Atheism is an illusion.
Debate Rounds (3)
theism is atheism
i have evidence that god is false.. so this makes me an atheist according to your world view because surely i am not right about it?
constructions are machines, nature is random.. random is the opposite of specified, intent is specified
nature is chaos, and life being nature, there is no, before life. matter is eternal, no beginning and no end, only now
Can you also perhaps state whether you believe there is absolutely NO god or not?
My position is that no one can reasonably state that there is absolutely NO God.
atheism is disbelief, a theist is an atheist to all other possibilities to the contrary...
atheist=a theist, belief to the contrary
love for love, is hate for hate..
the more positive is the more negative by necessity of opposition for positive to exist.. the brighter the light is the more damage to my eyes from the light if any.. theism is positive atheism is negative
god as in creator, any god.. there can only be 1 god.. because the creator is the creation, because the creation cant exist without the creator
i have evidence god is false.. my position is i know god is false.. but i have to be an atheist according to a theistic world view
so, if i am unresonable in stating there is absolutly no god.. is it resonable to believe nature is a machine? or construct, intended, specified
nature is opposite of machine
There are many different definitions floating around about what exactly atheism is, including your own brand of atheism because I do not think everyone will agree with your definitions. When Christianity started out, the early Christians were called Atheists because they denied the Roman gods. In this respect they were called Atheist because they denied the Roman god"s existence, but this did not mean that they did not believe NO God existed. The Christians obviously believed in a God while being called atheists. Today the most popular definition is to assert that if you are an atheist that you believe that there is NO God. I have stated that this is the position I argue against, because I specifically mentioned that the atheist I refer to belief there is NO God.
If your position is that God is false then you have not ruled out the possibility that a god can still exist. There are many false things that exist (for example a lie exists and is a reality). To say therefore that god is false is a contradiction if you believe there is NO god because the god who is false must exist to be false. I would say that the atheist lacks belief in God rather than say like you that "atheism is disbelief". However it is not as easy as you try to make it, disbelief can either be justified or not, rational or irrational. Disbelief, if considered as a rational justified belief to hold, implies you have all the facts and based on all the facts you decided not to believe. No one in this world have all the facts. In a universe where we don"t even know how big it is, we are just a speck of dust here on earth. What science have so far observed about the universe, according to some, cannot even be considered more than a 1% knowledge or understanding about what is out there. Does this sound like a logical position? To make an absolute statement like there is NO God when we do not even know 1% of what is out there? This is usually the point where the atheist will insist that he or she do not have to have all the facts. Wrong! You want to say a being who can go anywhere in the universe or who can stay anywhere He likes can ABSOLUTELY not exist and you don"t need to know what"s going on out here in order to know this? Where is the scientific positional basis for your evidence if you cannot verify anything? The atheist made an absolute statement that NO GOD can exist and is therefore obliged to verify it to prove that their position is rational. Somewhere around here the atheist will claim that you cannot prove that which does not exist. This is a totally irrational statement because lack of verification does not automatically imply non-existence. God is a being who can be anywhere He wants to be, until you have searched everywhere in the Universe for a God and did not find Him, don"t go around stating that He does not exist.
You say again that you have evidence god is false. Perhaps you can share this evidence in this debate?
Again, unless you have been everywhere in the Universe, seen everything in the universe and know all about the universe and did not find any God, I will say that you are reasonable to conclude there is no God. If you do not have this background information then you do not know much and there is an uncertainty factor about how true any of your evidence can be and therefore I will maintain my position that you are unreasonable if you say there is no God.
I disagree with the general statement that there can only be one god. There are many gods around, apparently you can even go to India and see some godmen walking around there. There is however, only one TRUE GOD who must have the nature, attributes and abilities to be distinguished from everyone else as the TRUE GOD.
If nature is a machine then you are unreasonable to assume that there is absolutely no God. From practical experience everyone knows that a machine cannot come about by itself. A machine can only work if an intelligent being worked out and designed the mechanics for the machine to be built and also worked out the guidelines of how the machine must be operated. Therefore this analogy that you used is not very good because it contradicts your statements. It is obvious that a machine needs an intelligent designer, and therefore a designer must exist.
Just some personal advice: If the light is too bright, try turning it off, closing your eyes or using sunglasses to prevent damage to your eyes. There are alternatives=514;
you can not disagree with my position, it is true
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.