The atheist argumentation from bankruptsy or no rationality needed

[saiyanmage]

We all have our imaginary friends, atheists like us just grew out of theirs.

[JesusforLife2]

@saiyanmage [We all have our imaginary friends, atheists like us just grew out of theirs.]

You still believe your in your imaginary friend - billions of years.

[rusty2029]

@saiyanmage You would have the burden to show this as anything other then a fallacy of equivocation. I have no need for massive views or popularity. Objective logic is quite outside of you or me and points to a higher agency as foundation to our own cognitive ability to divine what is truth.

[saiyanmage]

@rusty2029 took you 3 weeks to answer?

[saiyanmage]

You know, just because YOU say that our argumentation is wrong doesn't mean you're right.

I've seen people like you many times over. You apply your own logic to matters instead of adopting that matter's logic and arguing against it. Your method simply fails because of that.

And that's why you have crap views lots of dislikes. Because you're a deluded buffoon.

[DeimosSaturn]

But just to humor you:

No theist has ever given a positive ontological description of this thing you call "god". You talk about god's powers, qualities, and character, but never his essence. God is therefore unfalsifiable and any deductive argument which might be sound still never manifests tangible empirical evidence. Pray for an amputated limb to regenerate, and once your god fulfills that prayer, then we can talk.

[rusty2029]

Fact 3: The falsification-of-deity document by Anthony Flew has been falsified, by Anthony Flew himself. There is no falsification of deity.

The Conundrum: So to the atheist, falsification as a valid required benchmark is only valid relative to the subject (everything but Darwinism), not to whether any truth actually exists. This violates both the first and third of the First Principles, thus it is a Conundrum. Not to mention blatantly dishonest, both ethically and intellectually.

[DeimosSaturn]

Beautiful red herring. I'll just ask you flat out, what is the positive ontology of god? Once you do that, then I might be able to falsify it or believe in it. Until you give me the positive ontology, it's not possible for me to even argue the matter with you. It's like if I ask you to disprove the chupacabra but provide no description of what it is.

[DeimosSaturn]

However, it's not even that complicated. I've vowed that if someone prays to a specific god, you're being yahweh, for the missing limb of an amputee to regenerate, and that limb does regrow from the stump as a fully functioning limb, I will fall on my knees and worship that god forever. Shouldn't be too difficult for an all powerful being.

[rusty2029]

--any deductive argument which might be sound still never manifests tangible empirical evidence.

The Atheist insists there is no tangible evidence of God. The Big Bang is tangible evidence along with the fine tuning of the universe for life. We exist contingent on God existing as creator and agent of fine tuning. But God could not give us free will if we can not all become atheists. Atheism is necessary so that there is a free will choice of denying God.

God needs there to be atheists-cont..

[rusty2029]

Thus if there are atheists who are both tangible and empirically said to exist then God does exist and will honor our right to deny the existence of God.

If Atheism is not plausible then free will is not plausible and thus God robs us all of free will choice.

God makes atheism plausible so that free will can be exercised regarding the question of God.

Thus the hiddenness of God is a necessary condition so that the free will ability of the tangible and empirically real atheist can exist.

[DeimosSaturn]

"atheists who are both tangible and empirically said to exist then God does exist and will honor our right to deny the existence of God."

So if there are people who say bigfoot does not exist, then that means bigfoot exists?

I like how your response AGAIN avoids providing an answer to my request for a positive ontology of this thing you call "god".

[DeimosSaturn]

I don't know how you think the big bang is evidence of god (and again, I have to stress this: Please provide a positive ontology of this thing you call "god), maybe you are saying "i dunno how it all started therefore god dunnit".

As for the fine tuning argument. This argument is circular. It asserts that life as a phenomenon is what qualifies a universe as finely tuned, when there's an infinity number of possible phenomenon which are impossible under the current conditions.

[DeimosSaturn]

The fine tuning argument is equivalent to saying that a house was made specifically for me because it's painted orange and since orange is my favorite color, therefore, the person who painted the house had me in mind. The reality is, I could just pick and choose any quality of the house that suits my taste, if not the color, to entertain the delusion that the designer had me in mind. Try harder next time.

[rusty2029]

Gravity is only known by indirect means. What gravity actually is has yet to be manufactured or negated by artificial scientific means. The fine tuning of the Universe requires a fine tuning to the forces of gravity otherwise life could not have existed. It is deductively valid to say that the periodic table can only exist if there was fine tuning of the universe. There is as yet no empirical evidence of any other universe but the one we occupy.

[rusty2029]

The focus of this topic is the absence of any positive arguments for atheism.

I have not only shown the necessity of atheism as proof of free will but also why God will not manifest for you in a way that will rob you of your free will denial of God.

bigfoot is a red-herring and not relevant to my positive argument for both God and Atheists.

[DeimosSaturn]

I have to reply in PM because youtube is randomly eating my comments.

[DeimosSaturn]

So, if that sounds "bankrupt" or "pseudo-intellectual", sorry, but that's how the scientific method works.

[rusty2029]

The Falsification Test

Atheist claim: Religion is mystical because it cannot be falsified.

Fact 1: Darwinism has been falsified, and is still kept as unquestionable dogma.

[DeimosSaturn]

Darwinism? Oh, you mean the theory of evolution and all the genetic evidence from more than a hundred organisms who's genomes have been mapped that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that share a common ancestor with all other animals? Unquestionable dogma? It's falsifiable therefore questionable, right? So what evidence are you alluding to that proves men and chimps do not share a common ancestor but never bother to present?

[rusty2029]

The atheist argument of Evolution/Naturalism stands as falsified. But if you can not base your atheism on logic and good evidence then you have no rational reason to be an atheist.

This does not mean you can not remain an atheist it just shows that atheism continues to be irrational if it can not produce evidence.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Fortunately, there are people who actually understand logic who disagree.

[DeimosSaturn]

The theory of Evolution and the fact of common ancestry is as close to certain truth as gravity. The same kind of genetic testing used to prove guilt or innocence in the court of law is used to validate the theory of evolution.

Naturalism is something you yourself MUST assume if you wish to maintain the appearance of sanity, otherwise, whether or not you're actually sitting in front of a computer is as likely as your brain in a jar observing a simulation.

[NorwegianKafir]

Ah, the ignorant fool is ranting again about things he doesn't understand. Ever heard of Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., he is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. But of course you, the masturbating moron playing with paper skulls made of toilet paper knows all this so much better, in your own private fantasy world that is. You can't get more pathetic than you, DemonSatan.

ROCKVILLE,

[DeimosSaturn]

Not believing in bigfoot doesn't need to be defended. If you make the claim that bigfoot exists, and the belief in this bigfoot is so monumentally important that you need to legislate laws that impinge upon the rights of homosexuals, then you need to present evidence of bigfoot. It's not up to the skeptic to go over every inch of all the forests on earth to prove there is no bigfoot.

[rusty2029]

The Homosexual red herring is a commendable effort at obfuscation but I am pointing out how shallow and irrational atheists are if there is no good argument for atheism. There is no need for intellectual rigor if atheists have no good arguments for why they can substantiate that there are no possible deities of any kind. The atheist must eliminate all deities yet they will not engage in good arguments for why there are no possible deities. Much less the Creator of the Universe.

[DeimosSaturn]

It wasn't an attempt at obfuscation, It was an example of how religion affects the nonreligious in a pragmatic way because the discussion of atheism is not just an academic one, it does indeed have to do with the daily lives of all human beings. Anyway, you completely side step the point I made. You make claim, you have to prove it. It's not up to use to unprove it. Those are the rules. Sorry if you don't like them.

[rusty2029]

If the atheist does not make claim or base their argumentation on evidence then they stand as self refuting and not rational in there requirement for atheism.

The world view is important as naturalism devalues humanity and the ultimate value of your own person.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

This is at minimum evidence for deism and against atheism that has no evidence.

[DeimosSaturn]

The requirement for agnostic atheism is to not believe in the god claim.

Premise 1: Prove things begins to exist. Things which already exist simply change form.

Premise 2: You're assertion that the universe in some form did not always exist is without basis.

You've made at best a presuppositional argument and at worst an argument from personal incredulity.

[rusty2029]

your definition for agnostic is incorrect as agnosticism is about the question of God is not knowable or a knowledge question that can be answered

--Premise 1: Prove things begins to exist. Things which already exist simply change form.

There can be no actual infinite so this premise is invalid.

Premise 2: You're assertion that the universe in some form did not always exist is without basis.

This premise is a good example of your own personal incredulity thus you invalidate your own argument.

[DeimosSaturn]

I am not claiming actual infinities exist, I am asking you to prove things begin to exist. As far as we know, we've never seen anything begin to exist.

Secondly, You're telling me I'm making arguments on personal incredulity? Ha. You're making claims without presenting evidence. I don't have to believe anything you say. You are just too easy!

[thisguysajerk]

poor old guy...

good luck catching up with reality before time runs out on ya.

[justintempler]

You want to play philosophical games?

Define God.

[rusty2029]

Atheism has no good argument for atheism is the topic so if you can prove the conditions where there is no possible God I am ready to have this evidence presented.

You fail if you have no good argument for your atheism and evading this issue is proof of the atheists dishonesty.

[justintempler]

I'll help you rusty.

Is God transcendent?

Is God loving?

[rusty2029]

I'll Help you out Justin.

Is there good positive argument for atheism?

Can you prove your atheism with something like a standard of proof you impose upon the theist.

This video is not about God so appeals to questions on God does not enter into the fact that you dodge any good arguments for atheism.

There are no good arguments for atheism or ones that require intelligence or rationality.

[justintempler]

Since atheism is about the lack of belief in God the definition of God has everything to do with your question.

Do you want to play games or answer the question?

[rusty2029]

Stay on topic or be proven to not have any good arguments and show how faulty atheism is. If you insist in a lack of belief then what good reason do you have that you define as proof.

Unless you have no good reason for your lack of...??

Prove that no deity of any kind is possible and you can have a host of "lack of" to join in the whole lack of thing you think is truth.

