Total Posts:154|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Teenager atheists.

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 7:37:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are a lot of them about, from England to America, and on this site, and the answer why seems to be fairly straight forward. They don't like to be told what is what, and what to do. I mean, they have their mum yelling at them all of the time to tidy their bedroom and to do their college homework, so why the heck would they want a god to tell them how to live their youthful, arrogant lives?

In the mists of turning from a boy or girl into a man or woman, teenagers tend to rebel, in the development of independent thinking, it is clear that teenagers like to challenge certain authorities. God being one of them.

I've spoken to grown adults about Christianity who aren't Christians, and they seem to be more open minded than youthful non Christians/atheists. Perhaps when teens are with their friends they are some what conformed into saying what they think their friends would want them to say, not necessary what should be said? Perhaps to not believe in God has become a trend? And if you believe in God, it's kind of cool because your unique and that's 'kinda' fun, I guess? But you won't ever be as cool as the full on atheist guy who never really speaks about God but when he or she does he or she is like, "What you talking about...umm hence the 21st century, no one believe in God today, go back to the Medieval age!" (laughs and goes and chills out in the 'cool zone' with his or her mates, but he or she doesn't call it the 'cool zone' because it's un-cool to call it that).

But who knows, what do you think? Teenager atheists.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 7:53:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
But who knows, what do you think? Teenager atheists.:

There are a lot of disaffected and disenchanted youth out there. It's practically a rite of passage to be a pissed off teenager. That said, I don't think this explains why so many teens are atheists. I think the reason is the same as their adult counterparts -- the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 8:21:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 7:53:54 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But who knows, what do you think? Teenager atheists.:
I think the reason is the same as their adult counterparts -- the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise.

I doubt it. If my experience is anything to go by, the vast majority of atheist teenagers I've interacted with who I've questioned haven't really thought through their atheism past The God Delusion. This always amuses me considering the fact that they're constantly harping on being "rationalists/skeptics" and "not accepting anything without evidence or justification."

Most teenage theists I've met seem to have not thought through their theism either.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 8:43:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll admit that I don't really give a sh!t...anarcho keeps saying he's an apatheist, but that seems more like me. I find religion fascinating, but I have no desire to "prove it wrong", I just don't want my life ruled by it.
If there is a law and its only justification is "the bible says", I don't think it should be a law.

I don't think that not having shar'a is taking away muslims' right to religion, and my reasoning is the same that I don't think not letting parents force kids into church or away from it, or into whatever else is in their right to religion.

I absolutely hate being preached at. I cannot stand people that make every small discussion something religious. (like my friend naji was cool, but he makes sooo many things into trying to prove islam that its just too annoying.)

And I am completely offended, at the complete worthlessness of infant bapitism. Its supposed to show that you accept a religion, not that you were born. ffs ppl it means nothing of newborns do it. I think people under 25 shouldn't be allowed to make complete religious decisions.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 8:45:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 8:21:37 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/1/2011 7:53:54 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But who knows, what do you think? Teenager atheists.:
I think the reason is the same as their adult counterparts -- the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise.

I doubt it. If my experience is anything to go by, the vast majority of atheist teenagers I've interacted with who I've questioned haven't really thought through their atheism past The God Delusion. This always amuses me considering the fact that they're constantly harping on being "rationalists/skeptics" and "not accepting anything without evidence or justification."

Most teenage theists I've met seem to have not thought through their theism either.:

Most theists I've met, particularly the young ones, ascribe to their respective religions because it's all they know. They were indoctrinated at a young age, and so they believe because they assume it true.

Often when pressed for details, they come apart at the seams. The astonishing number of ignorant Christians is astounding, particularly the young ones.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 10:22:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So teenagers don't believe in god cause it's cool to rebel? Wrong. They don't believe in god for the same reason they don't believe in unicorns. No evidence. Believing in god isn't like believing that the earth is round. There is actually reason to believe the earth isn't flat.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 10:26:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 8:21:37 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This always amuses me considering the fact that they're constantly harping on being "rationalists/skeptics" and "not accepting anything without evidence or justification."

... I'm pretty sure theists have the BOP.

Most teenage theists I've met seem to have not thought through their theism either.

That's why they're theists ;)
President of DDO
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 10:27:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 8:45:49 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/1/2011 8:21:37 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/1/2011 7:53:54 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But who knows, what do you think? Teenager atheists.:
I think the reason is the same as their adult counterparts -- the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise.

I doubt it. If my experience is anything to go by, the vast majority of atheist teenagers I've interacted with who I've questioned haven't really thought through their atheism past The God Delusion. This always amuses me considering the fact that they're constantly harping on being "rationalists/skeptics" and "not accepting anything without evidence or justification."

Most teenage theists I've met seem to have not thought through their theism either.:

Most theists I've met, particularly the young ones, ascribe to their respective religions because it's all they know. They were indoctrinated at a young age, and so they believe because they assume it true.

Often when pressed for details, they come apart at the seams. The astonishing number of ignorant Christians is astounding, particularly the young ones.

I was and still will do a theist one of these, so you can criticise and devour teenage theists to your hearts content.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 10:37:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was and still will do a theist one of these, so you can criticise and devour teenage theists to your hearts content.:

I was just pointing out an observation of mine.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 10:39:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 10:37:18 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I was and still will do a theist one of these, so you can criticise and devour teenage theists to your hearts content.:

I was just pointing out an observation of mine.

I know, I know, I was joking a bit.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 10:40:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 7:37:25 AM, GodSands wrote:
There are a lot of them about, from England to America, and on this site, and the answer why seems to be fairly straight forward. They don't like to be told what is what, and what to do.

Lolwut? I have yet to see an atheist on this site who is atheist because they don't like authority. The atheists here are atheist because it is patently apparent that the world has a profound lack of evidence for God, because there is a profound lack of logical support for God, and because science continually proves that what man thought was supernatural is, in fact, perfectly normal.

I mean, they have their mum yelling at them all of the time to tidy their bedroom and to do their college homework, so why the heck would they want a god to tell them how to live their youthful, arrogant lives?

Yeah, that's anarchism, not atheism. And furthermore, if this was truly the case, it would lead to APATHEISM, not ATHEISM. Get your terms straight.

In the mists of turning from a boy or girl into a man or woman,

Lol @ "in the mists" - I guess puberty in the UK must be pretty foggy. I think you mean "in the midst."

teenagers tend to rebel, in the development of independent thinking, it is clear that teenagers like to challenge certain authorities. God being one of them.

There's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. An atheist does not challenge God's authority, because to challenge it, one has to admit God exists. An apatheist would simply not care what God said. Perhaps you've discovered a new theological position - call it contratheism.

I've spoken to grown adults about Christianity who aren't Christians, and they seem to be more open minded than youthful non Christians/atheists.

If they are non-Christian, and non-Athist, I assume they are theists in some sense, or at the very least, deists. Which means that they are already open to the supernatural, and are de facto more "open-minded" (from your perspective) than atheists.

Perhaps when teens are with their friends they are some what conformed into saying what they think their friends would want them to say, not necessary what should be said? Perhaps to not believe in God has become a trend?

Actually, atheism has become a trend, but not in the "fad" sense. Atheism is trending upwards worldwide. So it's not really surprising that there are more and more atheists.

Also, if conformity is what's really at issue here, it's not something that could have spontaneously started - i.e. all teens cannot follow a crowd mentality, else there would be no first atheist to start the crowd's conversion. So at least some teens must accept atheism for a different reason than conformity.

AND this is no different than when believing in a spherical world was a "trend."

And if you believe in God, it's kind of cool because your unique and that's 'kinda' fun, I guess? But you won't ever be as cool as the full on atheist guy who never really speaks about God but when he or she does he or she is like, "What you talking about...umm hence the 21st century, no one believe in God today, go back to the Medieval age!" (laughs and goes and chills out in the 'cool zone' with his or her mates, but he or she doesn't call it the 'cool zone' because it's un-cool to call it that).

Yeah, I can see you haven't met many atheists. An atheist is more likely to treat someone who thinks God is "cool" with scorn. Or have you not noticed the treatment theists receive on this site?

And it's not as though atheists are persecutorial, it's that theists come to them claiming to know things about the world that are self-evidently false and don't actually consider the logical counterarguments that defeat their position.

Are such people deserving of scorn? There's a good argument to be made that they certainly are.

But who knows, what do you think? Teenager atheists.

Ooh... what do I think? I was a teenager when I became an atheist (19), so I get to answer.

Sorry Godsands, back to the drawing board. You really missed the target with this one.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 11:34:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 10:26:30 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/1/2011 8:21:37 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This always amuses me considering the fact that they're constantly harping on being "rationalists/skeptics" and "not accepting anything without evidence or justification."

... I'm pretty sure theists have the BOP.


Unequivocally? Nope. It depends on the facet of the debate. My point still stands about most teenage atheists I've met not having throught through their positions and the irony of them claiming to be "skeptical" and not accepting anything without justification. That usually just translates them into being hyper-skeptical of things they don't like and having relaxed standards of "skepticism" when it comes to their favored positions. Although, to be fair, that's just a human bias.

Most teenage theists I've met seem to have not thought through their theism either.

That's why they're theists ;)

Maybe. Maybe not.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 11:49:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 11:34:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Unequivocally? Nope. It depends on the facet of the debate. My point still stands about most teenage atheists I've met not having throught through their positions and the irony of them claiming to be "skeptical" and not accepting anything without justification. That usually just translates them into being hyper-skeptical of things they don't like and having relaxed standards of "skepticism" when it comes to their favored positions. Although, to be fair, that's just a human bias.

Why does somebody have to give you a reason for not believing in the extraordinary claim of God's existence? All they have to say in response is that they haven't been convinced, or that they see no reason to accept such assertions.

In regard to skeptics, I see what you're saying as it pertains to the overall term but it's different when you're talking about God. For instance if a self-professed skeptic happens to then believe in objective morality, well you have a point in that they don't take the skeptic's approach to everything. But maybe by skeptical they just mean hesitant in general to accept arguments they feel have unfounded premises? Or skeptical to arguments about God in particular? It's pretty much the behemoth of all assertions lol.
President of DDO
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 11:56:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 10:40:37 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 3/1/2011 7:37:25 AM, GodSands wrote:
There are a lot of them about, from England to America, and on this site, and the answer why seems to be fairly straight forward. They don't like to be told what is what, and what to do.

Lolwut? I have yet to see an atheist on this site who is atheist because they don't like authority. The atheists here are atheist because it is patently apparent that the world has a profound lack of evidence for God, because there is a profound lack of logical support for God, and because science continually proves that what man thought was supernatural is, in fact, perfectly normal.

I mean, they have their mum yelling at them all of the time to tidy their bedroom and to do their college homework, so why the heck would they want a god to tell them how to live their youthful, arrogant lives?

Yeah, that's anarchism, not atheism. And furthermore, if this was truly the case, it would lead to APATHEISM, not ATHEISM. Get your terms straight.

In the mists of turning from a boy or girl into a man or woman,

Lol @ "in the mists" - I guess puberty in the UK must be pretty foggy. I think you mean "in the midst."

teenagers tend to rebel, in the development of independent thinking, it is clear that teenagers like to challenge certain authorities. God being one of them.

There's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. An atheist does not challenge God's authority, because to challenge it, one has to admit God exists. An apatheist would simply not care what God said. Perhaps you've discovered a new theological position - call it contratheism.

I've spoken to grown adults about Christianity who aren't Christians, and they seem to be more open minded than youthful non Christians/atheists.

If they are non-Christian, and non-Athist, I assume they are theists in some sense, or at the very least, deists. Which means that they are already open to the supernatural, and are de facto more "open-minded" (from your perspective) than atheists.

Perhaps when teens are with their friends they are some what conformed into saying what they think their friends would want them to say, not necessary what should be said? Perhaps to not believe in God has become a trend?

Actually, atheism has become a trend, but not in the "fad" sense. Atheism is trending upwards worldwide. So it's not really surprising that there are more and more atheists.

Also, if conformity is what's really at issue here, it's not something that could have spontaneously started - i.e. all teens cannot follow a crowd mentality, else there would be no first atheist to start the crowd's conversion. So at least some teens must accept atheism for a different reason than conformity.

AND this is no different than when believing in a spherical world was a "trend."

And if you believe in God, it's kind of cool because your unique and that's 'kinda' fun, I guess? But you won't ever be as cool as the full on atheist guy who never really speaks about God but when he or she does he or she is like, "What you talking about...umm hence the 21st century, no one believe in God today, go back to the Medieval age!" (laughs and goes and chills out in the 'cool zone' with his or her mates, but he or she doesn't call it the 'cool zone' because it's un-cool to call it that).

Yeah, I can see you haven't met many atheists. An atheist is more likely to treat someone who thinks God is "cool" with scorn. Or have you not noticed the treatment theists receive on this site?

And it's not as though atheists are persecutorial, it's that theists come to them claiming to know things about the world that are self-evidently false and don't actually consider the logical counterarguments that defeat their position.

Are such people deserving of scorn? There's a good argument to be made that they certainly are.

But who knows, what do you think? Teenager atheists.

Ooh... what do I think? I was a teenager when I became an atheist (19), so I get to answer.

Sorry Godsands, back to the drawing board. You really missed the target with this one.

Yeah, well to become an atheist, you have to challenge God's authority and realise perhaps He has none and that He doesn't exist. You weren't ever a Christian though. Check out my other post.

Conformity as in, they haven't ever really discussed atheism, but when confronted they say what they have heard or what would be funny. Basically speaking, they will answer vaguely, "No evidence, is there, where's God if He exists?" No really, I've sat down with a group of non believers/atheists and spoke for hours on this out of my own will, didn't even know the people. Of course more intellectual arguments can arise, but not that often. They will typically say, "If God exists, why does evil?" Or "What created God?" But many if not all have a presupposition that, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD! Then they work from there.

And yes, I meant midst's, thank you.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 11:59:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If I conducted research the way people adhere to religious beliefs it would be a complete farce.

1, construct hypothesis
2, gather evidence
3, ignore evidence to the contrary

I don't understand how people can hold religious beliefs to a completely different standard.

I regarded myself as an atheist, not because I rebelled against my parents, though I made my scorn for their beliefs apparent due to rebellion. There's a difference.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:06:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, even a dipsh!t teenager can come to the conclusion that believing that a man healed the sick, walked on water, casted out demons, and rose from the dead is patently absurd. Anyone who is trying to convince people that this is true should expect to do some convincing.

It doesn't take a genius, it just takes being honest.

That said, I know plenty of stupid atheists. An atheist could have put just as much thought in not believing as a believer might have put in believing. I think we can all agree, believer or not, that most people who follow religions do not put much thought into why they are followingi t.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:16:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 8:21:37 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/1/2011 7:53:54 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But who knows, what do you think? Teenager atheists.:
I think the reason is the same as their adult counterparts -- the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise.

I doubt it. If my experience is anything to go by, the vast majority of atheist teenagers I've interacted with who I've questioned haven't really thought through their atheism past The God Delusion. This always amuses me considering the fact that they're constantly harping on being "rationalists/skeptics" and "not accepting anything without evidence or justification."

Most teenage theists I've met seem to have not thought through their theism either.

The truth behind all of this.

Most teenagers have not thought anything through. Whether it is their theism/atheism, driving 80 mph down an icy winding road, or getting wasted at a school dance when they know that their parents are picking them up afterward.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:16:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 12:02:07 PM, nonentity wrote:
And to add to that, non-belief is the null hypothesis so theists are the ones with something to prove.

Cool, I don't believe in a mind-independent external world, and since that's a null hypothesis the believers are the ones with the BOP. Otherwise it's irrational to believe in a mind-independent external world. Go ahead, nonentity, you have something to prove.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:33:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 12:16:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:02:07 PM, nonentity wrote:
An d to add to that, non-belief is the null hypothesis so theists are the ones with something to prove.

Cool, I don't believe in a mind-independent external world, and since that's a null hypothesis the believers are the ones with the BOP. Otherwise it's irrational to believe in a mind-independent external world. Go ahead, nonentity, you have something to prove.

Depending on your definition I would agree with you there... lol
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:38:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 7:37:25 AM, GodSands wrote:
There are a lot of them about, from England to America, and on this site, and the answer why seems to be fairly straight forward.

are you thinkin' what i'm thinking!? that's it's the internet's doing!?

They don't like to be told what is what, and what to do. I mean, they have their mum yelling at them all of the time to tidy their bedroom and to do their college homework, so why the heck would they want a god to tell them how to live their youthful, arrogant lives?

nope..

i'd actually read it and knew what you were thinking.. but what i said was the most obvious (straight forward?) answer to me.. did it for the lulz :)

In the mists of turning from a boy or girl into a man or woman, teenagers tend to rebel, in the development of independent thinking, it is clear that teenagers like to challenge certain authorities. God being one of them.

I've spoken to grown adults about Christianity who aren't Christians, and they seem to be more open minded than youthful non Christians/atheists. Perhaps when teens are with their friends they are some what conformed into saying what they think their friends would want them to say, not necessary what should be said? Perhaps to not believe in God has become a trend? And if you believe in God, it's kind of cool because your unique and that's 'kinda' fun, I guess? But you won't ever be as cool as the full on atheist guy who never really speaks about God but when he or she does he or she is like, "What you talking about...umm hence the 21st century, no one believe in God today, go back to the Medieval age!" (laughs and goes and chills out in the 'cool zone' with his or her mates, but he or she doesn't call it the 'cool zone' because it's un-cool to call it that).

But who knows

not you anyway :)
signature
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:43:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 12:33:04 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:16:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:02:07 PM, nonentity wrote:
An d to add to that, non-belief is the null hypothesis so theists are the ones with something to prove.

Cool, I don't believe in a mind-independent external world, and since that's a null hypothesis the believers are the ones with the BOP. Otherwise it's irrational to believe in a mind-independent external world. Go ahead, nonentity, you have something to prove.

Depending on your definition I would agree with you there... lol

Either way, your analogy doesn't quite fit. If you and I are both looking at an empty space and you assert that a chair is in fact there, it would be your burden to prove.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:52:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
By the way atheists. To prove that something does not exist is much alike in providing evidence that something does exist, and this is especially applied when empirical evidence is a standard for both sides. If I were to prove that there was no invisible entity in my room, I would have to show evidence, because hell, throw anything at reality and it will catch it given the right conditions. If your an agnostic however, then you aren't convinced of either atheism or theism, but every time you think of the subject, you can't make up your mind.

So to say, "Ahh, we don't have the burden of proof, you theists do." Isn't rational thinking. If you believe that there is no burden of proof on your half, then it's probably because you haven't understood the nature of God. Being that He can create anything, so whatever 'science' might discover, one could always say, "God created that." Although saying that doesn't explain how it was created, it is sufficient enough and reasonable enough to be considered as a possibility. So, say the Big Bang did happen, and like a million years in the future, people have discovered what created it, what cause it, it wasn't God as theist's first thought, but something else physical and material, what created that? God? Maybe, but the fundamental point which I am trying to make is that physicality despite how far fetched or how long ago it occurred, is still as physical as your rotting blank of wood at the back of your garden. Something therefore, to give an explanation of what created the universe, that being here the definition of all things physical, had to be something other than physical it's self.

But of course the atheist will still see that there is no reason to believe in God. In a different paragraph, how could you defend atheism against what I just said?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 12:55:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 12:52:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
By the way atheists. To prove that something does not exist is much alike in providing evidence that something does exist, and this is especially applied when empirical evidence is a standard for both sides. If I were to prove that there was no invisible entity in my room, I would have to show evidence, because hell, throw anything at reality and it will catch it given the right conditions. If your an agnostic however, then you aren't convinced of either atheism or theism, but every time you think of the subject, you can't make up your mind.

So to say, "Ahh, we don't have the burden of proof, you theists do." Isn't rational thinking. If you believe that there is no burden of proof on your half, then it's probably because you haven't understood the nature of God. Being that He can create anything, so whatever 'science' might discover, one could always say, "God created that." Although saying that doesn't explain how it was created, it is sufficient enough and reasonable enough to be considered as a possibility. So, say the Big Bang did happen, and like a million years in the future, people have discovered what created it, what cause it, it wasn't God as theist's first thought, but something else physical and material, what created that? God? Maybe, but the fundamental point which I am trying to make is that physicality despite how far fetched or how long ago it occurred, is still as physical as your rotting blank of wood at the back of your garden. Something therefore, to give an explanation of what created the universe, that being here the definition of all things physical, had to be something other than physical it's self.

But of course the atheist will still see that there is no reason to believe in God. In a different paragraph, how could you defend atheism against what I just said?

There isn't any reason. Whether god exists or not is completely irrelevant. Who cares if god exists or not if it can't be verified or debunked?

A better question would really be, is there any reason to have faith in a holy text or priest when you have reason to believe that you shouldn't?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 1:02:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 12:55:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:52:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
By the way atheists. To prove that something does not exist is much alike in providing evidence that something does exist, and this is especially applied when empirical evidence is a standard for both sides. If I were to prove that there was no invisible entity in my room, I would have to show evidence, because hell, throw anything at reality and it will catch it given the right conditions. If your an agnostic however, then you aren't convinced of either atheism or theism, but every time you think of the subject, you can't make up your mind.

So to say, "Ahh, we don't have the burden of proof, you theists do." Isn't rational thinking. If you believe that there is no burden of proof on your half, then it's probably because you haven't understood the nature of God. Being that He can create anything, so whatever 'science' might discover, one could always say, "God created that." Although saying that doesn't explain how it was created, it is sufficient enough and reasonable enough to be considered as a possibility. So, say the Big Bang did happen, and like a million years in the future, people have discovered what created it, what cause it, it wasn't God as theist's first thought, but something else physical and material, what created that? God? Maybe, but the fundamental point which I am trying to make is that physicality despite how far fetched or how long ago it occurred, is still as physical as your rotting blank of wood at the back of your garden. Something therefore, to give an explanation of what created the universe, that being here the definition of all things physical, had to be something other than physical it's self.

But of course the atheist will still see that there is no reason to believe in God. In a different paragraph, how could you defend atheism against what I just said?


There isn't any reason. Whether god exists or not is completely irrelevant. Who cares if god exists or not if it can't be verified or debunked?

A better question would really be, is there any reason to have faith in a holy text or priest when you have reason to believe that you shouldn't?

Not talking about theology right now, although there are reasons why I believe what I believe, they aren't first in defence, it is more like, "I am now a Christian based upon faith alone, oh but what's this! There is evidence for what I believe?". Evidence is a bonus, yet it is necessary, since we do go my faith based on reason. I could go through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ with you if you would like? But on a different thread.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 1:10:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 1:02:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:55:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:52:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
By the way atheists. To prove that something does not exist is much alike in providing evidence that something does exist, and this is especially applied when empirical evidence is a standard for both sides. If I were to prove that there was no invisible entity in my room, I would have to show evidence, because hell, throw anything at reality and it will catch it given the right conditions. If your an agnostic however, then you aren't convinced of either atheism or theism, but every time you think of the subject, you can't make up your mind.

So to say, "Ahh, we don't have the burden of proof, you theists do." Isn't rational thinking. If you believe that there is no burden of proof on your half, then it's probably because you haven't understood the nature of God. Being that He can create anything, so whatever 'science' might discover, one could always say, "God created that." Although saying that doesn't explain how it was created, it is sufficient enough and reasonable enough to be considered as a possibility. So, say the Big Bang did happen, and like a million years in the future, people have discovered what created it, what cause it, it wasn't God as theist's first thought, but something else physical and material, what created that? God? Maybe, but the fundamental point which I am trying to make is that physicality despite how far fetched or how long ago it occurred, is still as physical as your rotting blank of wood at the back of your garden. Something therefore, to give an explanation of what created the universe, that being here the definition of all things physical, had to be something other than physical it's self.

But of course the atheist will still see that there is no reason to believe in God. In a different paragraph, how could you defend atheism against what I just said?


There isn't any reason. Whether god exists or not is completely irrelevant. Who cares if god exists or not if it can't be verified or debunked?

A better question would really be, is there any reason to have faith in a holy text or priest when you have reason to believe that you shouldn't?

Not talking about theology right now, although there are reasons why I believe what I believe, they aren't first in defence, it is more like, "I am now a Christian based upon faith alone, oh but what's this! There is evidence for what I believe?". Evidence is a bonus, yet it is necessary, since we do go my faith based on reason. I could go through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ with you if you would like? But on a different thread.

You won't convince me, I guarantee it.

In fact, if you look at my debates, the only debate I've ever done is on the historicity of the resurrection.

But my point isn't theology... My point is that whether you believe in a god or not.. It doesn't really matter. It is completely irrelevant to our lives.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 1:22:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 1:10:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/1/2011 1:02:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:55:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:52:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
By the way atheists. To prove that something does not exist is much alike in providing evidence that something does exist, and this is especially applied when empirical evidence is a standard for both sides. If I were to prove that there was no invisible entity in my room, I would have to show evidence, because hell, throw anything at reality and it will catch it given the right conditions. If your an agnostic however, then you aren't convinced of either atheism or theism, but every time you think of the subject, you can't make up your mind.

So to say, "Ahh, we don't have the burden of proof, you theists do." Isn't rational thinking. If you believe that there is no burden of proof on your half, then it's probably because you haven't understood the nature of God. Being that He can create anything, so whatever 'science' might discover, one could always say, "God created that." Although saying that doesn't explain how it was created, it is sufficient enough and reasonable enough to be considered as a possibility. So, say the Big Bang did happen, and like a million years in the future, people have discovered what created it, what cause it, it wasn't God as theist's first thought, but something else physical and material, what created that? God? Maybe, but the fundamental point which I am trying to make is that physicality despite how far fetched or how long ago it occurred, is still as physical as your rotting blank of wood at the back of your garden. Something therefore, to give an explanation of what created the universe, that being here the definition of all things physical, had to be something other than physical it's self.

But of course the atheist will still see that there is no reason to believe in God. In a different paragraph, how could you defend atheism against what I just said?


There isn't any reason. Whether god exists or not is completely irrelevant. Who cares if god exists or not if it can't be verified or debunked?

A better question would really be, is there any reason to have faith in a holy text or priest when you have reason to believe that you shouldn't?

Not talking about theology right now, although there are reasons why I believe what I believe, they aren't first in defence, it is more like, "I am now a Christian based upon faith alone, oh but what's this! There is evidence for what I believe?". Evidence is a bonus, yet it is necessary, since we do go my faith based on reason. I could go through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ with you if you would like? But on a different thread.

You won't convince me, I guarantee it.

In fact, if you look at my debates, the only debate I've ever done is on the historicity of the resurrection.


But my point isn't theology... My point is that whether you believe in a god or not.. It doesn't really matter. It is completely irrelevant to our lives.

I'm talking about whether God exists, not whether God is relevant or not.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 1:24:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 1:22:01 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 3/1/2011 1:10:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/1/2011 1:02:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:55:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/1/2011 12:52:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
By the way atheists. To prove that something does not exist is much alike in providing evidence that something does exist, and this is especially applied when empirical evidence is a standard for both sides. If I were to prove that there was no invisible entity in my room, I would have to show evidence, because hell, throw anything at reality and it will catch it given the right conditions. If your an agnostic however, then you aren't convinced of either atheism or theism, but every time you think of the subject, you can't make up your mind.

So to say, "Ahh, we don't have the burden of proof, you theists do." Isn't rational thinking. If you believe that there is no burden of proof on your half, then it's probably because you haven't understood the nature of God. Being that He can create anything, so whatever 'science' might discover, one could always say, "God created that." Although saying that doesn't explain how it was created, it is sufficient enough and reasonable enough to be considered as a possibility. So, say the Big Bang did happen, and like a million years in the future, people have discovered what created it, what cause it, it wasn't God as theist's first thought, but something else physical and material, what created that? God? Maybe, but the fundamental point which I am trying to make is that physicality despite how far fetched or how long ago it occurred, is still as physical as your rotting blank of wood at the back of your garden. Something therefore, to give an explanation of what created the universe, that being here the definition of all things physical, had to be something other than physical it's self.

But of course the atheist will still see that there is no reason to believe in God. In a different paragraph, how could you defend atheism against what I just said?


There isn't any reason. Whether god exists or not is completely irrelevant. Who cares if god exists or not if it can't be verified or debunked?

A better question would really be, is there any reason to have faith in a holy text or priest when you have reason to believe that you shouldn't?

Not talking about theology right now, although there are reasons why I believe what I believe, they aren't first in defence, it is more like, "I am now a Christian based upon faith alone, oh but what's this! There is evidence for what I believe?". Evidence is a bonus, yet it is necessary, since we do go my faith based on reason. I could go through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ with you if you would like? But on a different thread.

You won't convince me, I guarantee it.

In fact, if you look at my debates, the only debate I've ever done is on the historicity of the resurrection.


But my point isn't theology... My point is that whether you believe in a god or not.. It doesn't really matter. It is completely irrelevant to our lives.

I'm talking about whether God exists, not whether God is relevant or not.

If there is absolutely no way of knowing, and it is irrelevant, why even care about it?

There is no way to answer this question, which only makes it even more irrelevant.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 1:31:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 12:52:06 PM, GodSands wrote:
By the way atheists. To prove that something does not exist is much alike in providing evidence that something does exist, and this is especially applied when empirical evidence is a standard for both sides.:

Nobody, except Geo, is dumb enough to assume that one can give positive proof for the non-existence of something. Most atheists are simply skeptical of religious claims on the basis that there is a lack of credible evidence to assume otherwise.

After all, I assume you don't believe in Zeus for that exact same reason.

Since the proposition of God's existence (in the positive) is something claimed by the theists, the entire burden if proof lies with them. The atheist only bears a burden by stating that they know God doesn't exist. But like I said, thus far only Geo has taken such an extreme form. Take it up with him.

In the meantime, if God is real, and you want to convince others of that, the sole burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2011 1:42:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/1/2011 10:26:30 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/1/2011 8:21:37 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This always amuses me considering the fact that they're constantly harping on being "rationalists/skeptics" and "not accepting anything without evidence or justification."

... I'm pretty sure theists have the BOP.

I'm with PCP on this one. While it may be true that Theists have the burden of proof (of course given the sophisticated arguments for God as a necessary being, maybe they don't), it is intellectually lazy to simply be an Atheist with no justifications for his beliefs. As Lane Craig says, the Atheist has to justify his proposition that "Atheism is true."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat