Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Invalid reasons for disbelief in God.

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 12:44:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

Okay, so those reasons are invalid, why?
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
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 12:50:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:44:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

Okay, so those reasons are invalid, why?

Compare the reasoning to the truth of the conclusion. Do you dispute all of them?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 1:30:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:50:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:44:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

Okay, so those reasons are invalid, why?

Compare the reasoning to the truth of the conclusion. Do you dispute all of them?

So, you actually have no reasons at all. You want us to come up with reasons?
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
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:11:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 1:30:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:50:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:44:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

Okay, so those reasons are invalid, why?

Compare the reasoning to the truth of the conclusion. Do you dispute all of them?

So, you actually have no reasons at all. You want us to come up with reasons?

Pick any of the arguments that you believe are not invalid and I'll defend my conclusion.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:15:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:11:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 1:30:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:50:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:44:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

Okay, so those reasons are invalid, why?

Compare the reasoning to the truth of the conclusion. Do you dispute all of them?

So, you actually have no reasons at all. You want us to come up with reasons?

Pick any of the arguments that you believe are not invalid and I'll defend my conclusion.

The thread says "Invalid reasons for disbelief in God" yet there are no reasons here. Another pointless, useless thread.
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
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:40:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:15:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:11:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 1:30:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:50:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:44:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

Okay, so those reasons are invalid, why?

Compare the reasoning to the truth of the conclusion. Do you dispute all of them?

So, you actually have no reasons at all. You want us to come up with reasons?

Pick any of the arguments that you believe are not invalid and I'll defend my conclusion.

The thread says "Invalid reasons for disbelief in God" yet there are no reasons here. Another pointless, useless thread.

The reasons are listed right above in premise-conclusion format. Whether or not they are unsound is a different dispute. Are you disputing that or not?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:49:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Are there any valid reasons not to believe in God? Because you seem to be confusing specific testable claims about God with a God that can be neither proven nor disproven.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 2:56:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:49:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Are there any valid reasons not to believe in God?

Non-belief yes, disbelief no.

Because you seem to be confusing specific testable claims about God with a God that can be neither proven nor disproven.

That's my point. If atheists use this rationale for disbelief it's invalid reasoning.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:18:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist. : :

Isn't it easier to say some people believe in God and some people don't believe in God and some people actually knew God and spoke and wrote for Him?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:19:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:56:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:49:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Are there any valid reasons not to believe in God?

Non-belief yes, disbelief no.

Because you seem to be confusing specific testable claims about God with a God that can be neither proven nor disproven.

That's my point. If atheists use this rationale for disbelief it's invalid reasoning.

Ben is going to insist once again that simply not believing in his god is the same as disbelief, which it functionally is but philosophically is not. I reject your assertions, Ben, as do many of the non-believers here. You have yet to prove anything except that you will use any kind of word play and trickery to defend your indefensible position.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:21:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

I take it you mean unsound arguments, rather than invalid, given that some are patently logically valid (your argument from evil takes the form of modus ponens, for example).

As for your claim, I doubt any sophisticated atheist is going to be using any variant of the last two arguments. They seem like straw-men. Of the rest, I doubt you'd be able to show a significant problem with a proper version of the argument from evil, but you're welcome to try.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:27:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1) God has been used to explain many unknowns in our universe.
P2) We have found natural causes for many of those unknowns.
P3) We have not confirmed the cause of the other unknowns.
C1) The unknowns that now have a confirmed answer have a naturalistic answer.
C2) It is more likely that the other unknowns will also have a naturalistic answer.
C3) It is unlikely that god is an answer for any of the unknowns.

(I know I am forgetting at least one premises, but I cannot remember what it is right now)

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1) Something has to be internally and externally coherent in order to exist.
P2) Religion X's god is not internally or externally coherent.
C) Religion X's god does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

A) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
P1) If there is evil in the world, then God doesn't exist.
P2) There is evil in the world.
C) God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1) There is no objective evidence for god.
P2) Belief is unjustified unless there is objective evidence.
C) Belief in god is unjustified.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1) People with a higher IQ tend to believe correct things.
P2) Religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists.
C1) People with a higher IQ tend to be atheists.
C2) It is probable that god doesn't exist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:28:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 2:56:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:49:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Are there any valid reasons not to believe in God?

Non-belief yes, disbelief no.

Horse Puckey. There are plenty of reasons to disbelieve in the gods posited by various religions. Some of those reasons are misrepresented in your syllogisms, but seeing as how you generally don't respond to my posts -I don't want to waste the time on it

Because you seem to be confusing specific testable claims about God with a God that can be neither proven nor disproven.

That's my point. If atheists use this rationale for disbelief it's invalid reasoning.

I can completely reject a god of a particular religion, and be agnostic (disbelief) to the concept of god in general outside of religion.
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
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:36:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 3:19:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:56:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:49:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Are there any valid reasons not to believe in God?

Non-belief yes, disbelief no.

Because you seem to be confusing specific testable claims about God with a God that can be neither proven nor disproven.

That's my point. If atheists use this rationale for disbelief it's invalid reasoning.

Ben is going to insist once again that simply not believing in his god is the same as disbelief, which it functionally is but philosophically is not.

I'm not insisting that. Non-belief is not the same as disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't entail disbelief.

I reject your assertions, Ben, as do many of the non-believers here. You have yet to prove anything except that you will use any kind of word play and trickery to defend your indefensible position.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 3:59:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 3:36:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:19:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:56:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:49:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Are there any valid reasons not to believe in God?

Non-belief yes, disbelief no.

Because you seem to be confusing specific testable claims about God with a God that can be neither proven nor disproven.

That's my point. If atheists use this rationale for disbelief it's invalid reasoning.

Ben is going to insist once again that simply not believing in his god is the same as disbelief, which it functionally is but philosophically is not.

I'm not insisting that. Non-belief is not the same as disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't entail disbelief.

I reject your assertions, Ben, as do many of the non-believers here. You have yet to prove anything except that you will use any kind of word play and trickery to defend your indefensible position.

Thanks for admitting that but I once again reiterate that they are functionally identical in that a non-believer and a disbeliever will act is if there no god or gods. One might be more vocal than the other or hold a much more concrete viewpoint but their actions will be virtually indistinguishable, all other things being equal.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 4:31:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Invalid reasons for belief in God

P1. My parents loved me.
P2. My parents believe in God.
P3. There is a god.

P1. I don't understand how the universe works.
P2. If I believe in God, I don't need to understand it.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm not sure what morality is, but I'm anxious about getting it wrong.
P2. Religion tells me stridently what morality is, and ascribes it all to the authority of God.
C. There is a god.

P1. I don't trust people unlike myself.
P2. People who believe in my God are just like me.
C. There is a god.

P1. I don't like reading books.
P2. If I believe in God, I only need to read the one.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm scared of shadows
P2. If I believe in God, I can pray instead of fret.
C. There is a god.

P1. I feel unready to be an adult.
P2. Religion treats me like a child.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm unconfident in myself.
P2. Religion treats me as becoming magnificent.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm envious of the privilege of others.
P2. Religion bestows great privilege on me in the afterlife.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm lonely and socially awkward.
P2. Religious people all make me feel welcome.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm scared of disease, age, and dying.
P2. Religion says not to worry about that.
C. There is a god.

P1. The world is sometimes very beautiful.
P2. If I believe in God, then that beauty is all just for me.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm angry at the hurts done to me, but feel powerless to remedy them.
P2. Religion says God will sort it all out later.
C. There is a god.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 4:34:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

I have never seen this actually used as an argument. This is disingenuous.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

THAT god doesn't exist. And it's valid argumentation, because what it actually shows is that THAT god is man-made...

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

I've never agreed with this argument, but it is, indeed used. You got one right.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is nothing invalid about this.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

This is not an argument against a deity. Again, you are disingenuous.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

This is simply absurd. Big surprise... <eyeroll>
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 4:36:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 3:21:52 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

I take it you mean unsound arguments, rather than invalid, given that some are patently logically valid (your argument from evil takes the form of modus ponens, for example).

Correct.

As for your claim, I doubt any sophisticated atheist is going to be using any variant of the last two arguments. They seem like straw-men. Of the rest, I doubt you'd be able to show a significant problem with a proper version of the argument from evil, but you're welcome to try.

The problem of evil wouldn't disqualify any basic definition of God. Even if we were to consider the Christian God I don't see how the problem of evil is necessarily incompatible with omnibenevolence and omniscience if people have free will. The definition of "omniscience" is also under dispute.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 4:57:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 3:27:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1) God has been used to explain many unknowns in our universe.
P2) We have found natural causes for many of those unknowns.
P3) We have not confirmed the cause of the other unknowns.
C1) The unknowns that now have a confirmed answer have a naturalistic answer.
C2) It is more likely that the other unknowns will also have a naturalistic answer.
C3) It is unlikely that god is an answer for any of the unknowns.

