The illogic of Atheism

Look, you wanted to know Malf's point which I explained. Furthermore, it was explained to all who read this thread by Malf, Linda, me in various ways. I don't see any reason to rehash why believing in God is equivalent  to believing in the tooth fairy. You don't get it now and I don't think you'll get it ever.

Steve, no one in this thread has remotely made anything resembling even a subpar argument for how belief in god in akin to belief in the tooth fairy. Not even close. 

It certainly goes without saying that you are absolutely the one who does not get it; you hardly consider serious arguments, you just say they're wrong and live in your isolated world of obvious atheism, where all the others here who disagree are fools who can't understand the (incredibly immature, easy to understand, not complex, and lacking in any sort of depth of thought) tooth fairy argument.

In fact, I would absolutely love for you to point to me where any of the three you mentioned have explained that (at all). Given that 2-3 people here discussed it with malf, I'm not sure if you're just blatantly ignoring the responses and declaring malf's assertion victorious for no reason other than personal preference, or if it's because you really have no idea what's been discussed in this thread. Certainly neither you nor Linda have explained it - and to begin with, Chris had originally posed the question of why the argument makes any sense, since he had difficulty (for very good reason) understanding how it was relevant in any way. Kam and I were the first to try to address what we believed the argument was (though we disagree with it); so, to be clear, at no point have you actually laid out the argument in your own eloquent way, and you've ignored the rest of the discussion in order to make something completely up and attempt to put those down here who still "don't get it". Pot calling the kettle black?

I don't think any of this needs to be overly complicated. Cultivate your own beliefs and try to be respectful of the other fellows.

( looking at you Mr. Dawkins)

@malf

Is your position (the existence of God) that of an agnostic or are you just absolutely certain there isn't anything (God does not, cannot exist) ? If it's the latter, seeing as we haven't really got the slightest conception of what we are referring to ('God') how can you deny his/her/it's possible existence ?

Not getting involved, I'm just curious. A no reply I'll take to mean your position is the latter, if that makes it easier for you.

I would try and avoid the use of the word "god" at all. I can see no reason to label a "prime-mover", or "simulation architect", "god", other than to justify and excuse the faiths of our fathers and fore-fathers. You could just as easily call such an entity "the tooth fairy" and it would explain just as much...

I would try and avoid the use of the word "god" at all. I can see no reason to label a "prime-mover", or "simulation architect", "god", other than to justify and excuse the faiths of our fathers and fore-fathers. You could just as easily call such an entity "the tooth fairy" and it would explain just as much...

Okay, Malf, thanks.

I would try and avoid the use of the word "god" at all. I can see no reason to label a "prime-mover", or "simulation architect", "god", other than to justify and excuse the faiths of our fathers and fore-fathers. You could just as easily call such an entity "the tooth fairy" and it would explain just as much...

Is it then the prime-mover style entity that you're agnostic to?

Look, you wanted to know Malf's point which I explained. Furthermore, it was explained to all who read this thread by Malf, Linda, me in various ways. I don't see any reason to rehash why believing in God is equivalent  to believing in the tooth fairy. You don't get it now and I don't think you'll get it ever.

So you don't have an answer, otherwise you could explain why the Proofs of God I mentioned apply to the tooth fairy. Hmmm...maybe I am a precog:

The idea of Steve001 demanding people read and understand something before commenting...

So you don't have an answer, otherwise you could explain why the Proofs of God I mentioned apply to the tooth fairy. Hmmm...maybe I am a precog:

There are no proofs for of any sort for a God.  Why aren't you badgering Malf?

There are no proofs for of any sort for a God.  Why aren't you badgering Malf?

Feser just wrote a book about that. If you're unfamiliar with philosophy of any sort, or dismiss it as you do, it's not shocking that you think that. 

I'm not sure if you mean that none exist, or if you mean that none are actual proofs. Though, if the latter, that would require actual knowledge of the arguments themselves before saying they're wrong. I would be surprised if you had taken the time to consider any of them.

You take a lot of pride in not taking philosophy seriously. It's pretty alarming, and revealing

I certainly do. The only two things I learn from it is it reveals much about human wants motivation and insecurities but it tells us nothing about reality. I said this to you long ago; you don't seem able to present any position without resorting to philosophy. Philosophy never changes minds.

There are no proofs for of any sort for a God.  Why aren't you badgering Malf?

Well I just mentioned two, and the post above by Dante mentions a book containing five proofs. So there are proofs, thus I'm not sure what your first statement is intended to convey.

As for your latter question, are you saying you have no idea what you are talking about and thus you need to me to ask someone else to defend your atheist/materialist religious belief?