Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Burden of Proof of Atheism is unfulfilled

SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 12:20:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:03:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without proving there is no God, you atheshits can't use him not existing as an "explanation" or anything, so stop, thank you.

First, atheists do not say there is no God (except strong atheists/anti-theists).

Second, when is the lack of God ever used as an explanation for something?

Third, since the burden of proof for God has not been fulfilled theists can't use his existence as an explanation for anything either.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 12:41:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:20:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:03:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without proving there is no God, you atheshits can't use him not existing as an "explanation" or anything, so stop, thank you.

First, atheists do not say there is no God (except strong atheists/anti-theists).

Second, when is the lack of God ever used as an explanation for something?

Third, since the burden of proof for God has not been fulfilled theists can't use his existence as an explanation for anything either.

Theists have used good arguments to show that there's enough evidence in the natural world which show the existence of God is a reasonable inference to make. The problem tends to be that given an apriori naturalistic worldview these arguments are repeatedly misunderstood.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 12:49:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:03:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without proving there is no God, you atheshits can't use him not existing as an "explanation" or anything, so stop, thank you.

Installgentoo Could you please rephrase your opening post!!
My mind cannot wrap around it!!!?????? Maybe expand this>>> not existing as an "explanation" or anything,
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 12:50:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:41:03 PM, Iredia wrote:
Theists have used good arguments to show that there's enough evidence in the natural world which show the existence of God is a reasonable inference to make. The problem tends to be that given an apriori naturalistic worldview these arguments are repeatedly misunderstood.

I have never seen a good argument to show there is evidence in the natural world for the existence of God. Every argument I have seen has been full of holes. Do you mind bringing up some of these arguments?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 12:51:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:49:27 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:03:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without proving there is no God, you atheshits can't use him not existing as an "explanation" or anything, so stop, thank you.

Installgentoo Could you please rephrase your opening post!!
My mind cannot wrap around it!!!?????? Maybe expand this>>> not existing as an "explanation" or anything,

Trust me, almost nothing Installgentoo says will make much sense.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Dogknox
Posts: 5,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 12:56:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:51:51 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:49:27 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:03:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without proving there is no God, you atheshits can't use him not existing as an "explanation" or anything, so stop, thank you.

Installgentoo Could you please rephrase your opening post!!
My mind cannot wrap around it!!!?????? Maybe expand this>>> not existing as an "explanation" or anything,

Trust me, almost nothing Installgentoo says will make much sense.

Why not give it a go..... Are you for or against Atheists!? Your word>> atheshits ??
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 12:58:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
An atheist's best approach is to not even attempt to disprove religion, Christianisty, creation, and all the other assorted sky fairy beliefs.

Faith based beliefs can never be argued logically with science, and vice versa.

Will any Christian ever drop his 'faith based' arguments in order to argue his beliefs based on scientific fact?

Will any Scientist ever drop his 'science based' arguments in order to argue his beliefs based on faith and superstitions?

A positive "NO" in both cases!
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:00:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:56:16 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:51:51 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:49:27 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:03:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without proving there is no God, you atheshits can't use him not existing as an "explanation" or anything, so stop, thank you.

Installgentoo Could you please rephrase your opening post!!
My mind cannot wrap around it!!!?????? Maybe expand this>>> not existing as an "explanation" or anything,

Trust me, almost nothing Installgentoo says will make much sense.

Why not give it a go..... Are you for or against Atheists!? Your word>> atheshits ??

Why did you respond to me as if I was Installgentoo?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Dogknox
Posts: 5,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:03:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:00:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:56:16 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:51:51 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:49:27 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:03:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without proving there is no God, you atheshits can't use him not existing as an "explanation" or anything, so stop, thank you.

Installgentoo Could you please rephrase your opening post!!
My mind cannot wrap around it!!!?????? Maybe expand this>>> not existing as an "explanation" or anything,

Trust me, almost nothing Installgentoo says will make much sense.

Why not give it a go..... Are you for or against Atheists!? Your word>> atheshits ??

Why did you respond to me as if I was Installgentoo?
SNP1 To tell you the truth.. "I am not sure"!
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:16:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:50:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:41:03 PM, Iredia wrote:
Theists have used good arguments to show that there's enough evidence in the natural world which show the existence of God is a reasonable inference to make. The problem tends to be that given an apriori naturalistic worldview these arguments are repeatedly misunderstood.

I have never seen a good argument to show there is evidence in the natural world for the existence of God. Every argument I have seen has been full of holes. Do you mind bringing up some of these arguments?

Any and every argument has holes or fallacies if one looks well enough. That said, I will pick my favorite argument (from one of Aquinas'); it is shown below: The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which
claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must
be directed by God:
- All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
- These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
- Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
- Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural
bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call 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.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:16:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:50:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:41:03 PM, Iredia wrote:
Theists have used good arguments to show that there's enough evidence in the natural world which show the existence of God is a reasonable inference to make. The problem tends to be that given an apriori naturalistic worldview these arguments are repeatedly misunderstood.

I have never seen a good argument to show there is evidence in the natural world for the existence of God. Every argument I have seen has been full of holes. Do you mind bringing up some of these arguments?

Any and every argument has holes or fallacies if one looks well enough. That said, I will pick my favorite argument (from one of Aquinas'); it is shown below: The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which
claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must
be directed by God:
- All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
- These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
- Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
- Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural
bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

Want to do a debate on these points and your argument for intelligence?
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...
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:21:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:16:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:50:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:41:03 PM, Iredia wrote:
Theists have used good arguments to show that there's enough evidence in the natural world which show the existence of God is a reasonable inference to make. The problem tends to be that given an apriori naturalistic worldview these arguments are repeatedly misunderstood.

I have never seen a good argument to show there is evidence in the natural world for the existence of God. Every argument I have seen has been full of holes. Do you mind bringing up some of these arguments?

Any and every argument has holes or fallacies if one looks well enough. That said, I will pick my favorite argument (from one of Aquinas'); it is shown below: The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which
claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must
be directed by God:
- All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
- These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
- Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
- Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural
bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

Problem here is that are the natural bodies acting towards an end or do they just have an end?
Next, if they are acting towards an end, who says that that is a characteristic of intelligence?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:22:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 12:03:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without proving there is no God, you atheshits can't use him not existing as an "explanation" or anything, so stop, thank you.

I agree. Atheists have not satisfied their BoP to demonstrate there is no God.

What is your point?
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...
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:23:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:16:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:50:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:41:03 PM, Iredia wrote:
Theists have used good arguments to show that there's enough evidence in the natural world which show the existence of God is a reasonable inference to make. The problem tends to be that given an apriori naturalistic worldview these arguments are repeatedly misunderstood.

I have never seen a good argument to show there is evidence in the natural world for the existence of God. Every argument I have seen has been full of holes. Do you mind bringing up some of these arguments?

Any and every argument has holes or fallacies if one looks well enough. That said, I will pick my favorite argument (from one of Aquinas'); it is shown below: The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which
claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must
be directed by God:
- All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
- These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
- Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
- Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural
bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

Well that's nothing more than intelligent design isn't it!

So keep it in those unspecific terms and you can't be challenged. But just dare try to get specific and you will be shot clean out of the water.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:35:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:21:13 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/25/2014 1:16:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:50:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:41:03 PM, Iredia wrote:
Theists have used good arguments to show that there's enough evidence in the natural world which show the existence of God is a reasonable inference to make. The problem tends to be that given an apriori naturalistic worldview these arguments are repeatedly misunderstood.

I have never seen a good argument to show there is evidence in the natural world for the existence of God. Every argument I have seen has been full of holes. Do you mind bringing up some of these arguments?

Any and every argument has holes or fallacies if one looks well enough. That said, I will pick my favorite argument (from one of Aquinas'); it is shown below: The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which
claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must
be directed by God:
- All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
- These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
- Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
- Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural
bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

Want to do a debate on these points and your argument for intelligence?

Sure. Post a challenge.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:40:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:35:21 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/25/2014 1:21:13 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/25/2014 1:16:50 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:50:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 12:41:03 PM, Iredia wrote:
Theists have used good arguments to show that there's enough evidence in the natural world which show the existence of God is a reasonable inference to make. The problem tends to be that given an apriori naturalistic worldview these arguments are repeatedly misunderstood.

I have never seen a good argument to show there is evidence in the natural world for the existence of God. Every argument I have seen has been full of holes. Do you mind bringing up some of these arguments?

Any and every argument has holes or fallacies if one looks well enough. That said, I will pick my favorite argument (from one of Aquinas'); it is shown below: The teleological argument or argument from "design" (ex fine), which
claims that many things in the Universe possess final causes that must
be directed by God:
- All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
- These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
- Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
- Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural
bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

Want to do a debate on these points and your argument for intelligence?

Sure. Post a challenge.

The only way a Christian can debate with an atheist is to rule out either faith based arguments or science. And then, when one is ruled out, that makes it impossible to have a rational debate.

You fools can run around in circles until you are swallowed up by your own as-holes but you can't change that fact.

Do continue!
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 1:45:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:21:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Problem here is that are the natural bodies acting towards an end or do they just have an end?
Next, if they are acting towards an end, who says that that is a characteristic of intelligence?

Uncaused ends don't make sense. Wouldn't you think that if the universe was chanced upon that physical laws could change from one day to the next ? We know intelligent bodies act towards ends and make things which are specified for an end eg a hammer for nailing, an assault rifle for direct warfare etc. And finally why will bodies that lack the awareness of ends (purpose) result in animals like humans which are purposeful beings ? It would make more sense, if like animals man couldn't see an end to things ?
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
3/25/2014 2:10:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:40:23 PM, monty1 wrote:


The only way a Christian can debate with an atheist is to rule out either faith based arguments or science. And then, when one is ruled out, that makes it impossible to have a rational debate.

You fools can run around in circles until you are swallowed up by your own as-holes but you can't change that fact.

Do continue!

I'm a deist not a Christian. And even Christians argue rationally. The Lennox-Dawkins 'God Delusion' debate is a classic example of this.
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
3/25/2014 2:17:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 2:10:18 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/25/2014 1:40:23 PM, monty1 wrote:


The only way a Christian can debate with an atheist is to rule out either faith based arguments or science. And then, when one is ruled out, that makes it impossible to have a rational debate.

You fools can run around in circles until you are swallowed up by your own as-holes but you can't change that fact.

Do continue!

I'm a deist not a Christian. And even Christians argue rationally. The Lennox-Dawkins 'God Delusion' debate is a classic example of this.

Submitted the debate request. Please review the parameters before accepting, let me know what you want changed.
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...
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 2:18:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 1:45:26 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/25/2014 1:21:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Problem here is that are the natural bodies acting towards an end or do they just have an end?
Next, if they are acting towards an end, who says that that is a characteristic of intelligence?

Uncaused ends don't make sense.

Why do you think what makes sense to you is what matters in this world? We evolved to survive in Africa, not to understand the universe, we chose that path. Does it make sense for something to be in 2 places at one time? Particles can be. Does it make sense that something can go from point A to B without traveling anywhere in between? Particles can do that. The universe doesn't conform to anyone's sense of understanding, we have to understand it.

Wouldn't you think that if the universe was chanced upon that physical laws could change from one day to the next ?

Why would they? Just because something happens by chance doesn't mean it is random. If I flip a coin it has a chance of getting heads or tails. If, by chance, it lands on heads, what random fluctuation can happen? Why would a universe coming into existence be any difference? Sure, there might have been a chance that the universe could have had changing physical laws, but ours does not.

We know intelligent bodies act towards ends and make things which are specified for an end eg a hammer for nailing, an assault rifle for direct warfare etc.

Yes, so SOME things can be made for a purpose. Can you tell me what purpose a star has in forming? How about a planet? How about a rock? A puddle? They all were formed, but they were not formed with a purpose.

And finally why will bodies that lack the awareness of ends (purpose) result in animals like humans which are purposeful beings ?

What makes a being purposeful? Were we even made for a purpose or was it coincidence and chance? We already know RNA and amino acids can form in reduced atmospheres. We are still researching abiogenesis, which shows how matter that isn't "purposeful" can form life. We also know evolution changes life over time.

It would make more sense, if like animals man couldn't see an end to things ?

Can you restate this with better grammar? I have no clue what you are saying.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO