Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
I'm sorry, but I see little debate.
Debate implies logic and well stated arguements.
For the most part, I am seeing sweeping statements, little reason or logic, and taunts.
For one thing, none of you even state or acknowledge the basics from which you argue.
So please, no one claim the high ground of logic in this thread.
|
All that
*I* am doing is refuting various "facts" that have been bandied around, masquerading as evidence (or even proof!) for the existence of God, and pointing out the absurdities that arise when you extrapolate the pseudo-logic of certain people.
You want my axiomatic logical argument for why I don't believe in God?
1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. Therefore it would be ridiculous of me to believe in God.
3. Therefore I don't believe in God.
I have yet to see anyone come even CLOSE to refuting point 1.
And if anyone wishes to point out that my conclusion is that “I don’t believe in God”, rather than “God doesn’t exist”, I point them to yet another logical argument.
1. There is no evidence for the existence of an invisible purple llama living under my bed.
2. Therefore it would be ridiculous of me to believe in said llama.
3. Therefore I don't believe in the llama.
I have used my pet llama in many arguments about God, and I have yet to see someone highlight the
fundamental difference between it and God.
As for a logical high ground, I think it should be fairly easy for anyone to see which side can lay claim that accolade in this particular thread, what with one side claiming that:
1. The earth used to be flat.
2. Lots of people believing in something is an irrefutable proof that it is true.
3. If lots of people believe something, then by virtue of this belief, it is true.
4. Believing in democracy is fundamentally no different than believing in an omnipotent creator.
5. Un-backed up claims that a certain well know scientist, proved scientifically the existence of a soul.
Etc. etc etc.