Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is self-defeating

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 12:58:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

..or they believe it is probable, but not certain.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

You're attempting to define a contradictory position out of existence based on your own presuppositions of god. Your presupposition is rejected as unsupportable and your "self defeating" claim falls. Ironically, it really is self defeating.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 1:11:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Straw man fallacy, atheists do not believe in god. Your definition of atheist is as bad as defining an agnostic as someone who knows god does not exist.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

None of this matters since atheism is not a truth claim, but with that said, nice argument from ignorance fallacy on the end where you say truth can't objectively exist without god. Love to see you prove that ridiculous assertion.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

So since all your premises were obtained by fallacious thinking I think its fair to say your conclusion is rubbish.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 1:14:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Not necessarily. Atheists just say "no" when asked "do you believe a god or gods exist?"

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

Atheism doesn't suppose or presuppose anything.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 1:28:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.
You'd have better luck trying to stuff that back under the bull's tail than you'll have trying to stuff it down an atheist's throat.

I'm going to blindfold you and have you drive across an unregulated railroad. I'm outside of the vehicle but tell you by radio that the tracks are clear and that you may proceed. Does truth have more value to you than non-truth?

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Your premise is wrong, and thusly, so is your conclusion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 1:40:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

This can't work because there is no evidence that God exists. A verbose argument is usually empty. Bring the evidence to support your argument.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 1:50:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:58:18 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

..or they believe it is probable, but not certain.

Atheism, as a belief, can only be true or false. The level of uncertainty that led one to conclude that atheism is true is irrelevant.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

You're attempting to define a contradictory position out of existence based on your own presuppositions of god. Your presupposition is rejected as unsupportable and your "self defeating" claim falls. Ironically, it really is self defeating.

I haven't made any presuppositions. It follows logically that ideals can't have any objective value if humans don't have any objective purpose. Objective purpose is only possible if God exists.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 1:58:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 1:11:11 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Straw man fallacy, atheists do not believe in god. Your definition of atheist is as bad as defining an agnostic as someone who knows god does not exist.

How is that a straw man fallacy? "Atheists do not believe in God" and believing the statement "God does not exist" is true are the same thing.

No, my definition of atheism being analogous to agnosticism would read: agnostics believe the statement that "God's existence is unknowable" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

None of this matters since atheism is not a truth claim, but with that said, nice argument from ignorance fallacy on the end where you say truth can't objectively exist without god. Love to see you prove that ridiculous assertion.

Atheism is a truth a claim. It's a belief that God doesn't exist. I said that in order for the truth to have more value than non-truth God must exist in order for this value to be objective.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.


So since all your premises were obtained by fallacious thinking I think its fair to say your conclusion is rubbish.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:01:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 1:14:33 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Not necessarily. Atheists just say "no" when asked "do you believe a god or gods exist?"

That is the same thing as affirming the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

Atheism doesn't suppose or presuppose anything.

Atheism is belief that is held to be true. So it supposes that it has truth value. By supposing this truth value it is valued over non-truth. But non-truth and truth are in equal value. So atheism presupposes that truth is better than non-truth.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:05:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 1:50:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:58:18 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

You're attempting to define a contradictory position out of existence based on your own presuppositions of god. Your presupposition is rejected as unsupportable and your "self defeating" claim falls. Ironically, it really is self defeating.

I haven't made any presuppositions.
BEN!! When you claim that truth can only have more value than non-truth if God exists, you ARE making a presuposition. Don't sit here and insult everyone's intelligence by claiming that you haven't.

It follows logically that ideals can't have any objective value if humans don't have any objective purpose. Objective purpose is only possible if God exists.
I demonstrated that truth has greater value in terms you simply cannot deny. So don;t turn around and claim you haven't presented a presupposition. To do so constitutes nothing short of lying.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Truth retains the value it currently has, whether or not God exists. And since you haven't shown that God exists, you simply can't refute that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
InnovativeEphemera
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:06:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You are constructing a false dichotomy. Though there are more options, you are contending that the following exist:
a) belief for
b) belief against

Of course, you are missing the third option, which is where the position of atheism rests.

c) no belief; that is, no conviction that God does or doesn't exist, and that no determination has been made in favour of either side.

Not believing in God is not analogous to believing that God does not exist.
They are different positions.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:07:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 1:28:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.
You'd have better luck trying to stuff that back under the bull's tail than you'll have trying to stuff it down an atheist's throat.

I'm going to blindfold you and have you drive across an unregulated railroad. I'm outside of the vehicle but tell you by radio that the tracks are clear and that you may proceed. Does truth have more value to you than non-truth?

Are you inferring that the truth is indeed more valuable than non-truth? What if I said that the truth didn't have more value to me than non-truth. How would you convince me otherwise if we are objectively purposeless?

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Your premise is wrong, and thusly, so is your conclusion.

Why is my premise wrong?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:12:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:06:23 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
You are constructing a false dichotomy. Though there are more options, you are contending that the following exist:
a) belief for
b) belief against

Of course, you are missing the third option, which is where the position of atheism rests.

c) no belief; that is, no conviction that God does or doesn't exist, and that no determination has been made in favour of either side.

Not believing in God is not analogous to believing that God does not exist.
They are different positions.

That is a very unconventional definition of atheism that you are using. If I were to ask any self-identified atheists on this site "does God exist" would I expect them to reply that they haven't made a determination one way or the other?

You are using atheism to mean "lack of belief in God" which is fine, but it doesn't support the notion that God does not exist. Ignorant people and agnostics are in the same boat. I defined the definition of atheism that I was using in the OP to mean that they held "God does not exist" to be a true statement which is a valid definition of atheism.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:14:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:05:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:50:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:58:18 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:

You're attempting to define a contradictory position out of existence based on your own presuppositions of god. Your presupposition is rejected as unsupportable and your "self defeating" claim falls. Ironically, it really is self defeating.

I haven't made any presuppositions.
BEN!! When you claim that truth can only have more value than non-truth if God exists, you ARE making a presuposition. Don't sit here and insult everyone's intelligence by claiming that you haven't.

It follows logically that ideals can't have any objective value if humans don't have any objective purpose. Objective purpose is only possible if God exists.
I demonstrated that truth has greater value in terms you simply cannot deny. So don;t turn around and claim you haven't presented a presupposition. To do so constitutes nothing short of lying.

I'm asking you straight up. Does truth have objective value?

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Truth retains the value it currently has, whether or not God exists. And since you haven't shown that God exists, you simply can't refute that.

Does the truth have more value than non-truth objectively?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:17:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:07:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:28:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.
You'd have better luck trying to stuff that back under the bull's tail than you'll have trying to stuff it down an atheist's throat.

I'm going to blindfold you and have you drive across an unregulated railroad. I'm outside of the vehicle but tell you by radio that the tracks are clear and that you may proceed. Does truth have more value to you than non-truth?

Are you inferring that the truth is indeed more valuable than non-truth? What if I said that the truth didn't have more value to me than non-truth. How would you convince me otherwise if we are objectively purposeless?
How can anyone's sense of logic become so completely inverted? What would you think of a system where Emergency Medical Dispatchers flipped a coin each time they received a call. If the coin lands on heads, the dispatcher must be honest in providing the caller with proper first responder techniques. If the coin lands on tails, the dispatcher is not bound by any need to provide honest information and first aid techniques? Do you seriously think there will be no benefit to providing honest truthful information rather than dishonest fallacious information?

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Your premise is wrong, and thusly, so is your conclusion.

Why is my premise wrong?
Because the value of truth is not determined by whether or not God exists, and you can't show that he does, while I can easily show you that truth does have greater value than non-truth (as I have done).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:17:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 1:40:25 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

This can't work because there is no evidence that God exists. A verbose argument is usually empty. Bring the evidence to support your argument.

I'm saying that atheism places objective value on the truth but if humans have no objective purpose then nothing can have objective value either.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:22:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:17:05 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:07:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:28:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.
You'd have better luck trying to stuff that back under the bull's tail than you'll have trying to stuff it down an atheist's throat.

I'm going to blindfold you and have you drive across an unregulated railroad. I'm outside of the vehicle but tell you by radio that the tracks are clear and that you may proceed. Does truth have more value to you than non-truth?

Are you inferring that the truth is indeed more valuable than non-truth? What if I said that the truth didn't have more value to me than non-truth. How would you convince me otherwise if we are objectively purposeless?
How can anyone's sense of logic become so completely inverted? What would you think of a system where Emergency Medical Dispatchers flipped a coin each time they received a call. If the coin lands on heads, the dispatcher must be honest in providing the caller with proper first responder techniques. If the coin lands on tails, the dispatcher is not bound by any need to provide honest information and first aid techniques? Do you seriously think there will be no benefit to providing honest truthful information rather than dishonest fallacious information?

Truth provides objective benefit.

Humans are objectively purposeless.

It follows that whatever is beneficial is subjective.

Truth cannot provide any objective benefit.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Your premise is wrong, and thusly, so is your conclusion.

Why is my premise wrong?
Because the value of truth is not determined by whether or not God exists, and you can't show that he does, while I can easily show you that truth does have greater value than non-truth (as I have done).

If the truth has objective value it must follow that humans are not objectively purposeless.
InnovativeEphemera
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:23:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:12:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:06:23 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
You are constructing a false dichotomy. Though there are more options, you are contending that the following exist:
a) belief for
b) belief against

Of course, you are missing the third option, which is where the position of atheism rests.

c) no belief; that is, no conviction that God does or doesn't exist, and that no determination has been made in favour of either side.

Not believing in God is not analogous to believing that God does not exist.
They are different positions.

That is a very unconventional definition of atheism that you are using. If I were to ask any self-identified atheists on this site "does God exist" would I expect them to reply that they haven't made a determination one way or the other?

You are using atheism to mean "lack of belief in God" which is fine, but it doesn't support the notion that God does not exist. Ignorant people and agnostics are in the same boat. I defined the definition of atheism that I was using in the OP to mean that they held "God does not exist" to be a true statement which is a valid definition of atheism.

You're exactly incorrect.
No existence claim can ever be fundamentally disproven except for negative assertions (e.g. there are no white geese; when we find a white goose, then the assertion is disproved) but no positive assertion about existence can be disproved. For instance, I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. Just because I can't disprove it doesn't meant you get to call it true. Herein lies the distinction; we're not saying it's false, we're just saying you can't say it's true.

You misunderstand the position of agnosticism. Atheism is a position about belief, agnosticism is a position about knowledge. Agnostics think that we don't or can't have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove God's existence. There is such a thing as an agnostic atheist and an agnostic Christian; that would be a Christian who says that they can't prove God's existence or say for sure that he exists at all, but they believe anyway.

Matt Dillahunty who I'm sure you will have heard of (President of Atheist Community of Austin and host of Atheist Experience) is a pretty good figure to take notes from, given his current and past involvement in so-called 'New Atheism', but Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are examples of figures who also use this definition of atheism. Dawkins has a scale in his book The God Delusion upon which he classifies himself as technically an agnostic atheist because you can't disprove God like you can't disprove fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:24:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:17:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:40:25 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

This can't work because there is no evidence that God exists. A verbose argument is usually empty. Bring the evidence to support your argument.

I'm saying that atheism places objective value on the truth but if humans have no objective purpose then nothing can have objective value either.

That's a complete non-sequitur, Ben. What the hell is "objective purpose"? Is it a purpose assigned by one personality? You seem to think that God can provide objective purpose. Not so. God - if he existed - could only provide subjective purpose. So according to you, truth has no objective value. And yet, we have social systems all built on the requirement of truth, or of attempting to determine the truth.

Science is the most objective methodology known to man and it's all about attempting to extract the truth of reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:28:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:22:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:17:05 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:07:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:28:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.
You'd have better luck trying to stuff that back under the bull's tail than you'll have trying to stuff it down an atheist's throat.

I'm going to blindfold you and have you drive across an unregulated railroad. I'm outside of the vehicle but tell you by radio that the tracks are clear and that you may proceed. Does truth have more value to you than non-truth?

Are you inferring that the truth is indeed more valuable than non-truth? What if I said that the truth didn't have more value to me than non-truth. How would you convince me otherwise if we are objectively purposeless?
How can anyone's sense of logic become so completely inverted? What would you think of a system where Emergency Medical Dispatchers flipped a coin each time they received a call. If the coin lands on heads, the dispatcher must be honest in providing the caller with proper first responder techniques. If the coin lands on tails, the dispatcher is not bound by any need to provide honest information and first aid techniques? Do you seriously think there will be no benefit to providing honest truthful information rather than dishonest fallacious information?

Truth provides objective benefit.

Humans are objectively purposeless.

It follows that whatever is beneficial is subjective.

Truth cannot provide any objective benefit.

If you think that God can provide objectively, simply by virtue of being God, then you don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "objective". Whatever God could offer would simply be God's subjective stance. Being God doesn't make him automatically objective.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Your premise is wrong, and thusly, so is your conclusion.

Why is my premise wrong?
Because the value of truth is not determined by whether or not God exists, and you can't show that he does, while I can easily show you that truth does have greater value than non-truth (as I have done).

If the truth has objective value it must follow that humans are not objectively purposeless.
Then I guess you need to define what you mean by "objective value". Is the presidents idea of value more objective than yours? If there was a one-world leader, would that make his idea of value more objective than that of the U.S. president? If there were a ruler of the solar system, does that make her idea of value more objective than the U.S. presidents, or the one-world leader? You seem to have a very warped concept equating to might = objective.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:34:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:17:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:40:25 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

This can't work because there is no evidence that God exists. A verbose argument is usually empty. Bring the evidence to support your argument.

I'm saying that atheism places objective value on the truth but if humans have no objective purpose then nothing can have objective value either.

Oh.... okay. What you're saying is that the Atheist places a value on truth that is unbiased and unrefuted, but that humans have no purpose that isn't biased or self fulfilling, therefore our perception of truth cannot be unbiased. And in saying this you are asserting that the atheists perception of truth is flawed and defeats it's own purpose. Could not the same argument be made about religion as well?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:36:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:23:09 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:12:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:06:23 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
You are constructing a false dichotomy. Though there are more options, you are contending that the following exist:
a) belief for
b) belief against

Of course, you are missing the third option, which is where the position of atheism rests.

c) no belief; that is, no conviction that God does or doesn't exist, and that no determination has been made in favour of either side.

Not believing in God is not analogous to believing that God does not exist.
They are different positions.

That is a very unconventional definition of atheism that you are using. If I were to ask any self-identified atheists on this site "does God exist" would I expect them to reply that they haven't made a determination one way or the other?

You are using atheism to mean "lack of belief in God" which is fine, but it doesn't support the notion that God does not exist. Ignorant people and agnostics are in the same boat. I defined the definition of atheism that I was using in the OP to mean that they held "God does not exist" to be a true statement which is a valid definition of atheism.

You're exactly incorrect.
No existence claim can ever be fundamentally disproven except for negative assertions (e.g. there are no white geese; when we find a white goose, then the assertion is disproved) but no positive assertion about existence can be disproved. For instance, I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. Just because I can't disprove it doesn't meant you get to call it true. Herein lies the distinction; we're not saying it's false, we're just saying you can't say it's true.

A belief is an acceptance that a statement is true. So atheism, as I defined in the OP, must have a true/false value. Atheism has two definitions: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." I'm using the former rather than the latter. Once a person accepts a belief that only has a true/false value therein lies the dichotomy.

You misunderstand the position of agnosticism. Atheism is a position about belief, agnosticism is a position about knowledge. Agnostics think that we don't or can't have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove God's existence. There is such a thing as an agnostic atheist and an agnostic Christian; that would be a Christian who says that they can't prove God's existence or say for sure that he exists at all, but they believe anyway.

Agnostics would consider the statement "God's existence is not knowable" to be true. So it is a belief because they've made a determination on the truth of that statement.

Matt Dillahunty who I'm sure you will have heard of (President of Atheist Community of Austin and host of Atheist Experience) is a pretty good figure to take notes from, given his current and past involvement in so-called 'New Atheism', but Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are examples of figures who also use this definition of atheism. Dawkins has a scale in his book The God Delusion upon which he classifies himself as technically an agnostic atheist because you can't disprove God like you can't disprove fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I'm not using that definition of atheism in the OP.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:48:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:24:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:17:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:40:25 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

This can't work because there is no evidence that God exists. A verbose argument is usually empty. Bring the evidence to support your argument.

I'm saying that atheism places objective value on the truth but if humans have no objective purpose then nothing can have objective value either.

That's a complete non-sequitur, Ben. What the hell is "objective purpose"? Is it a purpose assigned by one personality? You seem to think that God can provide objective purpose. Not so. God - if he existed - could only provide subjective purpose. So according to you, truth has no objective value. And yet, we have social systems all built on the requirement of truth, or of attempting to determine the truth.

If God created mankind for a purpose then this purpose would be objective. It exists independently of whatever opinions humans have on the matter.

Science is the most objective methodology known to man and it's all about attempting to extract the truth of reality.

Something can only have purpose through a cognitive process. If God, a cognitive entity, made humans for a purpose, if follow that things such as truth can have objective value towards this purpose. If there is no God, whatever purpose we have is objectiveless. Truth has no more value than non-truth because there would be no purpose for this value to serve.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:49:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

Baby rape. nuff said.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:56:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:28:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:22:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:17:05 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:07:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:28:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.
You'd have better luck trying to stuff that back under the bull's tail than you'll have trying to stuff it down an atheist's throat.

I'm going to blindfold you and have you drive across an unregulated railroad. I'm outside of the vehicle but tell you by radio that the tracks are clear and that you may proceed. Does truth have more value to you than non-truth?

Are you inferring that the truth is indeed more valuable than non-truth? What if I said that the truth didn't have more value to me than non-truth. How would you convince me otherwise if we are objectively purposeless?
How can anyone's sense of logic become so completely inverted? What would you think of a system where Emergency Medical Dispatchers flipped a coin each time they received a call. If the coin lands on heads, the dispatcher must be honest in providing the caller with proper first responder techniques. If the coin lands on tails, the dispatcher is not bound by any need to provide honest information and first aid techniques? Do you seriously think there will be no benefit to providing honest truthful information rather than dishonest fallacious information?

Truth provides objective benefit.

Humans are objectively purposeless.

It follows that whatever is beneficial is subjective.

Truth cannot provide any objective benefit.

If you think that God can provide objectively, simply by virtue of being God, then you don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "objective". Whatever God could offer would simply be God's subjective stance. Being God doesn't make him automatically objective.

As an arbiter of human purpose, it would make God's purpose for mankind objective from the human perspective. If God is a being that is only capable of truth it would make God objective anyway.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Your premise is wrong, and thusly, so is your conclusion.

Why is my premise wrong?
Because the value of truth is not determined by whether or not God exists, and you can't show that he does, while I can easily show you that truth does have greater value than non-truth (as I have done).

If the truth has objective value it must follow that humans are not objectively purposeless.
Then I guess you need to define what you mean by "objective value". Is the presidents idea of value more objective than yours? If there was a one-world leader, would that make his idea of value more objective than that of the U.S. president? If there were a ruler of the solar system, does that make her idea of value more objective than the U.S. presidents, or the one-world leader? You seem to have a very warped concept equating to might = objective.

If something is objective it is indefinitely true. Does the truth indefinitely have more value than non-truth? If so, why? Towards what end? Is that end objective? If God doesn't exist then ends can't be.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 3:00:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:56:09 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:28:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:22:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:17:05 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:07:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 1:28:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.
You'd have better luck trying to stuff that back under the bull's tail than you'll have trying to stuff it down an atheist's throat.

I'm going to blindfold you and have you drive across an unregulated railroad. I'm outside of the vehicle but tell you by radio that the tracks are clear and that you may proceed. Does truth have more value to you than non-truth?

Are you inferring that the truth is indeed more valuable than non-truth? What if I said that the truth didn't have more value to me than non-truth. How would you convince me otherwise if we are objectively purposeless?
How can anyone's sense of logic become so completely inverted? What would you think of a system where Emergency Medical Dispatchers flipped a coin each time they received a call. If the coin lands on heads, the dispatcher must be honest in providing the caller with proper first responder techniques. If the coin lands on tails, the dispatcher is not bound by any need to provide honest information and first aid techniques? Do you seriously think there will be no benefit to providing honest truthful information rather than dishonest fallacious information?

Truth provides objective benefit.

Humans are objectively purposeless.

It follows that whatever is beneficial is subjective.

Truth cannot provide any objective benefit.

If you think that God can provide objectively, simply by virtue of being God, then you don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "objective". Whatever God could offer would simply be God's subjective stance. Being God doesn't make him automatically objective.

As an arbiter of human purpose, it would make God's purpose for mankind objective from the human perspective. If God is a being that is only capable of truth it would make God objective anyway.
But the assessed value of any life is only that - what is assessed. And that assessment relies on some basis. So there can be no objective assessment for the value of a life. We can only assess that value as it relates to us, and God would be in no better position. He could only make an assessment based on his ideals, expectations and perspective.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.
Your premise is wrong, and thusly, so is your conclusion.

Why is my premise wrong?
Because the value of truth is not determined by whether or not God exists, and you can't show that he does, while I can easily show you that truth does have greater value than non-truth (as I have done).

If the truth has objective value it must follow that humans are not objectively purposeless.
Then I guess you need to define what you mean by "objective value". Is the presidents idea of value more objective than yours? If there was a one-world leader, would that make his idea of value more objective than that of the U.S. president? If there were a ruler of the solar system, does that make her idea of value more objective than the U.S. presidents, or the one-world leader? You seem to have a very warped concept equating to might = objective.

If something is objective it is indefinitely true. Does the truth indefinitely have more value than non-truth? If so, why? Towards what end? Is that end objective? If God doesn't exist then ends can't be.
More value to whom, under what conditions, and why? You're trying to apply subjective factors to determining an objective value. There's no such thing as an objective value because "value" is a determination of relative value, to the one making the determination. It's inherently subjective.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
InnovativeEphemera
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 3:08:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:36:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:23:09 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:12:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:06:23 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
You are constructing a false dichotomy. Though there are more options, you are contending that the following exist:
a) belief for
b) belief against

Of course, you are missing the third option, which is where the position of atheism rests.

c) no belief; that is, no conviction that God does or doesn't exist, and that no determination has been made in favour of either side.

Not believing in God is not analogous to believing that God does not exist.
They are different positions.

That is a very unconventional definition of atheism that you are using. If I were to ask any self-identified atheists on this site "does God exist" would I expect them to reply that they haven't made a determination one way or the other?

You are using atheism to mean "lack of belief in God" which is fine, but it doesn't support the notion that God does not exist. Ignorant people and agnostics are in the same boat. I defined the definition of atheism that I was using in the OP to mean that they held "God does not exist" to be a true statement which is a valid definition of atheism.

You're exactly incorrect.
No existence claim can ever be fundamentally disproven except for negative assertions (e.g. there are no white geese; when we find a white goose, then the assertion is disproved) but no positive assertion about existence can be disproved. For instance, I cannot disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. Just because I can't disprove it doesn't meant you get to call it true. Herein lies the distinction; we're not saying it's false, we're just saying you can't say it's true.

A belief is an acceptance that a statement is true. So atheism, as I defined in the OP, must have a true/false value. Atheism has two definitions: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." I'm using the former rather than the latter. Once a person accepts a belief that only has a true/false value therein lies the dichotomy.

You misunderstand the position of agnosticism. Atheism is a position about belief, agnosticism is a position about knowledge. Agnostics think that we don't or can't have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove God's existence. There is such a thing as an agnostic atheist and an agnostic Christian; that would be a Christian who says that they can't prove God's existence or say for sure that he exists at all, but they believe anyway.

Agnostics would consider the statement "God's existence is not knowable" to be true. So it is a belief because they've made a determination on the truth of that statement.

Matt Dillahunty who I'm sure you will have heard of (President of Atheist Community of Austin and host of Atheist Experience) is a pretty good figure to take notes from, given his current and past involvement in so-called 'New Atheism', but Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are examples of figures who also use this definition of atheism. Dawkins has a scale in his book The God Delusion upon which he classifies himself as technically an agnostic atheist because you can't disprove God like you can't disprove fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I'm not using that definition of atheism in the OP.

You're still misframing.

Atheism is the default position prior to a belief-claim being accepted.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 4:35:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:49:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

Baby rape. nuff said.

How nice of the atheist trolls on this forum to give us an insight into their psychology.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:02:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 4:35:49 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:49:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true.

Self-defeating: 'unable, because of its inherent qualities, to achieve the end it is designed to bring about.'

Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true.

Thus, atheism supposes that the truth has more value than non-truth. But to do so would be illogical. Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

So in short, atheism presupposes that 'truth' is an objective ideal in order to value the truth of the statement "God does not exist" more than a non-true statement. In doing so, atheism is self-defeating.

Baby rape. nuff said.

How nice of the atheist trolls on this forum to give us an insight into their psychology.

Some of the religious just love demonstrating their ignorance.
Personally I love it. :)
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 8:23:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 12:05:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Truth value is not any better than non-truth value because ideals (such as valuing truth over non-truth) can't objectively exist without God.

Until you can qualify how and why it can't objectively exist without God, your claim is just so much hot air.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth