Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

BBC : Agnostics

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Scofflaw wrote:
    Therefore, the atheist is met head-on by a worshippable deity who is also undisprovable. This leaves the atheist with the rather weak argument that "he made it all up", to which a proper theist will retort "God spoke through him", and then onto the stake you go, with a pop and a sizzle!

    Well it is only weak if I'm trying to convince a theist, because the theist is in a delusion, and by its very nature it is hard to convince someone in a delusion that that is what is happening to them, since there is a normally a reason they are in the delusion in the first place.

    But then I don't have to convince a theist, I just have to convince myself. And to me its a quite compelling argument. If it convinces others that is an added bonus :D


  • Options
    #63
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Wicknight wrote:
    Well it is only weak if I'm trying to convince a theist, because the theist is in a delusion, and by its very nature it is hard to convince someone in a delusion that that is what is happening to them, since there is a normally a reason they are in the delusion in the first place.

    But then I don't have to convince a theist, I just have to convince myself. And to me its a quite compelling argument. If it convinces others that is an added bonus :D

    Obviously I would have no interest whatsoever in persuading you out of it!

    The whole thing here was made up in response to the standard argument about the unprovability of God - that theists move the goalposts until they get to an unprovable God. My argument is to indicate that you can have an undisprovable God who is also perfectly worshippable - so there is no need to move the goalposts.

    I appreciate, of course, that nothing really follows logically from said God, but then nothing proceeds logically from the Biblical God either. It would be easy for people to claim revelatory experience of my God, and base my argument solely on the strength of my conviction.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement