CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS Xtianssuck

Reward Points:1
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
95%
Arguments:6
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
6 most recent arguments.
3 points

ok well thanks for your time but if you are going to continue with the insults, I am not going to deal with you, and your reputation is spot on, rude, insulting and consider your self to be much more than you really are. if you would like to continue this debate in a civilized manner like a decent human being, I will be happy to continue. I will not be insulted or called popsicle, if you cannot continue with out the condescension and the insults I am done. This is not a debate its an jerk trying to tell you how wrong you are, so good luck and screw off.

2 points

Also you havent addressed the 4 types of of atheist epistemology...

[1] : Negative inductive atheism, we can call the first stance, is exactly the sort of inference you describe here. Are the respondents on this blog aliens from another planet? There is no evidence in favor of this hypothesis (well, little evidence) and since there is no good reason to believe it, I don’t. In the same way, one could argue as you do that there is someone making a claim of the existence of a being and therefore assumes the burden of proof for it and if they have not met that burden then rationally, one ought not believe in the existence claim.

[2] : Positive inductive atheism would be what we could term the position in which one argues that there is evidence to believe in the falsity of the magical, invisible man in the sky hypothesis. Folks with this view often point to the incredible successes of purely naturalistic explanations for phenomena that were thought at earlier times to be entirely unassailable by scientific methods. With all the things that had been thought to be the result of magic, spirits or supernatural causes that we now understand and can control by the use of science, there seems to be reason to be suspicious of claims that any part of the universe is beyond scientific understanding. This is an inductive argument based on the historical relation between science and religion, and judging that the successes that science has had in the past in realms like astronomy, biology, geology, and psychology will thus probably go all the way down to eliminating non-naturalistic elements in all our beliefs.

[3] : Deductive atheism would then be the name for those who claim to be able to show that the notion of an all-being is self-contradictory, that the Judeo-Christian God or any supernatural being could not exist. Those who champion arguments like the problem of evil are taking this line. A world which contains terrible suffering by innocent children, the argument goes, could not have been created by a being who is all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful because if He knew about it and could stop it, but didn’t, then he would not be all-loving. This is a deductive argument to show that it is impossible for a particular type of god hypothesis to be true.

[4] : Linguistic atheism would be a name we could apply to those folks like the Logical Positivists of the first half of the 20th century who were atheists, not because of deductive arguments or the lack of evidence, but because, they contended, God talk—indeed metaphysical talk of any sort—was simply meaningless. It isn’t, as Saint Anselm argued, that the atheist and the theist both agree on what is meant by God, they just disagree on whether one exists. According to Carnap and company, the whole question is really a pseudo-question. It looks like a question, it sounds like a question, but it really isn’t. A question is a request for information, if there is no such information to be had, then the string of words is not a real question even if it is grammatically proper. If you and a friend were to get into a huge screaming battle over what color my sister’s car is, you would be debating forever, not because it is a deep mystery of the cosmos, but because I don’t have a sister. In the same way, the Logical Positivists argued that questions like the existence or non-existence of god were simply meaningless squabble, linguistic muddles that were the result of taking anything that looks like a question seriously.

2 points

1. Correct.

2. False argument.

3 Nonsensical premise.

4 How do you conclude that?

5. All bachelors are unmarried men - refuting your premise of absolute truth.

6. See 5.

7. True.

8. You failed to define the term atheism. If is defined as no God belief then it is on the person claiming absolute knowledge of God to argue the case for God .If atheism is defined as knowledge there is no god then it is no longer a belief it becomes gnosticism.

Xtianssuck(1) Clarified
1 point

I have a life I'll deal with you when I have time. I have a job and children and you're tired ass argument when be replied to when I see fit.

Xtianssuck(1) Clarified
1 point

So are you going to present some sort of opening statements?

1 point

What is this debates topic? What is the goal of this debate?

Xtianssuck has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: Some College

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here