tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post8426426542057722086..comments2024-02-17T19:58:47.311-05:00Comments on Textuality: The argument that DISPROVES ATHEISMLarry Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-46640130240890222852014-06-12T06:04:21.819-04:002014-06-12T06:04:21.819-04:00Boo. Your post is an ad hominem attack. In the com...Boo. Your post is an ad hominem attack. In the comments, you admit To ducking the omniscience being required for SA to be tenable issue. Subsequently, you go on to tailor the definition of omniscience to suit your cause...weak dude. A man of your apparent intelligence ought to know that omniscience means total awareness and Knowledge of all things. I don't think we will get many objections on that. So then, if that's true, then you would necessarily be omniscient if you could truthfully claim that you Know of Gods non-existence...or to phrase it another way, that you know God doesn't exist. Why use rhetoric to duck a good point?Also, I don't view the presence or absence of the word "systematic" as being important to the overall argument, regardless of whether it's well chosen. <br />Before you paint me a bible-thumping troll, you should know that I don't believe in the existence of any God. I don't carry such a belief around with me because I don't have sufficient evidence to justify that belief. On the other hand, I also do not believe that there isn't a God. I don't carry that belief around for the exact same reason. Am I FORCED to have a belief about the existence/absence of an entity that I've never never had a direct experience of??<br />The reason you had to do some ducking is that SA is begging the question. By this I mean that in order to prove your point, you must either pre-suppose it or hide it in the premises...or duck it altogether.<br />You've quit your blog, so I doubt this will reach youAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04031592027559091127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-54264986050171505452010-12-03T12:13:08.264-05:002010-12-03T12:13:08.264-05:00Puzzled,
Thanks for the comment. You may have a p...Puzzled,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. You may have a point that I don't completely engage the claim that the strong atheist (SA) position requires the SA to be omniscient. <br /><br />I duck it a bit by arguing that the SA position is actually different than what the article criticizes. I think my argument is right, and if so, the real SA claim is not one that actually requires the SA to herself/himself have divine attributes (such as omniscience).<br /><br />On the other hand, does the SA position as the article presents it require omniscience on the part of the atheist? I don't think so. <br /><br />Omniscience, as I understand it, is the idea of knowing everything that is true. In denying the biblical God or other deities, the atheist is not claiming to know all true propositions; the atheist is instead pointing out the falsehood of god-assertion. One doesn't need to be omniscient to point out that the god-assertion is false, unproven, or weaker than other explanations of the same phenomena.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-23858823267605501732010-12-03T09:54:41.437-05:002010-12-03T09:54:41.437-05:00I don't think you did justice to the claim abo...I don't think you did justice to the claim about divine attributes. The point is, I think, that to make the strong atheist claim would require one to have divine attributes - that is, omniscience. I think this is true - you could only justifiably make that particular claim with omniscience. I don't think it's helpful to the attempt to disprove general atheism, though.<br /><br />I really liked the way you went after him on Zeus. Consider the Shema. Either you interpret it in the traditional way, or you interpret it as the words actually suggest. In the first case, it's a strong atheist statement about all claimed gods other than YHVH. Hence, if the complaints in the original argument were valid, they'd apply here too. On the other hand, if you interpret it correctly, then early Hebrews were polytheistic, and the Christian is left in an odder position explaining what's wrong with Zeus.Puzzledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12866127197554237039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-46520067597691847642010-11-08T19:49:05.542-05:002010-11-08T19:49:05.542-05:00The "liking" is actually a scam on Faceb...The "liking" is actually a scam on Facebook. Just clicking the link causes your account to post a link saying you "like" it. Go ahead and check your wall - it should say the same thing.<br /><br />Regardless, great article.S.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00692391385315130591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-24124255512800895762010-09-01T08:23:11.284-04:002010-09-01T08:23:11.284-04:00@James,
I think you (and the author of the "...@James,<br /><br />I think you (and the author of the "disproving" article) are playing fast and loose with the definition of "systematically." Unlike religions, atheism has no founder and no prescriptions of what to think or say. Atheism does not dictate behavior or establish a social/political hierarchy; religions do. Atheism does not establish certain days as holy, and does not require people to perform certain rites or to refrain from other acts on these days. So, where is the system?Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-62998907063328015302010-09-01T02:25:12.602-04:002010-09-01T02:25:12.602-04:00Thanks for the post. I recently saw this "lik...Thanks for the post. I recently saw this "liked" by someone as well and expected it was just another self-aggrandizing Christian diatribe. Nothing new, move along people...Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-21057609446914641152010-09-01T00:00:12.240-04:002010-09-01T00:00:12.240-04:00I read until this point:
Q:"Do Christians sy...I read until this point: <br />Q:"Do Christians systematically disbelieve in Zeus?"<br />A:Yes!<br /><br />Q: "Do Jews systematically disbelieve in Jesus?"<br />A: They systematically disbelieve he was God's son.Jameshttp://LocoFoSho.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-41505901624812651272010-08-31T22:13:26.591-04:002010-08-31T22:13:26.591-04:00fantastic article, I'm excited to read the res...<b>fantastic article</b>, I'm excited to read the rest of the blog!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04725317723733798039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-48252858936409309602010-08-31T16:17:15.617-04:002010-08-31T16:17:15.617-04:00Great article and I particularly like your tag &qu...Great article and I particularly like your tag "nutbuggery"Shawn Holthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09526597904673503804noreply@blogger.com