- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
ppl also seem to be terrible when it comes to minding their business on the internet. i can tell you know what that means. it adds up to nothing because i'm bored shitless with this lame ass website. my only purpose for joining was religious debate and really there is not very much of that and when there is, atheists always win. do have fun though. i'll leave you to it..
there's just no way to shut you up is there? i'm not here looking for meaningful relationships. but one thing i am looking for is worthwhile debate and dialogue, not trading childish snipes and other grade school bullshit. i havent responded to your messages because i haven't bothered reading them. being enemies on a website is like being enemies with the boogie man, obviously i dont have lots of patience with annoyances. too many trolls in the world. if you have no actual argument, maybe you might refrain from replying to them.
you can persuade a person of anything if you have the logic or evidence to back it up. if you don't why would you make such claims in the first place?
did you know the big bang was first theorized by a preist? it is the explanation that best fits the observable evidence, thats why it's accepted science. not because 'all scientists are secretly christian'. or 'atheist'. atheism has nothing to do with it. either you can back up your claims or you cannot, and if you cannot, there is no logical justification to believe them.
so god lets you figure out how to help cure yourself of progeria? god lets you figure out how to stop from being raped and killed as a child? you completely missed the point. i mean completely.
i've known theists to make excuses that are transparent but you don't even make the effort.
I read and properly addressed your entire post. how is my etiquette improper? what i would like for you to do is allow someone else to reply to the same argument I replied to, because maybe you would be more receptive to a less technical rebuke. or at least you might be better be able to understand it. 90% of what I say flies over your head, then you claim to understand it but you never even attempt a contextually appropriate rebuke. something you could do in the meantime is look up 'confirmation bias'.
'It could take weeks or months before God finally answers your prayer.'
By this notion a shoe could answer just as many prayers, because the only criterion you're using to judge the prayer as 'answered' is a desirable occurrence. good things happen whether we pray or not, so to say 'it could take weeks or months, all you're demonstrating is that you arbitrarily deem a prayer is 'answered, when something happens that you can construe through bias, to be an 'answer'. this is completely dishonest . in this paradigm both coincidence and completely unrelated events are defined as 'answers'. because you definitively exclude any instance where the prayer would be unanswered or unheard.
no special pleading allowed. no publicly debunked arguments allowed. ( arguments with insurmountable criticisms)
no logically fallacious arguments, as logic is the only common ground between theist and atheist. though theism is not logical, theists cant live practical daily lives without acceptance of logic as a useful tool to separate bunk from that which is sound.
if a person has no faith, why would they see any need to pray? we are operating under the assumption that prayers are born from those who believe. christians say "God answers prayer, and sometimes the answer is no." when the answer is no, the result of the prayer is the same as it would be if a person hadn't prayed at all, or if there is no god to hear or answer their prayers. so how does one make the claim that all prayers are answered?
in this paradigm, an old shoe could answer as many prayers as god. if confirmation is made through bias, any notion can be confirmed.
events occur. sometimes we influence this occurance, and sometimes events occur randomly. random events may occur at any given time, so when you say 'prayer may be answered immediatey or after a long time, your'e supporting the argument that a divinely answered prayer is no different than a prayer answered by an old shoe.
what you should be attempting to show , if you believe prayer is answered, is how an answered prayer is distinguishable from a random occurence or an unanswered prayer.
as i have already stated. good and bad things happen whether or not we pray. how do you distinguish an answered prayer from an unanswered prayer, an unheard prayer, an ignored prayer, or a random occurance? by your description all of these things look indistinguishable. given enough time, good, and bad things happen. so to say sometimes it happens after a long period of time is a hollow argument.
it's 11 - dimensional bacon.
like i said, it's just special pleading. why? because the attributes of your god are coming from you and constructed specifically to fit the criterion necessary to make your argument work.
kalaam's cosmological argument does the same thing. there is nothing to keep it honest because said deity is beyond practical examination. yet you know all about said god because you made him to fit the necessary criterion.
