CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
Irony of atheist
There seems to be more common ground between atheist and religious people then most would admit.
Note added to this debate because I have changed my mind about the majority of atheist. If you are the exception, to bad.
I have concluded this from this debate and it participates, Nothing is there in common between the religious and those that worship "NOTHING". Sanity doesn't exist in atheism
Intelligence doesn't exist among atheism
Belief is fact only in atheism
There is a saying "You are what you eat." Ingest nothing and nothing you become.
Never down vote "The Creator" his powers are greater than yours.
I for one am anti religious, but that doesn't mean to say atheists are anti religious. Also; All humans have things in common, we just don't take the time to find them.
ahh but you see the atheists who are "anti-religion" couldn't be atheist because atheism is a relgion "In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual.[13] However, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as some forms of Buddhism, that do not advocate belief in gods,[14] " from wikipedia on atheism
ahh but you see the atheists who are "anti-religion" couldn't be atheist because atheism is a relgion "In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual.[13] However, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as some forms of Buddhism, that do not advocate belief in gods,[14] " from wikipedia on atheism
No one can capture an entire group with a few words, generalizations are the best we can do. I am aware that an atheist can be not anti-religious, but many atheist fail to acknowledge that all religions are not like the Jehovah Witnesses and so one generalization deserves another.
There is a lot of common ground between Atheists and the Religious even if they don't like to admit it, they are both just types of people looking for answers, for the Atheist proof is needed, for the Religious proof is unnecessary for they have faith. One can not outdo the other per say, it is only in death that the answer will be revealed, if the religious person is right then both will then find the answer, if the Atheist is right, there will be no answer.
As an Atheist that comes from a strict Catholic household I can see both sides of the argument and understand the point of view of the Dogmatic, and I can also see the point of view of the Pragmatic. I can infer from this the similarities that exist.
Take a good look at an atheist, wouldn't they make a good cult leader?
Who tries to convert the most, the atheist or the religious person?
Which takes their belief more serious?
Which is more convinced they are right?
Words that atheist hate the most (belief, faith, religion, worship) are the same words that they value the most. Belief in science. Faith in scientist. Worship everything but God. Claim to be non-religious and practice atheism. Irony at its finest.
In regard to an atheist making a good cult leader. No is only an opinion. Merrian-Webster defines a cult as
"5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad"
What is a following of science if not a cult.
Tries to convert to atheism. Any person that tempts one to break God's rules is not of God. Therefore the prisons must be full of non-believers. What is a atheist?
Which takes their belief more seriously? How many religious people have posted here?
Which is more convinced they are right. What evidence have you seen first hand that God doesn't exist? You believe blindly in the words of others. Not a single shred of evidence have you seen. The Bible has passed the test of time. Modern fiction is your book in comparision.
Belief, faith, religion, and worship; Find an atheist that embraces these words.
Finally, you practice atheism everytime you defend it.
Okay. But this has nothing to do with an atheist making a good cult leader.
Tries to convert to atheism. Any person that tempts one to break God's rules is not of God. Therefore the prisons must be full of non-believers. What is a atheist?
This is irrelevant to the accusation that atheists try to convert people more than people of religion. An atheist is someone who rejects the claim that god, gods, goddesses or any other name for any other deity exist. That's it. Define your god and then show that this god exists. Otherwise, we really have nothing to discuss.
Which takes their belief more seriously? How many religious people have posted here?
Atheism isn't a belief. But I would wager the people who fly planes into buildings for martyrdom or go on Crusades in the holy land, kill witches, or faith heal their children to death take their particular beliefs a bit more seriously than others.
Not a single shred of evidence have you seen.
None. And that's the problem.
The Bible has passed the test of time.
So? So has the Quran. So has the Egyptian Book of the Dead, so has the Bhagavad Gita, so have the Hindu vedas. The fact that something "stands the test of time" doesn't mean it stands the test of truth or accuracy. And it doesn't make it divinely inspired. It just means that it's old.
Belief, faith, religion, and worship; Find an atheist that embraces these words.
The issue isn't about whether atheists "embrace" those words. It's about your allegation that atheists "hate" those words. These words a part of the English language, atheists can't do anything but accept their various uses (which aren't constrained to religious vernacular).
Finally, you practice atheism everytime you defend it.
You move from one absurdity to another.
Define god, show that this god exists and then we can discuss something. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss and the former will be my only reply to you.
"Atheism isn't a belief. But I would wager the people who fly planes into buildings for martyrdom or go on Crusades in the holy land, kill witches, or faith heal their children to death take their particular beliefs a bit more seriously than others."
And to think that never in history has an atheist killed anybody. They must be perfect, perfectly flawed. At least be original this line must be written in the rules of atheism. It is used over and over again.
Mock what you cannot defend. Claim to have the answers and post none.
What evidence would prove to you the existence of God?
Amusingly there can be no proof of god as defined by most people. It's usually such an incoherent concept that no one can test it, and what's worse, even the coherent definitions rely on magic which means nothing in our knowledge toolset would grant us the ability to positively prove god's existence.
This isn't worth a reply, but what the hell. Both parties have to defend their positions, not one or the other. You can't disprove and I can't prove, the burden is yours as well.
Again an Internet site without any documentation, just someones claim that this is true. Check out my web-site it states that anyone with a user name zombee sees a shrink twice a week. It must be so, there is a site that says so.
If you could provide a supporting study by an unbiased institution to go with that assertion, I would be inclined to believe it. But I don't need to worry because you would not find such a thing, as your assertion is false.
It must be very easy for you to debate when you can simply disregard every piece of valid evidence that contradicts anything you say.
Who validated this evidence? Was it member of the scientific cult? Find me someone that is unbiased and I will consider their findings. I already proved that any follower of science is a member of a cult by definition.
As you can see on the web page, the study was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. An institution of the United States government. The FBP has no reason to twist the statistics to make Christians or other people look bad at the benefit of atheists. In fact, if anything, the opposite would be true.
If you were honestly referring to science as a cult by the definition you gave, there is nothing in that definition that is bad. It is true that people who have an interest science often hold the pursuit of knowledge and the shedding of ignorance in high regard. I would hesitate to use the word 'venerate' as science holds nothing as sacred and venerate implies the opposite.
However you clearly intend the claim that science is a cult as an insult or a way to somehow undermine anything that is scientifically proven.
An institution of the United States government, that restores my faith that these records are entirely true; is this the same government that said there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Or it could be that a great portion of the American population professes a religious belief. I know people who claim to be religious, but they act and speak more like radical atheists.
Who tries to convert the most, the atheist or the religious person?
The religious person.
Really? Then why is it that I've only seen a few arguments on CD of a religious person harassing an atheist about their beliefs, but the atheists make fun of and insult and attempt to convince religious peoples of the errors of their ways.
Which is more convinced they are right?
The religious person.
Then why is it that nearly every religious argument about whether or not God exists, the person writes something like "I believe that God exists", and yet the atheist always writes 'God DOES NOT exist"?
Yes. In Christianity, the Christian is literally called to proselytize and convert. But I didn't know that CD was representative of the global population.
Then why is it that nearly every religious argument about whether or not God exists, the person writes something like "I believe that God exists", and yet the atheist always writes 'God DOES NOT exist"?
Atheists don't try to save your immortal, hell-bound soul and or spend their days worrying about the "approaching" Rapture. They don't spend years faith-healing their kids to death. They don't create massive institutions, wasting huge sums of money over imaginary things because they really-really-really believe it.
Yes. In Christianity, the Christian is literally called to proselytize and convert.
I can't really say I've ever known a Christian (other than a pastor) to be 'preachy' when amongst atheists.
But I didn't know that CD was representative of the global population.
A great number of the users of this site are atheists - or at least, they are the ones that get their opinions heard and not down-voted.
Atheists don't try to save your immortal, hell-bound soul and or spend their days worrying about the "approaching" Rapture.
Yet how often have you read people 'preaching' to the users of this site? Very few of them, and they don't stick around very long.
They don't spend years faith-healing their kids to death.
Do you know what 'faith-healing' means? I believe you are mistaking mainstream Christianity with Christian Science.
They don't create massive institutions, wasting huge sums of money over imaginary things because they really-really-really believe it.
And how many Christians do that?
As I have said, the Christians on this site usually write 'I believe God exists' and the atheists write 'God does not exist'. The key word is believe - the Christians are willing to say that they believe it, but the atheists don't write that they believe God does not exist.
I can't really say I've ever known a Christian (other than a pastor) to be 'preachy' when amongst atheists.
The religious aren't just preachy to atheists. They're preachy to everyone at one point or another. The fact that you haven't seen it has no bearing on whether it happens. I've also never seen a corrective rape, but it's apparently rampant in countries around the world.
