Total Posts:210|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I think debating whether God is real is dumb

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact. You can't expect either side to produce any evidence, and any acceptance of evidence is the result of a clear bias towards one side. There is no factual evidence. Therefore, the debate is practically this:

"God is real. I think this because I have faith. (insert bible verse)"

"God is obviously not real. Christianity is stupid. Science. (insert unrelated scientific fact [i.e. gravity: because no religious person believes in that. Sure.])"

Both of these arguments are infantile, bush-league arguments. You can spew any shite you want. It doesn't make it correct. As much as you may hate to admit it: your argument is just as scientific as the creationist saying Earth is 6,000 years old. There's no evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but there's also no evidence that the universe was not at least started by some higher consciousness. To believe in your own thoughts, you kinda just have to take a leap of faith.

If you've been seeing Joshua Feuerstein on YouTube lately, you were probably criticizing him. I don't blame you. I stopped listening for a few minutes and went "wow" when he started talking about the Holocaust (I did continue later). He's an idiot, no doubt. But how was he wrong in the first minute? Aside from being an "I'm correct" douche, he never said anything about proving God that was wrong.

I also watched the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video and I agreed with him sometimes, and sometimes I didn't. I didn't agree with him, and I get so angry when atheists do this: when he said they just take the "null position" and discredit the "evidence." And they're technically right for this, but discrediting evidence doesn't make the problem solved. You still have to prove that God doesn't exist in order for your hypothesis to be correct. And as for the Thinking Atheist video: he made arguments that didn't disprove God in any way. "A harmful sun that gives off radiation that gives off cancer?" I'm not a Creationist. Neither are most people. We're talking the minority of CHRISTIANS that believe Earth is 6,000 years old, everything is perfect, etc. I love these arguments because they're..."intellectually dishonest" in describing so many Christian and other religions' beliefs. I quote a joke that summarizes my thoughts: "Well, you need Vitamin D, and God never said you couldn't go in the shade..." A Catholic priest made the Big Bang Theory. Atheists use that to discredit God. How? "Because it isn't 6,000 years old." Even Pat Robertson believes Creationism is stupid. And even if we all believed it: which we don't: that doesn't disprove the belief in God. Oi. Sorry for ranting.

And now for the theists. Faith isn't an argument. Nuff said.

I'm not saying you can't discuss it, but there's no way to make it an actual debate. Make your own decisions, don't let people influence you.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 10:37:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

I look forward to seeing how. I agree that the forum has gone to ****, but still.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)

It really is simple. Evidence of non-existence is illogical. Evidence makes a demonstrable link between A and B. You cannot make a demonstrable link between something that exists and something that does not. This puts the burden of proof on those asserting existence. The Null Hypothesis also supports the absence of existence when there is no evidence of existence, but does not prove it.

This means that the burden of proof is on the theist. To assert it is on the atheist is to make an illogical claim.

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact. You can't expect either side to produce any evidence, and any acceptance of evidence is the result of a clear bias towards one side. There is no factual evidence. Therefore, the debate is practically this:

You said scientific evidence, but that is not the only way to debate god. There is also philosophical arguments.

"God is real. I think this because I have faith. (insert bible verse)"

I hear this a lot, but it does nothing when actually debating existence. It is a good thing to know if you want to discuss the existence of a god, but not when debating the issue.

"God is obviously not real. Christianity is stupid. Science. (insert unrelated scientific fact [i.e. gravity: because no religious person believes in that. Sure.])"

I have not heard this that much. Again, the way you put this makes it so it is not good for a debate, but for a conversation about the existence of a god.

For a better way of debating, you can see theists use things like the KCA, the teleological argument, and more.

You can also see atheists use things like the problem of evil, B-Theory of time (with other arguments to add), etc.

These tactics are much better for debating the existence of a god.

Both of these arguments are infantile, bush-league arguments. You can spew any shite you want. It doesn't make it correct. As much as you may hate to admit it: your argument is just as scientific as the creationist saying Earth is 6,000 years old. There's no evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but there's also no evidence that the universe was not at least started by some higher consciousness. To believe in your own thoughts, you kinda just have to take a leap of faith.

This is assuming that everything is black and white. There is also grey and a wide varieties of colors.

There are probabilities, philosophical arguments, deductive arguments, etc.

You are (somewhat) correct when stating scientific correctness, but science is not everything. You also run into the issue that scientific evidence dates the Earth to about 4.5 billion years old. This means that the 6000 year old Earth claim is scientifically false. Science has not answered if there is a god or not, but that does not make either of the sides scientifically false. This does, however, mean that there not being a god has a higher scientific probability than there being a 6000 year old Earth (without getting into a long list of things that can impact it).

If you've been seeing Joshua Feuerstein on YouTube lately, you were probably criticizing him. I don't blame you. I stopped listening for a few minutes and went "wow" when he started talking about the Holocaust (I did continue later). He's an idiot, no doubt. But how was he wrong in the first minute? Aside from being an "I'm correct" douche, he never said anything about proving God that was wrong.

Which video was that again? I have a hard time remembering since all his videos are full of idiotic claims.

I also watched the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video and I agreed with him sometimes, and sometimes I didn't. I didn't agree with him, and I get so angry when atheists do this: when he said they just take the "null position" and discredit the "evidence." And they're technically right for this, but discrediting evidence doesn't make the problem solved. You still have to prove that God doesn't exist in order for your hypothesis to be correct.

What hypothesis? Atheism is just not believing there is a god, it is not asserting there is no god. I have yet to meet a gnostic atheist in real life, all atheists I have met have been agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists do need to show there to be a high probability that a god does not exist, but that is a small minority of atheists.

And as for the Thinking Atheist video: he made arguments that didn't disprove God in any way. "A harmful sun that gives off radiation that gives off cancer?" I'm not a Creationist. Neither are most people. We're talking the minority of CHRISTIANS that believe Earth is 6,000 years old, everything is perfect, etc.

Sorry, I do not really watch the Thinking Atheist, but in what context was that being made?

I love these arguments because they're..."intellectually dishonest" in describing so many Christian and other religions' beliefs. I quote a joke that summarizes my thoughts: "Well, you need Vitamin D, and God never said you couldn't go in the shade..." A Catholic priest made the Big Bang Theory. Atheists use that to discredit God. How?

It is used to discredit certain claims about a god. Also, the big bang theory, and our understanding of it, has changed since it was first discovered. Just because something started one way does not mean it continues to exist in the same way.

"Because it isn't 6,000 years old." Even Pat Robertson believes Creationism is stupid. And even if we all believed it: which we don't: that doesn't disprove the belief in God. Oi. Sorry for ranting.

No, but it lowers the probability of certain gods existing. Not everything is black and white.

And now for the theists. Faith isn't an argument. Nuff said.

Could not agree more.

I'm not saying you can't discuss it, but there's no way to make it an actual debate. Make your own decisions, don't let people influence you.

Why so little addressed to the theists?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 8:19:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 10:37:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

I look forward to seeing how. I agree that the forum has gone to ****, but still.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)

It really is simple. Evidence of non-existence is illogical. Evidence makes a demonstrable link between A and B. You cannot make a demonstrable link between something that exists and something that does not. This puts the burden of proof on those asserting existence. The Null Hypothesis also supports the absence of existence when there is no evidence of existence, but does not prove it.

This means that the burden of proof is on the theist. To assert it is on the atheist is to make an illogical claim.

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact. You can't expect either side to produce any evidence, and any acceptance of evidence is the result of a clear bias towards one side. There is no factual evidence. Therefore, the debate is practically this:

You said scientific evidence, but that is not the only way to debate god. There is also philosophical arguments.

"God is real. I think this because I have faith. (insert bible verse)"

I hear this a lot, but it does nothing when actually debating existence. It is a good thing to know if you want to discuss the existence of a god, but not when debating the issue.

"God is obviously not real. Christianity is stupid. Science. (insert unrelated scientific fact [i.e. gravity: because no religious person believes in that. Sure.])"

I have not heard this that much. Again, the way you put this makes it so it is not good for a debate, but for a conversation about the existence of a god.

For a better way of debating, you can see theists use things like the KCA, the teleological argument, and more.

You can also see atheists use things like the problem of evil, B-Theory of time (with other arguments to add), etc.

These tactics are much better for debating the existence of a god.

Both of these arguments are infantile, bush-league arguments. You can spew any shite you want. It doesn't make it correct. As much as you may hate to admit it: your argument is just as scientific as the creationist saying Earth is 6,000 years old. There's no evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but there's also no evidence that the universe was not at least started by some higher consciousness. To believe in your own thoughts, you kinda just have to take a leap of faith.

This is assuming that everything is black and white. There is also grey and a wide varieties of colors.

There are probabilities, philosophical arguments, deductive arguments, etc.

You are (somewhat) correct when stating scientific correctness, but science is not everything. You also run into the issue that scientific evidence dates the Earth to about 4.5 billion years old. This means that the 6000 year old Earth claim is scientifically false. Science has not answered if there is a god or not, but that does not make either of the sides scientifically false. This does, however, mean that there not being a god has a higher scientific probability than there being a 6000 year old Earth (without getting into a long list of things that can impact it).

If you've been seeing Joshua Feuerstein on YouTube lately, you were probably criticizing him. I don't blame you. I stopped listening for a few minutes and went "wow" when he started talking about the Holocaust (I did continue later). He's an idiot, no doubt. But how was he wrong in the first minute? Aside from being an "I'm correct" douche, he never said anything about proving God that was wrong.

Which video was that again? I have a hard time remembering since all his videos are full of idiotic claims.

I also watched the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video and I agreed with him sometimes, and sometimes I didn't. I didn't agree with him, and I get so angry when atheists do this: when he said they just take the "null position" and discredit the "evidence." And they're technically right for this, but discrediting evidence doesn't make the problem solved. You still have to prove that God doesn't exist in order for your hypothesis to be correct.

What hypothesis? Atheism is just not believing there is a god, it is not asserting there is no god. I have yet to meet a gnostic atheist in real life, all atheists I have met have been agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists do need to show there to be a high probability that a god does not exist, but that is a small minority of atheists.

And as for the Thinking Atheist video: he made arguments that didn't disprove God in any way. "A harmful sun that gives off radiation that gives off cancer?" I'm not a Creationist. Neither are most people. We're talking the minority of CHRISTIANS that believe Earth is 6,000 years old, everything is perfect, etc.

Sorry, I do not really watch the Thinking Atheist, but in what context was that being made?

I love these arguments because they're..."intellectually dishonest" in describing so many Christian and other religions' beliefs. I quote a joke that summarizes my thoughts: "Well, you need Vitamin D, and God never said you couldn't go in the shade..." A Catholic priest made the Big Bang Theory. Atheists use that to discredit God. How?

It is used to discredit certain claims about a god. Also, the big bang theory, and our understanding of it, has changed since it was first discovered. Just because something started one way does not mean it continues to exist in the same way.

"Because it isn't 6,000 years old." Even Pat Robertson believes Creationism is stupid. And even if we all believed it: which we don't: that doesn't disprove the belief in God. Oi. Sorry for ranting.

No, but it lowers the probability of certain gods existing. Not everything is black and white.

And now for the theists. Faith isn't an argument. Nuff said.

Could not agree more.

I'm not saying you can't discuss it, but there's no way to make it an actual debate. Make your own decisions, don't let people influence you.

Why so little addressed to the theists?

Because they have fewer idiotic arguments.

I thought I wouldn't like this post. But I do. I think the title of the thread should be,

"I think the way we currently debate whether God is real is dumb"


.....and I agree.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 11:57:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 10:37:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

I look forward to seeing how. I agree that the forum has gone to ****, but still.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)

It really is simple. Evidence of non-existence is illogical. Evidence makes a demonstrable link between A and B. You cannot make a demonstrable link between something that exists and something that does not. This puts the burden of proof on those asserting existence. The Null Hypothesis also supports the absence of existence when there is no evidence of existence, but does not prove it.

This means that the burden of proof is on the theist. To assert it is on the atheist is to make an illogical claim.

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact. You can't expect either side to produce any evidence, and any acceptance of evidence is the result of a clear bias towards one side. There is no factual evidence. Therefore, the debate is practically this:

You said scientific evidence, but that is not the only way to debate god. There is also philosophical arguments.

"God is real. I think this because I have faith. (insert bible verse)"

I hear this a lot, but it does nothing when actually debating existence. It is a good thing to know if you want to discuss the existence of a god, but not when debating the issue.

"God is obviously not real. Christianity is stupid. Science. (insert unrelated scientific fact [i.e. gravity: because no religious person believes in that. Sure.])"

I have not heard this that much. Again, the way you put this makes it so it is not good for a debate, but for a conversation about the existence of a god.

For a better way of debating, you can see theists use things like the KCA, the teleological argument, and more.

You can also see atheists use things like the problem of evil, B-Theory of time (with other arguments to add), etc.

These tactics are much better for debating the existence of a god.

Both of these arguments are infantile, bush-league arguments. You can spew any shite you want. It doesn't make it correct. As much as you may hate to admit it: your argument is just as scientific as the creationist saying Earth is 6,000 years old. There's no evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but there's also no evidence that the universe was not at least started by some higher consciousness. To believe in your own thoughts, you kinda just have to take a leap of faith.

This is assuming that everything is black and white. There is also grey and a wide varieties of colors.

There are probabilities, philosophical arguments, deductive arguments, etc.

You are (somewhat) correct when stating scientific correctness, but science is not everything. You also run into the issue that scientific evidence dates the Earth to about 4.5 billion years old. This means that the 6000 year old Earth claim is scientifically false. Science has not answered if there is a god or not, but that does not make either of the sides scientifically false. This does, however, mean that there not being a god has a higher scientific probability than there being a 6000 year old Earth (without getting into a long list of things that can impact it).