[justintempler]

rusty2029 "Prove that no deity of any kind" <-strawman

You don't want an answer, you just want to argue.

[rusty2029]

from the website posted:

The premise that there exists no deity cannot be proven, is not empirically or forensically supportable and cannot be shown to be true. By virtue of the paradox in the Atheist statement, perhaps Atheists are not so categorical as the expansion would indicate, and are then, Agnostics instead.

The term rationalist (requires evidence) is paradoxical when combined with Atheist (no evidence is possible):

[justintempler]

rusty2029 " from the website posted:"

When you quote a strawman it's still a strawman.

Let me know when you want to have a real discussion.

[rusty2029]

Let me know when you have an actual supportable argument for atheism. Your dishonesty and atheist inconsistency is clearly showing along with your baseless assertion of strawman. You are just showing the reality that you are not rational in your atheism and base your atheism on irrationality and lack of good provable argumentation.

Stay on topic and stop the dishonest obfuscation.

[justintempler]

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)

n. 1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Disbelief in the existence of God qualifies as a legitimate definition of atheism.

Let me know when want to stop using strawmen and learn how to read a dictionary.

[rusty2029]

Then you prove my point that atheists have no good argument for their lack of belief and thus atheism can be shown to be bankrupt and not require an evidence based reason.

You are an irrational atheist who is dishonest about your atheism if you can't give evidence based reason for your denial.

The obfuscation regarding strawmen shows your not going to give reason for your atheism and you need to give good evidence and reason for your position or it is not rational.

[justintempler]

A logical contradiction of YOUR definition of the god you belive in is all that is necessary for me to have a rational reason for my disbelief.

Is your God transcendent?

Is your God loving?

When you answer my questions, I'll provide my "proof" until then goodbye.

[rusty2029]

In order for atheism to be rational there must be evidence for atheism. Q.E.D.

You present no evidence and then think you can ask questions that are off topic. If you can provide your proof then you need no questions answered by me or any theist or deist. I have from your own words an effort that shows your dishonesty. You could try and call yourself an agnostic but then you do not base your position on evidence.

You remain irrational in your atheism.

[justintempler]

There's a reason your first video had 2300+ views and this one has 36.

Have fun arguing with yourself.

[rusty2029]

LOL... you fail to show you have any rational reason to be an atheist.

Fail to show that you base your atheism on evidence.

Atheist don't want to know the truth regarding the weakness of their position so it's no wonder so few are viewing it.

[TheFallibleFiend]

"Don't call me names," but I can say any idiotic thing I want to about atheists.

Logic is a mystery to you.

[rusty2029]

You don't need logic to be the atheist I am talking of.

So where is the mystery when atheists of the weak kind set up a presumption that does not require any kind of intellectual rigor upon themselves like they do upon the Theist.

[TheFallibleFiend]

The purpose of life isn't to make arguments. That's not even the purpose of an intellectual life. An intellectual wants an honest existence. The atheist isn't  "setting up a presumption." He's being honest with himself.

There are other, much more important ways to occupy one's synapses than asserting knowledge of the imponderable.

[rusty2029]

If God was imponderable I could accept this. So what is your good and honest argument for your atheist presumption.

And I will call it a presumption on the part of the atheist as long as they act to dodge the lack of good arguments for atheism.

[TheFallibleFiend]

"And I will call it a presumption on the part of the atheist as long as they act to dodge the lack of good arguments for atheism."

And logic continues to be a mystery to you.

[rusty2029]

Logic is no mystery and atheism is not rational if it has no evidence based condition for an atheist position.

Atheism stands as self refuting if no good evidence based requirement is needed in order to define yourself as an atheist.

Atheism must be a mystery to you if you can not base your standards of logic on good evidence for atheism.

Perhaps you mean to be an agnostic as that requires no evidence.

[TheFallibleFiend]

True. Logic is no mystery, except to those to for whom it is.

Atheism requires no evidence. What you mean by atheism has no bearing on what actual atheists mean by the term.

When logic is irrelevant, any conclusion is possible from the evidence as you have ably demonstrated.

[rusty2029]

If atheism requires no evidence then there is no rationality to atheism and it stands as self refuting.

Any conclusion is possible if there is no evidence based rational for atheism.

[TheFallibleFiend]

A lack of evidence in favor of the existence of a thing is reason enough to not believe in the existence of said thing. I don't need evidence that there are no unicorns dancing on the moons of planets orbiting Rigel in order to not accept their existence.

[FuckYouTheists]

Just from reading the description of your video it would actually come across that you're trying to say us Atheists have no intellect? You're videos aren't even very interesting Rust bucket. Although this one lasts about 10 minutes, you talk slow. So don't be retarded - Get straight to the fucking point.

[rusty2029]

Given the web site I quoted I am making a valid deduction.

A: Weak atheists withhold their assent from the theists

B: Withholding assent requires nothing and requires no logic, reasoning, or well reasoned argumentation.

C: This may be the best tact of argumentation for the atheist yet is empty and bankrupt regardless of said individuals actual mental capacities.

In what part of the title do I talk of intellect?

Remember that one can be intellectual yet not be rational.