Love your enemies.

- Matthew 5:44

NB Even though I have a lot of trouble adhering to the above verse .. I still think it's a good one.

muso wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 9:45am:


I know you think that's a clever argument, but all you've actually done is invoke the equivocation fallacy.  I can name my toothbrush 'god' and say the words 'god exists' on that basis.  However, in doing so all I have done is create a new defnition of 'god' and attempt to apply that definition to existing definitions.

Using the same logic I place a black feather on a scale, note that due to it's lack of mass, the feather is light and therefore cannot be dark.

muso wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 9:45am:

And now you're equivocating on the concept of 'existence'.  Clearly existence in the mind is not the same kind of existence as existence in reality.

Your arguments are entirely fallacious.

it_is_the_light wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:



So  you like the Jewish Bible qoutes do you wharfy???

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:


Oh because you said so.  I guess that ends it then... or not.

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:


Yes people have invented thousands of gods over time but they all fall into the basic definition of a supernatural entities with some kind of power and/or jurisdiction.  From that point you can attribute whatever you want to them.  You can make them visible, invisible, universe creators, intervening prayer answerers or whatever you like.  But they are still supernatural entties and that is the definition.

By claiming your lump of wood is god you are creating a new definition.  By claiming that I can't be an atheist becuase I accept your lump of wood god exists, you are switching my definition with a new definition.  That's equivocation.

Following your logic, I could create a new definition for the word 'paedophile' as a person with two functioning legs and then have you arrested for raping children.

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:


If there is indeed such a place as 'outside the universe', it would still be a place.  If a thing 'be' in a a'place' you exists regardless of where the place is.

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:


Because something 'existing' in the mind doesn't exist at all in any real sense.  It is merely an arangement of neurons.  The arrangement of neurons exist but an arrangement of neurons depicting a god isn't a god any more than a picture of my mother is my mother.


muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:


Yes, cowardly religious types love to attempt to hide their imaginary friends from scrutiny by making claims like they are beyond definition.  All that achieves however, is unfalsifiability. Something scientists refer to as 'not even wrong'.  Unfalsifiability is worse than being falsified because it renders your hypothesis completely pointless.

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:


Yes.  And I say I believe in your god but because it doesn't come anywhere near being encompassed by the definition of a 'god' that atheists don't beleive in, I am still an atheist.

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:


No.  Just someone who can spot a fallacious argument.

bipedalhumanoid wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:


Good. You'd probably believe in the Jainist God too then.  It's just a collection of minds connected by the normal sensory inputs and outputs that we use to communicate between ourselves.

Quote:


Judges 13:18

OMG!! What's happened in this topic??

Seems we had a little bit of a disagreement lol