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.
Atheism is self refuting. Because the atheist has to reach the conclusion that there is no God through reason, while at the same time undermining any epistemological validity to the process of reasoning itself.
Aside from the fact that non-gnostic Atheism doesn't require the positive claim of "No God" (as opposed to the negative stance of simply not believing in the positive existence of God) the way gnostic-Atheism does, what makes you think that Atheism, be it gnostic or "agnostic" in nature, undermines "any epistemological validity to the process of reasoning itself"?
Modal logic, propositional logic, etc, are just convenient labels for different circumstances under which arguments can be made. But logic itself can only be one, moron. And it must be absolute.
Can you name one situation in which the law of noncontradiction, or the law of excluded middle, or the law of identity are subjective ?
Look, weasel, I said objective and absolute. Do not try to hurry me. All you are showing is that this is leading you to an uncomfortable position. So they are objective and absolute. Agree ?
There is no such thing as ""only the existence of a deity"". Postulating that the universe does not have a creator entails a complete set of epistemological positions by necessity.
I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what atheism really is
I believe there exists things for which there currently can be no evidence. Whether or not they exist on a "immaterial world or plane" seems to be a matter of philosophy.
I'd say no. They exist as concepts, but that doesn't require an additional plane of existence.
They are immaterial, so they don't exist in a particular coordinate of space.
If you are trying to use this as a "Oh, so non material things exist! How can you then say God doesn't exist" you are going to fall victim to the non-positive atheism aspect.
Though I guess we'll have to go down that rabbit hole later.
They do not exist in a materiel sense, they exist as concepts.
If you want to play semantics you could say they physically exist in the form of the electrical neural impulses that occur as we think about them, but I generally try not to play that sort of game.
And no, the rest was not a red herring, as I was not attempting to distract or mislead. It was simply an attempt to preempt a conversation branch I feared we were going down.
And out of curiosity, why aren't you providing any actual positive arguments in favor of your position? Instead you seem to be thinking that you can catch me in some sort of "trap" and that would somehow prove your point, but it wouldn't. At best, it would somehow undermine a stance I haven't even really taken yet.
So can you stop with the games and start actually arguing your position?
If you are unprepared and did not even know the epistemology involved in atheism, that is not my problem. I am not going to tutor you. Anyone who reads this debate will see immediately how you got stuck in that simple question and how you tried to avoid it like a weasel. They will also see that I gave you ample time to answer. So this one's over.
I have answered this question multiple times: Thoughts and concepts do not exist in a location. They are not physical. The closest to physicality they have are existing within our minds, which would be the electrical neural impulses.
You clearly want a different answer, so just say where you think they are.
If you are referring to " Because the atheist has to reach the conclusion that there is no God through reason, while at the same time undermining any epistemological validity to the process of reasoning itself." then the question you never answered remains: Why do you think it must be the case that Atheists undermine the validity of the process of reasoning?