Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is a religion debate

TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 4:49:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I liked it alot. I would give you more points because I agree with alot of what you said. ILC, made points but I think you made the point that Atheist do in fact push burden on themselves by claims. Good debate. BTW- I can not vote I havent debated yet with this account.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)
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...
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 5:28:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

^Lol. How about if someone in your belief or label, does or say's something with that label, it still effects the name of your label. Do not blame the opposing side for taking the claims and words of people who claim your label. We are in today, You believe in evolution, maybe some atheists dont and they are a different story, but you do so the argument applies to you.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 5:56:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

Yea, he was wrong on a lot of counts...

The Seven Dimensions of Religion (Ninian Smart) (http://www2.kenyon.edu...)

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)--atheism does not have this

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it. Atheism does not have narratives of myths

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private). As a result of their beliefs, atheists may or may not feel emotions or experiences.

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public). There are no real dogma's of the "atheistic religion" so to speak. All that it means to be atheist is to lack a belief in god or to positively affirm there is no god. Confucianism or Taoism would be examples of atheistic religions, but they do not necessarily accept everything that is laid out in the Humanist Manifesto. For Christianity, the beliefs that are commonly held are found in the Apostle's creed.

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm). Atheists do not have this.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form. An atheist would have this.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural. And obviously an atheists would not have this....

Atheism fulfills two of the seven dimensions.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 7:47:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

I did say that the dimensions may not be perfect, but at least it's something, other than my opinion, to use to determine what a religion is. Con provided nothing on that. If I interpreted the characteristics as you do, then someone else would say I misinterpreted them. That is one of the problems with the dimensions. Ultimately the question, what is a religion, is subjective because there's no pat answer that everyone agrees to.

As for evolution, I said numerous times that atheists believe in a "natural" explanation. Whether it's evolution or something else, it's natural since they reject a possibility of anything divine or supernatural. I think I was clear on that point, and evolution was irrelevant.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 8:00:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 5:56:21 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

Yea, he was wrong on a lot of counts...

The Seven Dimensions of Religion (Ninian Smart) (http://www2.kenyon.edu...)

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)--atheism does not have this

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it. Atheism does not have narratives of myths

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private). As a result of their beliefs, atheists may or may not feel emotions or experiences.

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public). There are no real dogma's of the "atheistic religion" so to speak. All that it means to be atheist is to lack a belief in god or to positively affirm there is no god. Confucianism or Taoism would be examples of atheistic religions, but they do not necessarily accept everything that is laid out in the Humanist Manifesto. For Christianity, the beliefs that are commonly held are found in the Apostle's creed.

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm). Atheists do not have this.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form. An atheist would have this.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural. And obviously an atheists would not have this....

Atheism fulfills two of the seven dimensions.

Herein lies one of the problems with the dimensions. The religion itself can be viewed and interpreted differently, by different people, and thus effect where they fit in the dimensions, according to the interpreter.

If the interpreter lets an atheism hide behind their definition, even though the behavior and claims of atheists say something else, then obviously they aren't going to qualify. But if someone holds atheists accountable for what atheism really is, then they are going to see atheism fall into more categories.

There is such a huge double standard in this aspect. Atheists judge Christianity by the behavior of Christians all the time, but when the table is turned on them, they don't agree with it.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 8:07:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 8:00:01 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:56:21 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

Yea, he was wrong on a lot of counts...

The Seven Dimensions of Religion (Ninian Smart) (http://www2.kenyon.edu...)

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)--atheism does not have this

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it. Atheism does not have narratives of myths

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private). As a result of their beliefs, atheists may or may not feel emotions or experiences.

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public). There are no real dogma's of the "atheistic religion" so to speak. All that it means to be atheist is to lack a belief in god or to positively affirm there is no god. Confucianism or Taoism would be examples of atheistic religions, but they do not necessarily accept everything that is laid out in the Humanist Manifesto. For Christianity, the beliefs that are commonly held are found in the Apostle's creed.

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm). Atheists do not have this.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form. An atheist would have this.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural. And obviously an atheists would not have this....

Atheism fulfills two of the seven dimensions.

Herein lies one of the problems with the dimensions. The religion itself can be viewed and interpreted differently, by different people, and thus effect where they fit in the dimensions, according to the interpreter.

If the interpreter lets an atheism hide behind their definition, even though the behavior and claims of atheists say something else, then obviously they aren't going to qualify. But if someone holds atheists accountable for what atheism really is, then they are going to see atheism fall into more categories.

There is such a huge double standard in this aspect. Atheists judge Christianity by the behavior of Christians all the time, but when the table is turned on them, they don't agree with it.

Okay, please explain what rituals, narratives and/or myths, societal system, ethical system, and symbolic materials which represent a divine power that an atheist would have. Explain all of those in terms of atheism...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2012 9:18:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 8:07:21 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/9/2012 8:00:01 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:56:21 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

Yea, he was wrong on a lot of counts...

The Seven Dimensions of Religion (Ninian Smart) (http://www2.kenyon.edu...)

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)--atheism does not have this

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it. Atheism does not have narratives of myths

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private). As a result of their beliefs, atheists may or may not feel emotions or experiences.

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public). There are no real dogma's of the "atheistic religion" so to speak. All that it means to be atheist is to lack a belief in god or to positively affirm there is no god. Confucianism or Taoism would be examples of atheistic religions, but they do not necessarily accept everything that is laid out in the Humanist Manifesto. For Christianity, the beliefs that are commonly held are found in the Apostle's creed.

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm). Atheists do not have this.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form. An atheist would have this.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural. And obviously an atheists would not have this....

Atheism fulfills two of the seven dimensions.

Herein lies one of the problems with the dimensions. The religion itself can be viewed and interpreted differently, by different people, and thus effect where they fit in the dimensions, according to the interpreter.

If the interpreter lets an atheism hide behind their definition, even though the behavior and claims of atheists say something else, then obviously they aren't going to qualify. But if someone holds atheists accountable for what atheism really is, then they are going to see atheism fall into more categories.

There is such a huge double standard in this aspect. Atheists judge Christianity by the behavior of Christians all the time, but when the table is turned on them, they don't agree with it.

Okay, please explain what rituals, narratives and/or myths, societal system, ethical system, and symbolic materials which represent a divine power that an atheist would have. Explain all of those in terms of atheism...

Rituals- I said they don't qualify under this one, unless they have some kind of secret handshake or something.

Narrative- The ever-present natural explanation. Science is the only knowledge that exists, and only scientific evidence can be accepted by a rational mind. There is no evidence for God. The Bible/Quran, etc., is unreliable. The atheist narrative is basically a systematic dismantling of a belief in God.

Societal- They certainly qualify here and I showed why. They have meetings at the local, state, and national levels. They have small groups, and large organizations. Many of these groups are tax-exempt, claiming to be "educational". Atheists report taking comfort when around other atheists.

Ethical- Morality and ethics cannot come from a supernatural entity, and morals are basically subjective.

Material- Science, logic, and reason, are "sacred".
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 2:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 7:47:39 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

I did say that the dimensions may not be perfect, but at least it's something, other than my opinion, to use to determine what a religion is. Con provided nothing on that. If I interpreted the characteristics as you do, then someone else would say I misinterpreted them. That is one of the problems with the dimensions. Ultimately the question, what is a religion, is subjective because there's no pat answer that everyone agrees to.

As for evolution, I said numerous times that atheists believe in a "natural" explanation. Whether it's evolution or something else, it's natural since they reject a possibility of anything divine or supernatural. I think I was clear on that point, and evolution was irrelevant.

1) The problem with atheism is that if one believes in anything supernatural, they are labelled "Theist". I mean, Plato believed in the supernatural, but his God was hardly God: extremely limited, weak by comparison what should be worshipped, and a standard of nothing, yet his is seen as a God. If we defined God more explicitly, we'd rule a lot of people atheist.

2) If there is a massive disagreement plausibly on the front, then there is no conforming ideology. I'd agree to the extent modern atheists believe in evolution, but a fair proportion would simply be agnostic on the issue (which I am to an extent for one), but the necessary link is just confusing.

3) I can quote Ninian Smart: I'd claim you are taking them out of context and not saying what a frankly highly respected pioneer of religious studies states. It is just taking what he says and remodelling it to your own ends. If it was built on from his work, that's fine, or if it's your own view of religion prompted by his works, that's fine too, but I've seen a few creationist sites proposing that they are telling his work correctly (when they're not) and saying that Smart said this himself. It's one of those irritating things.
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...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 2:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why the incompetent cretins of DDO accept debates like this I will never understand.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 3:01:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/9/2012 5:28:10 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

^Lol. How about if someone in your belief or label, does or say's something with that label, it still effects the name of your label.

No, it doesn't. When atheism is as large as it is, and as solidly defined as it is (unlike some things), then one person makes no difference. We don't have any authority who speaks for atheism, so anyone can interpret it however they like. But atheists realise a lot more that atheism is a terrible label, and is too large to accurately define someone. Which is why I define myself as a laicit"an humanist. Not a New Atheist Humanist, not an Atheist+, but a laicit"an humanist.

Do not blame the opposing side for taking the claims and words of people who claim your label. We are in today, You believe in evolution, maybe some atheists dont and they are a different story, but you do so the argument applies to you.

ScottyDouglas, I support the football team Arsenal. Atheism does not become an ideology including supporting the football team Arsenal. That has bgger all to do with my atheism. Similarly, my belief in evolution has nothing to do with evolution. If I did not believe in evolution, I would still be an atheist. If I did not believe in atheism, I would still believe in the fact of evolution. Your argument is what we in the realm of logic call a "non-sequitur".
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...
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 3:46:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 3:01:10 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:28:10 PM, TheAsylum wrote:
At 9/9/2012 5:19:49 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2012 4:58:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

^Lol. How about if someone in your belief or label, does or say's something with that label, it still effects the name of your label.

No, it doesn't. When atheism is as large as it is, and as solidly defined as it is (unlike some things), then one person makes no difference. We don't have any authority who speaks for atheism, so anyone can interpret it however they like. But atheists realise a lot more that atheism is a terrible label, and is too large to accurately define someone. Which is why I define myself as a laicit"an humanist. Not a New Atheist Humanist, not an Atheist+, but a laicit"an humanist.

Do not blame the opposing side for taking the claims and words of people who claim your label. We are in today, You believe in evolution, maybe some atheists dont and they are a different story, but you do so the argument applies to you.

ScottyDouglas, I support the football team Arsenal. Atheism does not become an ideology including supporting the football team Arsenal. That has bgger all to do with my atheism. Similarly, my belief in evolution has nothing to do with evolution. If I did not believe in evolution, I would still be an atheist. If I did not believe in atheism, I would still believe in the fact of evolution. Your argument is what we in the realm of logic call a "non-sequitur".

Ok. Bless you.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 5:47:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 2:41:17 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Why the incompetent cretins of DDO accept debates like this I will never understand.

Because the wretched heathens of DDO send out the challenges. :)

I couldn't say it in the forums then turn tail and run when he challenged me.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2012 10:38:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think your atheism is my atheism..

As an atheist, I don't believe in a god or supernatural power because I don't think there's sufficient objective and verifiable evidence for the existence of a god (rather, I don't think there's any). I won't assert that there is no god. As someone who prides herself for logical thinking, I know that a lack of evidence for something is not evidence for the contrary of something - that would be the fallacy of argument from ignorance. A lack of evidence for or against a god, however, is not the equivalent to evidence against, say, the Christian god; the Christian god through the bible makes claims about the empirical world for which more plausible natural explanations exist that can be verified through observation and analysis of the evidence and the bible makes assertions about morality that are morally dubious. As atheists don't make any positive claims against the existence of a deity, they do not have to prove that such a deity does not exist. In your argument, you equivocate the Christian god with a god to show that atheism does make positive claims against the existence of god; a simple look at your second link from R1. shows that the claims being made against god are being made against the Christian god, not the possibility of a divine/supernatural force. This change in meaning allows you to interpret implications of atheist beliefs in a way that denies the existence of a god when this is not the case - it only denies the existence of your god. Atheism is a matter of belief. That is not to say that there aren't gnostic atheists out there (gnostic pertaining to knowledge being the opposite of agnostic, and gnostic atheists being those who claim to know that there isn't any god), but the debate was never against gnostic atheism, it was against atheism.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 2:01:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/10/2012 5:47:11 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/10/2012 2:41:17 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Why the incompetent cretins of DDO accept debates like this I will never understand.

Because the wretched heathens of DDO send out the challenges. :)

I couldn't say it in the forums then turn tail and run when he challenged me.

Well, you are more courageous than 95% of forum posters. I commend you on debating it.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 11:36:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Someone said this in another thread...

LOL!, the fine tuning argument is so fallacious. In fact, using its own logic, we can PROVE atheism!

What's to prove, atheism is merely a lack of belief and nothing more, right?? And you can't prove a negative according to most atheists, so how can you prove atheism??

See, when they let down their guard and aren't thinking about their only defense being lost, even atheists admit that atheism is more than just a definition, just like I said in the debate.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 12:10:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 11:36:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Someone said this in another thread...

LOL!, the fine tuning argument is so fallacious. In fact, using its own logic, we can PROVE atheism!

What's to prove, atheism is merely a lack of belief and nothing more, right?? And you can't prove a negative according to most atheists, so how can you prove atheism??

You're right. However, I think Microsuck meant Naturalism, which is the philosophical subsumer of atheism. Even further than that, Rationalism subsumes Naturalism. So, you can view atheism with its philosophical backdrop, which to me makes more sense. Any evidence in favor of natural causality supports Naturalism. That makes more sense than what Microsuck said.

See, when they let down their guard and aren't thinking about their only defense being lost, even atheists admit that atheism is more than just a definition, just like I said in the debate.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 1:42:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 12:10:36 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/11/2012 11:36:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Someone said this in another thread...

LOL!, the fine tuning argument is so fallacious. In fact, using its own logic, we can PROVE atheism!

What's to prove, atheism is merely a lack of belief and nothing more, right?? And you can't prove a negative according to most atheists, so how can you prove atheism??

You're right. However, I think Microsuck meant Naturalism, which is the philosophical subsumer of atheism. Even further than that, Rationalism subsumes Naturalism. So, you can view atheism with its philosophical backdrop, which to me makes more sense. Any evidence in favor of natural causality supports Naturalism. That makes more sense than what Microsuck said.

See, when they let down their guard and aren't thinking about their only defense being lost, even atheists admit that atheism is more than just a definition, just like I said in the debate.

Here's what makes no sense to me. Atheism and naturalism go hand in hand. Atheists claim there isn't a supernatural being, so that implies that all explanations have to be natural. This seems like a no-brainer. But then they say that they don't make any positive claims, that they just follow the evidence. This seems like a cop out to me, to avoid having to have any BoP placed on them. Atheists are the only group who identify themselves based on what they "don't" believe, in reality though, they do have beliefs.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 1:50:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 1:42:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Here's what makes no sense to me. Atheism and naturalism go hand in hand. Atheists claim there isn't a supernatural being, so that implies that all explanations have to be natural. This seems like a no-brainer. But then they say that they don't make any positive claims, that they just follow the evidence. This seems like a cop out to me, to avoid having to have any BoP placed on them. Atheists are the only group who identify themselves based on what they "don't" believe, in reality though, they do have beliefs.

What about the supernatural implies creating/interacting with the universe?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 2:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 1:50:20 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/11/2012 1:42:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Here's what makes no sense to me. Atheism and naturalism go hand in hand. Atheists claim there isn't a supernatural being, so that implies that all explanations have to be natural. This seems like a no-brainer. But then they say that they don't make any positive claims, that they just follow the evidence. This seems like a cop out to me, to avoid having to have any BoP placed on them. Atheists are the only group who identify themselves based on what they "don't" believe, in reality though, they do have beliefs.

What about the supernatural implies creating/interacting with the universe?

If everything is defined in terms of natural, or supernatural, then a being who created the universe would be considered supernatural.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 2:35:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 2:21:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 1:50:20 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/11/2012 1:42:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Here's what makes no sense to me. Atheism and naturalism go hand in hand. Atheists claim there isn't a supernatural being, so that implies that all explanations have to be natural. This seems like a no-brainer. But then they say that they don't make any positive claims, that they just follow the evidence. This seems like a cop out to me, to avoid having to have any BoP placed on them. Atheists are the only group who identify themselves based on what they "don't" believe, in reality though, they do have beliefs.

What about the supernatural implies creating/interacting with the universe?

If everything is defined in terms of natural, or supernatural, then a being who created the universe would be considered supernatural.

If everything is defined in terms of natural or supernatural, then a being without a natural explanation (assuming that it truly doesn't have a natural explanation) would be supernatural. Such a being could be considered a god, but it would not necessarily have created the world.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 9:39:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

Yea, he was wrong on a lot of counts...

The Seven Dimensions of Religion (Ninian Smart) (http://www2.kenyon.edu...)

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)--atheism does not have this

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it. Atheism does not have narratives of myths

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private). As a result of their beliefs, atheists may or may not feel emotions or experiences.

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public). There are no real dogma's of the "atheistic religion" so to speak. All that it means to be atheist is to lack a belief in god or to positively affirm there is no god. Confucianism or Taoism would be examples of atheistic religions, but they do not necessarily accept everything that is laid out in the Humanist Manifesto. For Christianity, the beliefs that are commonly held are found in the Apostle's creed.

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm). Atheists do not have this.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form. An atheist would have this.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural. And obviously an atheists would not have this....

Atheism fulfills two of the seven dimensions.

Herein lies one of the problems with the dimensions. The religion itself can be viewed and interpreted differently, by different people, and thus effect where they fit in the dimensions, according to the interpreter.

If the interpreter lets an atheism hide behind their definition, even though the behavior and claims of atheists say something else, then obviously they aren't going to qualify. But if someone holds atheists accountable for what atheism really is, then they are going to see atheism fall into more categories.

There is such a huge double standard in this aspect. Atheists judge Christianity by the behavior of Christians all the time, but when the table is turned on them, they don't agree with it.

Okay, please explain what rituals, narratives and/or myths, societal system, ethical system, and symbolic materials which represent a divine power that an atheist would have. Explain all of those in terms of atheism...

Rituals- I said they don't qualify under this one, unless they have some kind of secret handshake or something.

lol okay :P the atheistic handshake...


Narrative- The ever-present natural explanation. Science is the only knowledge that exists, and only scientific evidence can be accepted by a rational mind. There is no evidence for God. The Bible/Quran, etc., is unreliable. The atheist narrative is basically a systematic dismantling of a belief in God.

A narrative is a story...

Christianity-bible
Islam-Qu'ran and certain other works
Hinduism-bhagavad gita (it's actually quite good, even if you don't agree)
etc.

What is atheism's story? and no, a scientific work is not the same as telling a story.


Societal- They certainly qualify here and I showed why. They have meetings at the local, state, and national levels. They have small groups, and large organizations. Many of these groups are tax-exempt, claiming to be "educational". Atheists report taking comfort when around other atheists.

Yet, according to the definition of what societal means in this sense, an atheist does not fulfill that requirement. ("Belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation.") Atheism varies greatly. There are atheistic religions. There is no set of dogma's of what it means to be an atheist, which is basically a requirement to fulfill this dimension.


Ethical- Morality and ethics cannot come from a supernatural entity, and morals are basically subjective.

Some atheists believe in an objective morality...other's believe in a subjective morality. Some theists believe in subjective morality. But, atheism has no set rules to what is moral and what is not. So it cannot fulfill this dimension.


Material- Science, logic, and reason, are "sacred".

"ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural."

Unless I'm missing something, logic and reason are not objects and science is the explanation for how objects interact....so no.

By the way, all my definitions come from this site: http://www2.kenyon.edu...

I know, I know, a very late reply :P
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:34:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 2:35:18 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/11/2012 2:21:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 1:50:20 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/11/2012 1:42:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Here's what makes no sense to me. Atheism and naturalism go hand in hand. Atheists claim there isn't a supernatural being, so that implies that all explanations have to be natural. This seems like a no-brainer. But then they say that they don't make any positive claims, that they just follow the evidence. This seems like a cop out to me, to avoid having to have any BoP placed on them. Atheists are the only group who identify themselves based on what they "don't" believe, in reality though, they do have beliefs.