If you've been seeing Joshua Feuerstein on YouTube lately, you were probably criticizing him. I don't blame you. I stopped listening for a few minutes and went "wow" when he started talking about the Holocaust (I did continue later). He's an idiot, no doubt. But how was he wrong in the first minute? Aside from being an "I'm correct" douche, he never said anything about proving God that was wrong.

Which video was that again? I have a hard time remembering since all his videos are full of idiotic claims.

I also watched the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video and I agreed with him sometimes, and sometimes I didn't. I didn't agree with him, and I get so angry when atheists do this: when he said they just take the "null position" and discredit the "evidence." And they're technically right for this, but discrediting evidence doesn't make the problem solved. You still have to prove that God doesn't exist in order for your hypothesis to be correct.

What hypothesis? Atheism is just not believing there is a god, it is not asserting there is no god. I have yet to meet a gnostic atheist in real life, all atheists I have met have been agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists do need to show there to be a high probability that a god does not exist, but that is a small minority of atheists.

And as for the Thinking Atheist video: he made arguments that didn't disprove God in any way. "A harmful sun that gives off radiation that gives off cancer?" I'm not a Creationist. Neither are most people. We're talking the minority of CHRISTIANS that believe Earth is 6,000 years old, everything is perfect, etc.

Sorry, I do not really watch the Thinking Atheist, but in what context was that being made?

I love these arguments because they're..."intellectually dishonest" in describing so many Christian and other religions' beliefs. I quote a joke that summarizes my thoughts: "Well, you need Vitamin D, and God never said you couldn't go in the shade..." A Catholic priest made the Big Bang Theory. Atheists use that to discredit God. How?

It is used to discredit certain claims about a god. Also, the big bang theory, and our understanding of it, has changed since it was first discovered. Just because something started one way does not mean it continues to exist in the same way.

"Because it isn't 6,000 years old." Even Pat Robertson believes Creationism is stupid. And even if we all believed it: which we don't: that doesn't disprove the belief in God. Oi. Sorry for ranting.

No, but it lowers the probability of certain gods existing. Not everything is black and white.

And now for the theists. Faith isn't an argument. Nuff said.

Could not agree more.

I'm not saying you can't discuss it, but there's no way to make it an actual debate. Make your own decisions, don't let people influence you.

Why so little addressed to the theists?

In both scientific and philosophical debates, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, it is not set to the side asserting existence.

I didn't address theists much because they don't argue as many points as atheists tend to. There really isn't much except for "faith," "everything is God's will," and in certain cases, "because the evolution ain't make sense."
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 12:20:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact. You can't expect either side to produce any evidence, and any acceptance of evidence is the result of a clear bias towards one side. There is no factual evidence. Therefore, the debate is practically this:

"God is real. I think this because I have faith. (insert bible verse)"

"God is obviously not real. Christianity is stupid. Science. (insert unrelated scientific fact [i.e. gravity: because no religious person believes in that. Sure.])"

Both of these arguments are infantile, bush-league arguments. You can spew any shite you want. It doesn't make it correct. As much as you may hate to admit it: your argument is just as scientific as the creationist saying Earth is 6,000 years old. There's no evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but there's also no evidence that the universe was not at least started by some higher consciousness. To believe in your own thoughts, you kinda just have to take a leap of faith.

If you've been seeing Joshua Feuerstein on YouTube lately, you were probably criticizing him. I don't blame you. I stopped listening for a few minutes and went "wow" when he started talking about the Holocaust (I did continue later). He's an idiot, no doubt. But how was he wrong in the first minute? Aside from being an "I'm correct" douche, he never said anything about proving God that was wrong.

I also watched the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video and I agreed with him sometimes, and sometimes I didn't. I didn't agree with him, and I get so angry when atheists do this: when he said they just take the "null position" and discredit the "evidence." And they're technically right for this, but discrediting evidence doesn't make the problem solved. You still have to prove that God doesn't exist in order for your hypothesis to be correct. And as for the Thinking Atheist video: he made arguments that didn't disprove God in any way. "A harmful sun that gives off radiation that gives off cancer?" I'm not a Creationist. Neither are most people. We're talking the minority of CHRISTIANS that believe Earth is 6,000 years old, everything is perfect, etc. I love these arguments because they're..."intellectually dishonest" in describing so many Christian and other religions' beliefs. I quote a joke that summarizes my thoughts: "Well, you need Vitamin D, and God never said you couldn't go in the shade..." A Catholic priest made the Big Bang Theory. Atheists use that to discredit God. How? "Because it isn't 6,000 years old." Even Pat Robertson believes Creationism is stupid. And even if we all believed it: which we don't: that doesn't disprove the belief in God. Oi. Sorry for ranting.

And now for the theists. Faith isn't an argument. Nuff said.

I'm not saying you can't discuss it, but there's no way to make it an actual debate. Make your own decisions, don't let people influence you.

It all takes faith. I wish the Atheist saw this about their claims. When exploring for the answer of certain things you have to accept certain assumptions. Or when explaining how or why a past event occurred, it is just a reasonable speculation.

I've argued for God using math and science, and some entail some hypothetical or theoretical ideas about time and space.

The Atheist does the same but calls it all fact. Speaks as if it is proven. And when challenged to support why their model is more likely than mine, the answer boils down to "God doesn't exist because my model doesn't need God". And when their model is shown to be wrong or not supported by observations.. it's a work in progress.

The worst of them pass fallacy of ignorance as if it is some how the default position. And when justifying the use of a default position quote from legal doctrine.

The Atheist refuses to see anything faith based, even when they are the ones making the leap.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 12:31:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Has god ever claimed to exist and how do you know?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:08:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 12:31:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
Has god ever claimed to exist and how do you know?

If God claimed he didn't exist (fictitious or not) God would be an irrational character, Being irrational would not be logically coherent with god being omniscient.

This is why deadpool breaks the 4th wall and talks about his own non-existence. He is intended to be by his creator a truly irrational character.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:27:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 1:08:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/11/2014 12:31:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
Has god ever claimed to exist and how do you know?

If God claimed he didn't exist (fictitious or not) God would be an irrational character, Being irrational would not be logically coherent with god being omniscient.

This is why deadpool breaks the 4th wall and talks about his own non-existence. He is intended to be by his creator a truly irrational character.

So god has never made the claim of his existence?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:43:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 1:27:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/11/2014 1:08:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/11/2014 12:31:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
Has god ever claimed to exist and how do you know?

If God claimed he didn't exist (fictitious or not) God would be an irrational character, Being irrational would not be logically coherent with god being omniscient.

This is why deadpool breaks the 4th wall and talks about his own non-existence. He is intended to be by his creator a truly irrational character.

So god has never made the claim of his existence?

He has, Moses asked what to tell the hebrews when asked who sent him. The response was tell them "Ehyeh asher ehyeh"

roughly, I am that I am.

I would say that is a statement of existence.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 2:18:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 1:43:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/11/2014 1:27:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/11/2014 1:08:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/11/2014 12:31:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
Has god ever claimed to exist and how do you know?

If God claimed he didn't exist (fictitious or not) God would be an irrational character, Being irrational would not be logically coherent with god being omniscient.

This is why deadpool breaks the 4th wall and talks about his own non-existence. He is intended to be by his creator a truly irrational character.

So god has never made the claim of his existence?

He has, Moses asked what to tell the hebrews when asked who sent him. The response was tell them "Ehyeh asher ehyeh"

roughly, I am that I am.

I would say that is a statement of existence.

Says someone who also claims that Moses is a real character and that several million people wandered around a small desert for 40 years without leaving a single artifact.

If that same person claimed that I wrote this, I would have doubts.

So no you haven't got any gods proclaiming their existence, you have men claiming a god did.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 3:38:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)
"Burden of proof" isn't just a phrase, it's a series of rules. And the rules state that the side wishing to change the default conclusion is the side which carries the burden of proof. And the "default conclusion", is that represented by the obvious evidence. For clarity; if a car is seen to be sitting in a driveway, it's windows are reflecting the items around it, it's casting a shadow, the tires are conforming to deviations in the concrete, etc., the default conclusion is that the car exists - the evidence is consistent with the existence of the car. So the side telling us the car does not exist holds the burden of proof. On the other hand, if all we see is what appears to be an empty driveway, then the side claiming that their is a car there holds the burden of proof.

Since there is no objective evidence for God - theists hold the burden of proof. They can whine and moan about that if they like, but it doesn't change the rules, and the rules say that theists hold the burden of proof.

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact.
First things first; there is no such thing as "scientific proof". In fact, aside from maths and alcohol, science doesn't - and cannot - subscribe to the concept of "proof" because it runs against science methodology. Science methodology states that all conclusions must be supported by evidence, and that new evidence can lead to new conclusions. Proof suggests that new conclusions aren't possible.

As for the idea that one must conduct an experiment before a conclusion can become a "fact", this too is contrary to science methodology. Any hypothesis must be based on evidence, and if submitted for peer-review, is considered to be falsified if any of the evidence is contrary to the conclusion. And if rigorous peer-review demonstrates that the explanation and conclusion are in complete compliance with all of the pertinent evidence, then the conclusion becomes a "theory".

And that's IT! There is nothing above "theory" - no "facts", no "proofs", no "scientific facts"... just theories. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Germs are a theory. Electromagnetics is a theory. Nothing in science rises above "theory", because theory is the pinnacle of science veracity. It doesn't mean "an idea" as is commonly offered in day-to-day misuse. In a scientific context, a "theory" means that the conclusion has passed all scientific scrutiny, and is - for all intents and purposes - considered "factual" until/unless new evidence shows it to be flawed or false.

I think I'll leave you with that for now, except to say that it's perfectly forgivable to not understand science, science terminology and science methodology. It is far less forgivable to just make it up and pretend you know what you're talking about.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 3:49:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 10:37:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:

It really is simple. Evidence of non-existence is illogical. Evidence makes a demonstrable link between A and B. You cannot make a demonstrable link between something that exists and something that does not. This puts the burden of proof on those asserting existence. The Null Hypothesis also supports the absence of existence when there is no evidence of existence, but does not prove it.

This means that the burden of proof is on the theist. To assert it is on the atheist is to make an illogical claim.

EXCELLENCE! +1
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 3:57:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 8:19:02 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 10:37:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Why so little addressed to the theists?

Because they have fewer idiotic arguments.
Fewer arguments, but all of them dumb. Taking the pro-side (God exists), is no different than claiming the same for fairies, Leprechauns or unicorns.

I thought I wouldn't like this post. But I do. I think the title of the thread should be,

"I think the way we currently debate whether God is real is dumb"


.....and I agree.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
MsIndependent
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 4:38:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you've been seeing Joshua Feuerstein on YouTube lately, you were probably criticizing him. I don't blame you. I stopped listening for a few minutes and went "wow" when he started talking about the Holocaust (I did continue later). He's an idiot, no doubt. But how was he wrong in the first minute? Aside from being an "I'm correct" douche, he never said anything about proving God that was wrong.

Which video was that again? I have a hard time remembering since all his videos are full of idiotic claims.

I also watched the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video and I agreed with him sometimes, and sometimes I didn't. I didn't agree with him, and I get so angry when atheists do this: when he said they just take the "null position" and discredit the "evidence." And they're technically right for this, but discrediting evidence doesn't make the problem solved. You still have to prove that God doesn't exist in order for your hypothesis to be correct.

What hypothesis? Atheism is just not believing there is a god, it is not asserting there is no god. I have yet to meet a gnostic atheist in real life, all atheists I have met have been agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists do need to show there to be a high probability that a god does not exist, but that is a small minority of atheists.

And as for the Thinking Atheist video: he made arguments that didn't disprove God in any way. "A harmful sun that gives off radiation that gives off cancer?" I'm not a Creationist. Neither are most people. We're talking the minority of CHRISTIANS that believe Earth is 6,000 years old, everything is perfect, etc.

Sorry, I do not really watch the Thinking Atheist, but in what context was that being made?

I love these arguments because they're..."intellectually dishonest" in describing so many Christian and other religions' beliefs. I quote a joke that summarizes my thoughts: "Well, you need Vitamin D, and God never said you couldn't go in the shade..." A Catholic priest made the Big Bang Theory. Atheists use that to discredit God. How?

It is used to discredit certain claims about a god. Also, the big bang theory, and our understanding of it, has changed since it was first discovered. Just because something started one way does not mean it continues to exist in the same way.

"Because it isn't 6,000 years old." Even Pat Robertson believes Creationism is stupid. And even if we all believed it: which we don't: that doesn't disprove the belief in God. Oi. Sorry for ranting.

No, but it lowers the probability of certain gods existing. Not everything is black and white.

And now for the theists. Faith isn't an argument. Nuff said.

Could not agree more.

I'm not saying you can't discuss it, but there's no way to make it an actual debate. Make your own decisions, don't let people influence you.

Why so little addressed to the theists?

And yet..here you are, Discussing it. Many athiests spend hours upon hours debating something that doesn't "exist". So right off the bat, it just doesn't make sense. I don't believe in The Tooth Fairy. Never would I spend a minute talking about the Tooth Fairy, yet, here we are..

You must think a lot. I bet most people in here squeeze their cheeks together while trying to come up with some intensely intellectual come-back and feel all warm inside if you come up with something that seems rational to you... But then it's not proved. HMM... I heard this story once, and it reminds me of those times when intelligence isn't that intelligent and that simple faith is important.. Stop thinking so hard. Your mind will never be HIS..

So Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick what some more on a camping trip years ago this story was doing the rounds a really funny one so these boys were out on a camping trip and that taken a little too much liquid refreshment that night and they felt soundly asleep and in the middle of the night homes woke up and looked into the night sky and the doug is elbow into what someone said look up what do you see he said I see stars and stars and more storms on so what does that tell you what some he said well it tells me that astronomically that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets astrologically tells me that Saturn is in Lille or logically tells me that support court at three in the morning meteorological it tells me that tomorrow will probably be a beautiful day and theologically that this a vast universe and we're a minute part of the great all why what does it tell u homes he so what's in you idiots somebody has stolen our tent...
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 4:58:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact. You can't expect either side to produce any evidence, and any acceptance of evidence is the result of a clear bias towards one side. There is no factual evidence. Therefore, the debate is practically this:

"God is real. I think this because I have faith. (insert bible verse)"

"God is obviously not real. Christianity is stupid. Science. (insert unrelated scientific fact [i.e. gravity: because no religious person believes in that. Sure.])"

Both of these arguments are infantile, bush-league arguments. You can spew any shite you want. It doesn't make it correct. As much as you may hate to admit it: your argument is just as scientific as the creationist saying Earth is 6,000 years old. There's no evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but there's also no evidence that the universe was not at least started by some higher consciousness. To believe in your own thoughts, you kinda just have to take a leap of faith.

If you've been seeing Joshua Feuerstein on YouTube lately, you were probably criticizing him. I don't blame you. I stopped listening for a few minutes and went "wow" when he started talking about the Holocaust (I did continue later). He's an idiot, no doubt. But how was he wrong in the first minute? Aside from being an "I'm correct" douche, he never said anything about proving God that was wrong.

I also watched the "Feuerstein Fallacy" video and I agreed with him sometimes, and sometimes I didn't. I didn't agree with him, and I get so angry when atheists do this: when he said they just take the "null position" and discredit the "evidence." And they're technically right for this, but discrediting evidence doesn't make the problem solved. You still have to prove that God doesn't exist in order for your hypothesis to be correct. And as for the Thinking Atheist video: he made arguments that didn't disprove God in any way. "A harmful sun that gives off radiation that gives off cancer?" I'm not a Creationist. Neither are most people. We're talking the minority of CHRISTIANS that believe Earth is 6,000 years old, everything is perfect, etc. I love these arguments because they're..."intellectually dishonest" in describing so many Christian and other religions' beliefs. I quote a joke that summarizes my thoughts: "Well, you need Vitamin D, and God never said you couldn't go in the shade..." A Catholic priest made the Big Bang Theory. Atheists use that to discredit God. How? "Because it isn't 6,000 years old." Even Pat Robertson believes Creationism is stupid. And even if we all believed it: which we don't: that doesn't disprove the belief in God. Oi. Sorry for ranting.

And now for the theists. Faith isn't an argument. Nuff said.

I'm not saying you can't discuss it, but there's no way to make it an actual debate. Make your own decisions, don't let people influence you.

Much of what you have said, here, is the reason for my agnosticism. I cannot prove that there is no gawd, and have no desire to do so. I have, however, rejected all claims of KNOWING that this gawd or that gawd "IS REAL," or that this or that religion is the "true" way to worship. I have rejected all gawds that humans have invented, thus far. That does not preclude the possibility of finding some form of deity, in the future. All "holy" or "sacred" manuscripts ever written, thus far, are still a laughable concoction of stupidity and unreal fantastical imagination. The "stories" that these manuscripts tell are the obvious inventions of human minds, and not well planned, at all. I have rejected all "known" gawds, and the claims of all religions I have investigated.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 5:21:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:58:40 AM, irreverent_god wrote:

Much of what you have said, here, is the reason for my agnosticism. I cannot prove that there is no gawd, and have no desire to do so.

Then perhaps a discussion and debate forum is the wrong place to float such an opinion?

If for example, you 'believe' that there is no evidence that any religion is real, that would be a position people would assume you arrived at through some kind of analytical process. A process that one would assume in explanable and supportable. If not? Why would you voice such an opinion where you are sure to be asked to 'prove' it - while stating you have no desire to do so?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 5:49:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 5:21:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:58:40 AM, irreverent_god wrote:

Much of what you have said, here, is the reason for my agnosticism. I cannot prove that there is no gawd, and have no desire to do so.

Then perhaps a discussion and debate forum is the wrong place to float such an opinion?

If for example, you 'believe' that there is no evidence that any religion is real, that would be a position people would assume you arrived at through some kind of analytical process. A process that one would assume in explanable and supportable. If not? Why would you voice such an opinion where you are sure to be asked to 'prove' it - while stating you have no desire to do so?

POST NOT READ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****NO FURTHER EXCHANGE DESIRED WITH YOU*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:07:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 5:49:43 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 10/11/2014 5:21:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:58:40 AM, irreverent_god wrote:

Much of what you have said, here, is the reason for my agnosticism. I cannot prove that there is no gawd, and have no desire to do so.

Then perhaps a discussion and debate forum is the wrong place to float such an opinion?

If for example, you 'believe' that there is no evidence that any religion is real, that would be a position people would assume you arrived at through some kind of analytical process. A process that one would assume in explanable and supportable. If not? Why would you voice such an opinion where you are sure to be asked to 'prove' it - while stating you have no desire to do so?

POST NOT READ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****NO FURTHER EXCHANGE DESIRED WITH YOU*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IS there some rule that atheists extremists need to be raging jerks rather than adult participants? Particularly after you rant yesterday?

Neither you nor Beasty seem capable of this - with not one, bit both of you now stating openly, "We hate this guy!" but he's now allowed to stand up to our smears?

OK, be an adult and simply don;t respond.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 11:55:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 3:38:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)
"Burden of proof" isn't just a phrase, it's a series of rules. And the rules state that the side wishing to change the default conclusion is the side which carries the burden of proof. And the "default conclusion", is that represented by the obvious evidence. For clarity; if a car is seen to be sitting in a driveway, it's windows are reflecting the items around it, it's casting a shadow, the tires are conforming to deviations in the concrete, etc., the default conclusion is that the car exists - the evidence is consistent with the existence of the car. So the side telling us the car does not exist holds the burden of proof. On the other hand, if all we see is what appears to be an empty driveway, then the side claiming that their is a car there holds the burden of proof.

Since there is no objective evidence for God - theists hold the burden of proof. They can whine and moan about that if they like, but it doesn't change the rules, and the rules say that theists hold the burden of proof.

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact.
First things first; there is no such thing as "scientific proof". In fact, aside from maths and alcohol, science doesn't - and cannot - subscribe to the concept of "proof" because it runs against science methodology. Science methodology states that all conclusions must be supported by evidence, and that new evidence can lead to new conclusions. Proof suggests that new conclusions aren't possible.

As for the idea that one must conduct an experiment before a conclusion can become a "fact", this too is contrary to science methodology. Any hypothesis must be based on evidence, and if submitted for peer-review, is considered to be falsified if any of the evidence is contrary to the conclusion. And if rigorous peer-review demonstrates that the explanation and conclusion are in complete compliance with all of the pertinent evidence, then the conclusion becomes a "theory".

And that's IT! There is nothing above "theory" - no "facts", no "proofs", no "scientific facts"... just theories. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Germs are a theory. Electromagnetics is a theory. Nothing in science rises above "theory", because theory is the pinnacle of science veracity. It doesn't mean "an idea" as is commonly offered in day-to-day misuse. In a scientific context, a "theory" means that the conclusion has passed all scientific scrutiny, and is - for all intents and purposes - considered "factual" until/unless new evidence shows it to be flawed or false.

