Quote:
Originally Posted by Susmario
Thanks neeee for your reply.
Do you notice that you are not accustomed to and skillful in systematic critique of what you read.
That is the trouble with atheists: they do not think systematically and thoroughly, shall I use the word integrally but first step by step orderlily.
Okay, take my steps of the exposition and give your critical comments to them one by one, starting with Discussion phase 1 (dp1).
Okay, fellow posters here atheists, do systematic thinking, please.
See you all again tomorrow.
When I saw the thread title "I like to talk with atheists philosophically" I didn't know you meant "I like to belittle atheists pedantically". Here's some systematic thinking along the same lines as you have provided:
1: God probably doesn't exist.
1a: If there is a god, there is no evidence of it, except as created by men (the bible, talmud, koran, etc. - all written by men with ulterior motives.)
1b: The traditional example of a benevolent and omnipotent "God" is beyond defense in any version of the world man has inhabited.
1bi: His own ineffible plan is a facile attempt to resolve this indefensible position.
2: The universe is beyond man's understanding so he has created "God" to explain the apparent magic of things he cannot comprehend. (Ironically creating a "God" that he is content to not understand)
2b: As science explains various phenomena, prior versions of gods are replaced and subsequently viewed as primitive and naive.
2bi: Zeus's lightening, Apollo's sun, various gods of rainfall and rivers etc. have been explained away leaving fewer and fewer mysteries for which to be accounted.
2bii: Scientific discoveries will eventually leave nothing for man to attribute to a god.
3: Unless mankind destroys itself first, a time will come when no educated person believes in God.
3a: All current major religions rely on one or more "miracles" as proof of divinity.
3ai: These miracles either occurred so long ago that they are, as yet, impossible to disprove (although easy to explain) or, if they occurred more recently, they are viewed as lies or exaggerations by a vast majority (Joseph Smith's glasses for example).
3aii: Given enough time, science will explain away every miracle leaving previous believers with the choice of facing facts and abandoning their prior faith or continuing to fool themselves in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Now if I must, to touch on your very narrow topics:
dp1: Many, myself included, do NOT concur that any god is necessarily the creator of the universe. We certainly have no reason to believe that he or she is the operator of it.
dp1a&b: I have no idea whether the unverse has a beginning or has always existed. Neither do you nor anyone. I am comfortable with that. I do not need to add another layer of uncertainty to combat that lack of knowledge.
expedition phase (wtf!?): I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but apparently you believe atheists just haven't yet been shown the error of their ways. "The realm of concrete actual reality" would be a very small subset of the universe(s). In my mind it would be limited to only things that I could see or otherwise prove. "Every instance of existence" is far too broad a concept to debate intelligently, especially within the scope of concrete actual reality. This is tantamount to asking: Limiting yourself to the scope of things that you currently have in your hand, explain everything. The topic parameters negate themselves.
I had hoped this thread would include intelligent philosophical discussion rather than the standard circular arguments we've all heard before. My hopes have not, so far, been met.