'I always pray to god about the weirdest things that i want happening to me, they happen, they really do, just never to me.'
then you cannot call this an 'answered prayer'. trillions of events transpire daily without the need for prayer. its the nature of the world we live in.
'God helps those who help themselves.'
How does a person with stage 4 terminal cancer help himself? How does a child born with cancer or hiv help himself? How does a teen with progeria help himself? Who really needs help to do what they can do for themselves? 'Oh I prayed for that job and god helped me get it." "god please get this stain out of my dress, it's my favorite dress.' if god only helps us to do things we can do without a god's help, how do we distinguish answered prayers from prayers that fell on deaf ears? if god only helps those who help themselves, an old shoe would appear to answer just as many prayers as god does.
what you deem 'answered prayer' can be too easily dismissed as confirmation bias.
its not about telling anyone what to believe. if you cant get him to have a discussion with logic as the common ground, then there is no point to it. no need comparing apples and oranges. philosophy is not actuality, and if a person wont even admit that, then you cant really cover any ground. he wont provide evidence, he wont operate within the confines of logic and all he gives is his opinion in matters where opinion and special pleas hold absolutely no weight, so what really is the point? there is none. besides, i don't wanna spend all my time explaining basic shit if i can debate with someone who already understands logic and fallacy. anyone can take whatever feels good and argue against anything that threatens it. we're not in a sandbox here. but have fun. my wheels have spun
i spent a great deal of time explaining all that stuff already. he doesnt get it because he needs for it to be wrong. because in his mind, he cant fathom his god allowing people to be born atheist. you cant expect ppl with such heavy indoctrination to turn around and be intellectually honest. it's the equivalent of deciding to take a trip to hell.
no matter what you say, he's gonna disagree and commit logical fallacy in the process.
I'm not getting your point, because your point is subjectively based on what you believe,
not on an actual understanding of atheism or epistemology.
I'm not going to go through that again with you.
Either you get it or you don't, and either way is fine with me.
you must understand that anyone who believes in any religion can say some evil entity wants you not to believe in it.
that's not at all compelling . it's logically fallacious.
we don't care about the evil desires of beings we don't believe to exist.
"Sauron wants you to be a Christian". if anyone tells you that, they would lose all credibility in your eyes. Rightfully so.
without flesh it is not possible to walk. sorry. maybe i should've allowed you to believe you're floating around without your feet touching the ground. you are vitriolic and extremely hateful. any religious philosophy worth holding, is completely wasted on you.
'If its genetic wise guy, then why are there twice as many gays in cities like Seattle and San Francisco then everywhere else (by proportion)? What is that just some kind of fluke?'
there are twice as many gays in seattle and san francisco because like everyone else, gays want to live amongst those who are accepting, not backwater bigots and bible thumpers who want to kill them. ppl move to communities they want to live in. that's why.
why are there so many blacks in black communities?
why are there communities called 'chinatown' and 'little armenia?'
you certainly have not given this much thought.
marriage has existed since long before anyone ever heard of christianity. so no one needs a christian preacher to perform the ceremony., and let's not forget that christian preachers are somewhat revered for their pedophilia. if i was gay, i wouldn't want my marriage tainted by a christian preacher.
It's a good thing we don't spend a lot of time and money on punishing dead ppl. because they would never know they're being punished. no awareness without a brain.
please stay in school. you seem to have trouble understanding the most basic of logical concepts.
no one claims, 'a nonexistent demon wants you to be a christian". because there is no reason to believe that a demon never proven to exist 'wants' anything.
there is nothing riding on proving satan doesnt exist. but a lot is riding on the belief that he does. billions of dollars are at stake, so is political power. there are those who benefit from your belief in satan. thats why fear is cultivated through religion. it increases tithes sevenfold.
I am not a christian and i don't have faith in the bible, but even if i did, that would not prove that the bible is true. I have no reason to hold the bible as truthful or authoritative,. its words make naked claims, just like yours. they demonstrate nothing but an old style of writing ancient parables.
I asked you to demonstrate the existence of satan, not to paste words from an old book. you don't seem to know the difference.
What you believe is obvious. But what can you demonstrate? Demonstrate the existence of Satan. Not ancient writings.
thats the point of the whole discussion. ppl talk about something they cannot know to exist as if its something that is clearly defined and existent. now how many answers did you give before you stated 'we don't know?'
there is clearly no reason to believe in 'the spirit'. because there is nothing empirically quantifiable known as 'the spirit'.
No one is asking you to come here and preach.
demonstrate the existence of the devil and his desire for you to be an atheist or admit that you cannot. all your empty claims about gods , dont demonstrate anything but your beliefs., no one here is unfamiliar with christianity or its naked and empty fallacious claims.
"I have friends that are Christians that didn't grow-up in any kind of church at all but follow God when they felt God pulling at their heart."
I hope you realize that this entire phrase is completely meaningless. youre not talking to a 6 year old.
and you have not demonstrated the existence of the devil or shown that this devil desires anything. which is what this debate is actually about.
human intent is not just one thing. human beings have all kinds of intentions. their intentions depend on their goals. stop making appeals to ignorance. all you're doing is trying to get me to say 'i don't know', so you can act like a lack of knowledge makes it likely that a god did it. but it doesn't. you need to actually demonstrate that a god did it if you choose to posit this. appeals to ignorance are pure fallacy. if you don't know, just say you don't know, don't try shape the unknown into something personal with intent.
that is intellectually dishonest, it is primitive and superstitious and man has progressed so far beyond that.
not to mention that it is totally beside the point. I asked, what is the spirit? either you know, you have some idea, or you don't.
now. to say that the devil wants you to be an atheist, you must have some way of determining that the devil actually exists, and of determining his desires.
you have no way of determining or demonstrating the existence of the devil, satan or lucifer, and you have ignored that fact and gone on to state what the devil desires and your statement is based on a book of old writings indistinguishable from folklore and mythology.. hence there is no reason to take you seriously. because you haven't given any reason why anyone should hold this book or your naked claims, as truthful or authoritative? until you do, your arguments qualify only as special pleas and appeals to belief. both logically fallacious.
everyone is born atheist. the religion of his family members is completely irrelevant. in order for a person to believe in a god, he must be taught to believe in a god. before he is taught this, he lacks belief in a god. he is therefore an atheist. there is no denying this. you simply do not understand this but it is an established fact.
the universe didn't 'decide to make life'. you're applying human properties to the universe. no different than the Norse personifying thunder as an act of Thor. you don't have to place human intent behind everything you don't understand. its 2012 not 1200 b.c.
everyone is born an atheist. an atheist is one who lacks belief in a god, everyone is born lacking belief in a god. god belief is the product of indoctrination. lack of belief does not require you to be taught anything.
you act as if we are born believing in everything and someone has to convince us not to. that is not the case. we are born lacking believe in ghosts gods and other superstitious notions. these are culturally propagated. atheism is simply a lack of belief. you are born lacking belief in a god. lacking belief is not rejecting a belief that you have never been introduced to. you dont understand epistemology.
life is just biological processes, consciousness is awareness and is emergent from the brain. they could be named hebrew national beef franks but they already have names: namely consciousness/awareness and life.
so you'd rather use a word like 'spirit' because it sounds metaphysical or something?
there would be a lot less ppl making themselves look delusional if they stop trying to mystify ordinary , everyday shit.
not saying thats what youre doing, but there are ppl who do this on purpose.
self awareness emerges from the brain. nothing else is necessary. as you say, our awareness stops when the brain stops.
but what is the spirit?
every time i ask this question, no one can define the spirit as anything they know, or can show to actually exist, and most of the time it is simply defined via equivocation as things known to emerge from the brain.
yet ppl are always talking about spirits.
if it aint just a feel good buzzword, what the hell is it?
how do you know its there if you don't even know what IT is?
you would obviously be able to define it, it's function, and parameters,
it if you knew what it was, yet you contend 'it's there, without being able to define what it is?
arguments like this are what prompted this question in the first place.
but we are no closer to a definitive answer than we were before asking the question.
'If God cannot do so then he is not omnipotent, something which conflicts with the notion of a deism.'
So jehovah is a deistic god? i was under the impression that he is a personal theistic god of the anthropomorphic variety.
I am not a theist, or a deist. I have no belief in a god, mainly due to lack of evidence but all the logical inconsistencies born out of the things attributed to the abrahamic god, only make god look even less likely to actually exist. It is the contention of christians that god cannot violate free will. any and all other logical inconsistencies only add to the problem.
if you dont understand why omnibenevolence and indifference are incompatible, youre short because i wont waste any time explaining something so blatantly obvious.
'This is written in a manner which leads me to believe that you do not believe in the existence of free will.'
so it never occurred to you that i don't believe in any god?
'free will' in the theological sense is an excuse. that's not to say that ppl cant do whatever the hell they want to do. but our ability to make decisions doesn't have anything to do with a 'god allowing us' to do so, or 'not wanting us to be robots.'
'Why couldn't God violate an individual's free will to make a point?'
because that is logically inconsistent with the assertion that god cannot (or does not) violate free will.
if god could violate Pharaoh's free will to give himself an excuse to kill all Egypt's first born, he could violate the 'free will' of all child molesters to make sure no child was ever again molested. and in doing so, he would be beginning to solve 'the problem of evil'.
'the problem of evil' is only a problem because theists contended that god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. these qualities are directly contradicted by the persistence of 'evil'. one cannot be all loving, all powerful and indifferent to the suffering of untold millions of children.
the fact that i need to explain all this, puts a particularly humorous spin on your totally unnecessary snipe, citing 'uneducated corruptors'. but thanks for asking.
no. of course not. free will is just an excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene, where any existent, moral god would choose to do so.
ppl claim that god refuses to intervene, because that would violate free will.
but if no god exists, no god would intervene anyway, which completely solves the problem.
the same ppl who claim that 'divine intervention would violate free will', also claim that 'God answers prayers'. This directly contradicts the claim that god must preserve free will.
If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then he violated free will and punished the children of Egypt for his own gratification.
the fallacy of free will and the problem of evil, both demonstrate the logical inconsistency of the Christian god.
'The reason why there was those laws is because those are for the Jews to follow.'
So because they were Jews, God required them not to wear poly/cotton blends?
You didn't even attempt to reason out a logical answer to the question. your answer gives no reason for god wanting them not to wear poly/cotton blends. the fact that they were jewish is not a reason, its an excuse. one that doesn't hold a teaspoon of water.
'If I acknowledge that the god I worship is malevolent, I must acknowledge my own iniquity."
If a person feels he gets his sense of morality from his religion, he cannot acknowledge the malevolence of his own god without shooting himself in the foot.
I don't even think most satanists believe in a malevolent god. they just believe in liberation from the hypocrisy of the aforementioned paradigm.
'You don't see very many theists who believe in a malevolent God. Why is that?'
Actually lots of theists believe in a malevolent god. God is one great big appeal to emotion. He loves you, he will guide, and protect you, if you bend to his will. If you don't he'll torture you repeatedly forever. If you follow his rules and someone tries to impede or oppose you, they will see his malevolence.
In other words, gimme your milk money or my God will beat you up at recess.
You are free to choose, but if you don't choose the choice God has chosen for you, your store will be destroyed by arson. This is what I like to call 'Divine Extortion'.
I don't believe In Kali or Jesus because they're equally ridiculous. There is neither objective evidence, nor logic to support their existence.
If theists cant get a warm fuzzy from their faith, they'd see no point in constantly lying to themselves.
Logic takes those lies and exposes em. Thats why theists hate it, and why they compartmentalize so much.
If an atheist asks a theist for evidence of a God, he gets no evidence. What he generally gets is philosophy. Where the problem lies is that theists are unwilling to admit their philosophy is just philosophy. They insert it where it does not belong, where it has no validity, and this is why they're looked upon as being intellectually dishonest adults, with childlike minds, who simply refuse to accept the reality of human mortality..
they never even use the word philosophy when they're asked for evidence, they simply spew it out as if saying 'the evidence is all around you' actually proves what they posit. "i know in my heart there is a god' proves absolutely nothing because no one knows anything in his heart (which is simply a pump to circulate blood throughout one's body.) what they're really saying is that they find the idea of a personal god, emotionally appealing. well we as atheists already know that. but we have long since accepted that reality wont kneel before us to placate us in our self-centered fantasies. it doesn't care about our opinions or our feelings.
Yes, to hell with separation of church and state. We need one nation under desert goat herders, cause Da Big Bad God comin' to get us. We have the minds of small children, so we actually believe such utter nonsense.
Why shouldn't we have a president who believes he can become a god? Superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense. You can call it Mormonism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. It's still fairytale bull crap.
all ppl of a particular church do not have the same idea of god. all ppl of a denomination dont have the same idea of god. nor do all ppl of a city or culture or era. what a dictionary describes as 'god in a monotheistic sense' is perfectly irrelevant. Obviously I am referring to opinions, not standardized definitions. you shouldve gotten that from "ask 20 different ppl and you get twenty different answers'. we are not machines, we are human beings, with different views , different philosophies and different concepts of our personal gods. why do i even have to say this? God as the hero of western revenge fantasy is just one of god's many guises. you shouldnt get the idea that god is one thing specifically defined because ancient and contemporary world culture, myth and superstition shows that god/ gods are not, and all of this goes without saying. yea it does get lonely around here.
What is God? A super-thingie of nebulous ambiguity? A one size fits all security blanket for the ignorant and superstitious? Ask 20 ppl what God is and you get twenty different answers. Ask where god is and you get the same. God is and does whatever anyone says, whatever anyone chooses to believe. God is the hero of western revenge fantasy. An elaborate contradiction guilded in emotional appeals. God's truth is not to be found beyond death. That would require a functioning brain. God is just a sugarcube.
no argument here. i guess youre comparing theistic worship to blind trust in ultimate authoritarians, who you acknowledge as simply ppl that theists dishonestly refer to and defer to as 'god?'
i also assume that youre saying atheist hold scientists and certain philosophers in such high esteem that they simply accept any claim they make, as 'fact'? making scientists and certain philosophers the same kind of ultimate authoritarians?
the problem there is that theists encourage blind acceptance and denounce critical analysis. whereas atheists discourage blind acceptance, and encourage critical analysis, scrutiny,peer review, scientific enquiry, etc,.
anyone who holds faith as a pathway to ultimate understanding, has no grounds to question any 'ultimate understanding' gained through the faith of another. even if its contradictory to his own ultimate understanding found through faith. because doing so invalidates his own conclusions and the methodology used to reach them.
no atheist would ever have this problem if he remembers that anything can and should be scrutinized.
well thats just it. i don't think you're being dishonest, i simply have no idea what point you're attempting to make or what model you're attempting to use to do so. i have no idea what argument you're making, what proof you're offering or whether or not i should even take this seriously. i have no idea what you're saying. thats where i started and I'm still there. in fact after reading the replies of others, i still have no idea what's actually being discussed, here.
when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept? if not , i have no idea what you mean. but if you do, are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'? because this type of argument has already been defeated. concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.
lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god. 'god', generally denotes a supernatural being. so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist. metaphors exist. you have to do all kinds of calisthenics to transform a being that is known for hurling lightning bolts and parting seas into "a group of beings worthy of trust'. there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities. so no. we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.
you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.
thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.
1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that. its not up to others to disprove it. you have provided no 'proof of god'. you havent even provided evidence of a god. you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god. you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'. taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe) and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents, then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison. now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being. if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?' this really makes no sense. why call 'respected beings' god? is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true? "parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such? you know what? nevermind.
do you see where it says,
'You should define what you term "God", then illustrate it's existence and or influence?'
well do you? before there were any replies to this debate, i made this clear.
like i said, it's useless hot air. someone really enjoys the sound of his own keystrokes..
hopefully after all this back and forth , you finally see your initial comment was moot. you havent challenged me to do anything, because i am not trying to prove there is a god. i have no belief in gods. once again, thank you for this pointless exchange.
its useless hot air is what it is. it is not a logical argument for any god, of any kind. the naked claims positing the 'existence' of supernatural gods are obviously what drives my question. i doubt your'e unclear on that since this is the only kind of god whose existence is widely and constantly contested. but I left it up to respondents to define the gods for which they posit logical arguments. either way it's for naught. theists know that. that's why they have avoided the question.
If i wanted to make this about points there would be none for posts lacking logical arguments. I want to discourage the posting of useless banter but that seems to define the bulk of the arguments from the 'yes' side.
the aforementioned goes without saying. i think we're done here.
religious faith is belief without objective evidence or logical justification, and often held despite evidence to the contrary. often it is belief held for the sake of diminishing personal insecurity.
a proposition is held as logical if it's reasoning is in accordance with the principles of logic. superstition is not logical and religious faith is indistinguishable from superstition, which is defined as:
irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
any blindly accepted belief or notion.
a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, or a false conception of causation.
Faith is inherently illogical. But this debate is not about faith, it's about 'logical arguments for a God'
Christian children starve to death by the thousands daily and not just in third world countries.
Likely rebuttal: 'God allows them to starve because he wants us to feed them,'.
Does he want us to cure cancer, birth defects, aids, and every genetic anomaly and deficiency known to man?
'God' doesn't 'bring anyone through' progeria. You're born with it, you age at a high rate of speed and you die of old age in your teens. You can make all the excuses you want, they just don't hold water.
I know you'd rather exist in an eclectic fantasy of a reality, but we just don't. God or no God.
This truth cannot be smeared away with allegorical mythology.
This truth is the reality of human existence.
you must know that any believer in Jehovah already knows that he kills innocents by the millions. they accept that he drowns planets laden with millions upon millions of infants. they must accept that he will burn 99% of the ppl ever to walk the earth no matter what their faith or lack thereof. they know their god is evil and they have wholeheartedly accepted clergy and doctrine's ridiculous excuses for divine extortion and divine genocide.
to expect them to stand up for humanity and stand for what's right at the imaginary risk of losing their nonexistent souls is to expect a leopard to change his stripes. they will down-vote ppl all day without ever providing a challenging or compelling argument. because they have convinced themselves that the lack of blind belief in a person is the work and will of Satan. they take the reality of the world, morality, and human existence, and reshape it into an eclectic fantasy where they are the centers of the universe. a universe that is eternally concerned with them.
You know, if i offended you earlier, i really didn't mean to. i don't expect to be taken seriously by ppl online. if you're gonna have debates and discussions online, you will probably need thicker skin. But i apologize if I offended or upset you. It truly is nothing personal.
i don't mind being called arrogant. if you have an actual rebuttal, bring it.
unless you still don't see why your argument is silly and fallacious. i guess you have the attitude that you can never be wrong, so you wont even begin to consider the possibility that you are.
you argument is ridiculously fallacious in that your reasoning is circular and you commit the fallacy of equivocation. existence and creation are two different things. thunder is no more proof of thor, than the universe is proof of vishnu or jehovah. at this point you obviously fail to understand why the existence of the universe is not proof that it was created with teleologic intent, but your intellectual shortcomings provide no shelter. youre just plain wrong.
Your argument could only be described as laughable. its a perfect circle. i asked is anyone could make a logically consistent argument for a god and not one theist has managed to do so. only one out of 200 million american theists even bothered to try and he submitted a fallacious and logically laughable argument appealing to 'feelings'. and you, you appeal to 'esoteric knowledge of an unknown origin'. theistic arguments like this make atheists look like geniuses.