Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Substantiate atheism for me

andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:51:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.
Can someone substantiate the manmade claim that gods exist?
Answered.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:48:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Anyone making a positive claim against an unfalsifiable claim isn't thinking logically. There's no reason to claim that a god or gods exist, but you can't logically claim that they don't.

Atheists generally don't assert that there is no god, they simply don't assert that there is one. Not accepting "X" isn't the same as accepting "not X". You're confusing atheism with hard/strong-atheism.

The Christian god can't exist, since an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god cannot exist in a universe with evil. The Christian god is self refuting, but the concept of a god is unfalsifiable; it's unscientific by definition, but can't be proven false.

The Christian god and the problem of evil:

1) God exists.
2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3) An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4) An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
4) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
5) A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to 6) prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7) If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8) Evil exists (logical contradiction).
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 5:55:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:51:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.
Can someone substantiate the manmade claim that gods exist?
Answered.

Thats not the question.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:20:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Occum's Razor.

The more unnecessary, unsupported attributes a proposed entity has, the less likely it is to exist.

The gods proposed by most people have a number of different attributes which makes those gods much more unlikely than them not existing a priori.

Take for example, a box, which can only fit 1 object inside.

Person A says it is a Crayon, Person B says it's a Blue Crayon. Person A has a much greater chance of being correct all things equal.

Often with philosophical attempts to justify a god's existence, a 'Mind' is tacked on to God's properties, which is an unsupported step further than is required (Kalam argument for example).

So, it depends on the definition/attributes of a particular god claim, the more unsupported attributes they have, the much less likely they are to exist all other factors equal.

That's why it's more logical to disbelieve than to believe a priori, otherwise you'd be believing in an essentially unlimited number of contradictory claims.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 11:48:00 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Anyone making a positive claim against an unfalsifiable claim isn't thinking logically. There's no reason to claim that a god or gods exist, but you can't logically claim that they don't.

Atheists generally don't assert that there is no god, they simply don't assert that there is one. Not accepting "X" isn't the same as accepting "not X". You're confusing atheism with hard/strong-atheism.

The Christian god can't exist, since an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god cannot exist in a universe with evil. The Christian god is self refuting, but the concept of a god is unfalsifiable; it's unscientific by definition, but can't be proven false.

The Christian god and the problem of evil:

1) God exists.
2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3) An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4) An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
4) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
5) A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to 6) prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7) If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8) Evil exists (logical contradiction).

I am looking for someone who believes it is reasonable to assume atheism.

"Atheists generally don't assert that there is no god, they simply don't assert that there is one. Not accepting "X" isn't the same as accepting "not X". You're confusing atheism with hard/strong-atheism."

I don't think so. I think the meaning of Atheism has been warped and contorted due to it being untenable for sophisticated thinkers. Theists generally assert there is a God, Agnostics generally don't know/care and Atheists generally assert there isn't a God. These are the historical and intuitive positions but because there can be little rationale to assert there isn't a God, people who are functionally Atheist are required to soften their position so as to not be slaughtered in debate, hence the concept of "Atheist/Agnostic" or "hard Atheism".

Functionally i think ~90% of Atheists are "hard Atheists" (or "actual Atheists" as i prefer to term), as only this can explain how the vast majority consider it rational to ridicule religion when Richard Dawkins tells them to. But in debate they are required to fall back from that position because actual Atheism which must consider belief in God irrational and hence deserving of ridicule, cannot be substantiated.

The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

The problem with your "problem of evil", first is 3: What's your definition of evil? How can you show human suffering is objectively evil? And then 4 (2), the omnipotent being may be aware of the cause of all "evil", and have the power to prevent that "evil", but his "greater good", plan could easily necessitate "evil" or otherwise be incoherent. For example an omnipotent God still cannot make a square circle because the idea is incoherent, you cannot show that a universe for the greater good would not be logically required to harbour "evil", or suffering, at pains of incoherency.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:31:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 5:55:28 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:51:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.
Can someone substantiate the manmade claim that gods exist?
Answered.

Thats not the question.
Go to the top of the class, you're right.

It's not the question.

It's the answer.

Man claims gods exist without substantiation ergo atheism.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:35:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think so. I think the meaning of Atheism has been warped and contorted due to it being untenable for sophisticated thinkers. Theists generally assert there is a God, Agnostics generally don't know/care and Atheists generally assert there isn't a God.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism regards belief in a god
Agnosticism regards knowledge

Knowledge is a subset of belief. I could call myself an agnostic atheist to any god claim a priori, and a gnostic atheist ('hard atheist') to certain specific god claims (where I know they contradict known evidence). For example the literal god of the Christian Bible I would call myself a gnostic atheist on since he possesses self-contradictory attributes and the Genesis feats contradict what's known in science (Flood geology and creation)..

But most atheists need to get across the 'null hypothesis' position first in order for people to think rationally. To disbelieve claims, especially exceptional ones, until they are sufficiently substantiated. There's no use making positive anti-god arguments if the god just gets redefined to no longer contradict the anti-god argument. The BoP as a result is therefore always on the claimant.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 7:14:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
Yeah already did that.

Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject.

Your turn.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 7:32:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 7:14:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
Yeah already did that.

Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject.

Your turn.
Well, that assumption favours me, not you.
Man makes claims of God, Atheism is a universal statement about God which needs substantiation completely independent to man made religion. That is unless you can show that any God would necessarily have to inform man of his existence and this necessarily developed into a human religon. The substantiation for Atheism must therefore transcend mans religions and deal with fundamental concepts.

Otherwise to claim that God is exclusively a notion developed in human minds so no universal justification is necessary, IS to ba a "hard" or "positive" Atheist who asserts "no god exists", which you already agreed is untenable.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 7:52:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 7:32:44 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:14:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
Yeah already did that.

Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject.

Your turn.
Well, that assumption favours me, not you.
Man makes claims of God, Atheism is a universal statement about God which needs substantiation completely independent to man made religion. That is unless you can show that any God would necessarily have to inform man of his existence and this necessarily developed into a human religon. The substantiation for Atheism must therefore transcend mans religions and deal with fundamental concepts.

Otherwise to claim that God is exclusively a notion developed in human minds so no universal justification is necessary, IS to ba a "hard" or "positive" Atheist who asserts "no god exists", which you already agreed is untenable.

Don't be silly I just told you what atheism is, did you see a claim?

Who told you gods exist?

I didn't agree with anything you've said. You really shouldn't lie.

I told you that I reject your claim that gods exist.

Your turn.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 8:39:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 11:48:00 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Anyone making a positive claim against an unfalsifiable claim isn't thinking logically. There's no reason to claim that a god or gods exist, but you can't logically claim that they don't.

Atheists generally don't assert that there is no god, they simply don't assert that there is one. Not accepting "X" isn't the same as accepting "not X". You're confusing atheism with hard/strong-atheism.

The Christian god can't exist, since an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god cannot exist in a universe with evil. The Christian god is self refuting, but the concept of a god is unfalsifiable; it's unscientific by definition, but can't be proven false.

The Christian god and the problem of evil:

1) God exists.
2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3) An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4) An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
4) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
5) A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to 6) prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7) If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8) Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The entire argument lies here: "God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent." While someone may believe that, it is a muddled conglomeration of self-contradicting characteristics. An omnipotent God would have the power to prevent His own knowledge, and thus would not be omniscient. I'm not sure that the God of the Bible is ever described as "omnibenevolent". I have read thousands of religious books - commentaries, magazines, and the like: I have seen the word "omnibenevolent" here on DDO more in the last six months than in the last ten years of study.

To me, the question is often this: does an all-powerful God have the ability to choose not to know?

"Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth." (John 9: 31)

That doesn't fit too well with "omniscient" or "omnibenevolent", especially the latter.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 9:01:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 7:52:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:32:44 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:14:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
Yeah already did that.

Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject.

Your turn.
Well, that assumption favours me, not you.
Man makes claims of God, Atheism is a universal statement about God which needs substantiation completely independent to man made religion. That is unless you can show that any God would necessarily have to inform man of his existence and this necessarily developed into a human religon. The substantiation for Atheism must therefore transcend mans religions and deal with fundamental concepts.

Otherwise to claim that God is exclusively a notion developed in human minds so no universal justification is necessary, IS to ba a "hard" or "positive" Atheist who asserts "no god exists", which you already agreed is untenable.

Don't be silly I just told you what atheism is, did you see a claim?

Who told you gods exist?

I didn't agree with anything you've said. You really shouldn't lie.

I told you that I reject your claim that gods exist.

Your turn.

Well, you said what you said Atheism is, that is all.
You demonstrated you don't believe what you said Atheism is, rather you believe in positive Atheism, when you asserted that God is exclusively a figment of mans imagination.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 9:07:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 7:52:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:32:44 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:14:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
Yeah already did that.

Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject.

Your turn.
Well, that assumption favours me, not you.
Man makes claims of God, Atheism is a universal statement about God which needs substantiation completely independent to man made religion. That is unless you can show that any God would necessarily have to inform man of his existence and this necessarily developed into a human religon. The substantiation for Atheism must therefore transcend mans religions and deal with fundamental concepts.

Otherwise to claim that God is exclusively a notion developed in human minds so no universal justification is necessary, IS to ba a "hard" or "positive" Atheist who asserts "no god exists", which you already agreed is untenable.

Don't be silly I just told you what atheism is, did you see a claim?

Who told you gods exist?

I didn't agree with anything you've said. You really shouldn't lie.

I told you that I reject your claim that gods exist.

Your turn.

Sorry, in continuation (can't edit here?)

" Who told you gods exist?"
Why would anyone need to tell me God exists? There have been studies from scientists for example from Oxford Uni:

" Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. " - Telegraph Online.

So i can make arguments from simply observing the universe, like a Child, a come to the conclusion "God", without any interaction with any religion. So Atheism, as you demonstrate - the apriori assertion there is no God, CANT be substantiated by attacking any known religion.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 9:22:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Argument from evil and argument from divine hidden-ness are pretty good. Some people try to make paradox arguments too, if it's the tri-omni God, but those are usually just overly simplistic and just confusing verbal disputes.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 9:43:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 9:22:25 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Argument from evil and argument from divine hidden-ness are pretty good. Some people try to make paradox arguments too, if it's the tri-omni God, but those are usually just overly simplistic and just confusing verbal disputes.

Well, the argument from evil i have already answered, but also doesn't address my point. Any God doesn't have to be good, only some of the Gods we entertain here on earth. Atheism as a universal statement cannot rely on picking at Earthly religion. "Divine hidden-ness" I think is atleast partially answered by showing that Children on a desert island would believe in God due to believing everything of function and complexity has a creator. It is only societal false dichotomies such as "evolution or god", which being to preclude this innate rationale exhibited by kids.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 9:58:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 9:43:09 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 9:22:25 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Argument from evil and argument from divine hidden-ness are pretty good. Some people try to make paradox arguments too, if it's the tri-omni God, but those are usually just overly simplistic and just confusing verbal disputes.

Well, the argument from evil i have already answered, but also doesn't address my point. Any God doesn't have to be good, only some of the Gods we entertain here on earth. Atheism as a universal statement cannot rely on picking at Earthly religion. "Divine hidden-ness" I think is atleast partially answered by showing that Children on a desert island would believe in God due to believing everything of function and complexity has a creator. It is only societal false dichotomies such as "evolution or god", which being to preclude this innate rationale exhibited by kids.

The term 'god' is meaningless unless it has some attributes that matter in the physical world. The difference between a universe where a god does not manifest in reality and a universe with no god at all is zero.

So why believe in it?

A positive argument can only be made against something with positive attributes. And anything without positive attributes one can take an ignostic approach (I don't care) or agnostic atheist approach.

That's why you are making an empty request. It's much akin to saying 'how much water does a wagwog hold?' when a 'wagwog' is a meaningless term.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 10:25:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 9:01:07 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:52:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:32:44 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:14:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
Yeah already did that.

Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject.

Your turn.
Well, that assumption favours me, not you.
Man makes claims of God, Atheism is a universal statement about God which needs substantiation completely independent to man made religion. That is unless you can show that any God would necessarily have to inform man of his existence and this necessarily developed into a human religon. The substantiation for Atheism must therefore transcend mans religions and deal with fundamental concepts.

Otherwise to claim that God is exclusively a notion developed in human minds so no universal justification is necessary, IS to ba a "hard" or "positive" Atheist who asserts "no god exists", which you already agreed is untenable.

Don't be silly I just told you what atheism is, did you see a claim?

Who told you gods exist?

I didn't agree with anything you've said. You really shouldn't lie.

I told you that I reject your claim that gods exist.

Your turn.

Well, you said what you said Atheism is, that is all.
You demonstrated you don't believe what you said Atheism is, rather you believe in positive Atheism, when you asserted that God is exclusively a figment of mans imagination.
Quote me or admit you are a bald faced LIAR.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 10:32:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 9:07:30 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:52:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:32:44 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:14:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
Yeah already did that.

Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject.

Your turn.
Well, that assumption favours me, not you.
Man makes claims of God, Atheism is a universal statement about God which needs substantiation completely independent to man made religion. That is unless you can show that any God would necessarily have to inform man of his existence and this necessarily developed into a human religon. The substantiation for Atheism must therefore transcend mans religions and deal with fundamental concepts.

Otherwise to claim that God is exclusively a notion developed in human minds so no universal justification is necessary, IS to ba a "hard" or "positive" Atheist who asserts "no god exists", which you already agreed is untenable.

Don't be silly I just told you what atheism is, did you see a claim?

Who told you gods exist?

I didn't agree with anything you've said. You really shouldn't lie.

I told you that I reject your claim that gods exist.

Your turn.

Sorry, in continuation (can't edit here?)

" Who told you gods exist?"
Why would anyone need to tell me God exists? There have been studies from scientists for example from Oxford Uni:

" Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. " - Telegraph Online.

So i can make arguments from simply observing the universe, like a Child, a come to the conclusion "God", without any interaction with any religion. So Atheism, as you demonstrate - the apriori assertion there is no God, CANT be substantiated by attacking any known religion.
So apparently some childless hack from oxford uni told you, terrific.
Produce a peer reviewed paper by this bozo making these assertions and supported by said review and I'll destroy it for you.

You seem to see things that aren't actually written, understandable from someone who sees invisible sky daddy's.

I haven't attacked a religion as far as I recall. I have merely rejected man's claim that gods exist and you have failed miserably to counter my rejection.

Please stop lying, it really makes you look desperately foolish.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:01:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 9:58:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 9:43:09 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 9:22:25 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Argument from evil and argument from divine hidden-ness are pretty good. Some people try to make paradox arguments too, if it's the tri-omni God, but those are usually just overly simplistic and just confusing verbal disputes.

Well, the argument from evil i have already answered, but also doesn't address my point. Any God doesn't have to be good, only some of the Gods we entertain here on earth. Atheism as a universal statement cannot rely on picking at Earthly religion. "Divine hidden-ness" I think is atleast partially answered by showing that Children on a desert island would believe in God due to believing everything of function and complexity has a creator. It is only societal false dichotomies such as "evolution or god", which being to preclude this innate rationale exhibited by kids.

The term 'god' is meaningless unless it has some attributes that matter in the physical world. The difference between a universe where a god does not manifest in reality and a universe with no god at all is zero.

So why believe in it?

A positive argument can only be made against something with positive attributes. And anything without positive attributes one can take an ignostic approach (I don't care) or agnostic atheist approach.

That's why you are making an empty request. It's much akin to saying 'how much water does a wagwog hold?' when a 'wagwog' is a meaningless term.

I cannot see how any of this, even if it were true, substantiates positive atheism rather than agnosticism.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:15:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 1:01:40 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 9:58:53 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 9:43:09 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 9:22:25 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:48:32 PM, andymcstab wrote:
Can anybody substantiate the positive assumption that there is no God?
Please give me some rationale for this assumption. Thanks.

Argument from evil and argument from divine hidden-ness are pretty good. Some people try to make paradox arguments too, if it's the tri-omni God, but those are usually just overly simplistic and just confusing verbal disputes.

Well, the argument from evil i have already answered, but also doesn't address my point. Any God doesn't have to be good, only some of the Gods we entertain here on earth. Atheism as a universal statement cannot rely on picking at Earthly religion. "Divine hidden-ness" I think is atleast partially answered by showing that Children on a desert island would believe in God due to believing everything of function and complexity has a creator. It is only societal false dichotomies such as "evolution or god", which being to preclude this innate rationale exhibited by kids.

The term 'god' is meaningless unless it has some attributes that matter in the physical world. The difference between a universe where a god does not manifest in reality and a universe with no god at all is zero.

So why believe in it?

A positive argument can only be made against something with positive attributes. And anything without positive attributes one can take an ignostic approach (I don't care) or agnostic atheist approach.

That's why you are making an empty request. It's much akin to saying 'how much water does a wagwog hold?' when a 'wagwog' is a meaningless term.

I cannot see how any of this, even if it were true, substantiates positive atheism rather than agnosticism.

You can't see it because you think 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' are mutually exclusive. They are not. And atheism depends on the definition/attributes of the god in question.

For example Einstein referred to the underlying nature of the universe (laws of physics) as his god, in which case I would be a gnostic theist to this claim. The main theistic claims include a lot more attribute than this though.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:21:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 10:32:48 AM, bulproof wrote:

So apparently some childless hack from oxford uni told you, terrific.
Produce a peer reviewed paper by this bozo making these assertions and supported by said review and I'll destroy it for you.

You seem to see things that aren't actually written, understandable from someone who sees invisible sky daddy's.

I haven't attacked a religion as far as I recall. I have merely rejected man's claim that gods exist and you have failed miserably to counter my rejection.

Please stop lying, it really makes you look desperately foolish.

Lets not get belligerent. I come here for more sophisticated discussion than i get from the common garden atheist and i am disappointed so far.
You won't take the opinions of someone who has studied this specifically for one of the worlds most prestigious universities? That seems unreasonable to me. A person doesn't need a peer reviewed paper to make an idea reasonable. A reasonable person requires a good argument, an unreasonable person requires proof.

"Invisible sky daddy's".. Why are you resorting to speaking like this? Why do you attribute these extraneous characteristics to the fundamental idea of God? Only to ridicule. Sorry, ridicule isn't debate, ridicule is used to bypass debate.

Rejecting mans claim that God exists, isn't Atheism, its anti Christianity/Islam/Judaism. There is nothing in the definition of Atheism that limits it only to man-made Gods, that would be circular logic. You can't believe in no Gods because you don't believe in man made Gods (which by definition couldn't be God).

How have i lied? You called me a liar when i said "you asserted that God is exclusively a figment of mans imagination." I quote: "Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject." And you used this to substantiate atheism, a universal claim about God. Thus "all gods are a figment of mans imagination".
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:40:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 1:15:34 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

You can't see it because you think 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' are mutually exclusive. They are not. And atheism depends on the definition/attributes of the god in question.

For example Einstein referred to the underlying nature of the universe (laws of physics) as his god, in which case I would be a gnostic theist to this claim. The main theistic claims include a lot more attribute than this though.

"Not knowing" is encompassed completely by the definition of Agnosticism. Atheism doesn't depend on a definition/attribution of specific Gods in question, it is a universal non belief. If "Atheism" is insubstantial, its insubstantial. Make a new word to mean you don't believe in man made Gods.

If i espouse my non belief in Ghosts from the rooftops, as most atheists do, i am not talking about red or blue or green Ghosts, but the fundamental idea of Ghosts. Thats what i need to argue against. If i am talking about red or blue or green ghosts or ghosts on mars i need to adopt a word which actually reflects that specific belief, rather than use completely insubstantial generalised terms.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:51:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"use completely insubstantial generalised terms "----- like a cub scout who just doesn't want to give up his "superior intellect" badge.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 4:46:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 1:40:03 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:15:34 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

You can't see it because you think 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' are mutually exclusive. They are not. And atheism depends on the definition/attributes of the god in question.

For example Einstein referred to the underlying nature of the universe (laws of physics) as his god, in which case I would be a gnostic theist to this claim. The main theistic claims include a lot more attribute than this though.


"Not knowing" is encompassed completely by the definition of Agnosticism. Atheism doesn't depend on a definition/attribution of specific Gods in question, it is a universal non belief.

It becomes a pretty useless word very quickly if you take the strict 'any definition of god, atheism' - since god is so I'll defined. Similarly 'theism' is essentially a useless word without further substantiation. But then atheism generally pertains to the mainstream religious accounts of theism, which is a fair description of most atheist's position.

If "Atheism" is insubstantial, its insubstantial. Make a new word to mean you don't believe in man made Gods.

Thanks for making me realize I couldn't care much less about the label 'atheism'. It doesn't make much sense to describe one sense on their lack of position. But since atheism still has colloquial value on the versions of theism I almost unanimously encounter, I'll keep on using it.

If i espouse my non belief in Ghosts from the rooftops, as most atheists do, i am not talking about red or blue or green Ghosts, but the fundamental idea of Ghosts. Thats what i need to argue against. If i am talking about red or blue or green ghosts or ghosts on mars i need to adopt a word which actually reflects that specific belief, rather than use completely insubstantial generalised terms.

Sure, so are you an a-ghostist?

I agree with you it's a rather useless word atheist/atheism as it's a general lack of belief. A better word to describe myself is anti-theist or skeptic. I
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
TheSquirrel
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 4:59:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 7:32:44 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:14:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 7:06:49 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:59:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/25/2014 6:25:46 AM, andymcstab wrote:
The Christian God is a localised God, poking holes at it in no way substantiates the universal concept of Atheism.

Hey if you've got another one bring him up on stage.

Why should i need to attach a name or a religion to the fundamental concept of God? Atheism is a universal claim pertaining to God, not religion. It needs positive substantiated attacking the fundamental concept of God, not a religion. A person who doesn't believe in ghosts, can't substantiate that claim by poking holes at the story of the ghost in your mammas basement. He needs to show why the concept of ghosts is incoherent, not that your mamma is incoherent, which is all you achieve by poking at any specific religion.
Yeah already did that.

Gods are a claim made by man, a claim that I reject.

Your turn.
Well, that assumption favours me, not you.
Man makes claims of God, Atheism is a universal statement about God which needs substantiation completely independent to man made religion. That is unless you can show that any God would necessarily have to inform man of his existence and this necessarily developed into a human religon. The substantiation for Atheism must therefore transcend mans religions and deal with fundamental concepts.

Otherwise to claim that God is exclusively a notion developed in human minds so no universal justification is necessary, IS to ba a "hard" or "positive" Atheist who asserts "no god exists", which you already agreed is untenable.

You again, conflate "claims there are no gods" with "does not believe in any gods" and here is the reason why not believing in god is acceptable. The null hypothosis. Look it up. In short, disbelief is the base position, with the question asked "why should I believe". With no reasonable answers incoming, it's reasonable to disbelieve.
Many theists frequently attack strong atheism, despite their numbers being quite small. Probably because those theists are tired of losing.