Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Atheists have predetermined disbelief system.

Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 3:00:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sin is an invented concept.
Counter: sin is a reality with evidence being that is it systematically categorized.

Jesus is nonexistent/fraudulent.
Counter: Your bias controls your perception of his evidence.

Satan is the good guy.
Counter: Even as a joke, that reveals how desperate your rebellion is.

God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 3:22:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:07:57 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is stupid. So God is a bastard but you're his little pet? How nice for you, Joke.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Not only did you not refute me, you agreed with my inside joke. When an enemy agrees with you, then you can be confident in your delusions.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 3:23:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:22:06 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
At 2/28/2014 3:07:57 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is stupid. So God is a bastard but you're his little pet? How nice for you, Joke.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Not only did you not refute me, you agreed with my inside joke. When an enemy agrees with you, then you can be confident in your delusions.

What are you talking about, mate?
dvande28
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 3:56:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:00:15 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Sin is an invented concept.
Counter: sin is a reality with evidence being that is it systematically categorized.

Where is this evidence?

Jesus is nonexistent/fraudulent.
Counter: Your bias controls your perception of his evidence.

And your bias does not? In fact I was a Christian before I became an atheist, so I actually have less bias than you.

Satan is the good guy.
Counter: Even as a joke, that reveals how desperate your rebellion is.

Why? The Christian god is malevolent. It seems plausible that a malevolent God would lie about Satan to convince people to worship him.
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 5:33:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:00:15 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Sin is an invented concept.
Counter: sin is a reality with evidence being that is it systematically categorized.


Where is the evidence?

Jesus is nonexistent/fraudulent.
Counter: Your bias controls your perception of his evidence.


Again, where is the evidence?

Satan is the good guy.
Counter: Even as a joke, that reveals how desperate your rebellion is.


Athiests don't even believe Satan exists.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 5:37:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evidence isn't invincible. It's prone to compromise, bias, corruption, etc. I won't play your stupid game the same way you won't play God's. Burden of proof is one-sided. That isn't objective logic.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 5:45:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:00:15 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Sin is an invented concept.
Counter: sin is a reality with evidence being that is it systematically categorized.

Jesus is nonexistent/fraudulent.
Counter: Your bias controls your perception of his evidence.

Satan is the good guy.
Counter: Even as a joke, that reveals how desperate your rebellion is.

God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.
I don't understand your point, but I will say that I don't think satan exists. "Sin" does exist if that's how we define things that are bad.? And I won't say Jesus didn't exist, but question if he was who he said, and if he was, how do you know it?
SolarSista
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 6:28:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:00:15 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Sin is an invented concept.
Counter: sin is a reality with evidence being that is it systematically categorized.

Morality is subjective, so that point's out the window. Also, any evidence of this claim?

Jesus is nonexistent/fraudulent.
Counter: Your bias controls your perception of his evidence.

There is no bias. You could easily research the concept behind Jesus and see that his story is nothing special. Also, he could have very well have existed. Whether or not he was the Son of God, however, is a different story.

Satan is the good guy.
Counter: Even as a joke, that reveals how desperate your rebellion is.

We don't believe he exists, remember? Also, as someone already pointed out, God could have very well lied about him. Even if Satan was never mentioned, it is quite obvious that the Judeo-Christian god is a malicious tyrant.

God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.

What on earth does that mean? I'm sorry, but the only fool here is you...
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." - Carl Sagan
SolarSista
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 6:30:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 5:37:35 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Evidence isn't invincible. It's prone to compromise, bias, corruption, etc. I won't play your stupid game the same way you won't play God's. Burden of proof is one-sided. That isn't objective logic.

The BOP is on you, as you are the one who made the statement in the first place. If you can't even give us any proof of your claims, then why should we believe you?
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." - Carl Sagan
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 6:55:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Morality is subjective? Then the idea that morality is subjective...that's subjective as well. The burden of proof falls on you now that you claimed something. Something a truly good person would nothing to do with. Objective morality: synonyms.

As for God lying about Satan...laughable! That contradicts your denial of Satan's existence. Either you support him or you doubt his existence; not both.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
SolarSista
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 7:20:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 6:55:01 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Morality is subjective? Then the idea that morality is subjective...that's subjective as well.

That's my point. Not everyone labels the same actions as "good" or "bad". Morality is influenced by society, context, and the individual's own bias, as well as many other factors. Not everything is black and white.

The burden of proof falls on you now that you claimed something. Something a truly good person would nothing to do with. Objective morality: synonyms.

Synonyms? Explain.

As for God lying about Satan...laughable! That contradicts your denial of Satan's existence. Either you support him or you doubt his existence; not both.

It does not contradict anything. I look at the Bible as a simple story. When I say a character (God) could've lied about another character's actions (Satan), does not mean I'm claiming they exist. I'm merely judging their character.
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." - Carl Sagan
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 8:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:00:15 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Sin is an invented concept.
Counter: sin is a reality with evidence being that is it systematically categorized.

Um... whatever? You can call actions sins all you want, I see no reason to believe in any divine endowment. Also your notion of god is just one of many thousands, so why is this even brought up as a point. Your specific one doesn't deserve any more privilege than the others.

Jesus is nonexistent/fraudulent.
Counter: Your bias controls your perception of his evidence.

I actually think Jesus' existence is quite likely, although his portrayal and charactisation are most certainly akin to Kim Jong Il (he hit 9 hole in ones in his first ever round of gold, allegedly).

Satan is the good guy.
Counter: Even as a joke, that reveals how desperate your rebellion is.

Um... FYI, almost all atheists don't believe in the existence of Satan, sorry. And again why does your one notion of god get any privilege over any other? There are thousands of others who also don't give a ""$" about Satan.

God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.

Ok....
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...
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 10:34:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 3:00:15 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Sin is an invented concept.
Counter: sin is a reality with evidence being that is it systematically categorized.'

Counter to counter: Sin here is used in two definitions. The first in the claim, it is used as the religious concept of wrong in the eyes of god. In the counter, you are using it in the pragmatic definition of simply being something that religion categorizes. Your entire argument relies on god existing. If you believe god exists, you accept this argument. If you believe that god doesn't exist, might exist, or is impersonal, then you will not accept this. No matter who you are, this argument needs circular reasoning to reach its conclusion.

Jesus is nonexistent/fraudulent.
Counter: Your bias controls your perception of his evidence.

What evidence is there? No documentation comes from anyone in the area for at least 60 years. Plus one (Josephus I think) was a fraud. And, two things important to the story, the census and Herod, could not have happened together. Herod died about 10 years before the census of Quirinius occurred. While it is not improbable that Jesus existed as a man, this argument for atheism is simply this. If he was so incredible, why was there no documentation. No evidence of him, or many of the events surrounding him, occurring?

Satan is the good guy.
Counter: Even as a joke, that reveals how desperate your rebellion is.

Well, what has Satan ever done? If we put into question whether god is the good guy, then we cannot trust whether Satan really punishes people in hell. Besides that, all he does is hurt Job. And god gave him the go ahead to do so. What has Satan ever done? Nothing.

God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.

Grae (Pronounced 'grey' like the color) is in control. He is coming. Beware. If I die, the portal will be open, and he will unknowingly unleash things that we are not ready to face.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:05:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 6:28:28 PM, SolarSista wrote:
Morality is subjective, so that point's out the window. Also, any evidence of this claim?

If morality is subjective then anything goes right ? Killing, raping, stealing, lies and torture can all be pleasurable and good.


There is no bias. You could easily research the concept behind Jesus and see that his story is nothing special. Also, he could have very well have existed. Whether or not he was the Son of God, however, is a different story.

Saying there is no bias is a bias. Actually, it is silly to say denying a thing isn't a bias. I can deny all religions outside Christianity, or deists can deny atheism and say they have no bias. The world doesn't work that way: for example, denying an accusation must be defended in courts for example.


We don't believe he exists, remember? Also, as someone already pointed out, God could have very well lied about him. Even if Satan was never mentioned, it is quite obvious that the Judeo-Christian god is a malicious tyrant.

People can hate fictional characters, it hardly makes it less hate.


God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.

What on earth does that mean? I'm sorry, but the only fool here is you...

Both of you are fools in fact; but you may show yourself to be better at it.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:10:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 8:16:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Um... whatever? You can call actions sins all you want, I see no reason to believe in any divine endowment. Also your notion of god is just one of many thousands, so why is this even brought up as a point. Your specific one doesn't deserve any more privilege than the others.

To clarify, God is generally understood as the Creator of the universe. It's on the specifics religions disagree.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:12:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:10:30 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2014 8:16:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Um... whatever? You can call actions sins all you want, I see no reason to believe in any divine endowment. Also your notion of god is just one of many thousands, so why is this even brought up as a point. Your specific one doesn't deserve any more privilege than the others.

To clarify, God is generally understood as the Creator of the universe. It's on the specifics religions disagree.

So Thor created the universe? There are actually many more gods that have nothing to do with creation than those that do.
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...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:20:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The title of this topic I actually agree with. And it should apply to not just atheists though, but to all people, regarding all claims. Disbelieve until given sufficient reason to believe.
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...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:31:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:12:07 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:10:30 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2014 8:16:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Um... whatever? You can call actions sins all you want, I see no reason to believe in any divine endowment. Also your notion of god is just one of many thousands, so why is this even brought up as a point. Your specific one doesn't deserve any more privilege than the others.

To clarify, God is generally understood as the Creator of the universe. It's on the specifics religions disagree.

So Thor created the universe? There are actually many more gods that have nothing to do with creation than those that do.

He does. It seems to me that the concept of Ragnarok (is the cycle of life and death in the universe) allows for a universe where Thor creates the universe. And some, if not most, gods in so-called polytheistic religions(starting from ancient Egyptian religions) were understood as coming from a God.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
SolarSista
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:38:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:05:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:28:28 PM, SolarSista wrote:
Morality is subjective, so that point's out the window. Also, any evidence of this claim?

If morality is subjective then anything goes right ? Killing, raping, stealing, lies and torture can all be pleasurable and good.

Anything that harms humanity as a whole is usually what most people would consider "bad" and worthy of punishment. A serial killer might see murdering his victims as fun, but the society will think "Hey, this guy is dangerous. He might come after me or my family next!", and he is imprisoned. It's simple sociobiology.

There is no bias. You could easily research the concept behind Jesus and see that his story is nothing special. Also, he could have very well have existed. Whether or not he was the Son of God, however, is a different story.

Saying there is no bias is a bias. Actually, it is silly to say denying a thing isn't a bias. I can deny all religions outside Christianity, or deists can deny atheism and say they have no bias. The world doesn't work that way: for example, denying an accusation must be defended in courts for example.

It is only a bias if you make a predetermined judgement about something beforehand. I don't deny Jesus being the Son of God because I don't want to-- I deny it out of common sense because I see no evidence to support the claim.

We don't believe he exists, remember? Also, as someone already pointed out, God could have very well lied about him. Even if Satan was never mentioned, it is quite obvious that the Judeo-Christian god is a malicious tyrant.

People can hate fictional characters, it hardly makes it less hate.

And hardly any less real. A lot of people hate Voldemort, does that mean he's floating around somewhere?

God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.

What on earth does that mean? I'm sorry, but the only fool here is you...

Both of you are fools in fact; but you may show yourself to be better at it.

In you're opinion.
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." - Carl Sagan
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:40:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:20:46 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
The title of this topic I actually agree with. And it should apply to not just atheists though, but to all people, regarding all claims. Disbelieve until given sufficient reason to believe.

Sometimes the contrary, believing till there is reason to disbelieve, works better. After all scientists harp on falsification eh, verification is hardly spoke of.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:32:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:20:46 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Disbelieve until given sufficient reason to believe.

I think the proper way to go about it is to remain agnostic until either you have reason to believe or reason to believe there is no reason to believe.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:39:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:38:00 AM, SolarSista wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:05:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:28:28 PM, SolarSista wrote:
Morality is subjective, so that point's out the window. Also, any evidence of this claim?

If morality is subjective then anything goes right ? Killing, raping, stealing, lies and torture can all be pleasurable and good.

Anything that harms humanity as a whole is usually what most people would consider "bad" and worthy of punishment. A serial killer might see murdering his victims as fun, but the society will think "Hey, this guy is dangerous. He might come after me or my family next!", and he is imprisoned. It's simple sociobiology.

No. You are using society as an excus". Using that, human sacrifices by Aztecs and killing apostates in UAE is good. I think you don't want to own up to relative morals allowing killing to be good if killers think so. Your appeal to sociobiology is a copout, especially if you think everybody must hold ideals like, 'murder is bad'; some people think otherwise., hence its relative.


There is no bias. You could easily research the concept behind Jesus and see that his story is nothing special. Also, he could have very well have existed. Whether or not he was the Son of God, however, is a different story.

Saying there is no bias is a bias. Actually, it is silly to say denying a thing isn't a bias. I can deny all religions outside Christianity, or deists can deny atheism and say they have no bias. The world doesn't work that way: for example, denying an accusation must be defended in courts for example.

It is only a bias if you make a predetermined judgement about something beforehand. I don't deny Jesus being the Son of God because I don't want to-- I deny it out of common sense because I see no evidence to support the claim.

SMH. So an atheists that condemns other religion before hand is biased, right ? You need to learn that bias means a stance on an issue whether denial or acceptance, non-belief (doubt) or belief (non-doubt): only things incapable of knowledge lack bias as I define it.


We don't believe he exists, remember? Also, as someone already pointed out, God could have very well lied about him. Even if Satan was never mentioned, it is quite obvious that the Judeo-Christian god is a malicious tyrant.

People can hate fictional characters, it hardly makes it less hate.

And hardly any less real. A lot of people hate Voldemort, does that mean he's floating around somewhere?

You mean more real. Leas real suggests he is real to start with. In any case, you don't deny people hate fictional things, that's all that matters, that's my poi"t.


God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.

What on earth does that mean? I'm sorry, but the only fool here is you...

Both of you are fools in fact; but you may show yourself to be better at it.

In you're opinion.

*shrugs*
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:44:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 9:32:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:20:46 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Disbelieve until given sufficient reason to believe.

I think the proper way to go about it is to remain agnostic until either you have reason to believe or reason to believe there is no reason to believe.

I think some people are less agnostic than they realize. For one, most agnostics tend to be atheists. And most agnostic deists assume a God, which by agnosticism, they can't assume. And rarely do we find agnostic theists, though in fact, a number of Christians take God's existence on faith, they belief it's something one can't be sure about from an evidential standpoint.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:50:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 9:44:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:32:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:20:46 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Disbelieve until given sufficient reason to believe.

I think the proper way to go about it is to remain agnostic until either you have reason to believe or reason to believe there is no reason to believe.

I think some people are less agnostic than they realize. For one, most agnostics tend to be atheists. And most agnostic deists assume a God, which by agnosticism, they can't assume. And rarely do we find agnostic theists, though in fact, a number of Christians take God's existence on faith, they belief it's something one can't be sure about from an evidential standpoint.

I think many agnostics act as if there were no God, but that doesn't mean they "believe there is no God" (which is distinct from "not believing in God").
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 10:02:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 9:50:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:44:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:32:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:20:46 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Disbelieve until given sufficient reason to believe.

I think the proper way to go about it is to remain agnostic until either you have reason to believe or reason to believe there is no reason to believe.

I think some people are less agnostic than they realize. For one, most agnostics tend to be atheists. And most agnostic deists assume a God, which by agnosticism, they can't assume. And rarely do we find agnostic theists, though in fact, a number of Christians take God's existence on faith, they belief it's something one can't be sure about from an evidential standpoint.

I think many agnostics act as if there were no God, but that doesn't mean they "believe there is no God" (which is distinct from "not believing in God").

I make a distinction to the effect that they can believe there's no God, and some cross over to that lane. Corpses and bacteria are known for 'no it believing in God' but it will be quite disingenuous to say they are agnostic.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 10:10:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 9:50:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:44:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:32:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:20:46 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Disbelieve until given sufficient reason to believe.

I think the proper way to go about it is to remain agnostic until either you have reason to believe or reason to believe there is no reason to believe.

I think some people are less agnostic than they realize. For one, most agnostics tend to be atheists. And most agnostic deists assume a God, which by agnosticism, they can't assume. And rarely do we find agnostic theists, though in fact, a number of Christians take God's existence on faith, they belief it's something one can't be sure about from an evidential standpoint.

I think many agnostics act as if there were no God, but that doesn't mean they "believe there is no God" (which is distinct from "not believing in God").

Well gnosticism is a subset of belief. An agnostic isn't some sort of 'middleground' between atheism and theism, it only regards the claim to knowledge of each side of the claim. A gnostic atheist will make the positive assertion there are no gods (or a particular god) exist, an agnostic atheist doesn't believe a god exists due to a null-hypothesis position. An agnostic theist has the same stance but assumes the default position is to believe in the god claim until disproven, although it's not a claim to knowledge.

So by some sort of definition, the title of this topic is true, most atheists will disbelieve the claim until given reason to believe. For me it goes into the same category that toothfairies and leprechuans go in, one has to remain strictly agnostic regarding those two claims similarly to the mainstream god 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...
SolarSista
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 11:19:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 9:39:50 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:38:00 AM, SolarSista wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:05:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:28:28 PM, SolarSista wrote:
Morality is subjective, so that point's out the window. Also, any evidence of this claim?

If morality is subjective then anything goes right ? Killing, raping, stealing, lies and torture can all be pleasurable and good.

Anything that harms humanity as a whole is usually what most people would consider "bad" and worthy of punishment. A serial killer might see murdering his victims as fun, but the society will think "Hey, this guy is dangerous. He might come after me or my family next!", and he is imprisoned. It's simple sociobiology.

No. You are using society as an excus". Using that, human sacrifices by Aztecs and killing apostates in UAE is good. I think you don't want to own up to relative morals allowing killing to be good if killers think so. Your appeal to sociobiology is a copout, especially if you think everybody must hold ideals like, 'murder is bad'; some people think otherwise., hence its relative.

Um. That's my point. People think different things about different actions, hence it is relative. That's what I mean when I say morality is subjective. A person's society does influence the morality of said person. Just look at places like Saudi Arabia compared to the U.S., or isolated tribes in South America compared to England in the 1800s. Each had different moral standards, and each judged their actions differently, more or less.

Personally, I judge actions as "bad" if it causes harm to an individual(s) without any viable reason (ex. a person who kills out of rage vs. a person who kills out of self-defense). This is only my personal stance, though. Others may not think the same way.

Tell me; what is your stance on morals?

There is no bias. You could easily research the concept behind Jesus and see that his story is nothing special. Also, he could have very well have existed. Whether or not he was the Son of God, however, is a different story.

Saying there is no bias is a bias. Actually, it is silly to say denying a thing isn't a bias. I can deny all religions outside Christianity, or deists can deny atheism and say they have no bias. The world doesn't work that way: for example, denying an accusation must be defended in courts for example.

It is only a bias if you make a predetermined judgement about something beforehand. I don't deny Jesus being the Son of God because I don't want to-- I deny it out of common sense because I see no evidence to support the claim.

SMH. So an atheists that condemns other religion before hand is biased, right ? You need to learn that bias means a stance on an issue whether denial or acceptance, non-belief (doubt) or belief (non-doubt): only things incapable of knowledge lack bias as I define it.

Bias (as defined by Oxford dictionaries)

Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair

Perhaps you should learn the definition of it first before calling me out on it.

And yes, any atheist, including myself, that makes a judgement of a religion without having any knowledge of it is biased. It goes both ways. That is why I take a impartial stance on a religious issue and research it before jumping to conclusions. My conclusion: I don't believe Jesus, if he existed, was the Son of God until viable proof shows otherwise.

We don't believe he exists, remember? Also, as someone already pointed out, God could have very well lied about him. Even if Satan was never mentioned, it is quite obvious that the Judeo-Christian god is a malicious tyrant.

People can hate fictional characters, it hardly makes it less hate.

And hardly any less real. A lot of people hate Voldemort, does that mean he's floating around somewhere?

You mean more real. Leas real suggests he is real to start with. In any case, you don't deny people hate fictional things, that's all that matters, that's my poi"t.

Then I guess we are on the same page there.

God is in control in how you oppose him. Fools.

What on earth does that mean? I'm sorry, but the only fool here is you...

Both of you are fools in fact; but you may show yourself to be better at it.

In you're opinion.

*shrugs*
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." - Carl Sagan
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 3:46:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 11:19:15 AM, SolarSista wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:39:50 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:38:00 AM, SolarSista wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:05:57 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2014 6:28:28 PM, SolarSista wrote:
Morality is subjective, so that point's out the window. Also, any evidence of this claim?

If morality is subjective then anything goes right ? Killing, raping, stealing, lies and torture can all be pleasurable and good.

Anything that harms humanity as a whole is usually what most people would consider "bad" and worthy of punishment. A serial killer might see murdering his victims as fun, but the society will think "Hey, this guy is dangerous. He might come after me or my family next!", and he is imprisoned. It's simple sociobiology.

No. You are using society as an excus". Using that, human sacrifices by Aztecs and killing apostates in UAE is good. I think you don't want to own up to relative morals allowing killing to be good if killers think so. Your appeal to sociobiology is a copout, especially if you think everybody must hold ideals like, 'murder is bad'; some people think otherwise., hence its relative.

Um. That's my point. People think different things about different actions, hence it is relative. That's what I mean when I say morality is subjective. A person's society does influence the morality of said person. Just look at places like Saudi Arabia compared to the U.S., or isolated tribes in South America compared to England in the 1800s. Each had different moral standards, and each judged their actions differently, more or less.

Personally, I judge actions as "bad" if it causes harm to an individual(s) without any viable reason (ex. a person who kills out of rage vs. a person who kills out of self-defense). This is only my personal stance, though. Others may not think the same way.

Good. Since others may think otherwise anything goes. Killing can as well be good (for a psycopath) as it is bad (from you POV). Appealing to reason is hardly of consequence, since even a 'viable reason' differs by the person (eg someone think killing criminals is good as a deterrent, others think it is bad given he nedd to reform).


Tell me; what is your stance on morals?


It clearly requires not just consciousness but a degree of intelligence.
This to me is the absolute part of morality; that you must be conscious and intelligent to make a moral judgement. Whilst I'm still quite open in either respect, I'm a moral relativist. Good or bad differs by the person, and by the context.

There is no bias. You could easily research the concept behind Jesus and see that his story is nothing special. Also, he could have very well have existed. Whether or not he was the Son of God, however, is a different story.

Saying there is no bias is a bias. Actually, it is silly to say denying a thing isn't a bias. I can deny all religions outside Christianity, or deists can deny atheism and say they have no bias. The world doesn't work that way: for example, denying an accusation must be defended in courts for example.

It is only a bias if you make a predetermined judgement about something beforehand. I don't deny Jesus being the Son of God because I don't want to-- I deny it out of common sense because I see no evidence to support the claim.

SMH. So an atheists that condemns other religion before hand is biased, right ? You need to learn that bias means a stance on an issue whether denial or acceptance, non-belief (doubt) or belief (non-doubt): only things incapable of knowledge lack bias as I define it.

Bias (as defined by Oxford dictionaries)

Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair

Perhaps you should learn the definition of it first before calling me out on it.

And yes, any atheist, including myself, that makes a judgement of a religion without having any knowledge of it is biased. It goes both ways. That is why I take a impartial stance on a religious issue and research it before jumping to conclusions. My conclusion: I don't believe Jesus, if he existed, was the Son of God until viable proof shows otherwise.

Clearly, this is an inclination, and furthermore, there are people who think it unfair. Saying you have no bias because you think your judgement is fair is mistaken, that's my point. Whether your bias conforms with reality or not, it's still a bias; your mistake comes from equivocating a meaning of bias which doesn't conform to reality, despite the evidence.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.