I think I'll leave you with that for now, except to say that it's perfectly forgivable to not understand science, science terminology and science methodology. It is far less forgivable to just make it up and pretend you know what you're talking about.

In the case of God, there can't be a "default conclusion" because both sides would say that their side is.

So, you can have philosophical debates, where the burden of proof is the "obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position" - Wikipedia.

And philosophical debates are probably a better way to define religious debates, as I said: there is no scientifically-based evidence to "prove" or "disprove" God's existence.

Scientific proof = evidence (in my mind). I said "proof" in place of evidence once and you're gonna go ahead and act like my argument is completely falsified. Ok, whatever makes you feel good. You can't just assert that I don't understand science. Is it because I believe in God? I'm gonna have to break it to you: you don't have to be an atheist to understand science. You can also hold opinions. You can disagree all you like, it doesn't disprove it.

Alright, so I don't act like I'm publishing my opinion for scientists to see. Don't go acting like a pretentious douche.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Springheeledjack
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 12:51:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 1:43:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/11/2014 1:27:35 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/11/2014 1:08:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/11/2014 12:31:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
Has god ever claimed to exist and how do you know?

If God claimed he didn't exist (fictitious or not) God would be an irrational character, Being irrational would not be logically coherent with god being omniscient.

This is why deadpool breaks the 4th wall and talks about his own non-existence. He is intended to be by his creator a truly irrational character.

So god has never made the claim of his existence?

He has, Moses asked what to tell the hebrews when asked who sent him. The response was tell them "Ehyeh asher ehyeh"

roughly, I am that I am.

I would say that is a statement of existence.

Dude, don't acknowledge Bulproof, he's a troll.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 3:18:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 11:55:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/11/2014 3:38:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:01:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
First off, I would like to say that I believe there is a God. I don't care about your beliefs. I'm here to say that you debating yours: especially the way you do it: is stupid.

The infamous burden of proof:

"You have it!"

"No you have it!"

(Repeat as needed)
"Burden of proof" isn't just a phrase, it's a series of rules. And the rules state that the side wishing to change the default conclusion is the side which carries the burden of proof. And the "default conclusion", is that represented by the obvious evidence. For clarity; if a car is seen to be sitting in a driveway, it's windows are reflecting the items around it, it's casting a shadow, the tires are conforming to deviations in the concrete, etc., the default conclusion is that the car exists - the evidence is consistent with the existence of the car. So the side telling us the car does not exist holds the burden of proof. On the other hand, if all we see is what appears to be an empty driveway, then the side claiming that their is a car there holds the burden of proof.

Since there is no objective evidence for God - theists hold the burden of proof. They can whine and moan about that if they like, but it doesn't change the rules, and the rules say that theists hold the burden of proof.

It is illogical to believe...that one side always has the burden of proof. In such a debate, for there to be scientific proof, you'd have to conduct an experiment and have it be accepted into a scientific journal for it to be fact.
First things first; there is no such thing as "scientific proof". In fact, aside from maths and alcohol, science doesn't - and cannot - subscribe to the concept of "proof" because it runs against science methodology. Science methodology states that all conclusions must be supported by evidence, and that new evidence can lead to new conclusions. Proof suggests that new conclusions aren't possible.

As for the idea that one must conduct an experiment before a conclusion can become a "fact", this too is contrary to science methodology. Any hypothesis must be based on evidence, and if submitted for peer-review, is considered to be falsified if any of the evidence is contrary to the conclusion. And if rigorous peer-review demonstrates that the explanation and conclusion are in complete compliance with all of the pertinent evidence, then the conclusion becomes a "theory".

And that's IT! There is nothing above "theory" - no "facts", no "proofs", no "scientific facts"... just theories. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Germs are a theory. Electromagnetics is a theory. Nothing in science rises above "theory", because theory is the pinnacle of science veracity. It doesn't mean "an idea" as is commonly offered in day-to-day misuse. In a scientific context, a "theory" means that the conclusion has passed all scientific scrutiny, and is - for all intents and purposes - considered "factual" until/unless new evidence shows it to be flawed or false.

I think I'll leave you with that for now, except to say that it's perfectly forgivable to not understand science, science terminology and science methodology. It is far less forgivable to just make it up and pretend you know what you're talking about.

In the case of God, there can't be a "default conclusion" because both sides would say that their side is.
It's not about what you say. It's about what you can show. Can you provide objective evidence for the existence of God? If not, then the default conclusion is that God doesn't exist. (It works the same way with fairies, Leprechauns and gremlins.)

So, you can have philosophical debates, where the burden of proof is the "obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position" - Wikipedia.
Science starts with evidence and imagination. Then the products of that imagination are tested for veracity. Philosophy skips the testing phase. It's useless for determining what is true about the universe.

And philosophical debates are probably a better way to define religious debates, as I said: there is no scientifically-based evidence to "prove" or "disprove" God's existence.
Philosophical debates give theists more wiggle room because they don't have to support their assertions. Whether or not God exists, or whether a "creator" produced the universe is a question for science, not for philosophy. Theists often dislike that because most of them aren't very familiar with science, and it doesn't show them what they want to be true.
And there's no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Evidence shows that there is a link between one item, and the item for which it serves as evidence. You can't have a link with that which doesn't exist. So when you say "evidence of non-existence" it's an oxymoron, and a clear indication that you don't understand what "evidence" is, or what makes something evidence.

- Evidence is consistent with existence.
- A lack of evidence, is consistent with non-existence.

That's why you have no evidence against the existence of fairies, no evidence against the existence of Leprechauns, and no evidence against the existence of gremlins or God. They are equally unevidenced, and equally unlikely.

Scientific proof = evidence (in my mind). I said "proof" in place of evidence once and you're gonna go ahead and act like my argument is completely falsified. Ok, whatever makes you feel good.
Is a hole in the chest of a corpse "evidence" of a gunshot injury? Is it "proof" of a gunshot injury? "nuff said?

You can't just assert that I don't understand science.
I was working from the evidence you presented. You were wrong about just about every statement you made. That's pretty good evidence that you don't understand.

Is it because I believe in God?
No. It's because the statements you made were blatantly incorrect.

I'm gonna have to break it to you: you don't have to be an atheist to understand science. You can also hold opinions. You can disagree all you like, it doesn't disprove it.
No one said you have to be an atheist to understand science. I simply pointed out that based on the false statements you made, you don't understand it.

Alright, so I don't act like I'm publishing my opinion for scientists to see. Don't go acting like a pretentious douche.
Sorry, but wrong is wrong. You can try to excuse your ignorance or you can learn from my corrections. It's your choice.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 3:25:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Man I don't know what you don't like about me. But I said that debating whether or not God is real is stupid and I have to have every f***ing scientific term? Whatever man.

