#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Atheism of the gaps is a logical fallacy
Atheism of the gaps
Side Score: 121
|
 |
Nope
Side Score: 89
|
|
1
point
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore— While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door— (Bronto laughs with morbid glee, spreads his wings and flaps his little raven ass out the window) Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
Wrong. Watch any speeches or demonstrations on paleontology and tell me how many times they use the word "assume". We "assume" that the flippers were there. Rodhocetus interview-Phil Gingrich, atheist paleantologists. I've watched the whole thing. That's atheism of the gaps. That creature "must have had flippers". No. He assumed it had flippers, according to himself. That is an example of a dogma filling in gaps to meet a certain presupposed proposition. It's the same as a theist seeing DNA and saying "well we can assume God designed DNA." No. They made the evidence meet a presupposed proposition. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
Exactly. You don't want god of the gaps arguments. Don't use Atheism of the gaps. Example? I've never heard God speak audibly to me. Insert? Atheism. I've never seen an angel. Insert? Atheism. Phil Gingrich says that hooved hyenas became 80,000 pound whales. Insert? Atheism. See how that works? It's like magic. Side: Nope
0
points
0
points
My believing in god has nothing to do with the above argument. It's a little closer to this: https://m.facebook.com/ Side: Nope
1
point
Atheism of the gaps is a logical fallacy just like its twin brother, the "God of the gaps" accusation. It looks designed... so? Atheism. DNA seems to have a signature of a designer....so? Atheism. James Gates' findings shows adinkas that show... a designer... so? Atheism... Insert Atheism into the gap, and twala! It's like magic. You need no logic, evidence, or any substantiated argument... Side: Atheism of the gaps
|
That's the only thing that makes sense. For instance: You have not shown proof of leprechauns, therefore ... A) I don't believe in leprechauns B) I believe in leprechauns You have not shown proof of the Easter Bunny, therefore ... A) I don't believe in the Easter Bunny B) I believe in the Easter Bunny Option A (the option you call a fallacy) is the only option that makes sense. Side: Nope
1
point
1)You have shown no proof of "Variable A" that created everything from its nothingness. 2)Nothing cannot produce something, so tell us how that happened. 3)Your fairytale is bigger than ours. Own it. Your religion defies science, logic, and common sense. 4)wlWe'd be idiots to believe without proof. (Your philosophy) 5)So show us why you are right. Of course you can't and never do because you are a dogmatic zealot who needs no proof and never provides any. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
My argument was so logically sound you had to start a completely different argument. Why can't you address my actual argument? It's because you don't actually possess an independent thought in your empty head. Cue the ad hominem claims and you sell not addressing the argument. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
I'm still here. YOU said it was over. YOU did not rebuttle. YOU are an atheist religious hack that cannot be persuaded by any amount of evidence. And? Name calling doesn't help your argument. It only makes you appear rattled and with no argument. Anything else? Side: Atheism of the gaps
I'm still here But you haven't addressed the first argument. YOU said it was over. YOU did not rebuttle. But you haven't addressed the first argument. YOU are an atheist religious hack that cannot be persuaded by any amount of evidence. But you haven't addressed the first argument. Name calling doesn't help your argument. Not addressing the first argument doesn't help your argument. It only makes you appear rattled and with no argument. Your vision has been proven to be flawed. It doesn't matter what anything appears like to you. Anything else? Yeah, the first argument. Side: Nope
0
points
I did address all of your arguments and? You made the claim that I didn't even make an argument. Now you are claiming you addressed it. Make up your mind. You didn't address what I wrote. You've never addressed most of mine. Apart from that sentence being dumb it is false. See how that works? Ok, so you don't address arguments because you think your argument wasn't addressed. Got it. I know it's hard for Atheists to believe, but you are held to your own standards of logic. You always have to make it about someone else don't you. I am holding you to the same standards and you are falling. Side: Nope
1
point
Hadn't been cleared up yet as of now because the Progressive media in Moonbeam Land are scrambling to avoid the truth of the shooter. But in NewTown it was a white man so why is it Hummingbird the news media in MoonBeam Land aren't reporting who the shooter is ! Side: Atheism of the gaps
1)You have shown no proof of "Variable A" that created everything from its nothingness. You have no proof that a god created everything from its nothingness. The only thing you ever try to do is disprove what we do know (which you never do), but even if you did disprove it, it still doesn't get you any closer to proving your god. Side: Nope
1
point
You really don't understand what the "God of the gaps" argument really is, do you? What we know is based on empirical evidence that we can observe, test and measure. Is it subject to change? Absolutely. Your stance that it's all from God is based on a book of questionable authenticity and cannot change. If we find something we don't know the answer to, your position is that it must be God. Our position is simply that we do not know. What caused the big bang? We don't know. In no way does that conform to a "...of the gaps" argument, however your claim that it was God does indeed conform to being God of the gaps. Side: Nope
1
point
Sure I do. And when you have a "gap in knowledge" and you plant atheism into that gap? It is the exact same principle manifesting only from your clan. Own it. Example? The world appears to be designed... so... Atheism. DNA appears to be designed... so... Atheism. The Adinkas used to describe the universe appear to be designed... so... Atheism. See how that crap works? Yeah, it goes both ways. I know it's hard for atheists to grasp, but you are held to your own standards of logic. Side: Atheism of the gaps
Atheism isn't even a "thing" that can be "planted" into a gap of knowledge. The world appears to be designed We don't agree the world appears to be designed DNA appears to be designed We don't agree DNA appears to be designed Either way, appearance doesn't establish truth. Conspiracy theorists claim 9/11 appears to have been an act of the US government. They claim it appears we never landed on the moon. It appeared OJ killed his wife. It's the null hypothesis; I do not accept a claim to be true until it has been demonstrated to be so. Your claim that a God exists has not met it's burden of proof to show that it even exists, much less is capable of creating a universe. Side: Nope
Okay then but you accept Darwinism which is not demonstrated to be true. It has been demonstrated to be true, you simply can't accept it. So what do you accept to be true Progressive ? I accept you calling me a progressive as a compliment. Thank you I also accept your involvement in this debate is for nothing more than comic relief. Again, thank you. Side: Nope
1
point
