logical and factual errors upon which atheists beliefs rest.

On May 1, 5:50 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 1, 12:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > comprise the

> > atheist belief system. If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> > a fringe
> > religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> > disappear.
> > Tough choice.
>
> Assumptions:
> 1) God exists
> 2) God is omnipotent
>
> 2) implies that God can create a situation where
> (A and not A)  is true. However, if A and ~A are true, then
> the system fails as logic. Hence God cannot be both omnipotent
> and logical.  Because omnipotence is a defining property of God,
> then God does not exist.

[Multiverse]

On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> comprise the
> atheist belief system. If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> a fringe
> religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> disappear.
> Tough choice.

In order to resolve this, I vote you kill yourself.

Problem solved.

[omprem]

Not so, many of the responders have lists of who or what they think I
am, none of which are complementary (or accurate) and all of which are
intended to cast doubt on the content of my post through supposed
transference of the ridicule cast on me personally to that content
just as you do in your post in saying that I am 'a pitiful, desperate
imbecile' and therefore my content is 'drivel'. HINT: Whether I am
'a pitiful, desperate imbecile' says nothing about the truth of the
content of my post.

But let's take your assertion as you wish. It amounts to ignoring the
content and standing there, like an eight year old yelling names at
me. Not too mature.




On May 1, 6:26 pm, Skeptic <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 12:39 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Argumentum ad homimem is the last resort of atheist who cannot defend
> > or, in this case, even articulate his beliefs.
>
> Argumentum ad hominem is trying argue that someone is right or wrong
> because of who he is, rather than addressing /what/ he is saying.
>
> None of us here know who you are. All that known about you is in fact /
> what/ you are saying. And if we turn our attention to /what/ you are
> saying, it is the work of a pitiful, desperate imbecile.
>
> That is not an argument ad hominem, but a perfectly fair, objective
> characterization of the drivel that emanates from your posting account
> unto this forum.

[omprem]

Been there done that. So I totally agree with you.

I characterize chatting with atheists as similar to playing 'Whack-a-
Mole' at the county fair - you just finished smacking down one, i.e.
pointing out their logical and factual errors, than an identical one
pops up repeating the same inanity. You get more nourishment out of
candy floss.

Another analogy that I use to describe watching an atheist repeat his/
her atheist beliefs is that it is like watching a dog chase its own
tail.



On May 1, 6:30 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ive tried to explain to them that they are bucking the words of men,
> ie the bible, which has no direct relationship to 'god', only their
> interpretation or representation of such. that fact doesnt seem to
> make any significant dent in their cranium. although ure intentions
> seem to be good, u are definately speaking to a void that will not
> respond outside of their standard rebuttal statements. have fun
> though! ;-^)

>
> On May 1, 3:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.
>
> > Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> > errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> > exists.
>
> > The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.

> > No religion does this. Religions know God to be everywhere all the
> > time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God. The

> > atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is

> > not possible according to religions. If atheists want to argue against
> > religion they should argue against what religions actual say. As it

> > is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
> > themselves.
>

> > On May 1, 2:44 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > > comprise the
> > > > atheist belief system.
>

> > > The stances you have previously identified as the "atheist belief
> > > system" are nothing more than personal stances which, while perhaps
> > > being common to atheists are not a logically component of atheism.
> > > This is pertinent as this is a discussion about logic.
>
> > > The only stance that is a necessary logical component of atheism is
> > > not posessing a belief that a god exists.
>

> > > > If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> > > > a fringe
> > > > religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> > > > disappear.

> > > > Tough choice.- Hide quoted text -

[omprem]

Yes, I think her snakes have bitten her a few times too often. She is
now one of the walking dead.



On May 1, 6:34 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> case closed to u...but it was never open was it?...u are in no
> position to make factual claims...after all...ure whole thing is based
> on non-belief in someone elses belief...not much to go on is it? give
> ure snake infested head a shake is my suggestion
>
> On May 1, 3:54 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > On May 1, 2:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.
>

> > Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

>
> > > Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> > > errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> > > exists.
>

> > How so?

>
> > > The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.
> > > No religion does this. Religions know God to be everywhere all the
> > > time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God. The
> > > atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is
> > > not possible according to religions. If atheists want to argue against
> > > religion they should argue against what religions actual say. As it
> > > is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
> > > themselves.
>

[omprem]

I know but we have to have compassion for them anyway. It is like
trying to teach a child to tie shoelaces, you keep doing it with
patience until they finally figure it out. Unfortunately, when it
comes to atheists understanding either religion or their own errors,
that may not happen in this lifetime.

[omprem]

Agreed but many of the others are not far behind.

[omprem]

I forgot about her. I would have to nominate her as the dumbest. She
is also the most insecure and therefore the most reactive in the
animal instinct sense of the word.

[omprem]

Skeptic: "Only empiricism can be used to know anything at all about
the world."

Omprem: Empiricism speaks only to the phenomenal aspects of the world
not to the noumenal aspects of the same world. There is much that
'exists' in 'the world' that is beyond the reach of empiricism; for
example, empiricism cannot define love but love exists. Nor can
empiricism define the structure or limits of a thought. Additionally,
empiricism is not able to address the Source of the phenomenal world.

Now there are many that would agree with you that thoughts are self-
deceptive and that therefore the phenomenal world is an illusion and I
would be one of them but nevertheless thoughts exist and empiricism
cannot define them.

[omprem]

Incomprehensible bafflegab.

On May 1, 7:21 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[omprem]

Nope, that is entirely the province of atheists.

[omprem]

Wrong. Killing the messenger does not impact the message. The errors
of atheists remain for all to see and underscored by your own logical
lapse. If ignorance is a crime, you just committed a compound felony.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 6:12 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Kelsey: "Special pleading does not disqualify you from providing
> evidence for God's existence."
>
> Omprem:  There is no special pleading only stating the truth.

Simply renaming "special pleading" as "stating the truth" does not
mean it isn't still special pleading..

> Kelsey: "Provide evidence that anything exists outside of time and
> space."
>
> Omprem: Another tired plea for the supremacy of empiricism in areas
> that are beyond its jurisdiction. Learn how to apply those methods you
> claim to know about.

Claims of existence are exactly the jurisdiction of empiricism.
Blaming me for your inadequacies are not evidence that God exists.

[kenandkids]

yes that seems like a good description of your thought process.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 6:08 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Kelsey: "In God's case, you need to prove that the subject exists"
>
> Omprem: Cutely evasive.

Not in the least. God is the subject of an existential claim. Your
subjective bare assertions are not objective evidence that he exists.

> You are still insisting that there is a
> subject and an object when it comes to God. There is not.

You need to sort that out with the other theists, not me. Your
argument is with them. When they tell me "God exists," they
(especially the Christians) are talking about God as a being. You say
God is everything. You disagree with them. You are barking up the
wrong tree - I lack belief that God even exists. From where I stand,
none of you have any evidence for your claims anyway.

>  In making
> your statement  you commit the logical fallacy of equivocation in that
> you use subject in the grammatical sense mistakenly as proof that God
> is amenable to empirical investigation.

I am using the word "subject" as it appears in the dictionary, so I'm
using it correctly. God does not have to be "amenable to empircal
investigation" for me to use God as the subject of a sentence. If God
does not exist, then God is "amenable to empirical investigation;" if
God does not exist then God is not "amenable to empirical

investigation."

> This is not only equivocation
> but it verges very close to fraud.

Your confusion with the English language is not evidence that God
exists.

> FYI: There is not such thing as a No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

FYI: you're wrong, as always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

> That bit of nonsense was made up by an atheist

Argumentum ad hominems fallacies are not evidence that an atheist
can't discover fallacies.

> to deflect attention
> away from his inability to use the appropriate methods for accessing
> the divine much the same as you are attempting to do about your own
> failed attempts.

No, I'm trying to draw attention toward the fact that your methods for
"contacting the divine" don't work. .

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 1, 5:17 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> or that u make any valid points

True. Lamely pointing out typos is not evidence that I make any valid
points. Neither is it evidence that I don't. It's just mental
masturbation on your part, when you get right down to it.

[xnun]

------------------------------
You are a very wise and articulate person. I hope you will stay,
at least for a while. The ranks of non-atheists have been growing
here. Like the primates at the zoo, the atheists can only save up
so many stools to hurl at the visitors. When they exhaust their
supply, they are reduced to jumping around, screaming, babbling
and shaking their genitalia.

Very much like the AvC atheitards.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Neil, we must not deify empiricism.

[Answer_42]

On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

Fuck you are dumb.

And, by the way, since you have no idea what an Ad Hominem is, let me
save you the trouble and inform you that although insulting, that
statement is NOT an Ad Hominem.

See below where I refute your illogical argument.

> Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> comprise the
> atheist belief system.

Atheism is not a belief system.

> If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> a fringe
> religion

Athesim is not a religion, so it cannot be a fringe religion, or
whatever type of religion you want it to be.

> for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> disappear.

Funny, last time I checked, atheism was on the rise.

> Tough choice.

Actually, no.
____________________________________________
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion
without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood,
and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse
him.
-- Abraham Lincoln

[Answer_42]

On May 1, 9:29 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

> Been there done that.  So I totally agree with you.
>
> I characterize chatting with atheists as similar to playing 'Whack-a-
> Mole' at the county fair - you just finished smacking down one, i.e.
> pointing out their logical and factual errors,  than an identical one
> pops up repeating the same inanity.  You get more nourishment out of
> candy floss.
>
> Another analogy that I use to describe watching an atheist repeat his/
> her atheist beliefs is that it is like watching a dog chase its own
> tail.

This post is literally oozing with spirituality and wisdom.
You must be proud of yourself... no, wait, for someone as wise and
spiritual as you, pride doesn't exist.

Well, in any case, well done.

[Answer_42]

On May 1, 3:54 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This seems more than anything else like a distraction tactic on the
> part of atheists.  Atheism, etymologically, is characterized by
> positive denial of the existence of God.  Insofar as it is contrasted
> with Christianity, that is its main significance.

No, it is not.
To present it like that means that god is real, that we know it, but
decide to deny the reality of its existence.

Of course, being subjected to strong delusions, you find it normal
that we too should be afflicted at some level by similar delusions.
Being delusional is way of life for you, and you cannot imagine that
we are not delusional as well.
Of course, you don't call it "delusions"...

Unfortunately for you, we are not delusional abut god (Some atheists
may well be delusional about other things, like assuming that omprem
and e_space can actually carry on a conversation), this is why atheism
is simply a lack of belief, not a "denial."

> To characterize it as mere lack of belief in any gods,

It is not to "characterize" atheism to state that it is a lack of
belief in gods, it is the inherent definition.

> rather than
> positive denial of God, has the effect of maximizing membership in the
> class atheism.  That is useful for solidarity and for moral
> reinforcement but not so useful for practical discussion of the merits
> or demerits of atheism.
>
> In point of fact, the overwhelming majority of atheists who post here
> do subscribe to positive denial rather than mere lack of belief.  That
> makes them atheists proper as opposed to agnostics, undecided, or non-
> committed.  It is a definite position, and as such, is something that
> may be discussed.

The fact that you are confusing atheism and agnosticism demonstrates
you have no clue what you are talking about.

> It seems to me that atheists don't like to examine the bases of that
> position, perhaps because they are aware on some level that they are
> faulty.  Insisting that atheism should be characterized by mere lack
> of belief takes atheism as a position off the table, since mere lack
> need not rest on anything at all.  Christianity on the other hand, and
> religion in general, always entails taking a definite position with
> regard to the question of God, giving atheists something to attack,
> while at the same time, if they maintain that they themselves hold no
> position but merely lack one, they have nothing to defend.
>
> Hence, the incessant atheistic refrain, "prove God first."  But when a
> theist says, "prove there is no God," the atheist backs off into his
> safe haven of "I don't believe 'there is no God.' I merely lack
> belief."

How can we prove that a fictional being is not real?
All fictional beings, by definition, are not real.

Show me how you would prove that vampires are not real.

> So atheism, characterized to include those on the fence, boils down to
> a non-position, putting atheists in the position of not having to
> defend anything, but able to attack Christianity and religion in
> general.  I submit that to thus define atheism is a great big copout

Right, just as big as:
"We cannot prove that which is beyond the realm of empiricism."
We learned from the masters!

> on the part of most of the atheists here, most of whom do actually
> hold the position that there is no God, but are unwilling, or more to
> the point, unable to defend it.
>
> ' "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a belief
> system. ' is not a defense.
>
> Omprem is right.  

Hum, no, actually, he is wrong.

> The logic supporting a system of belief based on the
> denial of the beliefs of others, particularly when there is no support
> for such a denial, lacks severely.

[Answer_42]

On May 1, 5:08 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:

> Argumentum ad hominen such as you project is the last resort of the
> atheist who cannot articulate or defend his atheist beliefs.

Yep, you still don't know what an Ad Hominem is.

[Platytude]

Say that atheism is a religion is like saying "no food" is a seventh
food group.

On May 1, 12:12 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> 'a lack of belief' is in itself a belief.
>

> On May 1, 2:52 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > comprise the
> > > atheist belief system.
>

> > Atheism isn't a belief system Its a lack of belief in god(s).
>
> > >If these are not addressed, atheism will remain a fringe religion for the disaffected.
>

> > Atheism isn't a religion, its a lack of belief in god(s).

[kenandkids]

hahahaha very well said!!

[Skeptic]

On May 1, 6:58 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Skeptic: "Only empiricism can be used to know anything at all about
> the world."
>
> Omprem: Empiricism speaks only to the phenomenal aspects of the world
> not to the noumenal aspects of the same world.

The world is a set of phenomenal aspects.

> There is much that
> 'exists' in 'the world' that is beyond the reach of empiricism; for
> example, empiricism cannot define love but love exists.

Empiricism can most positively, definitely define love. Next.

> Nor can
> empiricism define the structure or  limits of a thought.

This is a limitation of the current state of the art of the research
into the problem, not a limitation of empiricism as such.

A thought has some kind of concrete representation in the connections
and signals among the neurons in the brain, and is susceptible to a
complete and thorough empirical investigation. Next.

> Additionally, empiricism is not able to address the Source of the phenomenal world.

I find several cosmological theories (which are devoid of god) to be
more plausible than creationism.

> Now there are many that would agree with you that thoughts are self-
> deceptive

Well, /your/ thoughts, for sure.

> and that therefore the phenomenal world is an illusion and I
> would be one of them but nevertheless thoughts exist and empiricism
> cannot define them.

The representation of thought in the brain is an empirical puzzle that
will fall, given enough computational horsepower among other things.

Computers can now do things which were once thought to be the
exclusive domain of human beings.

We now have computer programs such that a person in a chatroom
conversation with you, and with the computer program, would be fooled
into thinknig that you are the computer program, and the computer
program is a human being.

99.99...% of human thought is worthless junk anyway.

Like yours.

[philosophy]

On May 2, 4:32 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> comprise the
> atheist belief system.

There is no belief system - just a lack of belief in God/s. No bible,
nothing. You should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic
that comprise your belief system.

>If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> a fringe
> religion for the disaffected.

Atheism is not a religion, twat.

>If they are addressed, atheism will
> disappear.

You really are a muddled ass, aren't you?

> Tough choice.
No choice necessary. Atheism exists.... truth exists. Deal with it.

[philosophy]

On May 2, 5:12 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> 'a lack of belief' is in itself a belief.

Only in your logic, I'm afraid. Lack of, in my logic, means "none".

>
> On May 1, 2:52 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > comprise the
> > > atheist belief system.
>

> > Atheism isn't a belief system Its a lack of belief in god(s).

>
> > >If these are not addressed, atheism will remain a fringe religion for the disaffected.
>

> > Atheism isn't a religion, its a lack of belief in god(s).

[philosophy]

On May 2, 5:54 am, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 1, 2:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > That logic is suitable for approaching God is an atheist belief.
>

> Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

>
> > Then there are the grounds or beliefs, i.e. logical and factual
> > errors, the atheists hold for not possessing a belief that a god
> > exists.
>

> How so?

>
> > The first factual error of atheists is that religions posit  'a god'.

> > No religion does this. Religions know God to be everywhere all the
> > time and beyond space and time. In other words, its all God. The

> > atheist notion of 'a god' requires that there also be not-god which is

> > not possible according to religions. If atheists want to argue against
> > religion they should argue against what religions actual say. As it

> > is, atheists who use the 'a god' notion argue only against
> > themselves.
>

> No gods exist.  Period.  Case closed.

I'm afraid Omprem's mind is constipated by religion - he sees it in
everyone, even though it may not exist. His problem, not ours!
>
> Medusa

[philosophy]

On May 2, 11:29 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Been there done that.  So I totally agree with you.
>
> I characterize chatting with atheists as similar to playing 'Whack-a-
> Mole' at the county fair - you just finished smacking down one, i.e.
> pointing out their logical and factual errors,  than an identical one
> pops up repeating the same inanity.  You get more nourishment out of
> candy floss.

Okay, where's your mirror?
Look humpy, if you feel that way about Atheists, I honestly don't see
the point of you posting at all - surely it is a waste of the time you
actually do have out of the nut house?

[e_space]

awww monodrone...try to play nice! thats a good boy...

On May 1, 9:22 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:32 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > comprise the

> > atheist belief system. If these are not addressed, atheism will remain

> > a fringe
> > religion for the disaffected. If they are addressed, atheism will
> > disappear.
> > Tough choice.
>

> In order to resolve this, I vote you kill yourself.
>

> Problem solved.

[e_space]

get down on it all u want...i truly find ure posts to be the most
boring of all the inanity that goes on around here...and i didnt even
have to masturbate to come to that conclusion...sorry...just an
observation