The illogic of Atheism

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.

It changed mine, the mind of Feser who wrote the book about Proofs of God Dante mentions, as well as one of the atheist horseman - Sam Harris - who realized materialism requires a nonsensical something-from-nothing miracle.

But your critique has no real bite - you've never managed, even after all these years, to offer refutation to the arguments. The one that comes to mind is the argument by the neuroscientist immaterialist Raymond Tallis that memories cannot be held by merely physical structures in the brain.

You could claim scientific studies would change your mind but you've admitted that you have no scientific/mathematical ability past highschool, right? So how could it be that you are convinced by studies you cannot explain? Didn't you go to JREF and beg them to attack Maaneli, because you just knew he was wrong about Psi being real despite your complete inability to counter his arguments about science?

Thus it seems it's your motivations and insecurities at work - you can't refute philosophical arguments so your only hope is to denigrate others for being convinced by them.

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.

Back in my university days I studied philosophy of religion (and history of the early Christian church). Though I've forgotten much of it the one thing  I do remember is all of the arguments for the existence of God have logical flaws which render them impotent. So you all can keep patting your collective backs telling each other how righteous thou art.

It changed mine, the mind of Feser who wrote the book about Proofs of God Dante mentions, as well as one of the atheist horseman - Sam Harris - who realized materialism requires a nonsensical something-from-nothing miracle.

But your critique has no real bite - you've never managed, even after all these years, to offer refutation to the arguments. The one that comes to mind is the argument by the neuroscientist immaterialist Raymond Tallis that memories cannot be held by merely physical structures in the brain.

You could claim scientific studies would change your mind but you've admitted that you have no scientific/mathematical ability past highschool, right? So how could it be that you are convinced by studies you cannot explain? Didn't you go to JREF and beg them to attack Maaneli, because you just knew he was wrong about Psi being real despite your complete inability to counter his arguments about science?

Thus it seems it's your motivations and insecurities at work - you can't refute philosophical arguments so your only hope is to denigrate others for being convinced by them.

Well good for you. I'm not so easily influenced.

Back in my university days I studied philosophy of religion (and history of the early Christian church). Though I've forgotten much of it the one thing  I do remember is all of the arguments for the existence of God have logical flaws which render them impotent. So you all can keep patting your collective backs telling each other how righteous thou art.

It's less patting on backs, more waiting for you to produce a real argument. If all you have is insults it's not different than the religious fundamentalist who says those who disagree are denying the truth they actually know in their souls about his religion being the right one.

Well good for you. I'm not so easily influenced.

I figured you'd descend into cheap insults, but I also figured maybe you might make some serious effort this time around. You seem quite influence by a committed faith to atheism/materialism, since otherwise you'd be able to provide a real reason beyond suggesting neuroscientists like Harris and Tallis are "easily influenced" by incorrect arguments.

Just admit you need, on some emotional level, for atheism to be true. In fact I don't think you care about everything being just non-conscious matter, you just can't stand any crack in the door that might let in God.

As per Lewontin:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.  We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.  [From a review of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World in the New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997)]

Back in my university days I studied philosophy of religion (and history of the early Christian church). Though I've forgotten much of it the one thing  I do remember is all of the arguments for the existence of God have logical flaws which render them impotent. So you all can keep patting your collective backs telling each other how righteous thou art.

Ad hom after ad hom with no substance, steve. You're not arguing anything. You're just saying "it's all flawed, you're all so naive" without ever actually saying what about it is flawed.

If they're so obviously logically flawed, why do intelligent people waste so much time on them? Is it that all of them are emotionally motivated and inherently so egotistical that they just can't bear but to debate these so obviously incorrect topics?

You have all the answers without seeming to have any means by which to back them up. Again, it astounds me that you waste your time on this forum and that you wasted so much time at Skeptiko. It must be hard work putting up with all the dull brained morons running around here.

It's less patting on backs, more waiting for you to produce a real argument. If all you have is insults it's not different than the religious fundamentalist who says those who disagree are denying the truth they actually know in their souls about his religion being the right one.


I figured you'd descend into cheap insults, but I also figured maybe you might make some serious effort this time around. You seem quite influence by a committed faith to atheism/materialism, since otherwise you'd be able to provide a real reason beyond suggesting neuroscientists like Harris and Tallis are "easily influenced" by incorrect arguments.

Just admit you need, on some emotional level, for atheism to be true. In fact I don't think you care about everything being just non-conscious matter, you just can't stand any crack in the door that might let in God.

As per Lewontin:

Another habit I've notice of late is you think you know my emotion state of mind.
That makes me giggle.

P.S. I wonder why a man that certainly has the smarts to search out new topics to post asks for refutations from someone when said man could easily find these refutations himself.

Well good for you. I'm not so easily influenced.

Another habit I've notice of late is you think you know my emotion state of mind.
That makes me giggle.

It's incredible, honestly. Post after post you it seems as if you are literally typing a message to a clone of yourself.

For a thorough breakdown of Feser's book:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752

For a thorough breakdown of Feser's book:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752

Feser has two lengthy replies to Carrier. Worth reading.