Atheism is an abstract concept just like God, neither fully provable, and accepted on some level of faith. So yes, an idea can, and is planted by Atheists into gaps all of the time. Example? DNA looks to be created and designed! Your answer. No. Atheism. See how that works? It doesn't matter that it looks designed. Why? Atheism. Side: Atheism of the gaps
Atheism is an abstract concept just like God, neither fully provable You really don't understand atheism. There is nothing to prove! DNA looks to be created and designed! Your answer. No. Atheism. You can spin it however you like. It doesn't change the fact you assume the answer is god but can't demonstrate it to actually be true. See how that works? It doesn't matter that it looks designed. Why? Atheism. Yep, I see how it works. You don't understand simple concepts and try to spin it the way you like it, despite not making any logical or grammatical sense. You've proven yourself an idiot. Congratulations. Side: Nope
Atheism is the nonbelief in God. Personally, I believe there is no God, because I have no reason to believe in one. Nothing about my existence demands a God. Nothing would be better explained by a God. Nothing that I know or believe or feel, REQUIRES a God. I look at scientific fact, I see the rain fall from the sky and I know that gravity and precipitation of water molecules and the rotation and temperature of the Earth and the machinations of the water cycle are the causes. What part of that requires a God? I look up at the stars and know that light travels at such a speed that many of those stars have already undergone supernovae, relative to their own space and time. What part of that requires a God? I look at DNA and see the natural result of biochemical interaction, which produces complex results by its nature. DNA does not "look to be created or designed" to me any more than water does, which is to say, not at all. The only way you could think that it seems to be designed, is if you demand the concept of a designer in the first place. And if you honestly believe that anything that exists has to have been "designed" or else it wouldn't exist, then you have already lost the battle, the war, game set and match. You've postulated your conclusion and everything in between is inconsequential. In reality, matter and energy exist, and they exist in the manner in which they exist. That's all we know concerning the nature of reality. We know that it is. I personally don't feel the need to question whether it is because of some fanciful notion. I prefer simply to accept that it is. To look up at the raindrops and ask "what made this?" is to ask entirely the wrong question. The rain exists, and exists because of the material factors antecedent to its existence. Side: Nope
1
point
Then you must have missed my pages. I'll give you a hint... In the Bible, the end comes just as the gospel goes to every nation, then their is a falling away from the faith, and at that same time, it all ends in Syria and by Syria as Syria is turned into the threshold of hell... Good guessing? In your dreams. No one could guess everything on my sites. https://www.facebook.com/ https://www.facebook.com/ Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
You don't see any such thing when you look at DNA. Neither do actual Atheist biologists. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
Atheist biologists seem to agree. Richard Dawkins himself said "it just appears to be designed". Um.... I guess he's right... And in an interview with Ben Stein he said "there may be a signature of a designer in DNA, but that designer must have come from some sort of Darwinian means." Ummmm.. Not if the designer is from outside of our reality like a programmer is not in Sim City. The point? 1) He admits it "appears to be designed". 2)He admits there may be a signature of a designer in DNA. (But then assumes what that designer is like or how it came to be. "Atheism of gaps". We don't know what the designer is like, so it must be an alien entity.) Side: Atheism of the gaps
I've seen the interview and in no part of it does he suggest that it appears to have been designed. Ben asks him what if intelligent design turned out to be the answer to which Dawkins offered up the idea of some other intelligent life form that had come from some type of Darwinian means seeded life on this planet; but to reiterate, Dawkins did not suggest that it does appear to be designed. Side: Nope
1
point
Yep. That's what they said when I was a kid. Now their "imperical evidence" has been "proven false/obsolete". Kind of like that Antartica sized hole in the ozone that seems to have disappeared or...was made up. "Science" seems to work like that. It depends on who is in control of the education systems, the media, and the government. Science morphs to fit whichever dogma has more political power at the time. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
Ill counter argue for cartman: Your counterargument defines atheism as something that it isnt. Atheism makes no claims about "creating everything from nothingness". Atheism only means "lacking belief in a god". So your counterargument isnt really a counterargument because youre not addressing what he actually said. He was demonstrating what atheism means and what implications it has for what youre arguing here. The last part of your "counterargument" flips the burden of proof on its head when we werent even having the debate of atheism vs theism. We were having the debate does atheism make an atheism of the gaps argument in the way you outlined. But to address the unrelated argument you made, youre the one claiming that god exists as a fact. The burden of proof lies on you to prove that. All were saying is "we dont believe you". And we dont need evidence to not believe you. that isnt how argumentation works. You argument is of couse predicated on the false premise that atheism makes the positive claim that "there is no god" when it doesnt do that. I havent made that claim and neither is cartman. if we WERE to make that claim then we would also have the burden of proof to prove it. But i concede right up front with no ambiguity, a god COULD possibly exist. i grant that upfront. All im saying is that i do not believe there is one. i am of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to prove him and thus i do not believe. When you take us by our actual words the premise of this debate falls apart because its predicated on atheism making that positive claim that it doesnt make. Thats why your counterargument was a dodge and why cartman said you didnt address it....because you didnt. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
Nope. I have never made any claim that "god is a fact". You are welcome to copy and paste and post where I made any such claim. Thus I am proposing a theory, a point of view, a belief. By your assessment you are claiming that "God doesn't exist" as a fact. Just because not "all atheists propose nothing created reality", many do. I even have done debates against atheists making that very claim, even redefining "nothing" as a hybrid "nothing" of which I had to pull the definition of "nothing" from the dictionary followed with the link to the definition. And if you personally do not propose that "nothing did it", then seeing this is a debate forum, you are obligated to provide us a concept outside of God, as to how it happened, otherwise theism gets points simply for putting forth an effort to explain who, what or how. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
1
point
I can say the sky is pink, argue that it is, and attempt to prove it is. That doesn't mean I believe it is, nor does it mean that I claimed it was a fact. It only means that I argued that side of the issue. Now show us where I said "God is a fact" and quit stalling. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore— While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door— (Bronto laughs with morbid glee, spreads his wings and flaps his little raven ass out the window) Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
Nope. I have never made any claim that "god is a fact". You are welcome to copy and paste and post where I made any such claim. Thus I am proposing a theory, a point of view, a belief. By your assessment you are claiming that "God doesn't exist" as a fact. First off youre full of shit. Youve posted several articles saying "X is proof of god". So youre saying god is proven and youve argued that at nausaem. Dont hide behind your "oh its just a theory, its just a belief" bullshit becuase i see exactly what youre doing. Youre just doing that to take the burden of proof off of yourself. I never claimed god doesnt exist as a fact. Ive merely rejected your proposal that he does exist. The burden of proof never lies on me unless i make that claim. Which i never would because god is unfalsifiable. Just because not "all atheists propose nothing created reality", many do. Sure. But that doesnt mean that belief is a product of atheism. You keep trying to say that "atheism says X, Y, Z". But it doesnt. Sure there are alot of beliefs that coincide with atheism. But they are not products of atheism. Atheism does not say we evolved from lower species. Atheism does not say the big bang created the universe. Atheism only says that a person lacks a belief in god. Other than that you cannot know anything about a persons beliefs just because they say their an atheist. You can guess that they probably believe in evolution and they probably believe in the big bang. Because atheism and acceptance of science do correlate often. But your premise that atheism is the thing that says all of these things is just false. I even have done debates against atheists making that very claim, even redefining "nothing" as a hybrid "nothing" of which I had to pull the definition of "nothing" from the dictionary followed with the link to the definition. Hard to believe you debated anyone without coping out and posting a link to your facebook page. But i digress. Again, just because an atheist argues something doesn mean its atheism that dictates that belief. And it sounds to me like this person you debated was trying to explain to you that before there was any matter or energy "nothing" takes on a different meaning than what we typically mean. When you get down to a quantum level and you start dealing with gravity and dark matter and all these complex things our standard definition of the word "nothing" takes on a different meaning. When you look at electrons and the emitting of photons they do appear to come out of nothing. They pop into existence from nothing. So its not even like this person was necessarily wrong, you just didnt understand what theyre saying. And i dont understand why something coming from nothing is such an outlandish theory to you because you literally believe a god poofed something out of nothing. And that that god somehow came out of nothing. And if you personally do not propose that "nothing did it", then seeing this is a debate forum, you are obligated to provide us a concept outside of God, as to how it happened, otherwise theism gets points simply for putting forth an effort to explain who, what or how. No i dont. My answer is: i dont know. But that does not mean that your god hypothesis is automatically correct by default. And what "effort" have you put in? Youre reading the ideas of ancient desert people who wrote it down in a book. All youre doing is just accepting what they wrote as fact. That doesnt take any effort and in fact its incredibly lazy from what i can see. It doesnt get any points at all. Or if it does lets say you just got a point just for proposing it. okay heres my proposal: a magical teapot existed before space and time and poured hot gases and nebulae from its spout and thus the first stars were born and thats how the universe began. There i just got a point for that so were tied and back to square one. Just because you can conceive of a possible idea doesnt mean its worth shit. Unless you provide evidence and show how that possibility is LIKELY then you get nothing. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
No it isnt because i dont have to know for sure to call out a bullshit explanation when i see it. I dont know and YOU dont know either. Nobody knows. Its like if someone asked "what exists behind neptune?" I dont know. How could i possibly know? How could anyone possibly know? So when someone comes up and says "i know for sure that X exists behind neptune" i call bullshit. Because no they absolutely DONT know. Theyre CLAIMING they know. So im gonna evaluate that claim. What evidence do they have? If there is no evidence then i call bullshit even harder. If they do have evidence then we evaluate the evidence and see if it holds up. And so far after talking back and forth with you for weeks i have seen NO evidence whatsoever. Just a bunch of god of the gaps arguments and no positive evidence. Claiming to know is not the same as actually knowing. And claims do not have to be respected. Side: Nope
1
point
We do have evidence. And... the atheists refuse to look at my site. That says it all. They don't actually want the evidence. https://www.facebook.com/ Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
You're site has nothing but memes and bible quotes. It's cluttered nonsense. If you have an argument present it to me ON THE DEBATE SITE. The real answer is you don't have evidence and you know you don't. Or you think bible quotes and memes are evidence when they're not Side: Nope
1
point
-----"And i dont understand why something coming from nothing is such an outlandish theory to you because you literally believe a god poofed something out of nothing. And that that god somehow came out of nothing."----- Because from a natural perspective your theory is impossible and illogical. You are forgetting our answer isn't "natural". It is supernatural. We need an answer from beyond our reality to satisfy the infinite regress of causes. Otherwise we never satisfy it per naturalism. And atheism is mathematically impossible in an infinite set. Your assertion is illogical because God created time. To Him, it doesn't even exist. It's a creation. (And we can naturally back this point per the space time continuim.) Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
Because from a natural perspective your theory is impossible and illogical. Youre right. But when we go back to the big band and start talking about quantum physics the natural perspective breaks down entirely. Our understanding of physics and natural laws goes out the window. Things coming out of nothing becomes within the realm of possbility with quantum physics. So using the natural perspective is not an arugment against these things. But ive said many times that untimately we dont know what happened. And thats ok. Id rather admit i dont know then make up some bullshit to fill in the gap. You are forgetting our answer isn't "natural". It is supernatural. We need an answer from beyond our reality to satisfy the infinite regress of causes. No we dont. We dont "need" an answer. Not knowing is okay. What isnt okay is making up bullshit to fill in what we dont know. We have zero evidence to believe the supernatural exists. So why on earth would be posit that as an explanation? Otherwise we never satisfy it per naturalism. And atheism is mathematically impossible in an infinite set. Lacking belief in god is impossible? yes it is? Maybe if you defined atheism properly for once your sentences would make sense. So we need supernatural nonsense to satisfy naturalism. That is literally the exact opposite of true. Your assertion is illogical because God created time. And THAT sound logical to you? Do you have ANY evidence he created time? Any evidence he exists? Nope. You just shove him in the gap and use his infinite powers to explain away any and all questions that could be asked. Its so intellectually lazy and desperate. Youre so afraid of not knowing things. To Him, it doesn't even exist. It's a creation. (And we can naturally back this point per the space time continuim.) Youre right. We can look back to the moment of the big bang. And we cant see anything else before that. So why do you assert that you CAN see before it and know it was a god despite positing ZERO evidence that he exists? You cant say its a creation until you prove a creator and you havet even attempted to do that. Side: Nope
1
point
-----"That doesnt take any effort and in fact its incredibly lazy from what i can see."----- 1)I don't think so. Theism is much harder when you are young or middle aged. Atheism is the easy way. Trust me. I've tried both. But when you are say, 65+, atheism is much harder.... 2)Atheism is the laziest position there is. It can't even believe a god is possible. (This coming from brains that propose that higher intelligenced aliens seeded the Earth and that our "creator" is a human at a computer: Simulation theory) Then it doesn't even know why it thinks that way. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1)I don't think so. Theism is much harder when you are young or middle aged. exactly. When youre an adult your brains bullshit detector starts blaring when anyone says religious nonsense. The fact that you did the mental gymnastics to overcome that is not something to be proud of. Atheism is the easy way. Trust me. I've tried both. But when you are say, 65+, atheism is much harder.... Its not "easy" so much as its the painfully obvious stance to have. "tried both" the fuck these arent ice cream flavors. You dont just "try" them. You either believe there is a god or you dont. There is no "trying" to believe in god or not. 2)Atheism is the laziest position there is. It can't even believe a god is possible. Bullshit. Atheism does not say that. All it says is that a person doesnt believe a god exists. Thats all it says. That definition does not leave out the possibility of a god. I will tell you upfront a god could possibly exist. Its possible. But its only possible because it cant be disproven. So while it is possible id say its a very very very small possibility. But it is possible and many, in fact most atheists will readily admit this. (This coming from brains that propose that higher intelligenced aliens seeded the Earth and that our "creator" is a human at a computer: Simulation theory) Not all atheists believe in abiogenesis. You do this all the time. You just lump in atheism with a bunch of other things that do not link to atheism. Transpermia is ONE hypothesis of abiogenesis and it doesnt have that much evidence for it. Very few people say that is literally what happened. Theres just not enough evidence for it. For the 3rd time, nobody believes in simulation theory. It has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism does not say we live in a simulation. and no atheists believe that we are living in one. Simulation theory is brought up as a HYPOTHETICAL. its a rhetorical device used in argumentation. Its used to demonstrate how unfalsifiable things are absurd. Because lets say HYPOTHETICALLY that we live in a simulation. Could we be able to prove we werent? No probably not. we have no way of knowing. So just because i cant disprove that were in a simulation does that mean we are in one? NO. Its the same with god. Can i disprove god? No. but does that mean he exists by default? No. Its a hypothetical device for proving a point NOT a legitimate theory. Nobody believes it literally. Stop asserting that people do. And you say that its absurd that a planet or asteroid (which we know there are endless billions of) that had life on it (the odds of us being the only life in the universe is like 54643654764765756643354235425 to 1) couldve crashed into ours at some point and left the life here in the impact? That idea is absurd to you, yet you believe in a cosmic intelligence beyond space and time that poofed the universe into existence because he felt like it then made a bunch of animals and people on some random planet because he felt like it. THAT is what is truly ridiculous if you ask me. Side: Nope
1
point
"Atheism is true" makes no sense. That isnt a coherent statement. "The lack of belief in god is true". Lacking belief in god isnt a claim. You could say "if god doesnt exist or cant be proven to exist then atheism is the only logical position to hold" then that would make sense and i would argue yeah thats true. But if someone were to say "if god cant be proven to exist then therefore there is no god" then that just isnt true. That is not a true statement. As an analogy to demonstrate this take atoms for example. At one point we couldnt prove atoms exist. But it would be fallacious to conclude that "because we cant prove atoms exist that they therefore do not exist." Yes this is largely semantics but when youre making these kinds of argument the meanings of words are very important and phrasing is very important. If youre gonna make truth statements then you have to be saying precisely what you mean. Side: Nope
1
point
If Atheism was simply a "lack of belief", atheists wouldn't be militant towards belief, and atheists wouldn't practice Witchcraft, Wiccanism, and Satanism at a high rate. It's all a fake shield to avoid answering questions in order to only have to play offense while ignoring defense. Agnostic is a lack of belief. Atheism is dogmatic. Atheism screwed you when it built mega churches, began having sermons, started passing out pamphlets, started taking tithes, and started looking for "converts". Once your clan went for the conversions, you were forced to protect your castle. Enjoy. Side: Atheism of the gaps
2
points
If Atheism was simply a "lack of belief", atheists wouldn't be militant towards belief, and atheists wouldn't practice Witchcraft, Wiccanism, and Satanism at a high rate. The level of militance an atheist has is not tied to the definition of atheism. All atheists lack belief in god. BUT some choose independently to be more militant and others dont really care. Atheists dont practice witchcraft and wiccanism. Those would be beliefs in the supernatural and in gods. Therefore they cannot be atheists as per the definition. As for satanism unless its theistic satanism its probably laveyan satanism which is just a philosophy. The founder of it says explicitly that they dont think satan is real they just use him as a symbol. So believing a philosophy is not inconsistent with lacking a belief in god. It's all a fake shield to avoid answering questions in order to only have to play offense while ignoring defense. Agnostic is a lack of belief. Atheism is dogmatic. Atheism screwed you when it built mega churches, began having sermons, started passing out pamphlets, started taking tithes, and started looking for "converts". Once your clan went for the conversions, you were forced to protect your castle. Enjoy It's all a fake shield to avoid answering questions in order to only have to play offense while ignoring defense. Its not fake at all. Until someone makes a claim the burden of proof doesnt fall on them. Atheism in and of itself does not make ANY claims. None whatsoever. Now individual atheists CAN and DO make claims. And when they do then the burden of proof falls on them to demonstrate it. I am very careful NOT to do this or at least to not make claims that i cannot back up because i know the burden of proof falls on me to prove what i posit. That is why i will never claim that "there is no god". Because god is unfalsifiable by nature and thus impossible to disprove. Agnostic is a lack of belief. Atheism is dogmatic. Wrong. Agnostic refers to knowledge atheism refers to belief. Agnosticism means "i dont know if there is a god or not". Atheism says "i dont believe in a god". I am an agnostic atheist. My literally stance is "i dont know if god exists or not BUT i dont believe he does". They are not inconsistent and neither make any claims at all. In fact most atheists are agnostic atheists. Atheism screwed you when it built mega churches, began having sermons, started passing out pamphlets, started taking tithes, and started looking for "converts". AtheISM didnt do that. AtheISTS did. People made the conscious choices to congregate in that matter and if you ask me atheist churches are fucking stupid. But the reason they exist in large is because many atheists come out of religions where theyre used to congregating with friends and community. When they become atheists they lose that feeling of community with like minded believers. So these churches sprang up to fit that demand. Atheists just wanted to meet together in the same way they used to when they were religious. As for converts, yeah i would love if religion died out entirely. When you become an atheist usually youre pretty angry because you were duped by society, friends, parents, etc into believing a total lie. And you begin to see all the negative effects religion has on people and society. So im not even opposed to converting people. I actively try to argue against religious bullshit so people might do some introspection and begin to examine their faith critically. Am i going to go into a church to cause trouble? No. I leave people alone. but if someone comes to me making a religious claim im not just going to ignore it im going to argue against it. And again, this is not a product of atheism but the conscious decisions of atheists. And its funny how you say things like "dogma" and "passing out pamphlets" and "having sermons" ect. As if those are bad things. Meanwhile youre part of a faith who fucking invented those things and uses them on a FAR larger scale than anything atheists could ever do. If those are so bad then why are you part of that system? Once your clan went for the conversions, you were forced to protect your castle. Enjoy. Doesnt anyone who beleives anything try to get disbelievers to come to their side? You act like people converting eachother is some profoundly bad or new thing. People do it all the time with every belief. So i really see no problem with it at all Side: Nope
1
point
------Once your clan went for the conversions, you were forced to protect your castle. Enjoy. Doesnt anyone who beleives anything try to get disbelievers to come to their side? You act like people converting eachother is some profoundly bad or new thing. People do it all the time with every belief. So i really see no problem with it at all----- There is no problem with it. Just admit it looks, smells, tastes, feels, etc etc like a religious dogma. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
Atheism is the polar opposite of religion so no it isnt. It has no doctrine to be dogmatic too. Atheists make arguments to get people to come to their own conclusion that they don't believe in god. It doesn't dictate anything. What would the dogma even be? Thou shalt lack belief in god? That doesn't even make sense. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Youre right they do. Individual people make claims. AtheISM makes ZERO claims. If an atheist claims there is no god they are idiots. Because they cant back that up. As such most every atheist is an agnostic atheist. They make no knowledge claims like that. And again, it is literally the polar opposite of a religion. If every atheist believed there was no god then how the fuck is that a religion? Religion presupposes a belief in god or supernatural doctrine. Without those things it literally cant be a religion. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Do you have ANY numbers to back up this bullshit claim? Sure some atheists might become laveyan satanists to be edgy and get back at their christian parents. But its not because they actually believe in satan. Theyre still atheists. And wiccanism has literally nothing to do with christianity. Its a completely independent religion Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
-----Atheists dont practice witchcraft and wiccanism. Those would be beliefs in the supernatural and in gods.----- 1)Atheism is a lack of belief in god/gods. Satan isn't a god. Witchcraft mentions nothing about any god. 2)There are websites made by people who literally call it Atheist Witchcraft and Atheist Satanism, and refer to themselves as "Atheists". Google it. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1) okay so when you define Satan and witchcraft in those ways then I see no inconsistency. But these types of people make up like 2% of atheists yet you argue like these people are prevalent. I have yet to even meet one 2) I'm sure there are. But that's their decision to make. It has nothing to do with the majority of atheists who just lack belief in God and that's it. If you ask most atheists myself included these people who do witchcraft are nutcases. Also just because someone calls themselves something doesn't mean they are that thing. If someone actually believes in magic and Satan then they can call themselves an atheist all they want but they're not Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
They dont believe in him. Its the same thing as hating the joker in batman. Hes an evil character. But you can dislike him while also not believing he exists. Because i know exactly what youre trying to do. If athiests hate god then you jump to the claim that they disbelieve in god just because they hate him. Then you claim that they actually all believe in god but just deny him because they hate him. Which is a bullshit claim. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
-----Hes an evil character.---- 1)Chapter and verse needed, which you never provide because you are simply quoting the party line. 2)Evil doesn't exist with Atheism. We are simply doing whatever our biological tendencies tell us to do. 3)Conservative and Liberal atheists cannot even agree on what is good and bad. I debated a conservative atheist who literally told me, "We need to take all the Muslims, who are a cancer, and kill every last one of them because it is 'common sense'". So is he "evil"? Or is he like a doctor who uses extremem measures to eradicate cancer from the body? Many Atheists want to "eradicate Christianity from the West". Are they evil and why or why not and based on what objective code? Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1. He floods the entire planet killing everyone on it. 2. Wrong. Morality exists even if youre an atheist. We just dont pretend it comes from some magic man in the sky 3. Sure peoples morality differs. But to a large extent theyre the same. Youre not going to have two people disagree on whether murder is bad. Yes that conservative atheist is evil. Thats an immoral position to hold. Most everyone else would agree. Its not common sense Atheists may or may not want religion gone. I personally think religion is inherently bad and should be gone. No that doesnt mean kill believers it means argue with them and convince them theyre incorrect. I dont think its evil at all. And it isnt based on any objective code. Its based on our own individual subjective morality. Objective morality doesnt exist. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
----Wrong. Morality exists even if youre an atheist. We just dont pretend it comes from some magic man in the sky---- 1)Animals have no sense of objective morality. With atheism, you are just an animal with survival instincts. 2)Do you mean Stalin's morality or the morality according to Prophet Muhammed? Or are you taking the morality of Jesus Christ because you grew up in a country developed from his teachings, as you were "indoctrinated" to do by a Christianized culture? Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
-----Yes that conservative atheist is evil. Thats an immoral position to hold. Most everyone else would agree. Its not common sense----- Well, there are 2 billion Muslims who say Muhammed is infallable, and he commanded them to slaughter every last one of us, behead us, and drown us in the Quran. And? If you'd been born in Pakistan...you would probably agree... Are you now openly saying that Islam and its adherants are "evil" based on your Christianized cultural indoctrination? Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
----Sure peoples morality differs. But to a large extent theyre the same. Youre not going to have two people disagree on whether murder is bad.---- Sure I can. Every Islamist who has shouted Alahu akbar before slaughtering a bunch of people, disagrees with you, and ISIS recruited 50,000 people in a matter of weeks, and that's just a conservative estimate and the ones we know about. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
-----Atheists may or may not want religion gone. I personally think religion is inherently bad and should be gone. ----- So if ypu were omnipotent, you'd have the same will as the god you are attacking, only instead of being anti atheist, you'd be anti theist... interesting... Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
-----And it isnt based on any objective code. Its based on our own individual subjective morality. Objective morality doesnt exist.----- Then Stalin, Muhammed, and Hitler's "moral code" are perfectly valid based on "subjective morality", and in a world with no design, no objective purpose, and no objective meaning, that is built on a reality with pitiless indifference. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
Depends on what you mean by "valid". Did they have them? Yes. Were they widely held? No. Are they widely condemned? Yes. There are moral issues that the VAST majority of people agree on. Like murder and rape are wrong. Most everyone agrees with that. And because most everyone agrees with that, thats the way the laws are written. And the majority can exert its will upon the minority who disagree. However many issues arent so black and white. Should we have strict or lax gun control? Thats no so easy an issue. Should we mandate that motorcyclists wear helmets? Not so easy. And peoples moralities on these issues are going to differ greatly. And on many of these issues there is no clear right or wrong. The problem with objective morality is that if it exists then NOBODY is following it. Our moralities differ. Yours differs from mine, differs from my sisters, differs from your 3rd grade english teachers. They all differ in many ways. If there is an objective morality how the hell do we know what it is? And what is making us follow it? Apparently nothing because nobody follows it and everyone seems to have at least one moral disagreement with everyone else. And if there is an objective morality based in your religion its expecially useless because its so obvious and so weak. Its obvious that "thou shalt not kill". Yeah, we get it. Weve known that for hundreds of years. nobody needs to crack open a bible to get that. What does the christian objective morality say about texting while driving? What does it say about taxation? What does it say about preserving the environment? What does it say about factory farming? Our world today is so much more complex than it was in biblical times. We have so many more moral questions that the bible doesnt even touch on. where the hell do i go in the bible to figure out if seatbelts should be mandatory on school busses? Nowhere. You cant prove this objective morality exists. Nobody seems to follow it because we all disagree all the time. And it cant tell you anything about half of the moral issues we grapple with today. And if it can it has no teeth to enforce itself with because you only get punished after you die. Thats useless Objective morality is just ridiculous. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Things dont need objective meaning to have meaning. It has meaning to me because im participating in it and i choose to participate in it. This is where we differ. You seem to think just because something is subjective and not ordained by some objective standard that it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. When that simply isnt true at all. Morality means something to us even if it isnt objective. Life has meaning to us even if that meaning isnt objective. We can have purpose in our lives even if that purpose isnt objective. You havent demonstrated at all why objectivity is necessary. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
-----It has meaning to me because im participating in it and i choose to participate in it.----- The Sun will burn up and the Earth will suffer a heat death per supernova. If that's it, there is no meaning and your life was meaningless. Nobody will remember. Nobody will care. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
It had meaning to me while i was alive. It had meaning to other people who i influenced while they were alive. Even if ultimately in the long run nobody will remember that doesnt negate that at one point these things did have meaning. Meaning doesnt have to persist throughout eternity to be of any value. Side: Nope
1
point
----You seem to think just because something is subjective and not ordained by some objective standard that it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. When that simply isnt true at all.----- In atheism we are simply evloved animals composed of star dust. And once the world ceases to exist, youwon't be able to defend your position because you will be objectively nonexistant, which has no meaning. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
In atheism we are simply evloved animals composed of star dust. And once the world ceases to exist, youwon't be able to defend your position because you will be objectively nonexistant, Why would i ever need to defend my position after i die? I dont even need to defend it now. I dont have to defend it at all if i dont want to. which has no meaning. No OBJECTIVE meaning. But my life will have had meaning to me. It will have meaning for those that remember me. It will have meaning in terms of what i did throughout my life and the other lives i affected. People decide their own meanings. Theyre subjective meanings. But that doesnt mean theyre not real Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Youre the one asserting that it exists. Prove it. I have fully granted that an objective moral standard may exist. But if it does we have no idea what it is, nobody follows it at all, and it has no mechanism by which to enforce itself in our lifetimes. IF it exists, which you havent proven it does, then its useless. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
Notice the word MAY. Granting that you might be right is not the same as granting that you ARE right. And usually what people do in a debate is recognize that the other person may be correct. Because part of a debate is hoping that you convince the other person to adopt your views. But you wont even entertain for a second that i might be right while i fully grant for the sake of argument you may be right. You may be right, but i dont for a second believe that you are right. Side: Nope
1
point
-----But if it does we have no idea what it is, nobody follows it at all, and it has no mechanism by which to enforce itself in our lifetimes. IF it exists, which you havent proven it does, then its useless.----- This is the actual teaching of Jesus Christ. I can't believe the spirit is moving in you. I need a tissue. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
1
point
Sure. Jesus may have been a real historical figure. Historians are still in dispute about that but most seem to conclude there was a real jesus figure. However that does not then prove ANY of the magical supernatural stuff attributed to him. Nor does it even prove half the things hes quoted as saying in the bible were his own words. The bible has been written and re-written and re-written over and over and over countless hundreds of times. Any person throughout history couldve wrote in jesus to say whatever they wanted him to. In fact first books of the bible didnt even start popping up until AFTER his death. Side: Nope
1
point
----If there is an objective morality how the hell do we know what it is? And what is making us follow it? Apparently nothing because nobody follows it and everyone seems to have at least one moral disagreement with everyone else.---- You just preached to me the teachings of Jesus Christ, and it was beautiful, and you just strengthened my faith, for there is no way that you could have emulated him without the spirit. There is hope. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
1
point
YES IT DOES. Youre the one dodging left and right now. So now youve shifted the goal posts. Now were not talking about morality now you change it to "basic morality" so you can absolve yourself of having to answer complex moral questions. But youre not arguing for an objective BASIC moral standard. Youre arguing for an objective moral standard. What good is an objective moral standard if it cant answer anything but the most basic moral questions? As ive stated before the most basic moral questions are the most obvious ones. What the hell do we need an objective moral standard to tell us what is so freaking basic to understand? You could grow up in most any society today and not be exposed to ANY christian beliefs and youd still figure out that killing and raping is wrong. Youre shrinking your objective morality more and more to dodge my questions and in doing so youre only proving my point that objective morality is more and more useless. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
I didnt say objective goal posts i said youre shifting the goal posts of what your objective morality is. First you say its the objective moral standard. Period. Now youre shifting the goal posts saying that its only a BASIC objective morality. I should ask you what the hell that even means. What does a basic morality encompass? Murder? rape? well then what about theft? What about aggrevated assault? Where does the line get drawn between what is basic and not basic morality? Side: Nope
1
point
Calm down. You look like an emotional basketcase. It's all the same general morality. If you are Christianized, and you are, the Bible defines objective morality per the teachingsof Christ. We've already shown that non-Christian cultures don't understand your version, only Christianized cultures do. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
What in my previous response told you im emotional? Im merely pointing out exactly what youre doing. It's all the same general morality. That didnt specify nor answer anything. If you are Christianized, and you are, the Bible defines objective morality per the teachingsof Christ. We've already shown that non-Christian cultures don't understand your version, only Christianized cultures do. How are the teachings of christ objective? Seems to me those are just the subjective personal moral views of christ. Im growing tired of talking in circles of this issue. Here is a video going more in depth into this topic that you may find to have more of a structure. Its a response to essentially the same arguments youre making. Watch it if you want i dont care. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
Those arent the questions i was asking and you know it. The moral question of do you force people to vaccinate kids by law is not equivalent to "how many fingers am i holding up". Stop being totally dishonest and misrepresenting what i said. I know youre only doing it because you have no real answer. Side: Nope
1
point
It doesn't matter if I have an answer. I could sit here mute for 30 years. God's opinions and thoughts will never magically jump into my mind. That's why they are HIS thoughts and opinions. You can hate me. You can hate God. It still will not nullify common sense, nor will it nullify someone's existance. I hate liver, yet? There is still is on the f-ing shelf at the grocery store. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Tell me that if you grew up THIS way you would even know what you were talking about. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
Now quit telling me that it's programmed into people "how to behave or be moral" without Christ's influence. Just stop it. Most of humans in history don't even know what you're talking about. Human beings are naturally wicked. https:// Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
-----What does the christian objective morality say about texting while driving? What does it say about taxation? What does it say about preserving the environment?----- Taxation? "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" and then Jesus paid his tax. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
What if you dont like what Ceasar (the government) is spending them on? What if youre taxed at 100%? Sure taxation isnt a great example because taxes existed in biblical times. But even in your response you quote me asking about texting while driving. And about preserving the environment. What does the bible say about those? What about mandatory vaccination? What about freedom of speech? What about the morality of solitary confinement? The bible answers none of these questions Side: Nope
1
point
-----What if you dont like what Ceasar (the government) is spending them on? What if youre taxed at 100%?----- God placed all Earthly leaders in place, so it doesn't matter. If you can handle it, you'll be yested by it. If you van't you wont, according to? The Bible. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
God placed all Earthly leaders in place, so it doesn't matter. If you can handle it, you'll be yested by it. If you van't you wont, according to? The Bible. So god placed Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in power. Therefore by extension god is responsible for the Holocaust. Your logic not mine. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I listed several. Morality of taxation. Morality of wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. Morality of mandatory vaccination. Morality in outsourcing labour. Nowhere in the bible will you find the answers to these questions. So what good is the bibles moral code these days? What good is this objective morality if it isnt in the least bit dynamic or adaptive to changing times? Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
There arent so many murderers. The VAST majority of people are against murder and will never murder. And even the vast majority of murderers dont believe that their crime was morally good but they did it any way for various reasons. For a good 99% of humanity killing another person is obviously wrong. and you unknowingly just made an argument against objective morality. If objective morality exists then how come 100% of people arent on the same page about murder or other moral issues? If there is an objective moral standard then its useless because nobody can agree on what it is and nobody follows it. We all use our own subjective moralities in our day to day decision making. Thats why we all have different moral views. On some issues all of our moralities line up. Like with murder. On some more obscure issues our moralities differ. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
Okay? My point was that we now have technology and other things that open up a slew of other moral questions that simply didnt exist in biblical times. Thats why a biblically based moral system is kinda useless. Sure it says good things but most of them are totally obvious. Dont kill eachother. Yeah. Duh. I didnt need a book to tell me that. And half of the commandments are about how you treat god which are entirely useless and tell us nothing about how to treat eachother. Biblical morality is useless at worst and obvious at best. Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1) This is just a rephrasing of Pascals Wager. Basically: If im wrong I burn in hell forever, if you're wrong then no harm no foul on your part. Its convincing on its face but its riddled with problems. First off, it applies to all religions. What if you are wrong and the muslims are right? Then you burn forever. What if you are wrong and he hindus are right? then you dont get reincarnated at a higher caste. Secondly it assumes belief is a switch i can flip on and off. I cant just "have faith". im not capable of flipping the faith switch to on. That isnt how our brains work. Your mind has to be convinced that something is true for you to believe it. As an example, try believing in santa clause. Try to flip that switch. You physically cant. Its not possible to convince your brain of something opposite of what you believe on sheer willpower alone. Thirdly it assumes god is an idiot who doesnt see through exactly what youre doing. Surely you dont believe that the qualifications for being a true christian are met if you believe simply out of fear of hell? If you believe in god simply to avoid hell then thats pretty selfish and its apparent you arent really a true faithful christian. And lastly and most simply put, "believe just in case youre wrong" is a terrible reason to believe anything. I believe based on evidence. I believe when im convinced to believe. Im not scared of hell because i dont believe for a second that it exists. 2) punished Yeah? Morality allows us to make personal decisions but we also do not accept when other people break our common societal morality. Thats why we make laws and have an enforcement system. Morality and laws are only worth something if they can be enforced. Some moral views we can enforce ourselves. If i think eating pork is immoral then i dont have to eat pork. But we all believe murder is wrong so if someone commits murder they have to be held accountable. And the law and judicial system is the mechanism by which we do that. With God's objective morality what is the enforcement mechanism? Hell? What good is an enforcement mechanism that only comes into effect after you die? If someone commits rape at 20 years old God wont hold them accountable for 50 or 60 years until they die? How is that justice? That rape victim doesnt get any justice in their lifetime so what use is that moral code? Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
I know all about Satanism. I have an entire site that disects it, of which you refuse to look at. 1)It isn't our jobto weed out the ones mocking and the serious Satanists, who do exist. 2)Once atheists started dabbling with witchcraft, Satanism, etc, and literally created a "Satanic Bible', your clan lost its ability to be taken seriously or deemed as a "neutral party". Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
-----As for converts, yeah i would love if religion died out entirely. When you become an atheist usually youre pretty angry because you were duped by society, friends, parents, etc into believing a total lie. And you begin to see all the negative effects religion has on people and society.----- Society is getting more secular in the U.S. and more wicked, not more good. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
1
point
-----I am an agnostic atheist. My literally stance is "i dont know if god exists or not BUT i dont believe he does". They are not inconsistent and neither make any claims at all. In fact most atheists are agnostic atheists.----- I have a lack of belief that God doesn't exist, thus I am part of no religion.... I'm not militant against unicorns because I actually don't believe they exist. Atheists are militant towards a being they say is imaginary, thus I doubt their lack of belief and account atheism to other factors. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
It's possible to hate something that doesn't exist. But mainly atheists hate the actions and beliefs of those who believe in God. I don't have to believe in God to see that in the bible he's a piece of shit and complete idiot. But God aside, religion causes people to be against gay marriage, restrict abortion rights, kill people, Look down on others. It's inherently divisive. And 70% of the US is christian and 100% of our Congress and executive branch is Christian. Your religion controls everything and makes all the rules and it's all based off mythological nonsense. How would you feel if scientologists were 70% of the country and controlled 100% of the government? That's how we feel. And when you say militant it's really quite comical. Because militant implies violence but atheists are RARELY violent. Militant really means we argue against you and dont buy your bullshit. If scientologists were in charge you would fight against them. So why are you shocked that we fight against you? Side: Nope
1
point
1
point
----If scientologists were in charge you would fight against them. So why are you shocked that we fight against you?----- If you oppose the majority expect to be met with resistance. It's common sense. Walk into China and tell them Buddhism and Communism are bs. No? I didn't think so. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
-----Its not fake at all. Until someone makes a claim the burden of proof doesnt fall on them. Atheism in and of itself does not make ANY claims. None whatsoever.----- It's a copout. Many individual Atheists make claims. I see Atheists quote the Militant Atheist's leadership ver batum all of the time. There aren't a lot of Scientologists, but they are still a religion even if other Scientologists disagree with the majority of Scientologists. Side: Atheism of the gaps
1
point
Sure they do. All individual people make claims. But atheISM makes no claims at all. So when an atheist makes a claim to you they have the burden of proof. But very few atheists will say they know for a fact that god doesn't exist. Because they know they can't prove it. Side: Nope
|