It depends on if belief in God *was dependent upon* explaining unknowns. Using God to explain unknowns is ignorance and is not a properly held belief.

(I know I am forgetting at least one premises, but I cannot remember what it is right now)

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1) Something has to be internally and externally coherent in order to exist.
P2) Religion X's god is not internally or externally coherent.
C) Religion X's god does not exist.

Correct, but this would only entail that that *specific God* and not "God" in any general sense of the word doesn't exist.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

A) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
P1) If there is evil in the world, then God doesn't exist.
P2) There is evil in the world.
C) God doesn't exist.

I don't see a logical contradiction. Free will is an inherent good. You'd need to compare a perfect world with no free beings vs. a world with free beings that is imperfect in order to determine which is more benevolent.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1) There is no objective evidence for god.
P2) Belief is unjustified unless there is objective evidence.
C) Belief in god is unjustified.

Is it unjustified to believe in mathematics? Colors? Truth?

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1) People with a higher IQ tend to believe correct things.
P2) Religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists.
C1) People with a higher IQ tend to be atheists.
C2) It is probable that god doesn't exist.

IQ is the variable that correlates with the likelihood of some truth. "IQ" is a quantitative measure of intelligence. This means that anyone with an IQ of 185 is objectively more likely to determine some truth than a person with an IQ of 184 would. The highest IQ that is currently known is a theist. Therefore it is most probable that God does exist if we use IQ to determine the likelihood of some truth. Do you agree with this? Personally I don't, but this is the inevitable conclusion if you want to run with the IQ argument.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 5:08:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 4:57:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 3:27:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1) Something has to be internally and externally coherent in order to exist.
P2) Religion X's god is not internally or externally coherent.
C) Religion X's god does not exist.

Correct, but this would only entail that that *specific God* and not "God" in any general sense of the word doesn't exist.

Correct, but furthermore:
P1) Many god's have been proposed to exist.
P2) Many of those proposed god's do not exist.
P3) More and more proposed gods are being shown to not exist.
C) It is increasingly unlikely that any god exists.

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

A) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
P1) If there is evil in the world, then God doesn't exist.
P2) There is evil in the world.
C) God doesn't exist.

I don't see a logical contradiction. Free will is an inherent good. You'd need to compare a perfect world with no free beings vs. a world with free beings that is imperfect in order to determine which is more benevolent.

We then run into other factors:
1) Can an omnipotent god create a world without evil that maintains free will?
2) Is free will the ultimate good?

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1) There is no objective evidence for god.
P2) Belief is unjustified unless there is objective evidence.
C) Belief in god is unjustified.

Is it unjustified to believe in mathematics? Colors? Truth?

I guess it depends on how you define objective evidence.
Belief in mathematics is justifiable through rationalism (you keep making the mistake that atheists are pure empiricists).
Belief in colors can be justifiable depending on how you define colors.
Also, how do you define truth?

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

P1) People with a higher IQ tend to believe correct things.
P2) Religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists.
C1) People with a higher IQ tend to be atheists.
C2) It is probable that god doesn't exist.

IQ is the variable that correlates with the likelihood of some truth. "IQ" is a quantitative measure of intelligence. This means that anyone with an IQ of 185 is objectively more likely to determine some truth than a person with an IQ of 184 would. The highest IQ that is currently known is a theist. Therefore it is most probable that God does exist if we use IQ to determine the likelihood of some truth. Do you agree with this? Personally I don't, but this is the inevitable conclusion if you want to run with the IQ argument.

I didn't say IS, I said TENDS TO. This means that you cannot go based off the single most highest IQ, but based off the TREND. It also doesn't determine what is correct, but what probably has the most evidence going for it.

The TREND is that higher IQ means less belief in god.
That means that it is LIKELY that atheism is more supported than theism.

This argument is also not one to be used in intellectual discussions. This argument is used purely to justify your belief if you are not interested in discussion (the common layman).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 5:14:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 4:57:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The highest IQ that is currently known is a theist.

No, Terence Tao is not a theist.
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
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 5:39:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You don't actually need a reason to reject a religious claim. The religious need better reasons to advance their claims than those I previously listed.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 5:50:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 4:34:55 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

I have never seen this actually used as an argument. This is disingenuous.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

THAT god doesn't exist. And it's valid argumentation, because what it actually shows is that THAT god is man-made...

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

I've never agreed with this argument, but it is, indeed used. You got one right.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is nothing invalid about this.

It is invalid because an entities existence is not contingent on a population having evidence of it.

Pluto existed before evidence of pluto was observed.

So maybe you mean disbelieve is valid without objective evidence, well objective evidence is no more than concensus about the argument that explains the presence of the evidence. Affirming disbelieve upon a lack of confirming evidence is an argument from ignorance. But even still an entities assumed existence is not strictly adhered to objective evidence.

There is still no evidence for dark energy. If it existed it would nicely explain the accelerated expansion of the universe.

So People even scientist are apt to believe in things or certain presuppositions without evidence.

Conclusion is doubt does confirm an antithesis. That's logic.


P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

This is not an argument against a deity. Again, you are disingenuous.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

This is simply absurd. Big surprise... <eyeroll>
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 6:08:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 5:50:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/9/2015 4:34:55 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

I have never seen this actually used as an argument. This is disingenuous.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

THAT god doesn't exist. And it's valid argumentation, because what it actually shows is that THAT god is man-made...

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

I've never agreed with this argument, but it is, indeed used. You got one right.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is nothing invalid about this.

It is invalid because an entities existence is not contingent on a population having evidence of it.

You're right that existence is not contingent on it. Acknowledgement of its existence, however, is.

Pluto existed before evidence of pluto was observed.

But was the claim that it existed made before evidence was observed? Was there an absolute, adamant assertion that someone KNEW it existence made before observing its evidence? Was anyone provided with a list of do's and don't's imposed upon any population based on a claim of its existence? Did anyone ever claim to speak on behalf of Pluto, prior to observing the evidence? Did any church ever torture, kill, and wage war in the name of Pluto before such evidence was observed? No.

So maybe you mean disbelieve is valid without objective evidence, well objective evidence is no more than concensus about the argument that explains the presence of the evidence.

Yes, I mean disbelieve, and no "objective evidence" is FAR more than "concensus" about the argument. Observable, testable, falsifiable evidence requires far more than "consensus," my friend.

Affirming disbelieve upon a lack of confirming evidence is an argument from ignorance.

No, it's rejection born of skepticism.

But even still an entities assumed existence is not strictly adhered to objective evidence.

No, not always. The Mayan culture's disappearance still left traces of their existence. Even so, what we have come to believe of them is still based on FAR more evidence than the belief in any deity.

There is still no evidence for dark energy. If it existed it would nicely explain the accelerated expansion of the universe.

There is no hard evidence, no. Neither is adamantly asserted. Even those that have accepted it still speak of it in theoretical terms. It does, however, mathematically answer some questions. It is still under investigation.

So People even scientist are apt to believe in things or certain presuppositions without evidence.

But not when there is directly contradictory evidence to something claimed.

Conclusion is doubt does confirm an antithesis. That's logic.

What?!

P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

This is not an argument against a deity. Again, you are disingenuous.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

This is simply absurd. Big surprise... <eyeroll>
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 6:24:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 6:08:40 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 4/9/2015 5:50:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/9/2015 4:34:55 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

I have never seen this actually used as an argument. This is disingenuous.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

THAT god doesn't exist. And it's valid argumentation, because what it actually shows is that THAT god is man-made...

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

I've never agreed with this argument, but it is, indeed used. You got one right.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is nothing invalid about this.

It is invalid because an entities existence is not contingent on a population having evidence of it.

You're right that existence is not contingent on it. Acknowledgement of its existence, however, is.

Pluto existed before evidence of pluto was observed.

But was the claim that it existed made before evidence was observed? Was there an absolute, adamant assertion that someone KNEW it existence made before observing its evidence? Was anyone provided with a list of do's and don't's imposed upon any population based on a claim of its existence? Did anyone ever claim to speak on behalf of Pluto, prior to observing the evidence? Did any church ever torture, kill, and wage war in the name of Pluto before such evidence was observed? No.


So maybe you mean disbelieve is valid without objective evidence, well objective evidence is no more than concensus about the argument that explains the presence of the evidence.

Yes, I mean disbelieve, and no "objective evidence" is FAR more than "concensus" about the argument. Observable, testable, falsifiable evidence requires far more than "consensus," my friend.


Affirming disbelieve upon a lack of confirming evidence is an argument from ignorance.

No, it's rejection born of skepticism.

But even still an entities assumed existence is not strictly adhered to objective evidence.

No, not always. The Mayan culture's disappearance still left traces of their existence. Even so, what we have come to believe of them is still based on FAR more evidence than the belief in any deity.

There is still no evidence for dark energy. If it existed it would nicely explain the accelerated expansion of the universe.

There is no hard evidence, no. Neither is adamantly asserted. Even those that have accepted it still speak of it in theoretical terms. It does, however, mathematically answer some questions. It is still under investigation.

So People even scientist are apt to believe in things or certain presuppositions without evidence.

But not when there is directly contradictory evidence to something claimed.

Conclusion is doubt does confirm an antithesis. That's logic.

What?!

Typing on my phone. That should read: doubt about a claim does not confirm the antithesis of a claim. Logic 101

You said nothing was invalid about the argument. That is wrong. It's conclusion does not logically follow from the premises at all.

I don't think it even has a valid form. But it is an unsound illogical argument. So say oops


P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

This is not an argument against a deity. Again, you are disingenuous.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

This is simply absurd. Big surprise... <eyeroll>
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 7:07:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 6:24:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/9/2015 6:08:40 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 4/9/2015 5:50:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/9/2015 4:34:55 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: Theists have used God to explain inexplicable scientific problems
P2: Inexplicable scientific problems have eventually been explained naturally
P3: Whatever was previously used to explain inexplicable problems doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

I have never seen this actually used as an argument. This is disingenuous.

P1: (X) religion is logically contradictory about God.
P2. If a religion is logically contradictory about God, God doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

THAT god doesn't exist. And it's valid argumentation, because what it actually shows is that THAT god is man-made...

P1. If there is evil in the world, God doesn't exist.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C: God doesn't exist.

I've never agreed with this argument, but it is, indeed used. You got one right.

P1: There is no objective evidence of God.
P2: whatever has no objective evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is nothing invalid about this.

It is invalid because an entities existence is not contingent on a population having evidence of it.

You're right that existence is not contingent on it. Acknowledgement of its existence, however, is.

Pluto existed before evidence of pluto was observed.

But was the claim that it existed made before evidence was observed? Was there an absolute, adamant assertion that someone KNEW it existence made before observing its evidence? Was anyone provided with a list of do's and don't's imposed upon any population based on a claim of its existence? Did anyone ever claim to speak on behalf of Pluto, prior to observing the evidence? Did any church ever torture, kill, and wage war in the name of Pluto before such evidence was observed? No.


So maybe you mean disbelieve is valid without objective evidence, well objective evidence is no more than concensus about the argument that explains the presence of the evidence.

Yes, I mean disbelieve, and no "objective evidence" is FAR more than "concensus" about the argument. Observable, testable, falsifiable evidence requires far more than "consensus," my friend.


Affirming disbelieve upon a lack of confirming evidence is an argument from ignorance.

No, it's rejection born of skepticism.

But even still an entities assumed existence is not strictly adhered to objective evidence.

No, not always. The Mayan culture's disappearance still left traces of their existence. Even so, what we have come to believe of them is still based on FAR more evidence than the belief in any deity.

There is still no evidence for dark energy. If it existed it would nicely explain the accelerated expansion of the universe.

There is no hard evidence, no. Neither is adamantly asserted. Even those that have accepted it still speak of it in theoretical terms. It does, however, mathematically answer some questions. It is still under investigation.

So People even scientist are apt to believe in things or certain presuppositions without evidence.

But not when there is directly contradictory evidence to something claimed.

Conclusion is doubt does confirm an antithesis. That's logic.

What?!

Typing on my phone. That should read: doubt about a claim does not confirm the antithesis of a claim. Logic 101

That does, indeed, make more sense than your first attempt... LOL! And you're right, it doesn't. However, doubt about a claim and rejection of it will be the default position until and unless evidence to support a claim is presented.

You said nothing was invalid about the argument. That is wrong. It's conclusion does not logically follow from the premises at all.

Oh, but it does. If a claim is made without evidence, it can be rejected without evidence. Rejection is not necessarily confirmation of the claim's falsehood, but rejection of the claim is valid until evidence is presented. If I claim to be an astrophysicist (which I am not), and you doubt it, your doubt is valid, and the default position, until I present some form of evidence for such credentials. The position that something doesn't exist that is CLAIMED to exist (as gods are claimed) is the SPECIFIC point, here. God is claimed. There is no evidence to support it. Until that evidence is presented, it does not exist, as far as I am willing to acknowledge. Anything that is not claimed does not require rejection. Anything that is claimed requires evidence, in order to be accepted.

I don't think it even has a valid form. But it is an unsound illogical argument. So say oops

Nope. It is sound because the existence has been claimed. It has been claimed and left unsupported by anything valid. If it was something that had not been claimed/asserted, that would be one thing. Your example of Pluto is a good example. Was it claimed prior to discovery of evidence? That which has no evidence is generally not claimed to exist. Something only requires evidence after someone claims that it exists. If I claimed that there was such a thing as a "schmickendriffle" gave you a description of this supreme thing, described "schmickendriffle's" personality, desires, powers, properties, and right to impose behavior upon you, would you not ask me for evidence that "schmickendriffle" even exists? Until I claim that it exists, the default position is that it does not exist. That for which there is zero evidence does not exist.

Gravity provides us with evidence.
Wind provides us with evidence.
Electricity provides us with evidence.
Magnetism provides us with evidence.

No CLAIMED deity ever has. Show my ANY other thing that exists, for which there is ZERO evidence... Dark matter? Perhaps, but it is not being asserted, is it? It is being SPECULATED. Now say, "Sorry," to the schmickendriffle.


P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

This is not an argument against a deity. Again, you are disingenuous.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

This is simply absurd. Big surprise... <eyeroll>
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 7:26:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 5:50:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

It is invalid because an entities existence is not contingent on a population having evidence of it.

Pluto existed before evidence of pluto was observed.

That is a fallacy. Were there 2 billion people on the planet who adamantly believed Pluto existed before it was observed?

So maybe you mean disbelieve is valid without objective evidence, well objective evidence is no more than concensus about the argument that explains the presence of the evidence. Affirming disbelieve upon a lack of confirming evidence is an argument from ignorance. But even still an entities assumed existence is not strictly adhered to objective evidence.

There is still no evidence for dark energy. If it existed it would nicely explain the accelerated expansion of the universe.

The accelerated expansion of the universe IS the evidence.

So People even scientist are apt to believe in things or certain presuppositions without evidence.

Conclusion is doubt does confirm an antithesis. That's logic.


P1: religiosity correlates with a lower IQ on average compared to atheists
P2: whatever position is held with higher average IQ is true.
C: God does not exist.

This is not an argument against a deity. Again, you are disingenuous.

P1: I don't like the idea of God existing
P2: whatever idea I don't like musn't exist.
C: God doesn't exist.

This is simply absurd. Big surprise... <eyeroll>
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
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 8:26:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 3:28:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:56:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2015 2:49:39 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 12:13:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Are there any valid reasons not to believe in God?

Non-belief yes, disbelief no.

Horse Puckey. There are plenty of reasons to disbelieve in the gods posited by various religions. Some of those reasons are misrepresented in your syllogisms, but seeing as how you generally don't respond to my posts -I don't want to waste the time on it

"God" is an all-encompassing term. There are reasons to disbelieve in various gods that've been said to exist throughout history but this doesn't validate disbelief in God.

Because you seem to be confusing specific testable claims about God with a God that can be neither proven nor disproven.

That's my point. If atheists use this rationale for disbelief it's invalid reasoning.

I can completely reject a god of a particular religion, and be agnostic (disbelief) to the concept of god in general outside of religion.

You can be agnostic about it but I'm not sure why you put disbelief in parenthesis next to that.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 8:28:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 4:31:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Invalid reasons for belief in God

P1. My parents loved me.
P2. My parents believe in God.
P3. There is a god.

P1. I don't understand how the universe works.
P2. If I believe in God, I don't need to understand it.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm not sure what morality is, but I'm anxious about getting it wrong.
P2. Religion tells me stridently what morality is, and ascribes it all to the authority of God.
C. There is a god.

P1. I don't trust people unlike myself.
P2. People who believe in my God are just like me.
C. There is a god.

P1. I don't like reading books.
P2. If I believe in God, I only need to read the one.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm scared of shadows
P2. If I believe in God, I can pray instead of fret.
C. There is a god.

P1. I feel unready to be an adult.
P2. Religion treats me like a child.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm unconfident in myself.
P2. Religion treats me as becoming magnificent.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm envious of the privilege of others.
P2. Religion bestows great privilege on me in the afterlife.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm lonely and socially awkward.
P2. Religious people all make me feel welcome.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm scared of disease, age, and dying.
P2. Religion says not to worry about that.
C. There is a god.

P1. The world is sometimes very beautiful.
P2. If I believe in God, then that beauty is all just for me.
C. There is a god.

P1. I'm angry at the hurts done to me, but feel powerless to remedy them.
P2. Religion says God will sort it all out later.
C. There is a god.

I agree. All invalid.