You can say that I'm just trying to give theists "wiggle room" but I'm not: I think theists are going about this just as stupidly as you are now.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 3:29:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm just saying philosophical debates are more fit for the topic man, you don't have to call my arguments blatantly incorrect. They're opinion: you can't falsify someone's opinion. Get that through your thick skull.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 3:56:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok, how about this: it is impossible to push a burden of proof on an either side due to a metaphysical being (being) impossible to be put in a testable hypothesis, whether the hypothesis is that he exists or doesn't, since the scientific method is restricted to the physical world, and was not made to be in concern of testing the existence of a God. Therefore, a scientific argument regarding the existence of a God/Gods is impossible. Because of this, a philosophical debate is the only way to have a feasible argument about the existence of God, due to there being no test needed. In a philosophical argument, the negative burden of proof relies on proof of impossibility and/or evidence of non-existence, and positive the opposite.

But I still think that philosophical debates are just as stupid because it is still impossible to have evidence, but it still does have the leg up on scientific debate due to the scientific method being unusable, therefore theists can't be expected to bring evidence just as atheists can't.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 4:21:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 3:56:41 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Ok, how about this: it is impossible to push a burden of proof on an either side due to a metaphysical being (being) impossible to be put in a testable hypothesis, whether the hypothesis is that he exists or doesn't, since the scientific method is restricted to the physical world, and was not made to be in concern of testing the existence of a God.
There is nothing about science which limits it to the physical world. It is limited to that for which there is objective evidence. People like to suggest that this means the same thing but that is incorrect. For example; theists insist that God can affect the physical world. If God were to move a tree 3-inches to the left, the relocation of the tree would be objective evidence of an unknown force. There is no such unknown force or mysterious objective evidence, consistent with the claims made of God. There is no mysterious benevolence in the universe, no indication that prayer can alter outcomes, and no indication that any religious book, contains anything other than the thoughts and ideas of the men who wrote them.

Therefore, a scientific argument regarding the existence of a God/Gods is impossible.
This assertion is drawn on the former assertion which is false. Scientific arguments can most certainly be formed regarding the possibility of God's existence. Theists, however, prefer to deny these arguments because the outcome is not what they wish. There is no objective evidence of God (direct or indirect - matter/energy cannot be created, naturalistic explanations have served admirably to explain even things formerly accredited to God).

Because of this, a philosophical debate is the only way to have a feasible argument about the existence of God, due to there being no test needed. In a philosophical argument, the negative burden of proof relies on proof of impossibility and/or evidence of non-existence, and positive the opposite.
Philosophy is about what may be possible, or what may not be possible. Science is about what is, or isn't. Science finds no groundwork for the claim that God exists, so theists prefer to hide behind philosophy. The only way to argue for the possibility of God, is by ignoring scientific findings, in formulating a philosophical argument.
There is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". That which does not exist, cannot be linked to anything. No link, no evidence.

But I still think that philosophical debates are just as stupid because it is still impossible to have evidence, but it still does have the leg up on scientific debate due to the scientific method being unusable, therefore theists can't be expected to bring evidence just as atheists can't.
Theists run to philosophy because science doesn't provide the answer that they want. That's a bit like having your engine stall miles from anywhere, noticing that the gas gauge reads empty, and trying to shine a flashlight (or a lighter), into the gasoline filler hole because you don't like what the engine and fuel gauge are telling you. It's an emotional act of desperation, rather than a rational act of logic.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 5:35:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:21:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/11/2014 3:56:41 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Ok, how about this: it is impossible to push a burden of proof on an either side due to a metaphysical being (being) impossible to be put in a testable hypothesis, whether the hypothesis is that he exists or doesn't, since the scientific method is restricted to the physical world, and was not made to be in concern of testing the existence of a God.
There is nothing about science which limits it to the physical world. It is limited to that for which there is objective evidence. People like to suggest that this means the same thing but that is incorrect. For example; theists insist that God can affect the physical world. If God were to move a tree 3-inches to the left, the relocation of the tree would be objective evidence of an unknown force. There is no such unknown force or mysterious objective evidence, consistent with the claims made of God. There is no mysterious benevolence in the universe, no indication that prayer can alter outcomes, and no indication that any religious book, contains anything other than the thoughts and ideas of the men who wrote them.

The scientific method is limited to physical objects that are measurable, in other words: possess mass/energy and exist in space/time. The scientific method is limited by it's inability to prove it's basic assumptions and axioms, and it is not axiomic by itself. The scientific method cannot argue for or against the existence of truth, because truth is metaphysical and is outside the realm of the physical. The scientific method cannot provide proof for existential statements due to the limitations of the inductive method.

The scientific method is not limited to the physical world: It is limited to material evidence.
What the?

Alright, so this is evidence that a mysterious force, which original source may or may not be the creator of the universe, did not move the tree three inches for your amusement. Your point?
Fine tuning is enough benevolence for you?
Shallow "Vending machine" concept of prayer.

1- Why did Mohammed (PBUH) spread his message?
2- How did Mohammed (PBUH) author the Quran?

Therefore, a scientific argument regarding the existence of a God/Gods is impossible.
This assertion is drawn on the former assertion which is false. Scientific arguments can most certainly be formed regarding the possibility of God's existence. Theists, however, prefer to deny these arguments because the outcome is not what they wish. There is no objective evidence of God (direct or indirect - matter/energy cannot be created, naturalistic explanations have served admirably to explain even things formerly accredited to God).

How did matter & energy start interacting? What was the first mover?
So are you saying that matter-energy & space-time existed before the BB?

What do naturalistic explanations have to do with confirming or falsifying God? If the kettle containing boiling water is on the stove and someone asks: Why is the water getting heated? You can answer by:
1- Providing detailed explanation regarding chemical reactions.
2- "Oh, I want to make tea!"

Mechanical explanation co-exist with teleological explanation. The question is whether these phenomena deterministic by an intelligent creator or were it all random by a zero-IQ entity.

Because of this, a philosophical debate is the only way to have a feasible argument about the existence of God, due to there being no test needed. In a philosophical argument, the negative burden of proof relies on proof of impossibility and/or evidence of non-existence, and positive the opposite.
Philosophy is about what may be possible, or what may not be possible. Science is about what is, or isn't. Science finds no groundwork for the claim that God exists, so theists prefer to hide behind philosophy. The only way to argue for the possibility of God, is by ignoring scientific findings, in formulating a philosophical argument.
There is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". That which does not exist, cannot be linked to anything. No link, no evidence.

So you cannot conclude that something exists using philosophy? Like you can't conclude that you are thinking using philosophy? That your existence is contingent on your ancestor's existence using philosophy? That such thing as "truth" exists using philosophy?

What do you mean "ignore scientific findings"? Are the existence of subjects not addressable materially, and cannot be falsified materially, related to scientific findings as far the scientific method goes?

You can prove that square circles don't exist, that dropping a ball won't make it float to the ceiling, the the word "zvcasgh" doesn't exist in the dictionary, You can prove that there aren't elephants in your room.
Antartica did not exist until the moment that you learned about the evidence of it's existence?
But it is nice that you admit that you can't prove that God exists. This means that Theists can provide support their claim of God's exists with no counterargument whatsoever.

Denying a sound philosophical argument = Denying reality. This translates to irrational emotional rejectionism.


