Total Posts:443|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists: Isn't it safe to say......

Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?
XLAV
Posts: 13,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:52:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:48:53 AM, andymcstab wrote:
In reality they know Gods existence, they just choose to reject God.

Bullsh*t.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:53:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:48:53 AM, andymcstab wrote:
In reality they know Gods existence, they just choose to reject God.

Response: It does seem to be this way. They know that Intelligent Design is the most logical explanation and evidence shows it, but they dislike the attributes of God. So they say God does not exist.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:55:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just as you know that invisible pink unicorns exist, you just reject their existence.

It's a great argument don't you think? LMFAO.............................Oh YEAH.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:58:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

I just do not find the arguments for the existence of god to be persuasive and I find the descriptions of gods that I've been presented with to be incoherent. There's no element of whether I like them or not. I don't like lots of things that I've seen evidence for existing or persuaded by coherent argument are true. If what you are asking were the case, I would not believe in cancer, ebola, war, famine etc. because I don't like the attributes of them.

I've never claimed to be able to prove their is no god whatsoever. I'd be pretty over the moon if I could prove one existed, but I can't. All I can say is "I don't know, but I've seen no evidence of a plausible one so far", which is why I'm an atheist.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:00:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?
Of course we don't have proof that your god doesn't exist, we don't have proof that any of the thousands of other gods don't exist.

Here's the thing.

You don't have proof that the thousands of gods you don't believe in don't exist either.

It's just one more god.

You work it out. LOL
XLAV
Posts: 13,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:01:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:58:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

I just do not find the arguments for the existence of god to be persuasive and I find the descriptions of gods that I've been presented with to be incoherent. There's no element of whether I like them or not. I don't like lots of things that I've seen evidence for existing or persuaded by coherent argument are true. If what you are asking were the case, I would not believe in cancer, ebola, war, famine etc. because I don't like the attributes of them.

I've never claimed to be able to prove their is no god whatsoever. I'd be pretty over the moon if I could prove one existed, but I can't. All I can say is "I don't know, but I've seen no evidence of a plausible one so far", which is why I'm an atheist.
Shoudln't you be an agnostic if you 'don't know god exists?'

Atheists know god doesn't exists.
Agnostics don't know if god(s) exists.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:06:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:01:32 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:58:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

I just do not find the arguments for the existence of god to be persuasive and I find the descriptions of gods that I've been presented with to be incoherent. There's no element of whether I like them or not. I don't like lots of things that I've seen evidence for existing or persuaded by coherent argument are true. If what you are asking were the case, I would not believe in cancer, ebola, war, famine etc. because I don't like the attributes of them.

I've never claimed to be able to prove their is no god whatsoever. I'd be pretty over the moon if I could prove one existed, but I can't. All I can say is "I don't know, but I've seen no evidence of a plausible one so far", which is why I'm an atheist.
Shoudln't you be an agnostic if you 'don't know god exists?'

Atheists know god doesn't exists.
Agnostics don't know if god(s) exists.

I'm an agnostic atheist. It isn't coherent to be 'just agnostic' because there are many people who do believe in god but don't claim to know god exists. When it comes to matters of belief you either believe or you don't. Whether you claim knowledge regarding the certainty of that belief is a different factor.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:08:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:48:53 AM, andymcstab wrote:
In reality they know Gods existence, they just choose to reject God.

What God are we talking about ?

A God who will send a women to hell for having an abortion yet watch millions of children suffer and die ?

A God who makes laws which must be followed punishable by death but then later on..............says yeah don't worry it.

A God who can be pleased by human sacrifice ?

A God who causes earthquakes to show his anger of same sex marriage ?

A God who cares whether you live or die ?

A God who let's you live in this world but has prepared a place of eternal bliss after your death cause you believed certain things ?

Yeah I mean everyone deep down knows that God exists, right ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:15:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:58:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

I just do not find the arguments for the existence of god to be persuasive and I find the descriptions of gods that I've been presented with to be incoherent. There's no element of whether I like them or not. I don't like lots of things that I've seen evidence for existing or persuaded by coherent argument are true. If what you are asking were the case, I would not believe in cancer, ebola, war, famine etc. because I don't like the attributes of them.

I've never claimed to be able to prove their is no god whatsoever. I'd be pretty over the moon if I could prove one existed, but I can't. All I can say is "I don't know, but I've seen no evidence of a plausible one so far", which is why I'm an atheist.

Response: What about the argument for God is not persuasive? Are you saying that Intelligent design is illogical and creation from non-intellugence is more logical? If not, then how can the argument not be persuasive?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:23:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:15:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:58:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

I just do not find the arguments for the existence of god to be persuasive and I find the descriptions of gods that I've been presented with to be incoherent. There's no element of whether I like them or not. I don't like lots of things that I've seen evidence for existing or persuaded by coherent argument are true. If what you are asking were the case, I would not believe in cancer, ebola, war, famine etc. because I don't like the attributes of them.

I've never claimed to be able to prove their is no god whatsoever. I'd be pretty over the moon if I could prove one existed, but I can't. All I can say is "I don't know, but I've seen no evidence of a plausible one so far", which is why I'm an atheist.

Response: What about the argument for God is not persuasive?

Which god? Which argument? There's a lot of both.

Are you saying that Intelligent design is illogical and creation from non-intellugence is more logical?

I am saying I do not believe we were created at all, intelligently or non-intelligently. I am also saying that intelligent design does not fit the evidence we have to hand, while evolutionary theory is an increasingly accurate model for (and source of) existing and further evidence.

If not, then how can the argument not be persuasive?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean; are you asking how an argument can possibly fail to be persuasive?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:24:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Or rather, I do say those things, but I wasn't specifically saying them in the post you responded to.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:31:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

Epistemologically, it's more rational to disbelieve in the existence of something until given reason to believe, otherwise you would in a position to believe an infinite number of contradictory propositions.

The whole purpose of the satirical 'gods' such as the FSM, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are to demonstrate that it's easy to come up with any random contradictory proposition.

Most arguments for God violate Occum's Razor, in that it postulates an additional entity to just asserting physical reality/causation as a brute fact, which I think it the simplest way to dismiss God as extraneous.

Moreover, scientifically it's quite clear that at least on the local scale, nature does not behave anything like one would expect if it were designed with Human's in mind, given biological evolution, cosmology, geology and zoology. So given that most Gods ever postulated hold Humans/Earth in a special importance within the universe, observation seems to throw that out of the window. We can safely assume if God does exist, it almost certainly is not a personal one to Humans.

So that leaves the more deistic interpretations of God, amongst others, some more convincing than others, which I remain agnostic and atheistic towards, but most interpretations of God theists hold do not fall into this category.

The issue is... God is poorly defined, so it's impossible to know your position until the definition of God has been forwarded, which varies wildly amongst theists/deists. This is where most the beef on the rationality of atheism seems to come from, but it seems epistemologically reasonable to disbelieve on all accounts until given reason to think otherwise.

The arguments for God vary wildly depending on the definition, some go by historical accounts (holy texts), others by philosophy or science, plenty of arguments for different types of god-entities, you can only really decide once you hear the arguments in favor.
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...
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:38:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

Nope. And it's not that we dislike the attributes. (We do, but that's not why we don't believe lol) That's a contradiction when someone mentions to problem of evil. God is loving yet let's his children suffer is an example of that, yet an incredibly weak one.

We also have no reason to believ in God. Not even intelligent design works anymore#QuantumMechanics.
Dude... Stop...
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:38:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:48:53 AM, andymcstab wrote:
In reality they know Gods existence, they just choose to reject God.

Lol...
Dude... Stop...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:39:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:23:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:15:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:58:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

I just do not find the arguments for the existence of god to be persuasive and I find the descriptions of gods that I've been presented with to be incoherent. There's no element of whether I like them or not. I don't like lots of things that I've seen evidence for existing or persuaded by coherent argument are true. If what you are asking were the case, I would not believe in cancer, ebola, war, famine etc. because I don't like the attributes of them.

I've never claimed to be able to prove their is no god whatsoever. I'd be pretty over the moon if I could prove one existed, but I can't. All I can say is "I don't know, but I've seen no evidence of a plausible one so far", which is why I'm an atheist.

Response: What about the argument for God is not persuasive?

Which god? Which argument? There's a lot of both.

Are you saying that Intelligent design is illogical and creation from non-intellugence is more logical?

I am saying I do not believe we were created at all, intelligently or non-intelligently. I am also saying that intelligent design does not fit the evidence we have to hand, while evolutionary theory is an increasingly accurate model for (and source of) existing and further evidence.

If not, then how can the argument not be persuasive?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean; are you asking how an argument can possibly fail to be persuasive?

Response: Why do you say which God? The question itself implies you don't believe in God because you dislike Him. Not because you have proof. That is my point. I'm referring to the creator of the Universe and life and all that is in it.

Then you say we were not created intelligently or unintelligently. How does this even make sense. If what we originate from is not intelligent or unintelligent then what is it?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:42:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:31:55 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Moreover, scientifically it's quite clear that at least on the local scale, nature does not behave anything like one would expect if it were designed with Human's in mind, given biological evolution, cosmology, geology and zoology. So given that most Gods ever postulated hold Humans/Earth in a special importance within the universe, observation seems to throw that out of the window. We can safely assume if God does exist, it almost certainly is not a personal one to Humans.

This is a good point that I think often gets overlooked, I think based on a combination of confirmation bias and the anthropic principle. Since the amount of universe that isn't either uninhabitable vacuum or huge fusing inferno is statistically irrelevant, I'd say that assuming it was designed specifically for us is really pushing inductive reasoning beyond all reasonable bounds.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:47:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:31:55 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

Epistemologically, it's more rational to disbelieve in the existence of something until given reason to believe, otherwise you would in a position to believe an infinite number of contradictory propositions.

The whole purpose of the satirical 'gods' such as the FSM, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are to demonstrate that it's easy to come up with any random contradictory proposition.

Most arguments for God violate Occum's Razor, in that it postulates an additional entity to just asserting physical reality/causation as a brute fact, which I think it the simplest way to dismiss God as extraneous.

Moreover, scientifically it's quite clear that at least on the local scale, nature does not behave anything like one would expect if it were designed with Human's in mind, given biological evolution, cosmology, geology and zoology. So given that most Gods ever postulated hold Humans/Earth in a special importance within the universe, observation seems to throw that out of the window. We can safely assume if God does exist, it almost certainly is not a personal one to Humans.

So that leaves the more deistic interpretations of God, amongst others, some more convincing than others, which I remain agnostic and atheistic towards, but most interpretations of God theists hold do not fall into this category.

The issue is... God is poorly defined, so it's impossible to know your position until the definition of God has been forwarded, which varies wildly amongst theists/deists. This is where most the beef on the rationality of atheism seems to come from, but it seems epistemologically reasonable to disbelieve on all accounts until given reason to think otherwise.

The arguments for God vary wildly depending on the definition, some go by historical accounts (holy texts), others by philosophy or science, plenty of arguments for different types of god-entities, you can only really decide once you hear the arguments in favor.

Response: By God, I am referring to an Intelligent designer. That the universe and life was designed by a designer with intelligence. Are you suggesting that it is illogical that the universe was designed and more logical that it came from unintelligence?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:47:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:39:57 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:23:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:15:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:58:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

I just do not find the arguments for the existence of god to be persuasive and I find the descriptions of gods that I've been presented with to be incoherent. There's no element of whether I like them or not. I don't like lots of things that I've seen evidence for existing or persuaded by coherent argument are true. If what you are asking were the case, I would not believe in cancer, ebola, war, famine etc. because I don't like the attributes of them.

I've never claimed to be able to prove their is no god whatsoever. I'd be pretty over the moon if I could prove one existed, but I can't. All I can say is "I don't know, but I've seen no evidence of a plausible one so far", which is why I'm an atheist.

Response: What about the argument for God is not persuasive?

Which god? Which argument? There's a lot of both.

Are you saying that Intelligent design is illogical and creation from non-intellugence is more logical?

I am saying I do not believe we were created at all, intelligently or non-intelligently. I am also saying that intelligent design does not fit the evidence we have to hand, while evolutionary theory is an increasingly accurate model for (and source of) existing and further evidence.

If not, then how can the argument not be persuasive?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean; are you asking how an argument can possibly fail to be persuasive?

Response: Why do you say which God?

Because there are lots of different formulations of god, each with slightly differing attributes and therefore potential issues.

The question itself implies you don't believe in God because you dislike Him.

No, it implies that I am asking which description of god you are asking me I find unpersuasive. Since I find different descriptions of god unpersuasive for different reasons, I need to know which description you are asking me to explain my reasons for not being persuaded by.

Furthermore, I point you again to the fact that I believe in the existence of many things I dislike but have persuasive reasons to believe exist. If I simply disliked god, I would say I believe in but will not worship god, not "I do not believe in god".

Not because you have proof.

Again, I have not at any point claimed I have proof that there is no god at all. I have merely claimed that I have no evidence to suggest that there is one.

Then you say we were not created intelligently or unintelligently. How does this even make sense. If what we originate from is not intelligent or unintelligent then what is it?

It is not creation, is my point. We developed as part of a system that we are now just starting to be able to examine and understand. 'Creation' is a loaded term that implies 'creator', which I do not believe we have reason to believe exists and therefore I do not use the term 'creation' when discussing the universe or the existence of life.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:51:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:38:05 AM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

Nope. And it's not that we dislike the attributes. (We do, but that's not why we don't believe lol) That's a contradiction when someone mentions to problem of evil. God is loving yet let's his children suffer is an example of that, yet an incredibly weak one.


We also have no reason to believ in God. Not even intelligent design works anymore#QuantumMechanics.

Response: If the reason for not believing in God has nothing to do with disliking his attributes, then all you are left with is to suggest that Intelligent design is illogical and creation from non-intellugence is more logical. Do you accept creation from non-intellugence to be more rational than intelligence? IF so, why?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:56:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:47:50 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:39:57 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:23:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:15:21 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:58:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

I just do not find the arguments for the existence of god to be persuasive and I find the descriptions of gods that I've been presented with to be incoherent. There's no element of whether I like them or not. I don't like lots of things that I've seen evidence for existing or persuaded by coherent argument are true. If what you are asking were the case, I would not believe in cancer, ebola, war, famine etc. because I don't like the attributes of them.

I've never claimed to be able to prove their is no god whatsoever. I'd be pretty over the moon if I could prove one existed, but I can't. All I can say is "I don't know, but I've seen no evidence of a plausible one so far", which is why I'm an atheist.

Response: What about the argument for God is not persuasive?

Which god? Which argument? There's a lot of both.

Are you saying that Intelligent design is illogical and creation from non-intellugence is more logical?

I am saying I do not believe we were created at all, intelligently or non-intelligently. I am also saying that intelligent design does not fit the evidence we have to hand, while evolutionary theory is an increasingly accurate model for (and source of) existing and further evidence.

If not, then how can the argument not be persuasive?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean; are you asking how an argument can possibly fail to be persuasive?

Response: Why do you say which God?

Because there are lots of different formulations of god, each with slightly differing attributes and therefore potential issues.

The question itself implies you don't believe in God because you dislike Him.

No, it implies that I am asking which description of god you are asking me I find unpersuasive. Since I find different descriptions of god unpersuasive for different reasons, I need to know which description you are asking me to explain my reasons for not being persuaded by.

Furthermore, I point you again to the fact that I believe in the existence of many things I dislike but have persuasive reasons to believe exist. If I simply disliked god, I would say I believe in but will not worship god, not "I do not believe in god".

Not because you have proof.

Again, I have not at any point claimed I have proof that there is no god at all. I have merely claimed that I have no evidence to suggest that there is one.

Then you say we were not created intelligently or unintelligently. How does this even make sense. If what we originate from is not intelligent or unintelligent then what is it?

It is not creation, is my point. We developed as part of a system that we are now just starting to be able to examine and understand. 'Creation' is a loaded term that implies 'creator', which I do not believe we have reason to believe exists and therefore I do not use the term 'creation' when discussing the universe or the existence of life.

Response: This does not answer the question to what is more logical. Is creation from unintelligence more logical than creation from intelligence? Yes or no.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:58:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:56:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: This does not answer the question to what is more logical. Is creation from unintelligence more logical than creation from intelligence? Yes or no.

No.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:01:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:47:24 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:31:55 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

Epistemologically, it's more rational to disbelieve in the existence of something until given reason to believe, otherwise you would in a position to believe an infinite number of contradictory propositions.

The whole purpose of the satirical 'gods' such as the FSM, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are to demonstrate that it's easy to come up with any random contradictory proposition.

Most arguments for God violate Occum's Razor, in that it postulates an additional entity to just asserting physical reality/causation as a brute fact, which I think it the simplest way to dismiss God as extraneous.

Moreover, scientifically it's quite clear that at least on the local scale, nature does not behave anything like one would expect if it were designed with Human's in mind, given biological evolution, cosmology, geology and zoology. So given that most Gods ever postulated hold Humans/Earth in a special importance within the universe, observation seems to throw that out of the window. We can safely assume if God does exist, it almost certainly is not a personal one to Humans.

So that leaves the more deistic interpretations of God, amongst others, some more convincing than others, which I remain agnostic and atheistic towards, but most interpretations of God theists hold do not fall into this category.

The issue is... God is poorly defined, so it's impossible to know your position until the definition of God has been forwarded, which varies wildly amongst theists/deists. This is where most the beef on the rationality of atheism seems to come from, but it seems epistemologically reasonable to disbelieve on all accounts until given reason to think otherwise.

The arguments for God vary wildly depending on the definition, some go by historical accounts (holy texts), others by philosophy or science, plenty of arguments for different types of god-entities, you can only really decide once you hear the arguments in favor.

Response: By God, I am referring to an Intelligent designer. That the universe and life was designed by a designer with intelligence. Are you suggesting that it is illogical that the universe was designed and more logical that it came from unintelligence?

I'm saying it's illogical to believe either (i.e. remain agnostic) until given evidence to believe otherwise. Yes, you need evidence/argument to believe the universe came from unintelligence, and yes you need evidence/argument for believing it came from intelligence.

Given two equal hypothesis for creation from intelligence compared with creation form non-intelligence, it seems that the argument from intelligence inevitably makes at least one additional extraneous assumption (that an intelligent designer exists) over a non-intelligence explanation. Which is why a priori I would accept the latter conclusion until I see the arguments either way (atheistic position).
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...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:04:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:58:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:56:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: This does not answer the question to what is more logical. Is creation from unintelligence more logical than creation from intelligence? Yes or no.

No.

Response: I agree. Then suggesting that the argument for God is not persuasive or has no evidence is illogical for this is the very argument for God's existence, which is intelligent design. So you have no reason to disbelieve in God, accept that you dislike Him.
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:08:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:51:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:38:05 AM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

Nope. And it's not that we dislike the attributes. (We do, but that's not why we don't believe lol) That's a contradiction when someone mentions to problem of evil. God is loving yet let's his children suffer is an example of that, yet an incredibly weak one.


We also have no reason to believ in God. Not even intelligent design works anymore#QuantumMechanics.

Response: If the reason for not believing in God has nothing to do with disliking his attributes, then all you are left with is to suggest that Intelligent design is illogical and creation from non-intellugence is more logical. Do you accept creation from non-intellugence to be more rational than intelligence? IF so, why?

That's simply not true. Atgeists have dozens of other arguments for God. Refuting another's argument=/= Making one. Also, what? The reasons we don't believe in God are not because we can dislodge intelligent design. That leaves you with being an agnostic.

Anyway, why is intelligent design faulty?

1. Humans can only live on a small percentage of our earth.

2. 99% of all species have gone extinct on earth.

3. Humans make up God's all the time. They can't all be right, but they can obviously all be incorrect.

4. Intelligent design supports atheism more so than theism.

5. To tired to think right now lol.
Dude... Stop...
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:10:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:31:55 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

Epistemologically, it's more rational to disbelieve in the existence of something until given reason to believe, otherwise you would in a position to believe an infinite number of contradictory propositions.
But there is reason to believe. Lets not go through this argument of evidence again. There are profound evidences for God, which, necessarily, require no special knowledge or intelligence, hence God has been a fixed staple in all human history.

The whole purpose of the satirical 'gods' such as the FSM, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are to demonstrate that it's easy to come up with any random contradictory proposition.
Those "gods", are the intellectual equivalent of drawing a moustache on someone in a magazine and declaring "hah! don't you look stupid now!". It is an abomination, it is intellectual suicide. No-one who makes these arguments can be taken seriously. You are merely adding extraneous characteristics to the concept of God, so as to make it appear ridiculous. In reality, God is not made from noodles or pink unicorns, he is the base proposition of the necessarily eternal creator of all that is and the living moral paradigm. He is also the only coherent explicator of all phenomena. That is the very character of God. Noodles and pink unicorns exceed the necessary character of God, they are just the scrawlings of the intellectually defunct.

Most arguments for God violate Occum's Razor, in that it postulates an additional entity to just asserting physical reality/causation as a brute fact, which I think it the simplest way to dismiss God as extraneous.
No, because occums razor is about cutting out extraneous assertions. Considering a creator for something bearing all the marks of a creation, is the only honest and prudent way of reasoning it.

Moreover, scientifically it's quite clear that at least on the local scale, nature does not behave anything like one would expect if it were designed with Human's in mind, given biological evolution, cosmology, geology and zoology. So given that most Gods ever postulated hold Humans/Earth in a special importance within the universe, observation seems to throw that out of the window. We can safely assume if God does exist, it almost certainly is not a personal one to Humans.
Well, you have very little to substantiate these claims. Let us look at it from a different view: No creature is born with a precept which cannot be fulfilled. No creature holds innate ideas which cannot be realized. The concept of knowing God is innate in man, there is alot of research to validate this claim such as if you google "oxford uni belief in God human nature", thus looking at the natural world gives us good reason to assume our precepts accurate.
In addition, some context is required. Man is alien to and above all known life-forms. Of all the millions on earth, we are the highest. Not just by a fine margin, but by a chasm. Of all of the billions of planets around us, ours is the only one to contain life, of which we are the apex of. So, given that humans find themselves in this unique position,being the only creature with such a vast array of unique abilities while simultaneously being the only creature to hold God as a precept, would reasonably imply that God has chosen us/made us to be able to know him.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:14:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:04:00 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:58:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:56:15 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: This does not answer the question to what is more logical. Is creation from unintelligence more logical than creation from intelligence? Yes or no.

No.

Response: I agree. Then suggesting that the argument for God is not persuasive or has no evidence is illogical for this is the very argument for God's existence, which is intelligent design. So you have no reason to disbelieve in God, accept that you dislike Him.

I have simply stated that I do not believe it to be, a priori, more logical. In a priori terms they are equally logical claims. It is once we start looking at them in the context of evidence that we can say which is more accurate and therefore more likely to be true. This is not a logical matter beyond "if it contradicts the evidence then it is incorrect"; i.e. the law of non-contradiction as applied to those statements in the context of what we know to be true.

Additionally, having no reason to disbelieve in god is not the same as having a reason to believe in god. I have no reason to disbelieve in lots of things that I disbelieve in, just as you and everyone else does. I disbelieve in Russell's Teapot (the thought experiment, not the webcomic), the Flying Spaghetti Monster, faeries, goblins and all sorts of things. I assume you also disbelieve in these things, yet do not have proof that they do not exist somewhere.

So my reason for disbelieving in god is a logical extension of my not having a reason to believe in god; that is what disbelief means. And, once again, there are many things I dislike but believe in because I have been given persuasive evidence to do so.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:16:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:08:43 AM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:51:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:38:05 AM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:42:42 AM, Fatihah wrote:
I've found myself recently analyzing videos of lectures and debates on atheists and their disbelief in God, as well as interacting in debates with atheists on this site and others. I've come to notice a reoccurring theme amongst atheists. It appears that it is not that atheists actually have proof that God does not exist, but that they disagree with the logical concept of God and His attributes, therefore concluding that no God exist. For example, God is supposed to be loving but there is evil, so no such God exist, etc.. So my question to athests is:

Isn't it safe to say that you believe that there is no God, not because you have proof that there is no God, but because you dislike the attributes of God?

Nope. And it's not that we dislike the attributes. (We do, but that's not why we don't believe lol) That's a contradiction when someone mentions to problem of evil. God is loving yet let's his children suffer is an example of that, yet an incredibly weak one.


We also have no reason to believ in God. Not even intelligent design works anymore#QuantumMechanics.

Response: If the reason for not believing in God has nothing to do with disliking his attributes, then all you are left with is to suggest that Intelligent design is illogical and creation from non-intellugence is more logical. Do you accept creation from non-intellugence to be more rational than intelligence? IF so, why?

That's simply not true. Atgeists have dozens of other arguments for God. Refuting another's argument=/= Making one. Also, what? The reasons we don't believe in God are not because we can dislodge intelligent design. That leaves you with being an agnostic.

Anyway, why is intelligent design faulty?

1. Humans can only live on a small percentage of our earth.

2. 99% of all species have gone extinct on earth.

3. Humans make up God's all the time. They can't all be right, but they can obviously all be incorrect.

4. Intelligent design supports atheism more so than theism.

5. To tired to think right now lol.

Response: You just made my point. That you disbelieve in God because you dislike Him. Not because of lack of evidence. For everything you just mentioned in your 5 points are attributes that you do not like, not proof that intelligence was not involved.