A great number of the users of this site are atheists - or at least, they are the ones that get their opinions heard and not down-voted.
Again, CreateDebate isn't representative of the outside world. So, you'll have to take note of how much I don't care what happens on CD.
Do you know what 'faith-healing' means?
Yes.
And how many Christians do that?
Unless you're suggesting that Christians aren't building up churches, Megachurches, Vaticans, indoctrination facilities like the one shown in the documentary: Jesus Camp, then I would argue that most are investing in these things one way or another.
As I have said, the Christians on this site usually write 'I believe God exists' and the atheists write 'God does not exist'.
Many Christians that I encounter tell me that they not only know that god exists because of "the trees" or some religious, romantic nonsense like that, but they also have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". That's more than just conviction.
The religious aren't just preachy to atheists. They're preachy to everyone at one point or another. The fact that you haven't seen it has no bearing on whether it happens. I've also never seen a corrective rape, but it's apparently rampant in countries around the world.
Or their 'preachiness' could be a generalization?
Again, CreateDebate isn't representative of the outside world. So, you'll have to take note of how much I don't care what happens on CD.
Then why are you here?
Many Christians that I encounter tell me that they not only know that god exists because of "the trees" or some religious, romantic nonsense like that, but they also have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". That's more than just conviction.
And the atheists say that God does not exist because the world is in too bad of shape, or some other nonsense like that.
No. religious proselytizing is a fairly robust enterprise, especially in countries with high numbers of Protestant Evangelicals.
It is a generalization, seeing as how most Christians that I know are not nearly so vigorous in their attempts to proselytize than most make them out to be, if they even bother at all. Most of them don't, but there are the odd ones that do.
To debate.
Keep up with the times, mahn!
Really? Are you referring to the disconnect between a benevolent and all powerful deity and the existence of evil (i.e. the Problem of Evil?)
Really? Then why is it that I've only seen a few arguments on CD of a religious person harassing an atheist about their beliefs, but the atheists make fun of and insult and attempt to convince religious peoples of the errors of their ways.
That's not right. It's not even wrong.
So tell me, in the last ten thousand years of Human civilisation, what has been at the core of numerous wars, inquisitions, persecutions, laws and their courts, and philosophical sophistry?
God, god worship, and god dogma spreading.
It's such an enormous elephant in the room that you don't even see it, and instead only see the "blip" of atheists and freethinkers who are actively opposing it.
Then why is it that nearly every religious argument about whether or not God exists, the person writes something like "I believe that God exists", and yet the atheist always writes 'God DOES NOT exist"?
Burden of proof. You can tell me that you believe unicorns exist, that big foot exists, etc. and until you establish their existence, since you made the positive claim, I can just say "No."
Now, once we get some actual positive evidence of your claim, the debate actually becomes interesting. But it should be obvious that since only books exist on the subjects, but no published academically reviewed papers exist, that there is no valid evidence at this point.
Burden of proof. You can tell me that you believe unicorns exist, that big foot exists, etc. and until you establish their existence, since you made the positive claim, I can just say "No."
I could say that I believe that aliens exist. I have no more proof of their existence that of the existence of God, but I would not be down-voted. Those arguments are never down-voted; the only ones that are are the ones which are about either religion or conservatism.
But it should be obvious that since only books exist on the subjects, but no published academically reviewed papers exist, that there is no valid evidence at this point.
Everything is about academically reviewed papers with you, isn't it? No academically reviewed paper has stated that I exist - I therefore must be a phantom.
I could say that I believe that aliens exist. I have no more proof of their existence that of the existence of God, but I would not be down-voted. Those arguments are never down-voted; the only ones that are are the ones which are about either religion or conservatism.
Aliens are in the realm of possibility because they are not supernatural, and they fit in with scientific theories. You'd get downvoted however if you said "I believe that aliens visit us and have made alliances with our governments" because you'd need to substantiate these claims.
If a conservative says "Obama is a socialist" he'll be downvoted for making a wrong statement. If a conservative says "Obama has enacted policies with some vaguely socialist tendencies" he might be right, this is an arguable point because of how government has meddled in business affairs during Obama's reign.
The "bias" comes from the fact that most conservatives on this site are ignorant and don't know how to make good arguments, same with the religious users.
Everything is about academically reviewed papers with you, isn't it? No academically reviewed paper has stated that I exist - I therefore must be a phantom.
Humans are ubiquitous creatures, so you typing to me and being able to hold conversation is sufficient evidence that you are human and not a conversation bot.
As for reviewed papers, why should this bother you? The point of academic and scientific review is to expunge errors and shoddy work from our knowledgebase. High standards are employed to keep out anecdotes and forgeries.
Aliens are in the realm of possibility because they are not supernatural, and they fit in with scientific theories. You'd get downvoted however if you said "I believe that aliens visit us and have made alliances with our governments" because you'd need to substantiate these claims.
Yet I should also need to substantiate, as per your 'rules of argument', my claims that aliens exist. There is no empirical evidence, yet many still believe they exist.
It takes just as much faith to believe that aliens exist as it does God - neither, in most opinions, has enough evidence.
The "bias" comes from the fact that most conservatives on this site are ignorant and don't know how to make good arguments, same with the religious users.
Or they don't know how too make arguments which liberals consider to be good, just as how liberals are unable to make political arguments that conservatives consider good. However, the conservatives aren't so condescending as to make fun of the liberals for what they consider to be 'improper views'. (except, that is, for Joe)
Humans are ubiquitous creatures, so you typing to me and being able to hold conversation is sufficient evidence that you are human and not a conversation bot.
The proper term is 'chatterbox'.
The point of academic and scientific review is to expunge errors and shoddy work from our knowledgebase. High standards are employed to keep out anecdotes and forgeries.
And still yet some exist. Piltdown man was a scientific 'fact' for many years. 'Cello scrotum' was thought of as being truth.
Climate scientists all agreed with Michael Mann, even though his findings ended up being proven wrong:
"Humans are ubiquitous creatures, so you typing to me and being able to hold conversation is sufficient evidence that you are human and not a conversation bot."
You call this evidence? I am nothing more than a computer generated response. Fail. Prove that I am not what I claim to be beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Use the word free thinker and then criticize those that do just that. The nice thing about be a Christian is that one doesn't have to make-up lies to defend it.
Take a good look at an atheist, wouldn't they make a good cult leader?
Not particularly. I'm not saying some particularly charismatic and talented atheist couldn't pull it off if they really really tried... but cult leaders are heavily reliant on the blind acceptance of their authority through faith. Doesn't exactly mesh with atheism.
Who tries to convert the most, the atheist or the religious person?
You're kidding right? Ever had an atheist knock on your door on the weekend trying to tell you about the lack of a God and give you their literature? I sure as heck haven't.
Which takes their belief more serious?
Again... are you joking? The religious have a tendency to base their entire life philosophies around their belief in the existence of their diety of choice. Seen any WWJD bumper stickers lately?
Now, seen any atheists making their life decisions by starting with the question... "what would Richard Dawkins do"? Didn't think so.
And we don't have "belief" in science, we have confidence in it based on it's track record. And I don't "worship" anything buddy... (with the possible exception of Jessica Alba).
You're kidding right? Ever had an atheist knock on your door on the weekend trying to tell you about the lack of a God and give you their literature? I sure as heck haven't.
I actually had thought about doing this at least once or twice. Walking around door to door in a uniform, carrying around "On the Origin of Species" or "The God Delusion" and asking to share "The Good News" that god and hell don't exist.
Now, seen any atheists making their life decisions by starting with the question... "what would Richard Dawkins do"? Didn't think so.
That's a good idea actually, "WWDD" (What would Dawkin's Do?). I wonder if it would miff the Christians?
Take a good look at an atheist, wouldn't they make a good cult leader?
Take a look at a religious person who believes whatever the right person tells them, without asking for a shred of supporting evidence and simultaneously ignoring mountains of contradictory evidence. Wouldn't they make a good cult follower?
(Psst...not all atheists are the same.)
Who tries to convert the most, the atheist or the religious person?
Unlike many religions, atheism contains no apparent instruction to try to make sure the world is only filled with atheists, (mostly because atheism contains no instructions of any kind). If an atheist tries to convert anyone, it from ignorance or the influence of religious dogma. If that succeeds and the religious person is led to atheism, fine. If that succeeds and the religious person is led to a different understanding of their beliefs, also fine.
Which takes their belief more serious?
This is impossible to answer because not all atheists are the same and not all religious people are the same.
Which is more convinced they are right?
Holy shit, the religious person pretty much every time. Based on what you obviously think the answer to this question to be, I am forced to ask if you have ever seen an atheist and a religious person debate.
Words that atheist hate the most (belief, faith, religion, worship) are the same words that they value the most. Belief in science. Faith in scientist. Worship everything but God. Claim to be non-religious and practice atheism. Irony at its finest.
1) Believing something is real because it is real is different from believing in something because the Bible said so.
2) Reaching a conclusion based on available evidence, and having a confidence in it proportionate to its likelihood and supporting evidence is not faith. Reaching a conclusion based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and believing it no matter what is faith.
3) Atheism doesn't mean the worship of anything and there is no way to practice atheism because it is not a religion.
I base my belief of God's nonexistence on a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, which I believe to be a valid inference. If there is zero evidence of something existing, it is more likely that it doesn't exist that it does, correct?
But I do recognize that for what it is; an unprovable belief, not a fact. All I ask from religious people is the same intellectual honesty.
But I do recognize that for what it is; an unprovable belief, not a fact. All I ask from religious people is the same intellectual honesty.
Although I have a valid and verbose explanation of why I think your inference is invalid, I now have no necessity to put your belief on trial; for when you admit that your position is “an un-provable belief” you have conceded the conclusion of my argument.
I was not going to prove that your assertion is false, and as a result my assertion is true.
All I merely was going to do is logically demonstrate the invalidity of your conclusion. None of which proves your assertion is false and mine true.
Consider these examples that demonstrate the differences betwixt truth and validity.
Example 1)
All men are males.
No males are females.
Therefore, some men are bald-headed.
All three propositions are true to fact. But the conclusion does not follow the premises; it is therefore invalid, yet it is true nonetheless.
Example 2)
All unicorns are warm-blooded animals.
All warm-blooded animals are mortal.
Therefore all unicorns are mortal.
This is a valid argument. Yet, the truth or falsity of the propositions is only as true or false as the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are found to exist, the argument is both true and valid. But, until it can be proven that unicorns are purely fictional, the argument is not true or false; it is merely valid.
And God, like the subject of ‘Unicorns’, must be proven to be fictional. Until someone can prove that God is fictional or is not fictional, all we can utilize meanwhile is valid argument.
(Our arguments are not capable of being the evidence of God’s existence or non-existence.)
Closing:
I respect the Atheist position as well as the anti-Atheist position. While simultaneously respecting the importance and limits of logic and knowledge.
This is a valid argument. Yet, the truth or falsity of the propositions is only as true or false as the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are found to exist, the argument is both true and valid. But, until it can be proven that unicorns are purely fictional, the argument is not true or false; it is merely valid.
And God, like the subject of ‘Unicorns’, must be proven to be fictional. Until someone can prove that God is fictional or is not fictional, all we can utilize meanwhile is valid argument.
You have it wrong. We can use assumptions and unproven or evidenced premises in logical arguments, but it doesn't change the fact that Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true. God is a positive claim without any proof.
All conclusions are inferences. All valid inferences are derived from supporting evidence.
From what evidence do you infer: "God does not exist."?
Simple really. In all the years of human civilisation (that's over 9000), there hasn't been written, spoken, or found one bit of evidence that can pass scientific or academic scrutiny and yet affirm god's existence. In light of this lack of evidence, the reasonable, sceptical position is "negative."
Working strictly from your assertion, “Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true.”, I present the following.
…,but it doesn't change the fact that Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true. God is a positive claim without any proof.
In all the years of human civilisation (that's over 9000), there hasn't been written, spoken, or found one bit of evidence that can pass scientific or academic scrutiny and yet affirm god's existence. In light of this lack of evidence, the reasonable, sceptical position is "negative."
(You will note that this argument contains your words as posted in this debate. Consequently I will use those words to evidence your burden.)
Exhibit A
“In all the years of human civilisation (that's over 9000), there hasn't been written, spoken, or found one bit of evidence (that can pass scientific or academic scrutiny) and yet affirm god's existence.”
Therefore by reason of your assertion, “Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true.”, I will suppose it is false; for you have not proven that all of those types of evidences that were scrutinized have failed to pass scientific or academic examination. (I can’t assume the assertion is true without supporting evidence.)
(Go ahead and also provide supporting evidence that the scrutiny of scientists and academicians is consistent throughout 9,000+ years of human civilization.)
(Please forego the term “God” is itself a positive affirmation. It is only a subject with disputed attributes. Consequently that is why your assertion that “God does not exist” is comprehensible.)
I will suppose it is false; for you have not proven that all of those types of evidences that were scrutinized have failed to pass scientific or academic examination. (I can’t assume the assertion is true without supporting evidence.)
It's a matter of the functional nature of the peer review and literature review process. Revolutionary ideas that contradict previously established or supported research are initially met with resistance then embraced as more research is conducted. For thousands of years philosophers and religious thinkers have tried to prove god, and had no success except to show how strained one's thinking can become when attempting to prove such a thing. When we started to move away from god as an explanation or part of the universe, our research started to blossom until we got the purely secular academic system that we have now.
To make a long story short: if there was one (1) piece of evidence that hinted at god it would be ground-breaking. So many have tried to find this holy grail. But if you look in the academic literature you just won't find it. That's why I can say with confidence that there just isn't any valid evidence for god.
Thanks for answering my question when others avoided it. We can now debate the underlying epistemological views which support our contradictory propositions.
Rationalism versus Empiricism when the subject is God
But before I commence I must ask one question in order to be fair in our discourse.
Thanks for answering my question when others avoided it. We can now debate the underlying epistemological views which support our contradictory propositions.
I actually have an important question I'd like to ask you as well. I've noted that with the subject of god there is a tendency for some people to draw out a debate very long in order to set certain premises and boundaries of discussion. However, for others it is shorter, I would guess because in their minds the debate is straightforward and no matter how you define your premises you will still approach the conclusion that god fails to meet the rigours we apply to any other field of study.
So my question is, are you aware of this and trying to find a way to reason out of this conclusion?
Rationalism versus Empiricism when the subject is God
As far as I can predict, either road leads to the same question, "Is it [god] true?" with the only difference being that Empiricism starts with that question and Rationalism ends with it, right after determining the answer to the question, "Could it [god] be true?"
When we get to that question, "Is god true?" we still have the problem of no proof or evidence that meets the rigours of academic and scientific scrutiny, so the answer using "Burden of proof" is "probably not until said evidence presents itself."
That then forks into multiple outcomes. For the paranoid we have conspiracies as to why the scientific community won't accept the anecdotes and experiences of religious people as evidence. For the pure rationalist, the requirements of the scientific community are too much, and should be set to allow purely reasoned arguments. For the (lack of a better name) supernaturalists, magic and mystical explanations should be allowed as permissible evidence. I believe the last in this list are the subjectivists who would hold what it is enough that we experience god and mystical events ascribed to him, that this is paramount evidence or at least should be.
For me the debate ends at the second paragraph, and I see the third paragraph as all reasons why a person doesn't want to accept the results of paragraph two. You may argue that I'm being a severe pragmatist, however, because my choice to be so exclusionary is based on what works. I can't rebut this point, and it may indeed be the case that those other methods and concerns in paragraph three lead to hidden truths, but I can't reconcile the need to use only that which works with the interest in using methodology that has a history of not working even if it may under rare instances succeed.
No knowledge of reality is a priori?
That's one way of looking at it. I always thought of a priori as reasoning based on logic or theory with no regard for its related application in the real world (because as we know, sometimes flukes happen that inexplicably find themselves to violate previously pure groupings and standards).
So my question is, are you aware of this and trying to find a way to reason out of this conclusion?
I am aware of all of that and then some. However what you consider to be a prolonged debate would amount to about a two-minute exchange vis-a vis us.
But in answer to your question, I provide the following.
I can presume to foreknow the outcome of a debate, and likewise you can as well. Yet, because you took upon yourself the task of attempting to refute my stance it must mean that you can provide a refuting argument. This must also mean that you are cognizant of the underlying premises of the conclusion, ‘God is not fictional’, or any co-related proposition. Furthermore, it must also mean you understand that the premises of both of our views are the consequents of our Epistemological viewpoints.
Consequently, I am attempting to compel you to establish an argument that allows me to reason from your premises that your conclusion is valid. (Consider this debate as an attempt on my part to arrive at conclusions that necessarily follow from their premises and not an attempt to accept our conclusions at face value for the sake of avoiding a genuine, syllogistic argument which is then debatable.)
No knowledge of reality is a priori?
That's one way of looking at it. I always thought of a priori as reasoning based on logic or theory with no regard for its related application in the real world (because as we know, sometimes flukes happen that inexplicably find themselves to violate previously pure groupings and standards).
While not dismissing your reply which immediately preceded the above reply, I'll expedite this debate by addressing the current response to the above proposition.(I’ll address it if the following reply doesn’t adequately imply an alternative view.)
All knowledge, simplistically, is either a priori justified or a posteriori justified.
Example:
The proposition, “No knowledge of reality is a priori.” is a priori justified. It is a belief that is knowledge as the result of deductive knowledge and not experience. If it were by experience there would exist observable, tangible evidence that warrants an a posteriori justification.
As an empiricist, do you agree that the proposition is false because of contradictory a priori justification and not a posteriori justification ( meaning that “some knowledge of reality is a priori)?
Consequently, I am attempting to compel you to establish an argument that allows me to reason from your premises that your conclusion is valid. (Consider this debate as an attempt on my part to arrive at conclusions that necessarily follow from their premises and not an attempt to accept our conclusions at face value for the sake of avoiding a genuine, syllogistic argument which is then debatable.)
Alright. Here are my syllogisms.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
God is an extraordinary claim (religion even more so)
God requires extraordinary proof
Extraordinary proof requires scientific and academic rigour and the scrutiny of experts
The evidence of god does not pass these benchmarks
God lacks extraordinary proof
When a person makes an extraordinary claim without proof they are dismissed
People assert god, an extraordinary claim (religion more so), without proof
Those people must be dismissed
As an empiricist, do you agree that the proposition is false because of contradictory a priori justification and not a posteriori justification ( meaning that “some knowledge of reality is a priori)?
You're basically asking, if all a priori knowledge rests ultimately on some a posteri axioms. The unfortunate fact is that there is no way to become a human blind to the external, evidence gathering world, capable of developing a priori presuppositions about reality untouched by previous evidence-gathering experience. At least, that would be the obvious inference. However the more correct answer is that we as human beings are able to create abstractions, and are able to define systems that are completely new and bound by our rules. This is where a priori reasoning must come from, rules we develop out of our imaginations, that work together.
So I say that the proposition is false, that there is indeed a priori reasoning.
You infer that from the total lack of evidence for same when it should be present if the proposition were true.
Okay, let’s apply your reasoning to a different subject.
There is no evidence for the inference that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists.
Therefore, because of the evidence of that absence of evidence, Intelligent, extraterrestrial life does not exist.
Do you agree?
The same way the lack of a giant crater is evidence there wasn't a massive meteor strike on my front lawn last night.
This analogy is irrelevant. We are questioning the inference of attributes of the subject, God. We are not questioning whether a subject can or has effected an observable affect.
Albeit, allow me to apply a similar analogy of that analogy.
There is no evidence that multiple meteors passed over my front lawn yesterday afternoon. Therefore no meteors passed over my front lawn yesterday afternoon. This a fallacious argument!
Okay, let’s apply your reasoning to a different subject.
There is no evidence for the inference that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists.
Therefore, because of the evidence of that absence of evidence, Intelligent, extraterrestrial life does not exist.
Do you agree?
No. Next time if you want to apply my reasoning, apply it all the way from the beginning to the end of the sentence. I'll repeat it with the necessary emphasis this time:
"You infer that from the total lack of evidence for same when it should be present if the proposition were true."
What evidence exactly should we expect to see if there was extraterrestrial life somewhere out in the universe, that we are not seeing?
And the analogy presented was exactly appropriate to that reasoning.
"You infer that from the total lack of evidence for same when it should be present if the proposition were true."
That response is your answer to my question:
From what evidence do you infer: "God does not exist."?
You did not answer my question! You answered the question of “how” you infer. That doesn’t provide the evidence from which you infer the absence of God.
I did not ask the question: How do you infer, “God does not exist” from the absence of evidence? Your response evidences the assumption of ignorance. This is what your post evidences:
You are unaware of the necessary evidence for the existence of God. Therefore because of the total lack of knowledge of the necessary evidence, the evidence of the absence of God’s existence is inferred from a total lack of evidence, which, is not known.
You claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, but you miserably fail to state the evidence you looked for from which you can infer the absence of God. In essence you do not know what it is you are looking for, which, can be used as evidence for or against the presence of God.
So, until you tell me what evidence you looked for, your invalid inference that God does not exist is no inference, it is an assumption from ignorance.
You are unaware of the necessary evidence for the existence of God.
Sure I am. Scientific observation comporting with the scientific method. Where is your god now?
So, until you tell me what evidence you looked for, your invalid inference that God does not exist is no inference, it is an assumption from ignorance.
No. Assuming a god exists when there is no proof that it does exist is a belief grounded in ignorance. Your argument essentially boils down to that if science has gaps in knowledge of the natural world then we should just assume those gaps to be filled by a god. THAT is actually an argument from ignorance or more commonly referred to as the "god of the gaps" method of argumentation. It is a logical fallacy. You defer to god as the explanation with no positive evidence yet demand evidence that you cannot provide yourself. A proposition is not true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false. It is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence.
Want proof that God exist? Can you explain how one person can slip in the bath tub and die, another falls a hundred feet and lives? Doctors have not the answer, logic eludes the scientific community, philosophers have nothing to say, but the faithful have the answer. Fate lays only in God's hands. When science can predict the exact time of my death, then science will be my god. Until then I respect the one that does.
Let’s see if you have an intelligent contribution?
You are unaware of the necessary evidence for the existence of God.
Sure I am. Scientific observation comporting with the scientific method. Where is your god now?
Are you aware that you have jumped in to a discussion which is an epistemological question of a metaphysical issue (the scientific method is not an instrument for this task)?
Sure you are! Where is your scientific method now?
So, until you tell me what evidence you looked for, your invalid inference that God does not exist is no inference, it is an assumption from ignorance.
No. Assuming a god exists when there is no proof that it does exist is a belief grounded in ignorance.
Was I requesting proof, or was I requesting evidence? The distinction betwixt the two is of utmost importance. There must be evidence in order to begin the process of determining whether or not the evidence is sufficient for proof; even when it means the absence of certain evidences.
Your argument essentially boils down to that if science has gaps in knowledge of the natural world then we should just assume those gaps to be filled by a god.
Patently wrong! That is your false-inference of an argument wherein I have not purported the same.
THAT is actually an argument from ignorance or more commonly referred to as the "god of the gaps" method of argumentation. It is a logical fallacy. You defer to god as the explanation with no positive evidence yet demand evidence that you cannot provide yourself.
If I have, then quote my argument. (Why do I get the impression you did not read a word of what I asserted or requested?)
A proposition is not true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false.
Obviously! But what is the relevance of stating a truth that is not contrary or contradictory of any aspect of my argument?
It is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence.
You are again confusing ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’.
Evidence, sufficient, leads to likely proof. But to take the absence of proof as evidence of the truth of the proof is bullshit. This is circular reasoning, and a bad example at that.
Yes, that was my response. Your first reply ignored half of it... thus I was forced to repeat myself. And yes, I did answer your question. That was the answer. It is still the answer.
And remember in that other debate where I said your post was pure gibberish it was impossible to respond to? Well:
"You are unaware of the necessary evidence for the existence of God. Therefore because of the total lack of knowledge of the necessary evidence, the evidence of the absence of God’s existence is inferred from a total lack of evidence, which, is not known"
I give you, Exhibit 2. Word Salad. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you were TRYING to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That is unfortunately only true when the absence of evidence is not ITSELF clear evidence. I return you to the "missing crater in the front lawn" absence of evidence for a massive meteor strike being evidence the meteor strike never happened.
"You claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, but you miserably fail to state the evidence you looked for from which you can infer the absence of God. "
Any objective indication, whatsoever, of the existence of such an entity.
And remember in that other debate where I said your post was pure gibberish it was impossible to respond to? Well:
That explains a lot; I now understand what it is I am dealing with. Consequently, since you do this concerning something that is physically verifiable, I now know why your posts evidence clumsy argumentation concerning a metaphysical subject.
In which “other” debate did you affirm “my post is pure gibberish”?
Where is the evidence? You should already be aware of what it is you are looking for in order to know you have found evidence.
(I suspect you will respond with something similar to: “the absence of evidence is evidence of existence”.)
As for the balance of your first and last post in this debate with me, it is all beside the point. Not once have you posted a reply that evidenced you are debating a metaphysical question. Your posts belong in the realm of the physical and not the metaphysical. Otherwise you would not continue to reference your false analogy of the “meteor crater”. And furthermore you would not continue to re-state the same irrelevant analogy.
Did you assume that the concept of God is somehow affirmed or denied by some sort of physical evidence or the lack thereof?
Albeit, if you re-examine my posts wherein I request evidence for your inference, you will find I asked for evidence and not physical evidence.
A metaphysical argument would satisfy that request!
Conclusion: Your posts are purely gibberish because they evidence ignorance of the nature of the question with bold-faced irrelevance. Consequently, that is why my efforts to correct your misguided and irrelevant posts seem to be gibberish to you.
In which “other” debate did you affirm “my post is pure gibberish”?
Sorry, you have a remarkably similar posting style to someone I was having another discussion with, and I confused you for him. That does not render the statement I quoted any less incoherent.
Where is the evidence? You should already be aware of what it is you are looking for in order to know you have found evidence.
Nowhere.
The. Evidence. Is. Nowhere.
Hence the conclusion that there is A LACK OF EVIDENCE, not the conclusion that I have found evidence. What the heck do you even think you're talking about here?
Did you assume that the concept of God is somehow affirmed or denied by some sort of physical evidence or the lack thereof?
I assume, and rightly so, that it is affirmed or denied by the weight of ALL evidence or lack thereof. And I suggest you be really sure you understand the concept of evidence before replying.
Who tries to convert the most, the atheist or the religious person?
Atheists didnt really start to explain their ideas or convert anyone to them until the state of American education had gone down the drain so badly that the average person cant understand the difference between anecdotes and tested facts.
If you want to call the refutation of bad arguments with testable scientific facts "conversions" then feel free to use whatever simple minded overstatements you like - but it seems sort of ironic that you would criticize Atheists for doing something that was invented (and the term coined) by Christians.
Most atheists I have met care only about general scientific knowledge not being distorted by ideologues who dont understand what they are trying to criticize, and therefore only criticize their own simplified explanations of what they think evolution is or what a steam cell is.
For the last eight years (before 2009) you have had a mad man as president that got his power from very ignorant religious groups in America (and offcourse because he stole the election). Religious people have gotten their bigoted way for eight years... and surprise surprise that now we have a global finance system in the ruins, directly related to the actions of this government.
It was religious Ideas that spawned all the wars amercians took part in at this time - and it was a quasi religious idea that ruined the global finance system (the idea that there is an invisible hand that regulates the market)
I dont care if a person hold ludicrously improbable views - I do care though if those rules hinder my freedom: for example that I cant paint a picture of a guy in a turban and write Muhammad below, without taking the chance of being killed by some extremely dumb mutt of the Muslim religion. Similarly I guess alot of people in Muslim countries are getting sick and tired of Americans attacking their overloards when they use the weapons Americans sold to them.
Like I have often pointed out- being religious and having a low IQ is highly correlated in double blind experiments.
Just because something is posted somewhere doesn't make it so. If this was so then God must exist by the same token. Here is the link, so it must be so.
Supporting Evidence:
The Bible
(bibleontheweb.com)
Now its your turn - Prove God exists (and please dont come up with some nonsense like that you have felt his presence or that you know it in your heart and etc.... that would be an insult to the methodology of proofs derived by experiment. In other words: come up with an experiment or objective evidence that proves Gods existence)
Again you fail to comprehend that nothing is 100%. I don't care to hear of some piece of irrelevant garbage. For every rule there is an exception to that rule. Look hard enough and one can be found. Science itself has found loopholes or flaws in its own findings.
From what I have seen wikipedia is not a good source of information, vague terms and a Paradise for the ignorant. Atheist must enjoy this site.
To add to my comments I include the following from wikipedia's home page.
"Because Wikipedia is a massive live collaboration, it differs from a paper-based reference source in important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism."
This study does not say that all religious people are stupid, it says there is a correlation between being stupid (having a low IQ) and being religious, so yes if you want to call this a rule (and I never said it was) then I agree there are (many) exeptions.
My point isnt that religious people dont have the capacity to be smart, I am sure they do and IQ´s can be raised through practice - My point is that religion might very well be hindering them becoming smart - especially when it teaches them to ignore huge amounts of hard evidence, as the creationist PR groups are trying to do.
This statistical study has many counterparts, and was not done by wikipedia.
There have also been made studies on the accuracy of wikipedia articles (on average) compaired to Encyclopedia Britanica and Wikipedia came slightly on top.
This information can be found in scientific journals and the newer editions of Britanica (I am told) so are you gonna denounce that as well you moron
First called ignorant, then stupid and a moron, I guess this conversation is moving to a higher level. The fact that it bothers you so much, almost convinces me I'm right. It is so easy to toy with you. I started this debate knowing it was packed with lies and you single handedly have convinced me otherwise.
Everyone thank PungSviti for making atheist look bad.
I never claimed that. If anyone deserves to be insulted as a numnut, then that is a person who is not willing to look at evidence while forming an opinion. Ever seen the See,hear,speak no evil monkeys - they´re are monkeys for a reason.
I dont care about people being religious on its own. I care when religious people try to ruin other highly developed empirical fields with their dumb (but effective) propaganda, like they are trying to do with the american school system, and general knowledge of biology.
I can be a dick, but in no way is that uncalled for given the state of general knowledge about scientific principles (and what I once thought was "common" sense) in America
I care when religious people try to ruin other highly developed empirical fields with their dumb (but effective) propaganda, like they are trying to do with the american school system, and general knowledge of biology.
My sentiments exactly -- when it comes to atheist propaganda. An exceptionally effective example is the 'Big Lie'.
No. But that is where scale comes in. It depends on what field we are talking about but general physics experiments, for example, are repeated over thousand times and sometimes more.
If it then comes up tails somwhere close to 100%, then you got yourself a trend/faktor/reliability
In Biology they sequence gene codes (with elaborate chemistry techniques and technology), in the millions and then run them in a chemical enivornment where they take form as real life synthetic cells
umm, I as an atheist, have never tried to convert anyone. Yes we do believe our beliefs....Isn't that why there called beliefs? We do believe we are right, yet doesn't every one with an opinion think there right? Yes we may be ironic, but so are Christians. Why can't we have an argument on that? One last thing, we worship NO ONE
And yet I see just as much (often more) bigotry and hate from many groups of atheists against Christians/religious people. There's bigotry and hatred everywhere. Religion doesn't create it. Atheism doesn't create it. People create it and both groups are filled with people.
Originality must not be a requirement to be an atheist. I have seen the same responses over and over again. These must be the only ones printed in the atheist handbook.
Well thing is, there's facts to support our "view", per-se. Religion is the main reason (most) wars have occurred, this is a fact, look in the history textbooks, you can't deny that. And I don't think ignorant people believe in God, and you're generalizing atheists. An ignorant person would deny science completely, even though it's proven how the universe, etc, was formed. And for one thing, Religion in it's core is a refuge to find peace in the world and yourself. The bible was most likely meant as metaphors. And also, if God were to exist, it wouldn't be conscious, nor be able to see, but rather a divine being incomprehensible by our foolish human minds. The idea of god is meant to bring peace, not arguing, whereas that's all it is today.
How the universe was formed is not prov-en and never will be. A theory is not proof. Who is more stupid? This a redundant question because atheist take their belief as fact and make fun of religious people for doing the same.
How the universe began will never be proven to the satisfaction of those who have decided they already know. Of course we have theories that attempt to explain things humans have previously been unable to explain, the common misconception here is that people liken 'scientific theories' to 'guesses' when nothing could be further from the truth. A theory is the strongest and best supported form of explanation in science. No explanation in science is more certain than a theory. No, theories are not proof, but theories often gathered the requisite proof.
Same with all debates. They just keep down-voting the religious arguments and up-voting the atheist arguments, even though they had just attempted to disprove your prediction.
Same with all debates. They just keep down-voting the religious arguments and up-voting the atheist arguments, even though they had just attempted to disprove your prediction.
That you don't see the obvious implications: people downvote bad arguments and upvote good ones, is an indicator of how religion has biased your mind against what's in front of you.
Or, perchance, they upvote the arguments on their side and they downvote all opposing arguments?
Surely you and the other atheists would up-vote the most absurd of atheist arguments and down-vote the best of religious arguments. Just as most liberal arguments get upvoted and most conservative arguments get down-voted.
Or, perchance, they upvote the arguments on their side and they downvote all opposing arguments?
Surely you and the other atheists would up-vote the most absurd of atheist arguments and down-vote the best of religious arguments. Just as most liberal arguments get upvoted and most conservative arguments get down-voted.
Some people do this but we're talking about the majority. Religious people have a tendency to make bad arguments when it involves their dogma of choice. Call it their Achilles' heel.
But it gets worse when the subject IS their dogma because religious dogma is in the vast majority of cases wrong, but they MUST justify it. Therefore they must resort to sophistry. This is where lots of downvotes come from, because arguments like "I believe that when you think really hard Jesus hears me from beyond the grave, I know this because my mother says so and a website proves it" are so completely wrong and laughable that they get the most contempt. They also happen to be common amongst religious and ideologically charged debaters.
I think if you took time to study what makes a good argument, you would start to see a pattern that religious and conservative arguments often fall into the bad argument category.
That's not true at all. I have heard very good, rational arguments that supported positions I disagreed with. Just because you dismiss every argument you disagree with as being flawed, doesn't mean everyone does.
Yes, unless your relgion is superpolytheism, then religious people are all atheists, taking x to be the number of deities worshipped, religious people are atheists+x.
The first to respond was no other than that which claims no irony. No surprise to me that the truth show its colors. That which claims not to preach, is only the first to do so.
Do you really think it proves anything that atheists are the first to rebut a debate that deliberately stereotypes atheists and attempts to reinforce misconceptions about them? Would you not be quick to try to open a dialogue with someone who was falsely generalizing and caricaturing people who believe in a god?
Usually I steer clear of those that mock God, because they are nothing more than Satan's servants. To associate with these creatures, I have no desire. Here on a debate website, I welcome the challenge. The Internet is a world where nothing is real and the truth seldom told, a debaters Paradise.
I have a belief in God, just like you have a belief in science. Fact is that neither of us have physically seen any evidence to support our positions. I know the difference, do you?
I do not believe in God and I would place this on the same level of validity as a belief in God as they are both inferred from looking at the same evidence: nothing. I do not see mine as inherently better than yours, I do not claim mine to be a fact and I expect the same from others.
But I believe in science because it is real and you can see the practice of it everywhere. Science is not a religion or a nebulous, intangible concept. It is an actual existing area of academic study.
You will have to take your argument that science is not a cult up with Merriam-Webster. I am a firm believer that experts in any field are always right. Therefore you must be a member of a cult, sorry my hands are tied.
I am reading the same definition and, oddly enough, 'science' does not show up anywhere in it. 'Religion' however, does so more than once. At best, the comparison of science to a cult is subjective. At worst, it is absurd.
I am a firm believer that experts in any field are always right.
I find this to be very ironic as you have already exhibited more than once that the only time you believe an expert in any field is when they seem to support what you claim.
While your looking things up in the dictionary, try sarcasm. I do not take anything as fact, unless I have seen it. Wondering how someone that believes in God can say this? It is easy; man isn't perfect, but God is.
Obviously you do not know how terms in a dictionary are to be read, each definition is its own. One cannot combine meanings in order to make one fit, their cozy little world. Example the word bill, a duck has one but not all definitions of bill are in reference to a duck. Each meaning of the word stands on its own, period.
While your looking things up in the dictionary, try sarcasm. I do not take anything as fact, unless I have seen it. Wondering how someone that believes in God can say this?
Logic?
Also, science being a cult (or not) doesn't change the fact that it's real and if you don't believe in it you have contradicted yourself by looking at a real, observable academic pursuit and denying its existence.
If you are just questioning the credibility of science in general, that is fine and admirable. As long as you do not close yourself off to proof.
It is not fine or admirable to question science, it is merely among those many things that need the propaganda, lies, bias, and self-interest pointed out.
“Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Einstein
Ironic is that atheist believe more in science than scientist do.
I never said science is a cult, only the worshiping of it is. Despite atheist arguments, you worship science. It is the foundation of atheism and is your god.
Usually I steer clear of those that mock God, because they are nothing more than Satan's servants. To associate with these creatures, I have no desire. Here on a debate website, I welcome the challenge. The Internet is a world where nothing is real and the truth seldom told, a debaters Paradise.
Geniuses are always eccentric. Avesdke seems to think that one must be insane to believe in religion, yet from there comes thee stereotypical 'insane genius'.
Geniuses are always eccentric. Avesdke seems to think that one must be insane to believe in religion, yet from there comes thee stereotypical 'insane genius'.
You have it wrong. I don't think one needs to be insane to be religious, instead I think that religion can warp one's mind and give us comments like:
Usually I steer clear of those that mock God, because they are nothing more than Satan's servants. To associate with these creatures, I have no desire.
Which is crazy, insane actually, and I shouldn't have to explain why.
Which is crazy, insane actually, and I shouldn't have to explain why.
Please do explain.
Let's see:
From the perspective of a Christian, those who speak out against God obviously are not suitable companions. Now, from the perspective of a Christian, such speech against God must come from a source. The source, from a Christian's perspective, of such ungodly speech is: The Devil (i.e. Satan). Again, from the perspective of a Christian, he who associates with those who 'work for the devil' shall surely begin to take on similar characteristics (call is 'peer pressure', if you will) - to take on similar perspectives would dissuade one from one's religion.
Bah. Fine then. There is no devil going around recruiting servants, neither is there a god who is in some inter-universe war between him and his servants for our souls. You expect these kinds of ravings by old war veterans on the street corners holding up signs.
From the perspective of a Christian, those who speak out against God obviously are not suitable companions. Now, from the perspective of a Christian, such speech against God must come from a source. The source, from a Christian's perspective, of such ungodly speech is: The Devil (i.e. Satan). Again, from the perspective of a Christian, he who associates with those who 'work for the devil' shall surely begin to take on similar characteristics (call is 'peer pressure', if you will) - to take on similar perspectives would dissuade one from one's religion.
I know this, but it's all cover for an obvious fact: he's either a nutter who gives raving speeches on sidewalks in between his stints on here or he is sheltered away from different people who hold contrary opinions, and we are a danger to his cherished dogma so he uses "satan" as an excuse to avoid needing to give a proper debate and risk critical thought about his beliefs.
Bah. Fine then. There is no devil going around recruiting servants, neither is there a god who is in some inter-universe war between him and his servants for our souls. You expect these kinds of ravings by old war veterans on the street corners holding up signs.
I'd ask you to prove it, but I've already got your answer.
he's either a nutter who gives raving speeches on sidewalks in between his stints on here
So now you are stereotyping him?
we are a danger to his cherished dogma so he uses "satan" as an excuse to avoid needing to give a proper debate and risk critical thought about his beliefs.
It is not his excuse, it is his belief. Didn't he even say that he enjoys this site so that he can give such critical thoughts? Or is it your belief that critical thinking turns all people away from all religion, and thus those who believe in a religion must not know how to think in a critical, rational manner?
The Christian who calls people minions or servants of Satan is a stereotype.
It is not his excuse, it is his belief. Didn't he even say that he enjoys this site so that he can give such critical thoughts? Or is it your belief that critical thinking turns all people away from all religion, and thus those who believe in a religion must not know how to think in a critical, rational manner?
His words were:
Usually I steer clear of those that mock God, because they are nothing more than Satan's servants. To associate with these creatures, I have no desire. Here on a debate website, I welcome the challenge. The Internet is a world where nothing is real and the truth seldom told, a debaters Paradise.
Which means he would stay away from us servants of Satan but because it's the internet he's safe enough to try a challenge (presumably to convert us servants).
The pretext is that we're all lying, thieving servants of the devil who can't possibly be trusted to give a true argument so his mission is to try and save our souls or something to that effect.
Critical thinking dissolves religious beliefs like water does to ionic bonds. Religious people get by this usually by being selectively critical in their thinking. He needs to believe that we are servants of the devil so that we are untrustworthy and he can retain his dogma. Heaven forbid he actually talk to people like us (us meaning you and I because I'm sure that to someone with his mindset, you're not faithful enough) and trust us like human beings, because then he'd learn how wrong he is about some important things.
The Christian who calls people minions or servants of Satan is a stereotype.
And the stereotypical example you gave is laughably erroneous - cliched, even.
Which means he would stay away from us servants of Satan but because it's the internet he's safe enough to try a challenge (presumably to convert us servants).
Or you are misinterpreting my words. I'd say that my knowledge of religious peoples and their backgrounds makes my hypothesis much more likely.
Critical thinking dissolves religious beliefs like water does to ionic bonds.
...to an atheist.
Religious people get by this usually by being selectively critical in their thinking.
Or thinking in a different manner. Perhaps your version of 'critical thinking' differs from other people's?
Heaven forbid he actually talk to people like us (us meaning you and I because I'm sure that to someone with his mindset, you're not faithful enough)
I have no doubt that to most Christians' minds, I am not faithful enough. In real life, it is I who 'takes up your shoes' (is that the adage I'm looking for?), and argue against those like him.
because then he'd learn how wrong he is about some important things.
Or it would only strengthen his faith - not wanting to become as pitiful as you and those like you.
And the stereotypical example you gave is laughably erroneous - cliched, even.
It was intended to be.
Or you are misinterpreting my words. I'd say that my knowledge of religious peoples and their backgrounds makes my hypothesis much more likely.
After years of talking to people this religious (deluded, is a better word actually because a very religious person doesn't have to be deluded), I've noted that it's more important to them to make others believe than to strengthen their faith or learn from others.
...to an atheist.
Look at my profile.
Or thinking in a different manner. Perhaps your version of 'critical thinking' differs from other people's?
Not really, as far as I can tell there is only one set of rules to a debate, one set of rules to critical thinking. People who believe in very wrong things need to manage in society, so they reason in their daily lives but have a "blind spot for jesus" for example.
I have no doubt that to most Christians' minds, I am not faithful enough. In real life, it is I who 'takes up your shoes' (is that the adage I'm looking for?), and argue against those like him.
As I thought. You're about where I was when I was eighteen/nineteen.
Or it would only strengthen his faith - not wanting to become as pitiful as you and those like you.
It only strengthens their faith when they have a perceived victory. He has to choose from a narrow list of topics to accomplish this however, since many people on here are rudimentarily versed in science, so his real chance for strengthening his faith would have to come from debating esoteric theological concepts.
On your last sentence, however, wow you sound so much like me when I was younger.
It would seem that you've a similar intention to mine when I wrote the responses to AndSoccer16 on his generalization debate.
After years of talking to people this religious (deluded, is a better word actually because a very religious person doesn't have to be deluded), I've noted that it's more important to them to make others believe than to strengthen their faith or learn from others.
That, then, is what one such as yourself must consider a good aspect of debating with one like me. You mean nothing to me - what happens to you after death doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Look at my profile.
Then what is it?
It only strengthens their faith when they have a perceived victory.
Or if you give them an excuse to learn even more about their own religion. They could easily spot verses they'd never noticed because they were specifically looking up a counter to your argument. That verse, in turn, could make them even more resilient to those like you.
On your last sentence, however, wow you sound so much like me when I was younger.
That, then, is what one such as yourself must consider a good aspect of debating with one like me. You mean nothing to me - what happens to you after death doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Et tu.
Then what is it?
Apatheism, basically. I only enjoy these debates because I find it entertaining to poke fun at the bad arguments and ramblings of crazy people. The matter of god doesn't mean anything to me personally, anymore.
Or if you give them an excuse to learn even more about their own religion. They could easily spot verses they'd never noticed because they were specifically looking up a counter to your argument. That verse, in turn, could make them even more resilient to those like you.
I've yet to see this happen, but I will keep an eye out.
Just so long as I never become like you.
Oh, you will. You're on that path already. You are sort of like an atheist in everything but name right now.
Oh, you will. You're on that path already. You are sort of like an atheist in everything but name right now.
Thewayitis is right - what he said about atheists being Satan's servants. As was my interpretation of what he said; I almost only associate with agnostics and atheists.
Thewayitis is right - what he said about atheists being Satan's servants. As was my interpretation of what he said; I almost only associate with agnostics and atheists.
Well, seeing as there is no Satan, he's not right. As for your interpretation, it may be right, but like I said before it's more likely a protection mechanism.
Well, seeing as there is no Satan, he's not right. As for your interpretation, it may be right, but like I said before it's more likely a protection mechanism.
Yes, protection from becoming too much like you.
Please explain poltregeists to me, in your ever-so-scientific fashion.
One last thing, don't say that they don't exist - I've read far too many convincing reports about them to believe that nonsense.
What is funny is that an atheist who thrives on the definition of predictable tries to use it as an insult.
Merriam-Webster "to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason"
All your hand waving and attempts to distract from what I said hasn't made you any more "correct" or any less "insane" for having such backwards ideas.
I laughed my ass off when I read this argument between terminator and aveskde.
To play the role of a over the top Christian was my best one yet.
"Usually I steer clear of those that mock God, because they are nothing more than Satan's servants. To associate with these creatures, I have no desire. Here on a debate website, I welcome the challenge. The Internet is a world where nothing is real and the truth seldom told, a debaters Paradise."
I wrote this before I even thought up the title of this debate and was waiting for a place to insert it. I knew the role of a religious radical would cause troubles on a predominant atheist site. Aveskde thanks for taking the bait, hook line and sinker. What shocked me is that I didn't have to defend it. Terminator, you did a better job than I could have played. Thank you. Off to stir pot some where else.
Take a good look at an atheist, wouldn't they make a good cult leader?
Depends on the person... belief doesn't make a difference.
Who tries to convert the most, the atheist or the religious person?
Considering that there are more religious people AND they hand out pamphlets or even knock on your door... the religious person does.
Which takes their belief more serious?
I would say that both take their belief quite seriously. Religious people cringe at any slander towards their religion, and when Atheists believe in something, it's usually built on science and logic... so it would only make sense to take it seriously (although, they're not willing to kill for it... that's Marxism).
Which is more convinced they are right?
Once again, both are. Religious with their faith and Atheists with their facts and reasoning.
Words that atheist hate the most (belief, faith, religion, worship) are the same words that they value the most. Belief in science. Faith in scientist. Worship everything but God. Claim to be non-religious and practice atheism. Irony at its finest.
If you mean faith in evidence, sure... but that's actually not faith. Faith means "belief without any evidence".
In order to maybe go on a scientific journey, it would require faith, but all theories and laws are built on evidence. I do not BELIEVE that any theories are 100% correct, of course, but I do believe that they're 'on to something'. But theories are backed with evidence, so it's not a leap of faith to support them.
Your question introduces a pseudo-problem of logic, not a problem for which inference more accurately reflects reality. And even as an issue of validity, for the most part the idea of god that most - if not all - atheists reject exhibits all of the characteristics of nothing and none of the characteristics of things that actually exist in this universe. I think it would be a valid inference to propose that based on x-characteristics, god does not exist.
Before I scrutinize your post I would like for you to consider the following reply resulting from the dispute betwixt Zombee and I.
(I think it explains my perspective.)
Although I have a valid and verbose explanation of why I think your inference is invalid, I now have no necessity to put your belief on trial; for when you admit that your position is “an un-provable belief” you have conceded the conclusion of my argument.
I was not going to prove that your assertion is false, and as a result my assertion is true.
All I merely was going to do is logically demonstrate the invalidity of your conclusion. None of which proves your assertion is false and mine true.
Consider these examples that demonstrate the differences betwixt truth and validity.
Example 1)
All men are males.
No males are females.
Therefore, some men are bald-headed.
All three propositions are true to fact. But the conclusion does not follow the premises; it is therefore invalid, yet it is true nonetheless.
Example 2)
All unicorns are warm-blooded animals.
All warm-blooded animals are mortal.
Therefore all unicorns are mortal.
This is a valid argument. Yet, the truth or falsity of the propositions is only as true or false as the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are found to exist, the argument is both true and valid. But, until it can be proven that unicorns are purely fictional, the argument is not true or false; it is merely valid.
And God, like the subject of ‘Unicorns’, must be proven to be fictional. Until someone can prove that God is fictional or is not fictional, all we can utilize meanwhile is valid argument.
(Our arguments are not capable of being the evidence of God’s existence or non-existence.)
Closing:
I respect the Atheist position as well as the anti-Atheist position. While simultaneously respecting the importance and limits of logic and knowledge.
when you admit that your position is “an un-provable belief” you have conceded the conclusion of my argument.
I have yet to admit this. In fact, based on the description of god, it can be quite easy to disprove that god.
All I merely was going to do is logically demonstrate the invalidity of your conclusion.
You've provided an example of a formal, invalid syllogism and a formal, valid syllogism. But you have not actually demonstrated the invalidity of the inference: "...based on x-characteristics, god does not exist." I'll be waiting for that "valid and verbose" explanation.
I did not assert you did. I presumed you would reference the thread betwixt Zombee and I.
But you have not actually demonstrated the invalidity of the inference: "...based on x-characteristics, god does not exist." I'll be waiting for that "valid and verbose" explanation.
That is not the purpose of the examples. The examples evidence the distinction of truth and validity. Had she provided a syllogistic argument that validates her conclusion, I still would not have put it on trial. Why? She admits her position is "an un-provable belief.
However, if you care to submit a syllogistic argument in support of your position, I will respond with a valid and verbose critique of its validity or invalidity.
(I can't assume to know what your syllogistic argument is by a single pseudo-premise: ...based on x characteristics.)
There is a giant leap of faith to believe in anything that one has not witnessed first hand.
No it isn't. That's what reasoning and evidence are for.
The real leap of faith comes in trusting your first-hand experience so absolutely when it's all a simulation your brain creates for you. THAT is a leap of faith and most of us don't even realise it.
No leap of faith you claim, then there must be a time machine. People build machines, the evidence. The reason, I have seen machines; cars, computers, etc.
Therefore time machines must exist. Flawed reasoning. Just as evolution or the big bang theory is.
No leap of faith you claim, then there must be a time machine. People build machines, the evidence. The reason, I have seen machines; cars, computers, etc.
Like I said: we use evidence, theory and logic to extrapolate the past. The universe is highly symmetric, which allows us to do this.
Therefore time machines must exist. Flawed reasoning. Just as evolution or the big bang theory is.
Time machines don't exist. However those other two items do. That you deny them shows how fragile your beliefs are.
My beliefs are not fragile in the least bit. You on the other hand get offensive. Don't judge others by your lack of faith.
Time machines exist and a man of logic and reason would know this. I did not say a device that one can travel in time. What is a CLOCK? A machine that measure time, therefore a time machine. This was an intention trap and you fell for it. No wonder you believe in the Big Bang Theory and evolution, you are gullible.
yes, atheism is truly silly, all those silly 'facts" and "evidence" that they have can easily be disproved with a simple solution....that i wont be posting.
besides, we all truly know the real Creator was the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, as he has reached across time, altering things like carbon dating results, and putting in false religions to test our faith, i have been touched by his noodly goodness, because i can feel it,
the church of the flying spaghetti monster is the only religion with scientific evidence to back it up, and many scientists are supporters of it.
truly the great FSM has blessed us with his tasty appendages, and we should all cast down then shackles of false religion and false science and celebrate in his saucy goodness
1.the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2.Literature.
a.a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.(esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3.Socratic irony.
4.dramatic irony.
5.an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6.the incongruity of this.
7.an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8.an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.
That you believe an atheist and a religious person have more in common than "they" believe does not fit a single definition of irony from what I see.
It would be ironic in the sense you define if the main point of atheism were the difference between the religious and atheists. Then this would make that they are similar ironic to a degree.
In and of itself, irony does not fit.
The main point of atheists has nothing to do with the religious, it has to do with what the religious believe. Specifically a god with intelligence who somehow created or is active in our daily lives.
I frame it in that wording because I am well aware of your insistance that "everyone worships something" because I'm not speaking of a strong liking for something, or a belief in something studied with supporting empiracle evidence,
I am speaking specifically and only about worship of an intelligent being that created.
It does not matter at all then how similar the two groups of people are, there is simply no irony.
True that there is no irony because both are merely on opposite sides of the same fence. The irony comes into play only because some atheist deny the similarity between the religious and themselves. This is also true in reverse, but that is a different debate. Irony only exist to those that dispute that atheist have faith, that atheism is a religion, that an atheist worships nothing, etc. The denial of similarity is what I find ironic. Maybe this word play is more of an oxymoron such as faithful atheist, disbelieving Christian, etc.
A lack of those that dispute this debate, can't you do that? Reminds me of Republicans, only criticize Democrats and have no ideas or answers of their own. Sorry guys, just an example. Critics I have little use for. Thinkers I admire.
I was torn between positions as I belong to neither. Engaging in this debate (as flawed in premise as it's outcome is redundant) serves little purpose other than to rehash manipulative arguments and apply definitions to words used incorrectly in the first place. Intellectuals, branching into tangents of manipulative tactics, straying far beyond the initial purpose (bunk) of this debate (as with all bad debates) bring with their arguments the concession of "agree to disagree". My only mistake was assuming the topic of discussion was logical, rather than spiteful.
Many arguments are well founded, but ill applied. The first mistake, would be to assume that the existence of a christian god is unprovable. Allowing for this specific concession enables christians to utilize arguments with no substance. The second, drowning points in unicorns, incorrectly applied banter, and using "betwixt" twice in the same sentence. Third, responding to the opponents' weakest points as opposed to their strongest. This activity resembles more tactical maneuver than the intended outcome of debate among intellectuals, consensus.
I've read valid arguments, attempts to disprove the existence of a christian god, I'm sure had I summoned the patience to read this debate in it's entirety, that not only would I have read more valid arguments, but perhaps taken something away from it.
Christianity isn't hard to debase, if it was, so many revisions of the bible wouldn't be required to fit modern values. Until this topic is tackled properly, the outcome will always stay "I know what I'm experiencing, you can't change that".
Oh, you can believe in a christ without believing in a christian god. Re-read your bibles, this is irony.
"I have ingested knowledge therefore I am condemned to eternal thought."
I posted the question about this to see if you were under the illusion that atheists do not ingest information.
After debating with some of them on here, I wonder.
The premise is not flawed without just cause. How else do you get people fired up? If you want a man on ledge not to jump, try to push him off. Doesn't always work, but did in this case. You are the first to question my intent.
As far as revision to the Bible go, it is only attempt to make it understandable. The values expressed in it should never changed. Whether that has been accomplished is debatable.
"Many arguments are well founded, but ill applied. The first mistake, would be to assume that the existence of a Christian god is unprovable. Allowing for this specific concession enables Christians to utilize arguments with no substance. The second, drowning points in unicorns, incorrectly applied banter, and using "betwixt" twice in the same sentence. Third, responding to the opponents' weakest points as opposed to their strongest. This activity resembles more tactical maneuver than the intended outcome of debate among intellectuals, consensus."
One certainly cannot dispute these things, but in a debate all is fair. To win is the objective. In the least one has to think and that in itself is an accomplishment.
Take the time to read it. There is nothing you can add or take away from nothing. This is not a master piece or anything that should be cherished, but rather a collected work of garbage. It is destined to be the pride of the landfill.
Reeeeaaaaly, so believing in an unprovable, unrealistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni benevolent, being that created the world in six days and took rest on the seventh (why when he is omnipotent), that killed everything on a whim (even though he is benevolent) that started life and predetermined its outcome, then punished the people that he created for living out that path, and sent himself as a man down to be brutally slaughtered for all to see only to ascend back to heaven without anyone really seeing it, etc, etc, etc. Proves one's sanity, well then I must be confused to the meaning of the word sanity.
Intelligents doesn't exist among atheism
I assume you mean intelligence does not exist among Atheists.
If you don't then my bad, you obviously have a better grasp on English than I do, If you do there are studies to show that it does.
There is a saying "You are what you eat." Ingest nothing and nothing you become.
So what have you ingested and therefore become?
Never down vote "The Creator" his powers are greater than yours
Now now, are you being emotional?
I didn't get involved in this debate until I saw your obviously enraged editing, it is telling that you can not argue your point if you let yourself become emotional.
My own sanity I can not dispute. This would be a bias and meaning less thing to attempt. Who is sane?
As far as my English goes, I have a very good grasp of it. I often choose to defy what is the accepted standard, because the so called good English is to smooth. You took note of this and even copied my words, my point was stronger to you because you read it several times. Just like Reeeeeeeeeealy stands out. Studies are nothing more than glorified polls. There is no good way to test the population. Example of a study on apples. Question do you eat apples? Yes or No. One might answer yes for eating an apple and no for eating applesauce.
I have ingested knowledge therefore I am condemned to eternal thought.
Belief is fact only in atheism. Most atheist deny that they have a belief in science and call theories fact.
Never down vote the "Creator". This has nothing to do with emotion. Everything to do with equaling the playing the field. Tell an atheist that atheism is a religion and you get down voted without a response. Tell them they have belief and you get down voted without a response. Tell them there is something in their life they worship and you get down voted without a response. This I did because it can not be down voted and a response must be made in order to discredit these accusations. The are also other reason such as it pisses people off, God is the subliminal message of "His powers are greater than yours." statement.
I often choose to defy what is the accepted standard, because the so called good English is to smooth
Well if this is your way then it is only going to cause confusion.
Studies are nothing more than glorified polls.
How else would you gather information?
There is no good way to test the population.
This I agree with.
I have ingested knowledge therefore I am condemned to eternal thought.
I posited the question about this to see if you were under the illusion that atheists do not ingest information.
Belief is fact only in atheism. Most atheist deny that they have a belief in science and call theories fact.
By this are you questioning the meaning of theory and therefore pointing out that it requires faith?
Tell an atheist that atheism is a religion and you get down voted without a response. Tell them they have belief and you get down voted without a response.
This is something that I have noticed and it is not exclusive to atheists, anytime I post on a religious debate I get down voted without a response. Personally I only down vote if I have a valid dispute and even then I wouldn't if I thought the argument was good and I had given time to think about it.
Tell them there is something in their life they worship and you get down voted without a response.
There way be atheists that are militant in their ways. We are not all the same, I can say truly I worship nothing.
The are also other reason such as it pisses people off,
Which is funny and worth it at times.
I could not have been aware of your intent when I posted my argument, you have to admit it was worded as an attack on all atheists.
The poster of this debate doesn't seem to understand what 'irony' actually means. What exactly is being suggest is ironic? So I'm not sure what exactly he is trying to argue besides "atheists are insane". This appears to be more of an attack on atheists than a criticism of non-belief.