What about the supernatural implies creating/interacting with the universe?

If everything is defined in terms of natural, or supernatural, then a being who created the universe would be considered supernatural.

If everything is defined in terms of natural or supernatural, then a being without a natural explanation (assuming that it truly doesn't have a natural explanation) would be supernatural. Such a being could be considered a god, but it would not necessarily have created the world.

I guess that could be true, but it would not necessarily have not created the world, either.

So hypothetically, we now have a miraculous universe, no empirical proof of how it got here, and a supernatural entity that exists independent of the universe. We know that there can't be a natural explanation for the creation of the universe because nature would have to pre-exist the universe in order to create it. Nature can't exist before the universe, because without a physical world, nature ceases to exist. The only explanation left is that the universe was created by something supernatural. Now we need that supernatural entity.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 12:43:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 9:39:15 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
Thanks. I knew I would lose when I took the debate, so the final vote count isn't that important. One of my main goals was to show how atheists that argue against God hide behind their definition as a way of avoiding BoP for anything. I use to let them get away with that but not now. I recognize that they do indeed make claims.

Just to ask, you do realise that the Ninian Smart thing you did was... just wrong. I mean, you've misinterpreted what the characteristics mean. In all honesty, it seemed to come down as an "all atheists believe in evolution" to prove what you've put, which obviously has repercussions (such as the people living more than 200 years ago not believing in God nor knowing of evolution therefore not being atheists would be very confusing)

Yea, he was wrong on a lot of counts...

The Seven Dimensions of Religion (Ninian Smart) (http://www2.kenyon.edu...)

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)--atheism does not have this

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it. Atheism does not have narratives of myths

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private). As a result of their beliefs, atheists may or may not feel emotions or experiences.

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public). There are no real dogma's of the "atheistic religion" so to speak. All that it means to be atheist is to lack a belief in god or to positively affirm there is no god. Confucianism or Taoism would be examples of atheistic religions, but they do not necessarily accept everything that is laid out in the Humanist Manifesto. For Christianity, the beliefs that are commonly held are found in the Apostle's creed.

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm). Atheists do not have this.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form. An atheist would have this.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural. And obviously an atheists would not have this....

Atheism fulfills two of the seven dimensions.

Herein lies one of the problems with the dimensions. The religion itself can be viewed and interpreted differently, by different people, and thus effect where they fit in the dimensions, according to the interpreter.

If the interpreter lets an atheism hide behind their definition, even though the behavior and claims of atheists say something else, then obviously they aren't going to qualify. But if someone holds atheists accountable for what atheism really is, then they are going to see atheism fall into more categories.

There is such a huge double standard in this aspect. Atheists judge Christianity by the behavior of Christians all the time, but when the table is turned on them, they don't agree with it.

Okay, please explain what rituals, narratives and/or myths, societal system, ethical system, and symbolic materials which represent a divine power that an atheist would have. Explain all of those in terms of atheism...

Rituals- I said they don't qualify under this one, unless they have some kind of secret handshake or something.

lol okay :P the atheistic handshake...


Narrative- The ever-present natural explanation. Science is the only knowledge that exists, and only scientific evidence can be accepted by a rational mind. There is no evidence for God. The Bible/Quran, etc., is unreliable. The atheist narrative is basically a systematic dismantling of a belief in God.

A narrative is a story...

Christianity-bible
Islam-Qu'ran and certain other works
Hinduism-bhagavad gita (it's actually quite good, even if you don't agree)
etc.

What is atheism's story? and no, a scientific work is not the same as telling a story.


Societal- They certainly qualify here and I showed why. They have meetings at the local, state, and national levels. They have small groups, and large organizations. Many of these groups are tax-exempt, claiming to be "educational". Atheists report taking comfort when around other atheists.

Yet, according to the definition of what societal means in this sense, an atheist does not fulfill that requirement. ("Belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation.") Atheism varies greatly. There are atheistic religions. There is no set of dogma's of what it means to be an atheist, which is basically a requirement to fulfill this dimension.


Ethical- Morality and ethics cannot come from a supernatural entity, and morals are basically subjective.

Some atheists believe in an objective morality...other's believe in a subjective morality. Some theists believe in subjective morality. But, atheism has no set rules to what is moral and what is not. So it cannot fulfill this dimension.


Material- Science, logic, and reason, are "sacred".

"ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural."

Unless I'm missing something, logic and reason are not objects and science is the explanation for how objects interact....so no.


By the way, all my definitions come from this site: http://www2.kenyon.edu...

I know, I know, a very late reply :P

Like I said, the problem with the dimensions is that there is so much subjectivity. We could butt heads for hours with no change in our opinions. It's not foolproof but at least it's something concrete, where he gave nothing. Plus you're making points that he didn't really mention in the debate.

Anyway, I knew I'd lose this one even if I won, but I had to at least try and back up my claim. Plus it's a good debate to see who is actually voting fairly, and who is voting bias.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:54:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 12:34:27 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 2:35:18 PM, Enji wrote:

If everything is defined in terms of natural or supernatural, then a being without a natural explanation (assuming that it truly doesn't have a natural explanation) would be supernatural. Such a being could be considered a god, but it would not necessarily have created the world.

I guess that could be true, but it would not necessarily have not created the world, either.

However, since it is not necessary for a god to create the universe in order to be considered a god (regardless that a god could have created the universe) believing in a natural explanation of the universe does not imply denying the existence of god.


So hypothetically, we now have a miraculous universe, no empirical proof of how it got here, and a supernatural entity that exists independent of the universe. We know that there can't be a natural explanation for the creation of the universe because nature would have to pre-exist the universe in order to create it. Nature can't exist before the universe, because without a physical world, nature ceases to exist. The only explanation left is that the universe was created by something supernatural. Now we need that supernatural entity.

On the contrary, we have a miraculous universe and from what we can observe we can devise theories about its origins - many theories in cosmology indicate that the universe could have been created by natural means. And even if a god did create the universe, or the conditions for the creation of the universe, that god doesn't necessarily resemble any god worshiped by any of the many religions.

At 9/12/2012 12:43:56 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Like I said, the problem with the dimensions is that there is so much subjectivity. We could butt heads for hours with no change in our opinions. It's not foolproof but at least it's something concrete, where he gave nothing. Plus you're making points that he didn't really mention in the debate.

Anyway, I knew I'd lose this one even if I won, but I had to at least try and back up my claim. Plus it's a good debate to see who is actually voting fairly, and who is voting bias.

The problem isn't with the ambiguity or subjectivity in interpretation of the dimensions, it's your blatant contextomy of them. As your opponent pointed out, based on your seven dimensions (not Ninian Smart's), you could consider the NBA to be a religion; you only consider the titles of the various dimensions, entirely ignoring what Ninian Smart intended them to mean. Here's a more detailed website than TheBomb's outlining what the seven dimensions actually mean http://danbhai.com...

Between mis-representing Ninian Smart's seven dimensions (fallacy of quoting out of context / contextomy), equating belief in the Christian god with belief in a god (fallacy of equivocation), and assuming that characteristics of part of the whole are representative of the whole (fallacy of composition), you're not left with a particularly strong argument for why atheism is a religion..
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 2:13:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yea, he was wrong on a lot of counts...

The Seven Dimensions of Religion (Ninian Smart) (http://www2.kenyon.edu...)

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)--atheism does not have this

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it. Atheism does not have narratives of myths

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private). As a result of their beliefs, atheists may or may not feel emotions or experiences.

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public). There are no real dogma's of the "atheistic religion" so to speak. All that it means to be atheist is to lack a belief in god or to positively affirm there is no god. Confucianism or Taoism would be examples of atheistic religions, but they do not necessarily accept everything that is laid out in the Humanist Manifesto. For Christianity, the beliefs that are commonly held are found in the Apostle's creed.

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm). Atheists do not have this.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form. An atheist would have this.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural. And obviously an atheists would not have this....

Atheism fulfills two of the seven dimensions.

Herein lies one of the problems with the dimensions. The religion itself can be viewed and interpreted differently, by different people, and thus effect where they fit in the dimensions, according to the interpreter.

If the interpreter lets an atheism hide behind their definition, even though the behavior and claims of atheists say something else, then obviously they aren't going to qualify. But if someone holds atheists accountable for what atheism really is, then they are going to see atheism fall into more categories.

There is such a huge double standard in this aspect. Atheists judge Christianity by the behavior of Christians all the time, but when the table is turned on them, they don't agree with it.

Okay, please explain what rituals, narratives and/or myths, societal system, ethical system, and symbolic materials which represent a divine power that an atheist would have. Explain all of those in terms of atheism...

Rituals- I said they don't qualify under this one, unless they have some kind of secret handshake or something.

lol okay :P the atheistic handshake...


Narrative- The ever-present natural explanation. Science is the only knowledge that exists, and only scientific evidence can be accepted by a rational mind. There is no evidence for God. The Bible/Quran, etc., is unreliable. The atheist narrative is basically a systematic dismantling of a belief in God.

A narrative is a story...

Christianity-bible
Islam-Qu'ran and certain other works
Hinduism-bhagavad gita (it's actually quite good, even if you don't agree)
etc.

What is atheism's story? and no, a scientific work is not the same as telling a story.


Societal- They certainly qualify here and I showed why. They have meetings at the local, state, and national levels. They have small groups, and large organizations. Many of these groups are tax-exempt, claiming to be "educational". Atheists report taking comfort when around other atheists.

Yet, according to the definition of what societal means in this sense, an atheist does not fulfill that requirement. ("Belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation.") Atheism varies greatly. There are atheistic religions. There is no set of dogma's of what it means to be an atheist, which is basically a requirement to fulfill this dimension.


Ethical- Morality and ethics cannot come from a supernatural entity, and morals are basically subjective.

Some atheists believe in an objective morality...other's believe in a subjective morality. Some theists believe in subjective morality. But, atheism has no set rules to what is moral and what is not. So it cannot fulfill this dimension.


Material- Science, logic, and reason, are "sacred".

"ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural."

Unless I'm missing something, logic and reason are not objects and science is the explanation for how objects interact....so no.


By the way, all my definitions come from this site: http://www2.kenyon.edu...

I know, I know, a very late reply :P

Like I said, the problem with the dimensions is that there is so much subjectivity. We could butt heads for hours with no change in our opinions.

Maybe, but for certain one's of these dimensions, you were just flat out wrong. Material refers to the supernatural. Ethics refers to the rules themselves. Societal is debatable. Narratives refers to a story, as in a formative story (IE Christianity is based upon the stories of the bible, theology attempts to explain the bible). Atheism is based upon well science and reasoning.

It's not foolproof but at least it's something concrete, where he gave nothing. Plus you're making points that he didn't really mention in the debate.

Yep! :) Who said I was making points he did mention? xD


Anyway, I knew I'd lose this one even if I won, but I had to at least try and back up my claim. Plus it's a good debate to see who is actually voting fairly, and who is voting bias.

That it is
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 9:42:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 10:54:40 AM, Enji wrote:
At 9/12/2012 12:34:27 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 2:35:18 PM, Enji wrote:

If everything is defined in terms of natural or supernatural, then a being without a natural explanation (assuming that it truly doesn't have a natural explanation) would be supernatural. Such a being could be considered a god, but it would not necessarily have created the world.

I guess that could be true, but it would not necessarily have not created the world, either.

However, since it is not necessary for a god to create the universe in order to be considered a god (regardless that a god could have created the universe)

Not sure where you're going here. Are you making an argument for a deistic God??

believing in a natural explanation of the universe does not imply denying the existence of god.

Talk about splitting hairs...lol. Claiming a lack of belief in God does indeed imply a denial of existence. You're making this much more difficult than it needs to be and trying to get too technical.

Do you frequently claim to not believe in things that you believe could exist?? Why do so in the God debate?? Why would atheism even weigh in at all, if it has nothing to say on the issue?? You lack belief in God?? Ok that's your choice. End of discussion. There would be no discussion if atheism has nothing to say except "I lack belief".

I believe Bigfoot could exist, therefore, I don't claim non-belief just because I haven't seen him. In fact, I don't claim that I don't believe in anything, unless I'm prepared to argue against that thing.

Atheism takes a position, argues that position, then when pressed to validate it's position, it hides behind a claim of non-position. It is an intellectually dishonest and bankrupt position.
The fact that it's adherents show up on the religion forums to argue against God is proof that atheism does indeed take a position. They aren't here because they're black or white. They aren't here because they're male or female. They're here because they're atheists, that must mean that atheism stands for something.

So hypothetically, we now have a miraculous universe, no empirical proof of how it got here, and a supernatural entity that exists independent of the universe. We know that there can't be a natural explanation for the creation of the universe because nature would have to pre-exist the universe in order to create it. Nature can't exist before the universe, because without a physical world, nature ceases to exist. The only explanation left is that the universe was created by something supernatural. Now we need that supernatural entity.

On the contrary, we have a miraculous universe and from what we can observe we can devise theories about its origins - many theories in cosmology indicate that the universe could have been created by natural means.

Theories?? Have you tested these theories?? If so, were any universes created that can sustain intelligent life?? I have a theory too, but it doesn't involve nature, because nature can't exist prior to the beginning of the universe. Therefore, nature can't have been around to create the universe.

And even if a god did create the universe, or the conditions for the creation of the universe, that god doesn't necessarily resemble any god worshiped by any of the many religions.

It's possible that you're right, but it's basically a non-statement. Might be, might not be. It seems illogical to me to posit an entity that could be considered a god, that exists just for the purpose of it's own existence. I mean what's the point in being a god if you're just...there. If such a being does exist, then how did we find out about it, unless it gave us some knowledge of it's existence??

At 9/12/2012 12:43:56 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Like I said, the problem with the dimensions is that there is so much subjectivity. We could butt heads for hours with no change in our opinions. It's not foolproof but at least it's something concrete, where he gave nothing. Plus you're making points that he didn't really mention in the debate.

Anyway, I knew I'd lose this one even if I won, but I had to at least try and back up my claim. Plus it's a good debate to see who is actually voting fairly, and who is voting bias.

The problem isn't with the ambiguity or subjectivity in interpretation of the dimensions, it's your blatant contextomy of them. As your opponent pointed out, based on your seven dimensions (not Ninian Smart's), you could consider the NBA to be a religion; you only consider the titles of the various dimensions, entirely ignoring what Ninian Smart intended them to mean. Here's a more detailed website than TheBomb's outlining what the seven dimensions actually mean http://danbhai.com...

Between mis-representing Ninian Smart's seven dimensions (fallacy of quoting out of context / contextomy), equating belief in the Christian god with belief in a god (fallacy of equivocation), and assuming that characteristics of part of the whole are representative of the whole (fallacy of composition), you're not left with a particularly strong argument for why atheism is a religion..

Did I stretch?? Maybe. Did I have a choice?? Not really, I didn't have much to work with. Would it have helped me if I just posted a bunch of religious people spouting off about atheism being a religion?? No because they would be biased sources.

Frankly, I'm tired of this subject. I did my best in the debate, with a very difficult, and unpopular position, and I'm going to lose, but I knew that from the beginning. At least I accepted the challenge, and did what I could. That would have been a tough debate for even one of the best debaters to win.

The voters are ticking me off though. Not one single person has given me the S&G point, and I clearly deserve at least that. Con made numerous mistakes. One guy voted 7-0. Wiploc gave him a conduct point saying that I argued in the last round. I clearly didn't, I summarized, and there was no rule against that, and con never even complained about that. Clear bias in voting.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 10:48:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 9:42:01 PM, medic0506 wrote:

Talk about splitting hairs...lol. Claiming a lack of belief in God does indeed imply a denial of existence. You're making this much more difficult than it needs to be and trying to get too technical.

No, no, no - you can't separate the two statements and look at each in their own context and then claim you had no idea where I was going! If there exists a god that did not create the universe (so there is a natural explanation for the universe AND there is a god), then believing in a natural explanation for the existence of the universe would not constitute denying the existence of god.

Do you frequently claim to not believe in things that you believe could exist?? Why do so in the God debate?? Why would atheism even weigh in at all, if it has nothing to say on the issue?? You lack belief in God?? Ok that's your choice. End of discussion. There would be no discussion if atheism has nothing to say except "I lack belief".

A lack of belief in gods or deities in general does not mean that I don't think that some deities can not be disproved through claims made by the religion that are contradictory with each other or what we know about the world. I can believe that the Christian god doesn't exist, however this doesn't mean that I am claiming that gods can not exist, so I still lack belief in gods even though I'm arguing against the Christian one. Also, just because something is possible does not mean that it is probable or that it should be believed. It is possible that I am a brain in a jar and what I perceive around me is only what I perceive and not what is actually there, but that doesn't mean that I should believe that.

Atheism takes a position, argues that position, then when pressed to validate it's position, it hides behind a claim of non-position. It is an intellectually dishonest and bankrupt position.

If an atheist is arguing against the existence of a specific deity, then said atheist needs to provide an argument against that deity. If a theist asks an atheist why they don't believe in gods, the atheist does not have the burden of proof to show that gods don't exist (unless the atheist is a strong atheist and they do assert that gods don't exist).

The fact that it's adherents show up on the religion forums to argue against God is proof that atheism does indeed take a position.

Which god are you referring to and which atheists are you referring to? Arguing against a specific god is not the same as arguing against the possibility of a god in a general sense, be careful not to equivocate the two. Strong atheists do claim that gods do not exist, but you cannot say that that means that atheism overall claims that gods do not exist - jut as Christians claim that Jesus is their savior, but you can cannot say that that means theists overall claims that Jesus is their savior (fallacy of composition).

we have a miraculous universe and from what we can observe we can devise theories about its origins - many theories in cosmology indicate that the universe could have been created by natural means.

Theories?? Have you tested these theories?? If so, were any universes created that can sustain intelligent life?? I have a theory too, but it doesn't involve nature, because nature can't exist prior to the beginning of the universe. Therefore, nature can't have been around to create the universe.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about cosmology beyond the big bang and a rather (very) superficial knowledge of M-theory, so you're better off doing more research into the origins, evidence, and implications of those theories yourself rather than reading my thoughts on them. M-theory is pretty much entirely speculative and is far from complete, however it's mathematically consistent and explains how the universe could exist through natural means.

And even if a god did create the universe, or the conditions for the creation of the universe, that god doesn't necessarily resemble any god worshiped by any of the many religions.

If such a being does exist, then how did we find out about it, unless it gave us some knowledge of it's existence??

If Harry Potter, a powerful sorcerer written about in several books, did not exist, then how did we find out about him, unless he gave us some knowledge of his existence?

medic0506 wrote:
Enji wrote:

Between mis-representing Ninian Smart's seven dimensions (fallacy of quoting out of context / contextomy), equating belief in the Christian god with belief in a god (fallacy of equivocation), and assuming that characteristics of part of the whole are representative of the whole (fallacy of composition), you're not left with a particularly strong argument for why atheism is a religion..

Did I stretch?? Maybe. Did I have a choice?? Not really, I didn't have much to work with. Would it have helped me if I just posted a bunch of religious people spouting off about atheism being a religion?? No because they would be biased sources.

My problem isn't that you stretched your claims, it's that you're asserting that you knew you'd lose even if you had won in a way that seems to imply (at least I interpreted it this way) that you think your argument was at least semi-successful in portraying atheism as a religion.

The voters are ticking me off though. Not one single person has given me the S&G point, and I clearly deserve at least that. Con made numerous mistakes. One guy voted 7-0. Wiploc gave him a conduct point saying that I argued in the last round. I clearly didn't, I summarized, and there was no rule against that, and con never even complained about that. Clear bias in voting.

I've never voted (i've never debated so I can't vote), but from what I've observed on other debates people only usually give the spelling and grammar point if the grammar of one of the debaters has particularly bad spelling and grammar. I don't think the conduct point was entirely unjustified, con didn't provide a summary of his points in round one so it would be logical to assume that you wouldn't put anything in round 4. That said, the guy who gave con the S&G point was clearly biased and most of the voters on your debate have been atheists.