Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists' concepts of Gods, gods, deities...

ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You see, dear atheist colleagues here, I read that atheists do not accept any Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc.

If I may, perhaps you can specify just one of the above Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc., and tell me what is your concept of that one you specify.

If you do not understand my request, please tell me what you do not understand.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2014 8:42:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:
You see, dear atheist colleagues here, I read that atheists do not accept any Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc.

If I may, perhaps you can specify just one of the above Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc., and tell me what is your concept of that one you specify.

If you do not understand my request, please tell me what you do not understand.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

I don't fully understand your question, but it is more correct to say that atheists lack a belief in god(s). Any concept of a god we hold in our heads is usually based on the description given by theists. Many of us were raised in a religion (in my case Greek Orthodox) so we may have a childhood concept of god that we each carry around with us.

It's a big step from a concept to an actuality. What is the point of your question?
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 2:04:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You ask, "What is the point of your [my] question?"

It is merely to see whether you have a concept of God at all; because I have come up with atheists who insist that they don't have to know any information of a concept of Gods or gods or goddesses or deities or divinities, etc.

My idea is that when a person has the information of the concept of God as the creator of the universe, then he and I can work together to look for God creator of the universe, by going to the universe searching for evidence of His presence and activity in the universe.

But I have not read from you that you are an atheist.

Still not getting me at all, what is the point of my thread?

Okay, here I go again.

I have met with a lot of atheists who keep on insisting that they don't have any information whatever of Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., because they don't accept the existence of all those entities.

But I keep telling them that I am just asking you whether you will accept the piece of information, only the piece of information, namely, of the concept of God first and foremost in the Christian faith and also in the Islamic and Judaic faiths, as creator of the universe.

Now, the atheists I meet seem to be so very apprehensive that if they so much as allow just only the information of God as creator of the universe, they will already have conceded to the existence of God as creator of the universe.

And I find that to be basically chaining oneself to a taboo, instead of being open to the question whether God as creator of the universe, the concept only, mind you, and going forth with that piece of information to search for an entity in the universe where humans are part of and living in, that corresponds to the concept of God as creator of the universe.

If you are not an atheist, then you will not get my drift at all, because it is not in your mindset to be extra cautious that you don't get so much as a say an information virus, concept of God as creator of the universe, into your brain, that will make you come to the existence of God, the creator of the universe.

Anyway, let us wait for self-avowedly atheists to post in this thread.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 2:09:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Gods are created by man in his image.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 6:26:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I very definitely am an atheist and have little clue as to what you are on about.

Are you on a "convert an atheist" bet with your Christian pals? If so, you are doing a lousy job so far.

Here's a hint. You don't believe in all the thousands of gods invented by man bar one. Atheists just take that one step further. The reasons why you don't believe in the multitude of other gods are the same reasons why we don't believe in your particular god. An atheist is not much different to you, just more logically consistent.

Now you could prove me wrong and provide some actual evidence for the god in which you believe, but my expectations are not high. The batting average by theists on this site is extremely low, well zero, in fact.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 7:53:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

I don't believe that the universe needs a creator.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 9:19:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:
You see, dear atheist colleagues here, I read that atheists do not accept any Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc.

You read correctly.

If I may, perhaps you can specify just one of the above Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc., and tell me what is your concept of that one you specify.

I can';t give you one, as there are so many different definitions of Gods. Dillahunty once said we could label this cup of coffee as 'God' and have it be it. If you do that then by definition I am a theist.

The usually concept of God I reject a conscious/intelligent creator of the life & the universe. Not all Gods fit within that category but it's a pretty good one that deals with most theist definitions of God.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Oh... Guess so.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 8:25:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 6:26:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
I very definitely am an atheist and have little clue as to what you are on about.

Are you on a "convert an atheist" bet with your Christian pals? If so, you are doing a lousy job so far.

Here's a hint. You don't believe in all the thousands of gods invented by man bar one. Atheists just take that one step further. The reasons why you don't believe in the multitude of other gods are the same reasons why we don't believe in your particular god. An atheist is not much different to you, just more logically consistent.

Now you could prove me wrong and provide some actual evidence for the god in which you believe, but my expectations are not high. The batting average by theists on this site is extremely low, well zero, in fact.

No, I am not at all after converting you to accept the existence of God creator of the universe, but just intrigued (intellectually curious) with how atheists think.

As regards your words to the effect that you just deny the existence of one more god than theists of the Christian creed deny, I ask you how is that supposed to be effective in arguing that there is no God creator of the universe?

The way I see it, it seems to be an argument from number in reverse, like this: as you already deny many gods, etc., so Christians who deny the existence of gods other than their own God are no different from you, because then they are just deducting one more from the number you deny, so they Christians are no different from you, except that they deny one god less?

In brief, that you deny one more god than Christians, that makes the God Christians know to exist, for you not to exist?

I notice that atheists are into seemingly stunning statements but when examined, aside from their superficially stunning strangeness, these statements are without intellectual force to argue their cause that God creator of the universe does not exist.

Anyway, do you know the concept of God as creator of the universe, just the concept, not the existence of the creator of the universe.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 8:29:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:53:12 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

I don't believe that the universe needs a creator.

No trouble from my part that you don't believe the universe needs a creator, what I like to read from you is not what you believe or don't believe, but how you argue to the non-existence of the creator of the universe.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 8:42:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 9:19:45 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:
You see, dear atheist colleagues here, I read that atheists do not accept any Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc.

You read correctly.

If I may, perhaps you can specify just one of the above Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc., and tell me what is your concept of that one you specify.

I can';t give you one, as there are so many different definitions of Gods. Dillahunty once said we could label this cup of coffee as 'God' and have it be it. If you do that then by definition I am a theist.

The usually concept of God I reject a conscious/intelligent creator of the life & the universe. Not all Gods fit within that category but it's a pretty good one that deals with most theist definitions of God.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Oh... Guess so.

You say:

The usually concept of God I reject a conscious/intelligent creator of the life & the universe. [...]

In brief, that is my concept of God, creator of the universe; is that all right with you? that you have got correctly my concept of God; that means you have the information that my God in concept is the creator of the universe.

Now, I invite you to come with me to search in the universe for the creator of the universe.

Will you accept my invitation?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 8:47:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:
You see, dear atheist colleagues here, I read that atheists do not accept any Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc.

If I may, perhaps you can specify just one of the above Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc., and tell me what is your concept of that one you specify.

If you do not understand my request, please tell me what you do not understand.

Why, if I reject all of them, should I present one specific one?

We can discuss the likely existence of, say, Anubis--but you don't believe in Anubis, and wouldn't defend his existence. So we'd just agree: Anubis doesn't exist.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Okay. I can work with your concept--it would be more productive than producing one of the innumerable other ones that have been proposed over the centuries.

I don't believe that there is a creator of the universe. I don't assume that means there definitely isn't--since in general you can't actually prove a negative like that. Rather, I argue that the burden is on the one proposing an answer to support that answer and, if they fail to do so, their answer falls into the same category as any answer someone makes up without any basis, even if they aren't serious about it, because seriousness is not an indicator of truth.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 9:27:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 8:42:45 PM, ergyr wrote:
At 7/31/2014 9:19:45 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:
You see, dear atheist colleagues here, I read that atheists do not accept any Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc.

You read correctly.

If I may, perhaps you can specify just one of the above Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc., and tell me what is your concept of that one you specify.

I can';t give you one, as there are so many different definitions of Gods. Dillahunty once said we could label this cup of coffee as 'God' and have it be it. If you do that then by definition I am a theist.

The usually concept of God I reject a conscious/intelligent creator of the life & the universe. Not all Gods fit within that category but it's a pretty good one that deals with most theist definitions of God.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Oh... Guess so.





You say:

The usually concept of God I reject a conscious/intelligent creator of the life & the universe. [...]

In brief, that is my concept of God, creator of the universe; is that all right with you? that you have got correctly my concept of God; that means you have the information that my God in concept is the creator of the universe.

Now, I invite you to come with me to search in the universe for the creator of the universe.

Will you accept my invitation?

I will search for the reason why the universe exists, or if that is even a coherant question. But to search for the creator is to presuppose a conclusion before looking at the data, which is a stupid want to do investigation.

So no.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 9:39:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 8:29:08 PM, ergyr wrote:
At 7/31/2014 7:53:12 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

I don't believe that the universe needs a creator.


No trouble from my part that you don't believe the universe needs a creator, what I like to read from you is not what you believe or don't believe, but how you argue to the non-existence of the creator of the universe.

The same way I argue non-existence of Santa Claus: no evidence that he exists and all stories of his existence are indistinguishable from other fairy tales and myths known to be false.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 12:51:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 2:09:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
Gods are created by man in his image.

Not true, some gods are in animal forms or some type of beast. You've been trolling the religion section not contributing anything for a year, I'd expect you to pick up on that at some point.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 6:29:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 8:25:45 PM, ergyr wrote:

As regards your words to the effect that you just deny the existence of one more god than theists of the Christian creed deny, I ask you how is that supposed to be effective in arguing that there is no God creator of the universe?

That's not what I was doing. You seemed to be interested in the atheist perspective and I was giving you an insight into our thinking.

The way I see it, it seems to be an argument from number in reverse, like this: as you already deny many gods, etc., so Christians who deny the existence of gods other than their own God are no different from you, because then they are just deducting one more from the number you deny, so they Christians are no different from you, except that they deny one god less?

You got it.

In brief, that you deny one more god than Christians, that makes the God Christians know to exist, for you not to exist?

Firstly, Christians do not know that their god exists. They either pretend to or they just accept it on blind faith. If you have a way of knowing with certainty then you haven't been able to convey it to atheists. Secondly, you misrepresent the point I was making. The point was that if you want to understand the atheist mindset and know our reasoning for rejecting the Christian god you simply have to look at your own reasons for rejecting all other gods. Pretty simple.

I notice that atheists are into seemingly stunning statements but when examined, aside from their superficially stunning strangeness, these statements are without intellectual force to argue their cause that God creator of the universe does not exist.

I haven't argued that and I don't intend to (although I could cast a lot of doubt). You see, I don't have to provide evidence for the non-existence of something. That is an impossible task. You are the one making the positive claim (that there was a creator for the universe) so the burden of proof is on you. So far all you have done is assert it.

Anyway, do you know the concept of God as creator of the universe, just the concept, not the existence of the creator of the universe.

Yes, of course. Theists have been asserting this since the year dot.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 6:37:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 8:42:45 PM, ergyr wrote:

Now, I invite you to come with me to search in the universe for the creator of the universe.

Will you accept my invitation?

Yes, we're all raring to go. Have you got a spaceship fueled and ready? Lol.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 8:30:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

This is fairly common for most gods, God and deities. However, the First Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that one property of matter/energy (a primary component of the universe), is that it cannot be created.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 9:20:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 8:47:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

[...]

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Okay. I can work with your concept--it would be more productive than producing one of the innumerable other ones that have been proposed over the centuries.

I don't believe that there is a creator of the universe. I don't assume that means there definitely isn't--since in general you can't actually prove a negative like that. Rather, I argue that the burden is on the one proposing an answer to support that answer and, if they fail to do so, their answer falls into the same category as any answer someone makes up without any basis, even if they aren't serious about it, because seriousness is not an indicator of truth.

You have not mentioned that there is no evidence for the existence of any creator of the universe.

I understand that atheists consider that to be their most insistent and repeated demand that there should be evidence, but there is none.

What do you say, may I propose that we first work together to determine together and concur on what is the purpose of evidence?

In this connection, as atheists are very insistent and repetitious in their demand for evidence, if you would accommodate, can you present a free online treatise on evidence authored by an atheist? Just give me the link.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 9:38:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 9:20:08 PM, ergyr wrote:
At 7/31/2014 8:47:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

[...]

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Okay. I can work with your concept--it would be more productive than producing one of the innumerable other ones that have been proposed over the centuries.

I don't believe that there is a creator of the universe. I don't assume that means there definitely isn't--since in general you can't actually prove a negative like that. Rather, I argue that the burden is on the one proposing an answer to support that answer and, if they fail to do so, their answer falls into the same category as any answer someone makes up without any basis, even if they aren't serious about it, because seriousness is not an indicator of truth.


You have not mentioned that there is no evidence for the existence of any creator of the universe.

I understand that atheists consider that to be their most insistent and repeated demand that there should be evidence, but there is none.

That's not necessarily true--absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, depending on the proposition.

But evidence is a reason to believe. And absent a reason to believe, it seems irrational TO believe.

What do you say, may I propose that we first work together to determine together and concur on what is the purpose of evidence?

In this connection, as atheists are very insistent and repetitious in their demand for evidence, if you would accommodate, can you present a free online treatise on evidence authored by an atheist? Just give me the link.

Do try to be careful with the generalizations, there. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I started talking about theists as though they were all the same, right?

That said, I'm not sure what kind of treatise you're looking for.

Are you asking about empirical evidence?

Because, honestly, I would consider arguments put forth to be a form of evidence. I've yet to see a sound argument presented in support of the existence of god, but if one existed, depending on its formulation it would be pretty compelling.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can provide a treatise specifically written by an atheist that will necessarily address your concerns. However, I think this:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Would be good starting positions.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 9:51:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 9:27:15 PM, Envisage wrote:

[...]

The usually concept of God I reject a conscious/intelligent creator of the life & the universe. Not all Gods fit within that category but it's a pretty good one that deals with most theist definitions of God.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Oh... Guess so.


You say:

The usually concept of God I reject a conscious/intelligent creator of the life & the universe. [...]

In brief, that is my concept of God, creator of the universe; is that all right with you? that you have got correctly my concept of God; that means you have the information that my God in concept is the creator of the universe.

Now, I invite you to come with me to search in the universe for the creator of the universe.

Will you accept my invitation?

I will search for the reason why the universe exists, or if that is even a coherant question. But to search for the creator is to presuppose a conclusion before looking at the data, which is a stupid want to do investigation.
[...]

You say, "But to search for the creator is to presuppose a conclusion before looking at the data, which is a stupid want to do investigation."

Not necessarily because there is no conclusion on the existence but just the question in our mind: whether the creator does exist in reality outside of the concept in our mind.

Because if we don't have at all a concept of something that we are engaged in a conversation on, whether it in fact exists in reality outside our mind, how can we at all talk about it?

It would be irrational, because we would be talking about something that we don't even have a concept of.

Forgive me, please try to learn the distinction between the concept of something in our mind, and the existence of that something corresponding to the concept, outside our mind; we have got to concur on the concept in our mind, even though we are not agreed that it in fact exists in reality, that is why we are going to set forth to look for it, even in the whole universe.

You know that there are folks seriously searching for Bigfoot, and I watch that program on cable tv on one such group of searchers; they can look for him with already an idea they concur on what Bigfoot is like, though they have no certainty of the existence of Bigfoot -- and that is why they are searching for it, to ascertain that yes he exists and they have found him, or he does not exist because they have not found him; but then they will add: for the present in all the places they have searched for him.

Now, I invite you to join me in the search for God creator of the universe, in the universe; what do you say?
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 9:59:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 9:39:01 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/31/2014 8:29:08 PM, ergyr wrote:
At 7/31/2014 7:53:12 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

I don't believe that the universe needs a creator.


No trouble from my part that you don't believe the universe needs a creator, what I like to read from you is not what you believe or don't believe, but how you argue to the non-existence of the creator of the universe.

The same way I argue non-existence of Santa Claus: no evidence that he exists and all stories of his existence are indistinguishable from other fairy tales and myths known to be false.

Please, may I just request of you to abstain from bringing in Santa.

You atheists are very insistent with evidence, suppose you and I we work together to concur on what is the purpose of evidence?

May I request of you as you are very insistent and repetitious on evidence, to recommend an atheist expert on evidence, with a free online treatise on evidence; then we can all of us consult his treatise on the purpose of evidence.

Please present a link to such a free online treatise.

Is that all right with you.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 10:11:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 6:29:04 AM, dee-em wrote::

[...]

I haven't argued that and I don't intend to (although I could cast a lot of doubt). You see, I don't have to provide evidence for the non-existence of something. That is an impossible task. You are the one making the positive claim (that there was a creator for the universe) so the burden of proof is on you. So far all you have done is assert it.

Anyway, do you know the concept of God as creator of the universe, just the concept, not the existence of the creator of the universe.

Yes, of course. Theists have been asserting this since the year dot.

You say? "You see, I don't have to provide evidence for the non-existence of something."

And you require me and theists to produce evidence, that is sensible; but you have then to work with us to evaluate the evidence we theists present and its efficacy to convince.

Is it all right with you that we work together to concur on what is the purpose of evidence?

In this regard, may I propose that as atheists are very insistent on evidence, let you propose a treatise on evidence from an atheist; then we will all together consult this treatise to know and concur on what is the purpose of evidence.

If you know of a free online treatise from an atheist on evidence, please give everyone the link in this thread.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 10:24:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 8:30:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

This is fairly common for most gods, God and deities. However, the First Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that one property of matter/energy (a primary component of the universe), is that it cannot be created.

You say, "the First Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that one property of matter/energy (a primary component of the universe), is that it cannot be created."

That is within science, but outside of science in the realm of thinking on logic and facts, in the totality of existence, as we know that what science talks about is only 4% of the universe, and besides the universe is still not the totality of existence, it is a fact from logic and the discipline of science itself, that there is a cause of matter in the universe, understanding matter as everything that scientists examine today.

Yes, matter/energy cannot be created, i.e., by themselves, they need a creator outside themselves.
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 10:38:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 9:38:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

[...]


Are you asking about empirical evidence?

Because, honestly, I would consider arguments put forth to be a form of evidence. I've yet to see a sound argument presented in support of the existence of god, but if one existed, depending on its formulation it would be pretty compelling.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can provide a treatise specifically written by an atheist that will necessarily address your concerns.

[...]




Let us do it this way: we will talk about what is the purpose of evidence from our each one's stock knowledge, in order to arrive at concurrence on what is the purpose of evidence.

You see, when we go to sources outside ourselves, we will end up disputing instead on what the sources are really saying, and that will be going far and wide, while we do have ourselves, our stock knowledge and our skill of thinking on logic and facts, to arrive at concurrence on what is the purpose of evidence.

Okay, let you be the first to tell people what you know to be the purpose of evidence, since (forgive me if you are not an atheist) you are I presume an atheist, and atheists insist on evidence; wherefore you have the entitlement to be the first to present what to you is the purpose of evidence.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 11:31:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 10:38:55 PM, ergyr wrote:
At 8/1/2014 9:38:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

[...]


Are you asking about empirical evidence?

Because, honestly, I would consider arguments put forth to be a form of evidence. I've yet to see a sound argument presented in support of the existence of god, but if one existed, depending on its formulation it would be pretty compelling.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can provide a treatise specifically written by an atheist that will necessarily address your concerns.

[...]






Let us do it this way: we will talk about what is the purpose of evidence from our each one's stock knowledge, in order to arrive at concurrence on what is the purpose of evidence.

You see, when we go to sources outside ourselves, we will end up disputing instead on what the sources are really saying, and that will be going far and wide, while we do have ourselves, our stock knowledge and our skill of thinking on logic and facts, to arrive at concurrence on what is the purpose of evidence.

Okay, let you be the first to tell people what you know to be the purpose of evidence, since (forgive me if you are not an atheist) you are I presume an atheist, and atheists insist on evidence; wherefore you have the entitlement to be the first to present what to you is the purpose of evidence.

Well, the purpose of evidence, I would say roughly, is to give rational grounds to think something is the case.

Evidence, from a philosophical standpoint, is the justification you present. This can take several forms, be it sense experience of some kind (or empirical evidence) or logical evidence (argumentation). In the end, in order to have rational grounds for a position, you are likely going to have to combine BOTH of those types of evidence in a compelling and rational way.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 6:16:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 10:11:14 PM, ergyr wrote:

You say? "You see, I don't have to provide evidence for the non-existence of something."

And you require me and theists to produce evidence, that is sensible; but you have then to work with us to evaluate the evidence we theists present and its efficacy to convince.

Is it all right with you that we work together to concur on what is the purpose of evidence?

In this regard, may I propose that as atheists are very insistent on evidence, let you propose a treatise on evidence from an atheist; then we will all together consult this treatise to know and concur on what is the purpose of evidence.

If you know of a free online treatise from an atheist on evidence, please give everyone the link in this thread.

I shouldn't think I would have to explain the purpose of evidence to you. Let's not waste each others time.

It just so happens that Beastt created a short tutorial on the kind of evidence you need, here:

http://www.debate.org...

Read the thread and see what you think. I suggest you stop being a tease though and just present whatever compelling evidence you think you have. However, I should caution you that there is rarely anything new under the sun. We'll have heard it all before.

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for that fact-finding tour of the universe you promised. What happened?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 6:43:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 9:51:28 PM, ergyr wrote:
At 7/31/2014 9:27:15 PM, Envisage wrote:

I will search for the reason why the universe exists, or if that is even a coherant question. But to search for the creator is to presuppose a conclusion before looking at the data, which is a stupid want to do investigation.
[...]




You say, "But to search for the creator is to presuppose a conclusion before looking at the data, which is a stupid want to do investigation."

Not necessarily because there is no conclusion on the existence but just the question in our mind: whether the creator does exist in reality outside of the concept in our mind.

Because if we don't have at all a concept of something that we are engaged in a conversation on, whether it in fact exists in reality outside our mind, how can we at all talk about it?

It would be irrational, because we would be talking about something that we don't even have a concept of.

Forgive me, please try to learn the distinction between the concept of something in our mind, and the existence of that something corresponding to the concept, outside our mind; we have got to concur on the concept in our mind, even though we are not agreed that it in fact exists in reality, that is why we are going to set forth to look for it, even in the whole universe.

I'm sure Envisage understands the distinction. Stop belabouring the point. It is you who didn't understand what was being said to you. We rarely discover anything about reality by coming up with an idea in a vacuum and then going around hunting for evidence for it. The methodology that works is to make observations and then, thinking about the patterns we see in that data, formulate a theory to explain them. We then test our theory with more data, make predictions from it and see if those predictions hold, etc.. Your methodoly of dreaming up a concept out of thin air first is, as Envisage told you, a stupid way to do an investigation.

You know that there are folks seriously searching for Bigfoot, and I watch that program on cable tv on one such group of searchers; they can look for him with already an idea they concur on what Bigfoot is like, though they have no certainty of the existence of Bigfoot -- and that is why they are searching for it, to ascertain that yes he exists and they have found him, or he does not exist because they have not found him; but then they will add: for the present in all the places they have searched for him.

Your analogy fails because unsolicited reported sightings of a Bigfoot-like creature came first. There have been no reported sightings of a being creating a universe to the best of my knowledge.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 9:10:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:
You see, dear atheist colleagues here, I read that atheists do not accept any Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc.

If I may, perhaps you can specify just one of the above Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc., and tell me what is your concept of that one you specify.

If you do not understand my request, please tell me what you do not understand.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Your question is irrelevant. I, and others understand that there is an infinite number of deities or like supernatural beings that you could invent. Atheism is a negative. We do not need to know about every single divinity. Rather, you must prove each concept of deity or divinity etc., and either convince others using that evidence, or make it available for us.
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
ergyr
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 4:52:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 11:31:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

[...]


Okay, let you be the first to tell people what you know to be the purpose of evidence, since (forgive me if you are not an atheist) you are I presume an atheist, and atheists insist on evidence; wherefore you have the entitlement to be the first to present what to you is the purpose of evidence.

Well, the purpose of evidence, I would say roughly, is to give rational grounds to think something is the case.

Evidence, from a philosophical standpoint, is the justification you present. This can take several forms, be it sense experience of some kind (or empirical evidence) or logical evidence (argumentation). In the end, in order to have rational grounds for a position, you are likely going to have to combine BOTH of those types of evidence in a compelling and rational way.

Allow me to commend you most highly that we are talking viably and productively.

About your description of evidence, forgive me, but to be brief, may I propose that we humans has one purpose for evidence, namely: that it will lead us to know with certainty the existence of something otherwise we are not certain to be existing.

Allow me to give an example of evidence and the purpose it serves, namely, to lead us to know the existence of something we were previously not certain to be existing.

We are shipwrecked on a strange island, and we wonder whether there is animal life in it, then we come to some red fluid on the ground which turns out to be blood, so the presence of blood is the evidence to lead us to know the existence of some animal life in the island.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 5:22:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/30/2014 8:13:06 PM, ergyr wrote:
You see, dear atheist colleagues here, I read that atheists do not accept any Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc.

If I may, perhaps you can specify just one of the above Gods, gods, divinities, deities, etc., and tell me what is your concept of that one you specify.

If you do not understand my request, please tell me what you do not understand.

Should you ask me instead what is the God I accept to exist and my concept of Him, here it is: God is the creator of the universe.

Why do you want us to define a God we don't believe in? Am I supposed to then argue against it as well?

If you believe in a god then by definition you must reject the other 10,000 or so other gods people have prayed to over the years. Why don't you just define one yourself, what do you need us for?

But if you really want, ok... I don't believe in an all loving God who created hell and decided that we would go there for [insert religious offense here]. That God contradicts logic and therefore doesn't exist. Was that simple enough?