Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The best argument for atheism?

KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:00:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you were to ask me what the greatest evidence to support atheism is, I think I'd have to say...

The White Stripes.

That is all.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:07:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know it probably shouldn't but the religious beliefs of celebrities does sometimes impact the way I appreciate their works. I enjoy so many Tom Cruise movies - Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, some of the Mission: Impossibles - but after finding out about Scientology, I'm always suppressing a bit of a giggle when I see him onscreen.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:36:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So this thread is really about atheism and not how views on spirituality from celebrities and the media influence our beliefs and decision making?

I guess that's...original.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:50:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 3:36:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
So this thread is really about atheism and not how views on spirituality from celebrities and the media influence our beliefs and decision making?

I guess that's...original.

No. I'm not sure how many people actually read the OP. *smh*

This was a joke thread. As in, the existence of The White Stripes is enough to make me question the existence of God. It was intended as a joke and apparently fell flat.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:56:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

"Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism"

For weak Atheism, it most certainly is. Of course, I don't like the "lack of believe" definition of weak Atheism. I prefer "the position that theism is unfounded".
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 3:00:11 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
If you were to ask me what the greatest evidence to support atheism is, I think I'd have to say...

The White Stripes.

That is all.
.

Oh, me, I know one: Science.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:23:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.

The Fool: Law of demarcation. That is we cannot experience something with out there being two things. RIght? we could not know what a colour is unless there are two colours, is. You cannot distinquish your feeling unless you have recognized them in other. Without recognizing them in another person, you cannot grasp the concept of external.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:35:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 4:32:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.

The Fool: Law of demarcation. That is we cannot experience something with out there being two things. RIght? we could not know what a colour is unless there are two colours, is. You cannot distinquish your feeling unless you have recognized them in other. Without recognizing them in another person, you cannot grasp the concept of external.

That is 'I' in 'I' exist goes from 'a observer' into "The particluar observer" when you recognize yourself in other it is the necessary condition for the conceptioulization. Thus the very conceptioulizatoin if the PROOF of the external world.
Straigt from the HILL!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit.
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.


The Fool: Law of demarcation. That is we cannot experience something with out there being two things. RIght? we could not know what a colour is unless there are two colours, is. You cannot distinquish your feeling unless you have recognized them in other. Without recognizing them in another person, you cannot grasp the concept of external.

That is 'I' in 'I' exist goes from 'A observer' into "The particluar observer" when you recognize yourself in other. For it is the necessary condition for the conceptualization of it. Thus the very understanding of the concept is the PROOF of the external world.
Straight the HILL!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:39:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: R.I.P. solipsicm
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:41:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.

P1: I have a hand.
P2: Hands exist in the external world.
C: There is an external world.

Since the premises of the argument are more plausible than the premises of skeptical arguments, the argument provides good reason to believe int the external world. Same with doubts about the age of existence, the existence of other minds and so on.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 4:46:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The_Fool, may I make a suggestion? Your points would be far more readily considered if you read and implemented the stylistic techniques detailed in this book: http://www.amazon.com...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 5:26:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

I'm theist and agree with the PoE.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 5:55:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.

You do realize there is a difference between rational skepticism and radical skepticism, right?

Not having evidence for God and not having evidence the external world exists, are two different logical spheres.

Also, look around, that's proof of the outside world....I sincerely hope you were joking with regards to your comment.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 5:58:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 5:26:27 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

I'm theist and agree with the PoE.

You are a deist, a fringe sub-set of theism. When most people speak of God, they mean an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God worthy of worship.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 5:55:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, look around, that's proof of the outside world....I sincerely hope you were joking with regards to your comment.

He isn't joking. Proving the existence of the external world is a notoriously problematic endeavor, and has been since Descartes raised the problem. It's entirely consistent with all the evidence that you possess that you are the only being in existence and all the objects you think are external to yourself are actually nothing more than internal perceptions.

Other positions entirely consistent with the evidence we possess: other people are mindless robots that act as though they are conscious. The universe sprung into existence five minutes ago bearing all the signs of age. We live in a computer simulation. Your life is a dream.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:07:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 6:03:24 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/20/2012 5:55:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, look around, that's proof of the outside world....I sincerely hope you were joking with regards to your comment.

He isn't joking. Proving the existence of the external world is a notoriously problematic endeavor, and has been since Descartes raised the problem. It's entirely consistent with all the evidence that you possess that you are the only being in existence and all the objects you think are external to yourself are actually nothing more than internal perceptions.

Other positions entirely consistent with the evidence we possess: other people are mindless robots that act as though they are conscious. The universe sprung into existence five minutes ago bearing all the signs of age. We live in a computer simulation. Your life is a dream.

I'm aware of the "brain in a vat" type possibilities, thank you very much. However, I already addressed this by saying that there is a difference between rational skepticism and radical skepticism.

The burden of proof is on the one claiming there is no external world, because the external world is self-evident. God is not self-evident, we cannot detect God through any of the 5 senses if he exists, thus, the burden of proof is one the one claiming he exists by default.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:08:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.

Actually, I'm not sure this is analogous. We have evidence for the external world - our sense perceptions of it. There may be alternate explanations of those perceptions, but surely the existence of them raises the likelihood of its existence somewhat. So it isn't true that we don't have any evidence for the existence of the external world.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:12:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.

I think he may have meant, lack of proof justifies lack of belief. You don't dismiss the possibility, but you have no reason to accept it.

Atheism or agnosticism is the default...All theism has the BoP.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:15:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 6:12:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.

I think he may have meant, lack of proof justifies lack of belief. You don't dismiss the possibility, but you have no reason to accept it.

Atheism or agnosticism is the default...All theism has the BoP.

"Atheism or agnosticism is the default...All theism has the BoP."

Well, this may be correct as far as weak Atheism/ Agnosticism is concerned, but strong Atheism has a BoP.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:22:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 6:15:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 6:12:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:27:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/20/2012 4:25:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

The lack of proof is an argument in favour of atheism. When there is lack of proof in favour of something, then you have a rational compulsion to dismiss the theory.

Prove to me that the external world exists. Go.

I think he may have meant, lack of proof justifies lack of belief. You don't dismiss the possibility, but you have no reason to accept it.

Atheism or agnosticism is the default...All theism has the BoP.

"Atheism or agnosticism is the default...All theism has the BoP."

Well, this may be correct as far as weak Atheism/ Agnosticism is concerned, but strong Atheism has a BoP.

The Fool: strong athiesm irrational. You are saying you belief in the non-existenct of something. But what does exist is not there to have a belief about, because it doesn;t exist. You can't proof God wrong with science. They are just going to say God is outside the Universe. Remember science give best case explanation but not proofs. So what you are thinking an never be accomplished. I am telling strong Atheism is a non-sense positions. No, body claiming God is claiming it to be by sense information. So you could never proof it with sense infromation alone.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:24:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 5:58:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 5:26:27 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

I'm theist and agree with the PoE.

You are a deist, a fringe sub-set of theism. When most people speak of God, they mean an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God worthy of worship.

But I'm still not atheist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:26:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 6:07:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 6:03:24 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/20/2012 5:55:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, look around, that's proof of the outside world....I sincerely hope you were joking with regards to your comment.

He isn't joking. Proving the existence of the external world is a notoriously problematic endeavor, and has been since Descartes raised the problem. It's entirely consistent with all the evidence that you possess that you are the only being in existence and all the objects you think are external to yourself are actually nothing more than internal perceptions.

Other positions entirely consistent with the evidence we possess: other people are mindless robots that act as though they are conscious. The universe sprung into existence five minutes ago bearing all the signs of age. We live in a computer simulation. Your life is a dream.

I'm aware of the "brain in a vat" type possibilities, thank you very much. However, I already addressed this by saying that there is a difference between rational skepticism and radical skepticism.

The burden of proof is on the one claiming there is no external world, because the external world is self-evident. God is not self-evident, we cannot detect God through any of the 5 senses if he exists, thus, the burden of proof is one the one claiming he exists by default.

The Fool: The brain in the vat, is easy. Its an appeal to ignorance. Because you can have a probablity out of nothing. It has to be 0<1. You can't claim possiblity from ignorance. I don't know if its possibible to be a brain in a vat. Therefore its possible. appeal to ignorance. You can't go from I don't know to I know it possible. 0->0.3 no 0=0
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:28:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 6:26:10 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2012 6:07:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 6:03:24 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/20/2012 5:55:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, look around, that's proof of the outside world....I sincerely hope you were joking with regards to your comment.

He isn't joking. Proving the existence of the external world is a notoriously problematic endeavor, and has been since Descartes raised the problem. It's entirely consistent with all the evidence that you possess that you are the only being in existence and all the objects you think are external to yourself are actually nothing more than internal perceptions.

Other positions entirely consistent with the evidence we possess: other people are mindless robots that act as though they are conscious. The universe sprung into existence five minutes ago bearing all the signs of age. We live in a computer simulation. Your life is a dream.

I'm aware of the "brain in a vat" type possibilities, thank you very much. However, I already addressed this by saying that there is a difference between rational skepticism and radical skepticism.

The burden of proof is on the one claiming there is no external world, because the external world is self-evident. God is not self-evident, we cannot detect God through any of the 5 senses if he exists, thus, the burden of proof is one the one claiming he exists by default.

Edit..
The Fool: The brain in the vat, is easy. Its an appeal to ignorance. Because you can't have a probablity out of nothing. It has to be 0<1. You can't claim possiblity from ignorance. I don't know if its possibible to be a brain in a vat. Therefore its possible. appeal to ignorance. You can't go from I don't know to I know it possible. 0->0.3 no 0=0

But PCP is right without these argument you can't really claim it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 3:56:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:24:34 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/20/2012 3:14:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Either the lack of proof for the existence of God coupled with preferring rationality over comfort, or the Problem of Evil.

Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism. Have you done a debate on the problem of evil?

"Lack of proof is not not a positive argument for atheism"

For weak Atheism, it most certainly is. Of course, I don't like the "lack of believe" definition of weak Atheism. I prefer "the position that theism is unfounded".

I apologize for not being clear. I was just meaning if someone could not give any positive arguments for atheism and just said there were no good reasons to believe in theism, that would just leave us with some sort of agnostic. I'm not entirely sure on the difference between agnostic and weak atheism and I don't really care to know to be honest haha. I was just pointing out the statement, "There are no good reasons to believe in theism." would not leave us with justified non belief of God(s).