Charismatic Chaos

I would remind you that illusions, mirages, and hallucinations are known phenomenon. They can be recognized, quantified, and ultimately logically discounted to yield a more accurate view of reality.I know you may not be a fan of the fact but reality *can* be distinguished from imagination. Illusions don't have to fool people forever.

---

You are not using that term properly. Both an agnostic and an atheist have considered the possibility of God existing, an atheist just does not consider it to be true.

I blame my opponents for taking stances that are unfalsifiable.

Atheism is very falsifiable: Simply prove that a god exists. Perhaps you were confusing it with something else?I am also extremely confused about the "*has* to possibly exist" line. How exactly do you pair definite and and indefinite terms like that, and what does it mean? Certainly, that is the first step. Nothing cancels anything out; they are not in the picture remember?I propose that no aspect of human behavior need change for this to be a possibility. Can you come up with something that humans do that could not possibly happen without a god in the picture?

You have a claim. I don't believe it.You are not trying to prove your claim because you cannot prove it. It also cannot be falsified.My disbelief cannot be proved correct because your position cannot be falsified. Therefore my position being unprovable is a direct result of your position being unfalsifiable, without requiring you trying to prove your claim.Interestingly it also does not require me to put forward an argument, so I don't have anything to box.

That would certainly be a compelling argument, if there was some shared ethical knowledge independent of nature or nurture. I assume since you would argue the point that you have some examples you think are universal?Before outlining those examples I would remind you of the neurological conditions of Psychopathy/Socipathy. These conditions are described as chronic disregard for ethical principles, with the former being considered to originate by nature, and the latter through nurture. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) requires that those classified as having this disorder exhibit a lack of remorse, guilt, and empathy.I suggest that this is strong evidence that ethics are not universal. For your first point, an obligation to whom exactly? Society perhaps, but there are many social obligations we are comfortable to ignore if our personal views differ.As for the second, that is quite true. Of course the problem comes when people do not consider what they do to be wrong. How many illegal drug dealers beat themselves up about their trade? Thieves? Murderers?In my experience people who have a choice in the matter will stop doing things that they believe are morally wrong. In many cases acts that are considered immoral are justified as excusable for a variety of reasons. A thief might admit theft is wrong, but justify their actions as only stealing from those who "can afford it". An illegal drug dealer might admit breaking the law is wrong, but that it is OK because they don't agree with that law, or their life is hard enough that they can ignore it. A murderer may recognize murder as immoral, but claim strong emotion temporarily removed their moral obligation, or that they just "couldn't control" the impulse to kill. If God turns out the exist then my personal opinion on how it should judge people would be worthless. However, I don't see how a god could be fair or just for judging anyone who never had a chance to consider the question. As for those who chose wrongly they must be the vast majority, and on tests that is often a sign of a bad question rather than a stupid class. I agree with you there. Does this mean that if the Christian god were to exist then you allow the possibility of disagreeing with its actions on moral grounds?Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

To clarify what I believe is his point, he cannot listen to *or* ignore something he does not hear.

Why not? I thought your god was omnipotent, yet it appears you think it is constrained by the logical bounds of our universe. An omnipotent god could make an object too heavy for it to lift, as well as be able to lift it. It simply would be illogical by our standards, and we would not understand how it is possible.Why can you not understand that your god is limited by your imagination? A god that exists only within your own mind is nothing worthy of worship. You are very happy to admit that your god does things that you don't know the reasons for but when it comes right down to it, if you don't understand it it cannot be part of your god.Your god is make-believe. This is the root of the problem it seems. Most of the posters on this board are seeking the truth of matters. You are not seeking truth, you are trying to push an agenda that you at times call "the Truth".The distinction here is that the primary concern of truth-seeking posters is that their position is correct, and then conveying how they determined that conclusion. Your primary concern seems to be wrapping your agenda in just enough logical buzzwords to be considered, and the justification for your position never enters into your process. This is why it is a problem when we ask for facts; truth-seekers have found them to be the source of truth, yet you simply have a story to tell regardless of the facts.Regardless of the truth.

It isn't a constraint if it is something it is capable of. Superman *could* cut people in half with his laser vision, he just does not. It isn't a "constraint" on his power, it is just something he does not do.You have stated that your god *cannot* be illogical. Would you like to reverse that statement? Or any other atheist? Or didn't you know that is what every atheist thinks? So you base your persuasive writing on assuming the reader already agrees with you. How has that been working out for you?

So you don't believe in the god of the Bible? Or are you continuing to be dense on the difference between "cannot" and "will not"? That would only be so if I had also declared myself to be infallible. A 6 on the scale is sufficiently convinced to make such statements but recognizes the potential to be in error.Your above statement sounds like a Dawkinsian1 style statement. (A thick one, who claims to be incapable of error and assumes the same claim in others.) I suppose the wheels fall off when you try to go from common agreement in "ought" to common agreement in "is". Making that leap without evidence must be difficult, perhaps you could clarify?