By all means, feel free to ignore this.

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

Mundo Cani wrote: Now, do you think it is reasonable for someone who finds the idea of God appalling to hold no position on the existence of God? Let me put this in a funny way. I find the idea of my ex-wife appalling and I do not care one way or the other about her.

I realize you are making a joke, but did you also intend it to address my question? I would assert again, that anyone who finds the idea of God appalling, holds a belief (one way or the other) on the matter. Your humorous response is not a good metaphor for addressing my point. Not caring about God is not the same as not caring about whether or not he exists.

Ian

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

You went from one sentence to four paragraphs, you really didn't type what you were thinking. There is one underlining problem.

I did type what I was thinking. Then I thought about it some more and decided to elaborate.

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

Mundo Cani wrote: The topic of this conversation is reason--not God. But your first response of this sub-thread to Tim was: Mundo Cani wrote: Really? Do you believe God does not exist?

Consider the context, Jason. He made a wild claim that atheists don't hold beliefs. So I asked him point blank what his belief on the existence of God is. Whether or not he believes in God is not the point of the question. The point of the question was to get him to admit that he had a belief. If this debate was about God, I would have offered reasons why I think God exists, or why I think he does not exist. I am not trying to convince anyone one way or the other.

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

You trolled.

You can't be serious! Tim claimed atheists have no beliefs. I challenged his claim. How is that trolling? You came into this thread with your mind made up about who I am and what my motives were. If you were to go back and re-read my posts n this thread, I think you would find that you are mistaken.

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

Your reply will not be answered.

If you wanted to end the conversation, you could have simply not responded. Instead, you make a point to make sure I know that I will be ignored. Curious.

Ian

I was too hasty in my original response. I went back before you responded and modified my post. Reread it if you have time. :)

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

Tim doesn't care about God or any other gods. Tim doesn't find God appalling.

I did not say that Tim finds God appalling. I said he finds the idea of God appalling. Now, do you think it is reasonable for someone who finds the idea of God appalling to hold no position on the existence of God? Tim claimed he has no beliefs on the matter. I simply challenge his assertion. I think he does hold a position and that he is being either ignorant or dishonest. This discussion was never about God. It is about reason.

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

He finds the thought of gods, religion and Christians that shoot of their mouths in so called debates with insults and remarks that are not 'Christian' like. They seem to make themselves out to be hypocrites and do more harm to Christianity than they do good.

I have not made any claims about God or Christianity in this thread. I have neither indicated that I am a Christian or an Atheist. I have not made this thread about religion or belittled anyone for disagreeing with me. I did ask Tim if he is a simpleton because he continued to make up strawman arguments and attribute them to me. I posted very simple points that he was either unable or unwilling to respond to. I thought by asking the question, perhaps he would finally address my point so as to prove he was not a simpleton. I was trying to provoke him to answer the question.

Ian

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

Mundo is missing the point here big time.

What is the point that I am missing "big time"?

jason_lakewhitney wrote:

You don't care one way or the other if God exists.

Whether or not you care does not equate to a personal belief on the matter. "Not caring" is not a statement of belief so it cannot be added to the options I came up with for positions of belief regarding the existence of God. Though someone could claim they take no position at all (which is probably what you meant), having "no position" simply means you haven't given yourself to serious thought on the matter. Once you've actually thought about it, there remains only three options: belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. Now one may claim they don't care one way or the other, but that is a surface position. If they investigate it through introspection (which can only be done by an honest person) they will ultimately discover that they either believe, disbelieve, or are uncertain. So I think I disagree that "not caring one way or the other" is a real position for anyone who has given the matter any thought at all. However, you make an interesting point and I'll have to think about it some more. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say "I don't care" is a valid fourth option. Do you really believe that an adamant atheist like Tim holds no position on whether or not God exists? I think it's safe to say based on Tim's sig and his posts in this thread, that the idea of God is not irrelevant to him--it is appalling. And to claim he has no belief on the matter is either ignorant or dishonest. (Remember, this sub-thread started in response to Tim's claim that Theists are the ones with beliefs and that atheists don't have beliefs. This, of course, is nonsense. The topic of this conversation is reason--not God.)

Ian

Demon Possessed wrote:

They will go in circles with their fallacies

Please, quote one of my fallacies.

Demon Possessed wrote:

and ignore your arguments

Please, give me one example of an argument I ignored in this thread.

Demon Possessed wrote:

They will go in circles with their fallacies and ignore your arguments then insult and try to assert their superiority, then declare victory when the other person finally gives up trying to debate.

I do believe you're describing yourself here.

Ian

Tim Craig wrote:

I can't engage in rational debate with you because you are without reason

Really? But you are the one who has refused to engage. I have asked simple questions that you are either unwilling or unable to address. Let's try this one last time. If you are so reasonable, and I am so unreasonable, then please, by all means, use your reasoning skills to show how the following statement is unreasonable. All reasoning is based on a set of axioms that cannot proved. This has been the crux of the debate and you have not yet touched on it. To refuse to engage in a simple debate while shouting that your opponent is unreasonable is stupid -- unless you can show by your own reasoning, why his reasoning is flawed.

Tim Craig wrote:

You simply cover your ears, chant lalalala until the other party throws up their hands in disgust with you and then you act like you've proved something.

The irony is so thick you could cut it with a cliche.

Ian

The debate is over because I inquired as to whether you are a simpleton? I think if you peruse this thread, you'll find that you've taken a similar tone with others. I suspect that you are either unable to engage in rational debate (which would lead one to believe you are a simpleton) or you are unwilling (which would lead one to believe you are dishonest). I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of why you refuse to respond to simple questions. Is it because you are incapable? Or because you are unwilling? If you are incapable, there is little else we can talk about. But if you are unwilling, there's still an outside chance I could convince you to identify the axioms that you seem so intent on keeping secret.

Ian

Tim Craig wrote:

Reason is sufficient

I see. OK, why don't you demonstrate that. I challenge you to come up with a single well-reasoned statement that is not based on an axiom. The only "reasoning" that is self-sufficient is circular reasoning. And we all know how valuable that is.

Ian

oilFactotum wrote:

That you are trying to argue otherwise is ludicrous

But of course he isn't trying to argue otherwise. He's simply asking you to think about the nature and basis of your assertion. It's an important question really; what is the nature of this law we call morality?

Ian

Tim Craig wrote:

The starting point for knowledge is reason and sensual perception

But that wasn't my question. My question was, what is the starting point for reason? Doesn't reason depend on a basic axiom that cannon be proved?

Ian

Tim Craig wrote:

I have no belief that god exists

You haven't responded to a single one of my points in this entire thread. I know there is a difference between not having a belief that God exists and believing that God does not exist. And the difference is frankly not that subtle. My point (which you avoided) is that there are only three possible positions on the matter: 1. A belief that God exists 2. A belief that God does not exist 3. Uncertainty about whether he exists or not Now, unless you can offer up another position or explain how "not having a belief" is different than option number 3, then you yourself have taken one of these three positions. So my question to you is, which one is it? Clearly it's not number 1. So is it number 2 or number 3?

Tim Craig wrote:

Or are you so unsure that when you hear someone express disbelief that you have to go through the motions to convince yourself again?

Are you a simpleton? Where in this thread have I argued for or against Christianity or religion? All of my points have been about reason. If you cannot come up with a better effort to engage in this debate than you have thus far, I won't continue this debate with you. Do you even know what the debate is about?

Ian

Tim Craig wrote:

No, I have no belief that god does exist

So then you're not sure if he does or not? The lack of belief on the topic of the existence of God amounts to uncertainty. Of course there's nothing wrong with uncertainty--it's a perfectly reasonable position. I just want to know where you're coming from. So then, you don't know if God exists or not? If this is not your position, then you either believe he exists, or you believe he doesn't exist. Based on your posts, I'd say it's clear you don't hold a belief that God exists. So then it's down to two options: Either you believe God does not exist, or you're not sure if he exists. If it's the latter, then you yourself testify that it is not a wholly unreasonable idea (otherwise you would have discarded it completely). So either you are unsure, or you believe he does not exist. I'm guessing the latter. And if I'm right, were you unaware that you believed that? Or were you just being dishonest?

Tim Craig wrote:

Since you're the one with the belief, you need to prove it.

I don't need to prove it. It is a personal belief that I hold for myself. I have not asked you to accept it.

Ian

I'm not asking you to read it. I'm merely pointing out that accusing MF of arguing that reasoning is faulty because he recommended a book to you called, "escape from reason" is utterly amazing.

Ian

Where did he claim that reasoning is faulty? Again, that is not what the book is about. MF's argument is this: reasoning is based on accepting axioms that cannot be proved and that reasoning itself cannot produce the axioms on which it is based. Now, would you like to engage this argument or continue with strawman fallacies by suggesting MF's argument is something other than it clearly is? As for your assertion,

Tim Craig wrote:

reason is the only path to knowledge

What is the starting point for reasoning? Is it not an axiom that itself cannot be proved? Furthermore, could you sit in your closet and "reason" what the weather is today?

Ian

As MF already pointed out, the book he recommended to you does not inform the reader how to escape reasoning, but rather explores what the author believes is an abandonment of reason by society. Your assumptions on the book are wrong and unreasonable.

Ian

Tim Craig wrote:

You miss the whole point of atheism. We're the ones who hold no beliefs

Really? Do you believe God does not exist?

Ian

The interesting thing about this thread is how many people have claimed MF is unreasonable, without defeating his argument with reason of their own. Something's amiss... If his argument is unreasonable, please by all means show the rest of us. Wait... do you even know what his argument is?

Ian

Tim Craig wrote:

He hasn't presented an argument

If you cannot see the argument he clearly presented, then you disqualify yourself from reasonable debate. He is positing that reasoning is based on accepting axioms that cannot be proved and that reasoning itself cannot produce the axioms on which it is based. So, if you think that reasoning is faulty, it is incumbent upon you to show us how it is unreasonable. To simply claim it is unreasonable without using a well reasoned argument would be embarrassing, don’t you think?

Ian

Tim Craig wrote:

Ummm, weren't you the one recommending I read a book on how to abandon reason?

Judging a book by its cover is _not _very reasonable.

Ian__

If MF has been unreasonable in his arguments it should be fairly simple for someone who is reasonable to point out exactly how his argument is unreasonable, rather just claim it is. Without evidence of faulty reasoning,

Tim Craig wrote:

for those who totally abandon reason, like MF

just sounds like an opinion, rather than a self-evident truth.

Ian