atheism is theism to the contrary
if you claim that you are wearing a hat right now, and i disbelieve you, believe that you are not wearing a hat, i am a theist to the contrary, atheist
negative is antipositive, atheism is antitheism
theism=belief=i accept imagination
This is a factual claim. It is either true or false. You do not know which, as you cannot see me. However, whether I have a hat on or not is something that you could find out. You could demand a picture, or fly to my house and look in my window, and then you would know my hat status.
When I claim to be wearing a hat, you have no evidence to believe or not to believe me. This means that neither position is more plausible than the other. The ONLY rational stance is to be unsure about my hat status.
However, when we talk about theism/atheism, the two positions are not on equal footing. You make atheism into a belief, when by definition it is not. Atheism is the absence of a belief. Agnosticism does not mean "I'm not sure," it means "it is impossible to know". Atheism is the neutral position. Theism is the belief in a deity, and agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know if there is a deity. Atheism is simply the rejection of those two stances.
Let me try and bring back the hat analogy. Theism does not fit with the laws of the universe as we know them, but wearing a hat does. So let's now say I am wearing the magical Sorting Hat from Hogwarts.
The "theist" position: I believe you are wearing the sorting hat.
The "agnostic" position: I can't know for sure whether you are wearing the sorting hat.
The "atheist" position: I have no evidence to believe that the sorting hat is real, so I can't believe you are wearing it.
i cant go back in time
i just looked at my dog, is that a fact?
if i know your claim is true, its not imaginary, therfore not a religious claim. if i claim you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed, feel free to try and argue with that
i am sure that i dont see you wearing a hat, which is to say i know that i dont know your claim is true, and i am certain of that.
so, if you believ that i didnt just look at my dog, or i believe that you are not wearing hat? what are those positons called?
non belief=i know, i accept i dont know, i am unaware of the claim, i am dead, or i dont exist, or i have another religion
you are not born with beliefs, i donk now is the default position on any imaginary claim, as its true
belief is theism, if i believe, i am a theist or atheist, not agnostic
belief in scientific information, is belief in god, theism
I am a woman.
This is a true or false statement, and you don't know which. It has just as much chance of being true as it does being false, because there are roughly the same number of men and women. You have to reason to believe or disbelieve me, but you could find out. I can't change my gender the same way I can take off my hat or tell my dog to leave the room, and it isn't that hard to track a person down and verify their gender.
But this, like the hats, is a bad comparison to theism, because we have documented evidence that women exist.
I am a unicorn.
This is also a true/false statement, and you don't know which. But now, one option is much more likely than the other. I'm very likely to be lying here, as unicorns have hooves and cannot type. We also have no documented evidence they exist, which means it is unreasonable for you to believe that I am a unicorn until I can prove to you that it do. This is because the burden of proof is entirely on me to prove what I am claiming (be it a hat, a woman, or a unicorn). However, it is also unreasonable to say you cannot know that I am a unicorn (agnostic). If i was a magical unicorn, I could very easily prove it to you. I could fly through your window and poop rainbows on your lap, and let you take pictures to verify you were not hallucinating. However, I offer no such proof. This doesn't mean it is impossible to prove, just that I'm incapable.
So, to summarize: The "theist" position is to accept that I am a unicorn. The "agnostic" position is to say my unicornhood is beyond verification. The "atheist" position is to reject that I am a unicorn. This is why being atheistic about claims with no support is the most reasonable position.
it was really simple, i was talking about my dog, clearly your dog is not imaginary... and btw i dont have a dog, but, am i lying about not having a dog?
facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory
you are either male or female, or both, no escaping that, its absolute, and i know, thus its not an imaginary claim, thou if you say you have big boobs i have no clue
math is absolute, even if i have to imagine it. 1+1=2 anywhere in reality, if you have a pen in your hand, and you put one more pen in it, you have 2 pens in your hand.. i know this can not be other ways
supernature is false by default, and i have never experienced a unicorn in reality, but i dont know
i dont know=i have to imagine it(=i know its false(higher level))
what evidence is sufficient for you to know that there are no unicorns in reality, but you still have to imagine it?
evidence=belief system=theism=scientific information
again, if i dont have to imagine it, its not a religious claim. if you are physically flying around in my room and you are a horse with a horn, there is nothing to believe, as i know
the positions you mention are completly invalid in all exmaples you can mention. what if i disbelieve that you are a unicorn, what is my positon then?
"Facts do not exist beyond my own memory." Here you are arguing there is no such thing as an objective reality outside of your memory. This is a pretty radical view, as if there is no objective reality there can be no debate about what is real because nothing is real. While you acknowledge the Descartes' famous "I think, therefore, I am", you contradict your position later in this same post, when you call both my gender and the laws of mathematics absolute. So, which is it, do facts exist in the external world or not?
"Supernatural events are false by default." Yes and no. Anything and everything is false until it can be proven true, especially things which appear to violate the laws of nature. But just because something appears supernatural does not make it automatically untrue. There have been plenty of phenomena over the years that have appeared supernatural and later been explained when we learned more about them.
"I don't know something = I know it is false." These three statements are not equivalent, which you are claiming. Ignorance is distinct from falsehood.
"What evidence is sufficient to prove that no unicorns exist?" This is exactly my point. It is impossible to prove a negative, such as prove unicorns don't exist, or prove I can't bench press a car, or prove that gods are not real. These things simply cannot be proven, but here's the thing; they don't have to be proven! The burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is up to the person making the claim to prove their position is true. If they fail to do so, we are justified in dismissing their claim as unreasonable.
"Evidence = Belief System = Theism = Scientific Information." I have no idea what the argument is here. Evidence is not a belief system. Evidence is not theism. Theism is not evidence. Scientific information is not a belief system. You cannot put an equal sign between unrelated terms. It is like saying "Apples = Suspension Bridges = Kenya = Handsome". It just makes no sense.
I have reworked your next paragraph to make it read better, however I believe I have stated your position accurately: "If you make an incredible claim (ie. you are a unicorn, a god exists) you must provide physical evidence. Religious claims have no physical evidence. If you provide irrefutable physical evidence, then it is not a question of belief because you have proved your claim to be a fact about the world." This is actually a valid argument, except for this part: "Religious claims have no physical evidence". Now, I see your thinking here, which is a belief is something taken on faith and knowledge is something learned through evidence. However faith, while not a good system for learning about reality, is not automatically wrong. Just like the old saying "even a broken clock is right once a day", a claim accepted on faith could be correct by accident. If I see a shoe box on my floor, and my roommate says it is empty, and I choose to believe there is a gecko inside the box, I am doing so with no evidence. Geckos are not indigenous to my area, I have never seen one in my house, none of our neighbours has one as pets, and my roommate told me that he knows the box is empty. All point to the box not having a gecko inside, and my argument that "The box has a gecko because I believe it does" is a terrible one. It is an argument that we are totally justified in dismissing, just like religious claims. But, say we check the box and somehow a gecko really is there! Its incredible, it defies everything we thought we knew, and a rational person could not have predicted it. However, my insanely unlikely faith based claim turned out to be correct. This demonstrates how religious claims should be dismissed as not reasonable until we have evidence for them, not dismissed as automatically false because they can't currently be proven.
Final point: "The positions you mention are completely invalid in all examples you can mention." I'm a little unsure what you are talking about here, but my best guess is you are referring to my mock "theist, agnostic, atheist" in relation to the unicorn. This may be partially my fault for being vague, so let's clear things up. One cannot be theistic/atheistic about anything other than the existence of a god or gods. You can't be a unicorn atheist, because the term atheism specifically refers to a lack of belief in gods. You simply do not believe in unicorns. The term agnostic, however, just translates to "without knowledge". This means someone can be agnostic about anything; ghosts, gods, goblins, ghouls, gremlins, grumps or grouches. With that in minds, lets look at our three positions now:
1. I believe X is true.
2. I cannot know if X is true.
3. There is no evidence of X existing, therefore I have no reason to believe in X, therefore I do not believe in X.
We can substitute God, or Thor or Vishnu or Rah or any god in for X, and person 1 becomes a theist, person 2 becomes an agnostic, and person 3 becomes an atheist. If we substitute any other supernatural phenomena, such as ghosts, in for X, the names of the positions change (believer, agnostic, skeptic) but that is the only thing that changes. 1 and 2 are still unreasonable positions, because X is currently unproven, but theoretically provable. Once again, position 3 (atheism/skepticism) is the default position for a reasonable person when encountering unproven claims.
To answer your final question, you are called a skeptic if you do not believe I am a unicorn. It is akin to being an atheist, the only difference is the subject matter.
I apologize if i came off as condescending or insulting, that was not my intention. I look forward to your reply!
reality is not a fact, gravity is not a fact. facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now, i dont have to imagine gravity or remember it
truth can only be in the past
know is absolute
FACT=truth=knowledge=past=memory of know
i know my experience of now, therfore i am.
only know is true, i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it.
belief=Be lie, as i dont know is true
my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing
supernature is false by default, can never be real. anything i experience in reality, is not supernature, at any point
imagination is false, and i dont know is a position i know. i have to see, to see that i dont see a dog right now, and i am certain i do not, which is to say i have to imagine a dog where you might claim it to be
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
unicorns are imaginary, imagination exist.
god is imaginary, not real
this is your belief, that others need to prove things to you, which naturally lead you right into a scientific belief system, the sure know how to keep people in line
all imaginary claims are false by default
so what evidence is sufficient for you to know that i am wearing a hat right now, but you still have to imagine it? i dont know is true even in the face of evidence, as its about possibility, belief
god is information, a world creator if believed
apples are not suspension bridges. scientific information is a belief system, as i dont know. evidence=belief system, belief=theism
provide physical evidence that beliefs exist, now keep in mind, or that lies exist, or that your girlfriend ever believed anything you have said to her
science is all about faith, unles you do it yourself, and then the rest of science is still a belief system.
faith is automaticly false, as i dont know is true
is it true for you to say that i am wearing a hat right now? when the opposite could as easily be true, and even if i tell you that i am actually wearing a hat right now, you still dont know
if your friend claims the shoe box on the floor is empty, you can believe him, disbelieve him, or accept you dont know. or ofc as you said create your own religion, the gecko in the box
what evidence is sufficient for you to know that there is a gecko inside the box but you still have to imagine it?
the gecko in the box is your god if you believe its in there, like the nut in a nutshell is insanity, or like water under the bridge
even if it turns out you are right about the gecko, at no point did you know the future, therfore its true you didnt know, until you knew
1.i believe x is true
2.i believe x is not true
3.i accept i dont know
only positions that exist on ANY imaginary claim
lies are complicated by seperation, and true is simple now as one
However, categorizing these three positions as separate entities may be fallacious. If we look at the Dawkins' Belief Scale, we get a better look at these positions.
1. Strong Theist: Absolute certainty God exists (think religious fundamentalists)
2. De Facto Theist: Not 100% sure, but lives life as if God exists (most religious people)
3. Weak Theist: Very uncertain, leaning towards theism (Easter Christians)
4. True Agnostic: God's existence and non existence are exactly equally likely. (Pro's stance)
5. Weak Atheist: Very uncertain, but leaning towards atheism (skeptics)
6. De Facto Atheist: Not 100% sure, but lives life as if God does not exist (most atheists)
7. Strong Atheist: Absolute certainty God does not exist (Carl Jung)
Now, you claim that theism (1) and atheism (7) are both beliefs, and you are correct. Absolute certainty, in a scientific sense, requires evidence that neither can produce to support their position. So let's eliminate them. While were at it, we can knock off 3 and 5 as well, as they don't add anything to the debate. We are left with 2, 4, and 6. Now, 2 has no physical evidence and very flimsy logical arguments to support it, so we can throw it out as well. Now 4 and 6 remain, and you argue that 4 is a reasonable claim. God is just as likely to exist as not to exist. This seems reasonable, as if you were to say "a coin is just as likely to land heads as it is tails" you would be correct. However, we know that coins have two sides. We know the odds are 50/50. We have no (good) evidence that God exists, so to reduce the odds of him existing to 50/50 is fallacious. We have no reason to grant the theist that they are just as likely to be right when they cannot adequately demonstrate their claim. The true agnostic is unreasonable because he doesn't recognize who bears the burden of proof (the theist).
Lets say you and your friends go to a magic show, and the illusionist claims he has magic powers. One of your friends believes him, the other laughs and says the claim is ridiculous, because he cannot prove he has magic powers. Would you say that your two friends are exactly equally likely to be right? Of course not. So why do the rules change when we talk about God? They don't.
agnostic=i dont know=true, unless i know
belief=be lie, as i dont know is true
theism is theism, no need to judge it
theism cant exist without belief
you have 3 options.. thats it.. now you have just added to the bs list m8
am i wearing a hat as i type this? you can believe my claim, disbelieve it, or accept you dont know, thats it, no other positions can exist
belief=positive position on an imaginary claim
You claim you are wearing a hat. This claim is equally likely to be true, as there are only two possible scenarios; you are or aren't wearing a hat. And, since I don't know, agnosticism is the default position.
The key difference is I know for a fact that you exist. I also know for a fact that hats exist. I don't know that God exists, nor does anyone.
If you want to remain logically consistent, you have to say you are agnostic about all supernatural phenomena, because if I "believe" ghosts don't exist, you say I am taking "a negative positions on an imaginary claim," (Round 5). Yet you yourself say that "supernatur[al phenomena] are false by default" (Round 3). This is a contradiction. On one hand you say that supernatural claims are false by default, WHICH IS THE ATHEIST POSITION, and on the other you say atheists need to prove something doesn't exist. How exactly would you propose someone prove something doesn't exist? I don't know of anyone who thinks that Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is real, so it should be quite easy to prove it is not real. Except, it isn't. The castle is invisible, and well protected from being found by unwanted strangers. So how do I prove it isn't there? I can't. So would you say that you don't know if Hogwarts exists?
If you don't know whether Hogwarts exists, then your argument for agnosticism is logically consistent, but you are crazy because you believe a magical castle from a children's book could possibly be real. However, if you disbelieve that Hogwarts is real, as I know you do, then your argument for agnosticism being more reasonable than atheism has been defeated.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|