But I still think that philosophical debates are just as stupid because it is still impossible to have evidence, but it still does have the leg up on scientific debate due to the scientific method being unusable, therefore theists can't be expected to bring evidence just as atheists can't.
Theists run to philosophy because science doesn't provide the answer that they want. That's a bit like having your engine stall miles from anywhere, noticing that the gas gauge reads empty, and trying to shine a flashlight (or a lighter), into the gasoline filler hole because you don't like what the engine and fuel gauge are telling you. It's an emotional act of desperation, rather than a rational act of logic.

Hm? What Theist is expecting material evidence of a non-material existence?
Atheists have not provided a shred of "objective evidence". They self-evidently believe that there is no non-material agent. However, Atheists have neither evidence nor logical case to support their belief. Thus, they often resort to category error fallacy by demanding material evidence, while at the same time admitting their inability to provide such evidence or even any logical argument for their case, But that does not stop them from administering another fallacy by special pleading for Atheism and relinquishing that demand on others.

Bring me "objective evidence" for logic. Oops, I guess logic does not exist *rolls eyes*.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 6:14:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 5:35:28 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:21:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/11/2014 3:56:41 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Ok, how about this: it is impossible to push a burden of proof on an either side due to a metaphysical being (being) impossible to be put in a testable hypothesis, whether the hypothesis is that he exists or doesn't, since the scientific method is restricted to the physical world, and was not made to be in concern of testing the existence of a God.
There is nothing about science which limits it to the physical world. It is limited to that for which there is objective evidence. People like to suggest that this means the same thing but that is incorrect. For example; theists insist that God can affect the physical world. If God were to move a tree 3-inches to the left, the relocation of the tree would be objective evidence of an unknown force. There is no such unknown force or mysterious objective evidence, consistent with the claims made of God. There is no mysterious benevolence in the universe, no indication that prayer can alter outcomes, and no indication that any religious book, contains anything other than the thoughts and ideas of the men who wrote them.

The scientific method is limited to physical objects that are measurable, in other words: possess mass/energy and exist in space/time. The scientific method is limited by it's inability to prove it's basic assumptions and axioms, and it is not axiomic by itself. The scientific method cannot argue for or against the existence of truth, because truth is metaphysical and is outside the realm of the physical. The scientific method cannot provide proof for existential statements due to the limitations of the inductive method.

The scientific method is not limited to the physical world: It is limited to material evidence.
What the?
If you didn't change the wording, you might not be so confused. I said "objective evidence". You changed it to "material evidence". Why would you do that? Was it just so that you could act as though it was absurd?

Alright, so this is evidence that a mysterious force, which original source may or may not be the creator of the universe, did not move the tree three inches for your amusement. Your point?
Fine tuning is enough benevolence for you?
Shallow "Vending machine" concept of prayer.
Firstly, there is NO SUCH THING as "fine-tuning". There are many variables in the universe, and a particular range for each. And each one is within it's range. So?

Theists are easily confused by large numbers. People point out that if you explored every possible parameter for each variable, there are about 10^121 combinations. And yes, that's an astounding number of combinations. But then the "fine-tuning" argument just gets silly. It's essentially, "the odds against the universe forming with these specific parameters were 10^121 to 1! So it HAD to have been selected with intent!" I hate to be so blunt but that's just blatant stupidity.

The odds against ANY specific set of parameters would be 10^121 to 1. But the odds of a universe forming were 1 to 1. If I hand you a deck of cards and ask you to pick one, no matter which one you pick, the odds were 52 to 1 against you picking that particular card. So is it amazing, suspicious and indicative of intent that you picked A card? The same rules apply to the universe. No matter which set of parameters coalesced out of big-bang, the odds against that particular set of parameters was the same. This boils down to a very simple statement; "when all possible outcomes are highly unlikely, a highly unlikely outcome becomes a certainty". Is there some part of that which doesn't make sense to you?

Imagine a deck of cards with 10^121 unique cards. If I ask you to pick a card, no matter which card you pick, the odds were 10^121 to 1 against that card being selected. But the odds of selecting A card, were 1 to 1. So why the wonder and awe?

1- Why did Mohammed (PBUH) spread his message?
He likely bought into his own BS, just as David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith and many others have bought into their own B.S.

2- How did Mohammed (PBUH) author the Quran?
Do you have any idea how many claims there are of people writing books who couldn't write, or typing books, who couldn't type? It's a claim... nothing more. John Newbrough supposedly sat down at a typewriter and wrote out "Oahspe", and he claimed he couldn't type... that the words just moved through him, to his fingers and into motion of the typewriter keys. Oooooo spooky! Or it's just B.S.

Therefore, a scientific argument regarding the existence of a God/Gods is impossible.
This assertion is drawn on the former assertion which is false. Scientific arguments can most certainly be formed regarding the possibility of God's existence. Theists, however, prefer to deny these arguments because the outcome is not what they wish. There is no objective evidence of God (direct or indirect - matter/energy cannot be created, naturalistic explanations have served admirably to explain even things formerly accredited to God).

How did matter & energy start interacting? What was the first mover?
There was no "first mover". Energy and matter started interacting because their properties demand interaction. And what makes your question any more logical than asking "what made them stop interacting", in a universe in which they don't interact? You're running yourself in circles trying to figure out why things are the way they are. And sometimes that answer is, "because that's how they are". But you don't like that answer, so you chase a non-existent answer, and think you've baffled people when they don't provide it. Then you try to wedge the answer you prefer in where it doesn't fit.

So are you saying that matter-energy & space-time existed before the BB?
No. Where did I say anything of the sort?

Please show me where you're reading that into what I wrote.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:01:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 6:07:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/11/2014 5:49:43 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 10/11/2014 5:21:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 10/11/2014 4:58:40 AM, irreverent_god wrote:

Much of what you have said, here, is the reason for my agnosticism. I cannot prove that there is no gawd, and have no desire to do so.

Then perhaps a discussion and debate forum is the wrong place to float such an opinion?

If for example, you 'believe' that there is no evidence that any religion is real, that would be a position people would assume you arrived at through some kind of analytical process. A process that one would assume in explanable and supportable. If not? Why would you voice such an opinion where you are sure to be asked to 'prove' it - while stating you have no desire to do so?

POST NOT READ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****NO FURTHER EXCHANGE DESIRED WITH YOU*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IS there some rule that atheists extremists need to be raging jerks rather than adult participants? Particularly after you rant yesterday?

Neither you nor Beasty seem capable of this - with not one, bit both of you now stating openly, "We hate this guy!" but he's now allowed to stand up to our smears?

OK, be an adult and simply don;t respond.

POST NOT READ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****NO FURTHER EXCHANGE DESIRED WITH YOU*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:12:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dude, I can't take you seriously if you think theists are easily confused by large numbers.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 7:40:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 4:38:33 AM, MsIndependent wrote:
And yet..here you are, Discussing it. Many athiests spend hours upon hours debating something that doesn't "exist". So right off the bat, it just doesn't make sense. I don't believe in The Tooth Fairy. Never would I spend a minute talking about the Tooth Fairy, yet, here we are..

Here is an amzing video to help you understand a little:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you cannot understand this, then there is no point in addressing anything else you have to say.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO