Total Posts:123|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An Argument Against Atheism

Checkers
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 4:32:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).

Sure.

If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.

Correct.

If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.

FALSE! ERROR!

One does not need to know all of reality to know things which cannot exist within reality.

For example, I do not know all of reality, but with what I do know I can say with 100% certainty that there does not exist married bachelors, square circles, etc.

So this premise is false.

If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.

1) Omniscience is impossible
2) Due to the previous premise being false this premise doesn't matter.

If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.

Non-sequitur. Why does having the property of omniscience make you God?

If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.

Yes, but this is irrelevant.

Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Completely false.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 4:38:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

thank you for showing that you don't understand what atheism is
atheism is the lack of belief in any deities
atheism is the default position on any and all god claims
for instance do you believe that Odin exists? if not then you are an atheist toward Odin
anti-gnosticism is defined as knowing that no gods exist
there is a difference between belief claims , and knowledge claims

beliefs = opinions
for instance: do you believe it will rain today?
knowledge = facts
do you know that 2 +2 = 4

it is amazing to me how many people confuse these issues
people can be gnostic theists - "i believe that god exists, and i know that god exists"
people can be agnostic theists " i believe that god exists, but i might be wrong"
people can be agnostic atheists" i don't believe that god exists, and i don't know that any gods exist"

what you need to understand is that words change depending on how people use them

for instance do you believe i have an even or odd number of hair on my head?
the answer has to be even or odd (knowledge), but if all you can do is guess then that is a belief claim ( even or odd, or not enough information to choose)
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.
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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 4:58:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).

I wouldn't accept that, you can have have views based on probabilities, Most probably (God) does not exist.

If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.

If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.

If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 5:17:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.
This.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:04:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:38:02 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

thank you for showing that you don't understand what atheism is
atheism is the lack of belief in any deities
atheism is the default position on any and all god claims

There is no rule that makes Atheism a default position. It could just as easily be said that theism is the default position and people must seek out reasons to suspend belief. Would you please stop with your incessant Atheist cliches. They are not some set in stone logical rule set. They are advertisement catch phrases that if you say often enough you can start to believe them. they are B.S. Don;t even respond to this critique just send me the debate challenge "Atheism is the default position" I'll take con.

for instance do you believe that Odin exists? if not then you are an atheist toward Odin

Why are fools, idiots, and Atheist so intent on defining the words as they see fit when they see fit. You just got done saying Atheist is a lack of believe in ANY gods. So how is Odin in the singular case relevant? You are trying to say a Theist is an Atheist to all but one God. That would be a misuse of the way you define Atheism.

anti-gnosticism is defined as knowing that no gods exist

Which despite most Atheist on this site self identifying as Atheist their words and actions seem to strongly point to them in reality being Anti-theist and Anti-gnostic. Why is that? Oh because they are cowards and prefer to make assertions then run away saying something "lack I'm not making any statement just critisizing the theists assertions". If you can't honestly say there may be a God, then aren't an agnostic and what ever you call yourself you are indeed anti-theist. That's lack 90% of the atheist I meet.

there is a difference between belief claims , and knowledge claims

beliefs = opinions

Can you please stop making up definitions and trying to twist everything into a perverted misunderstanding of objective+fact and subjective=opinion B.S!!!!!

objective = not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

subjective = based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

beliefs = an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

Can we please just use what the words really mean and how they are defined in a dictionary. As you can see belief is a statement of acceptance, and knowledge is the acquisition of observations. Neither is inherently subjective or objective. And Either can be opinionated or not.

for instance: do you believe it will rain today?

I believe it will rain because I see storm clouds int he sky. Does that mean my belief is an opinion? Is my belief about the rain based on emotions? Could my belief that it will rain be based on facts, asserted with justifications that call into favor the suspension of doubt? Could that possibly be happening?

knowledge = facts
do you know that 2 +2 = 4

Prove it.


it is amazing to me how many people confuse these issues

It is amazing. It's because the waters have becomes muddied by Atheist hell bent on defending their non-position and supporting their no-Burden of Proof.

people can be gnostic theists - "i believe that god exists, and i know that god exists"

You mean "know" as in they have had experiences or a practical understanding of the subject.

people can be agnostic theists " i believe that god exists, but i might be wrong"

Epistemologically in doubt but with a hopeful faith.

people can be agnostic atheists" i don't believe that god exists, and i don't know that any gods exist"

Oh I see your trick. Instead of negating the subject you choose to negate the verbiage.


what you need to understand is that words change depending on how people use them

You mean when an Atheist uses them.


for instance do you believe i have an even or odd number of hair on my head?
the answer has to be even or odd (knowledge), but if all you can do is guess then that is a belief claim ( even or odd, or not enough information to choose)

No beleif claims do not need to be unfounded guesses. Or opinions. Claims about beleif are just that. Assertions about what a person accepts as true.

Why people accept something as true can be based in knowledge, inference, logic, rational, ect...

or why people accept something as true can be because of inclination, education, taste, ect...

Thanks for making it clear you can't read a dictionary and lack basic reading comprehension but I am sure you are so knowledgeable about reality that you can present solid justifications for suspending belief in God or gods.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:09:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 6:04:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:02 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

thank you for showing that you don't understand what atheism is
atheism is the lack of belief in any deities
atheism is the default position on any and all god claims

There is no rule that makes Atheism a default position. It could just as easily be said that theism is the default position and people must seek out reasons to suspend belief. Would you please stop with your incessant Atheist cliches. They are not some set in stone logical rule set. They are advertisement catch phrases that if you say often enough you can start to believe them. they are B.S. Don;t even respond to this critique just send me the debate challenge "Atheism is the default position" I'll take con.

"Atheism is the default position" I'll take con."

Define atheism there.


for instance do you believe that Odin exists? if not then you are an atheist toward Odin

Why are fools, idiots, and Atheist so intent on defining the words as they see fit when they see fit. You just got done saying Atheist is a lack of believe in ANY gods. So how is Odin in the singular case relevant? You are trying to say a Theist is an Atheist to all but one God. That would be a misuse of the way you define Atheism.

anti-gnosticism is defined as knowing that no gods exist

Which despite most Atheist on this site self identifying as Atheist their words and actions seem to strongly point to them in reality being Anti-theist and Anti-gnostic. Why is that? Oh because they are cowards and prefer to make assertions then run away saying something "lack I'm not making any statement just critisizing the theists assertions". If you can't honestly say there may be a God, then aren't an agnostic and what ever you call yourself you are indeed anti-theist. That's lack 90% of the atheist I meet.

there is a difference between belief claims , and knowledge claims

beliefs = opinions

Can you please stop making up definitions and trying to twist everything into a perverted misunderstanding of objective+fact and subjective=opinion B.S!!!!!

objective = not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

subjective = based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

beliefs = an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

Can we please just use what the words really mean and how they are defined in a dictionary. As you can see belief is a statement of acceptance, and knowledge is the acquisition of observations. Neither is inherently subjective or objective. And Either can be opinionated or not.

for instance: do you believe it will rain today?

I believe it will rain because I see storm clouds int he sky. Does that mean my belief is an opinion? Is my belief about the rain based on emotions? Could my belief that it will rain be based on facts, asserted with justifications that call into favor the suspension of doubt? Could that possibly be happening?

knowledge = facts
do you know that 2 +2 = 4

Prove it.


it is amazing to me how many people confuse these issues

It is amazing. It's because the waters have becomes muddied by Atheist hell bent on defending their non-position and supporting their no-Burden of Proof.

people can be gnostic theists - "i believe that god exists, and i know that god exists"

You mean "know" as in they have had experiences or a practical understanding of the subject.

people can be agnostic theists " i believe that god exists, but i might be wrong"

Epistemologically in doubt but with a hopeful faith.

people can be agnostic atheists" i don't believe that god exists, and i don't know that any gods exist"

Oh I see your trick. Instead of negating the subject you choose to negate the verbiage.


what you need to understand is that words change depending on how people use them

You mean when an Atheist uses them.


for instance do you believe i have an even or odd number of hair on my head?
the answer has to be even or odd (knowledge), but if all you can do is guess then that is a belief claim ( even or odd, or not enough information to choose)

No beleif claims do not need to be unfounded guesses. Or opinions. Claims about beleif are just that. Assertions about what a person accepts as true.

Why people accept something as true can be based in knowledge, inference, logic, rational, ect...

or why people accept something as true can be because of inclination, education, taste, ect...

Thanks for making it clear you can't read a dictionary and lack basic reading comprehension but I am sure you are so knowledgeable about reality that you can present solid justifications for suspending belief in God or gods.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:49:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).

You conflate knowledge with 100% certainty, which is only correct under very narrow definitions of knowledge (such as is used in model epistemology). You would claim to know who your parents are for example, yet it would be a far stretch to say you know that 100%, you could always invent ways that it might not be the case.

If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.

This is not correct either. Also, being able to state what reality behaves like is not equilivelent to knowing the contents of all reality. For example, I can know that gravity still works in your bedroom, even though I have no clue what is inside of it. Knowing everything that is inside your bedroom is irrelevant to the claim that certain things do/do not happen/exist there.

If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Argument fails due to the two aforementioned errors.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 12:26:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.

Lemme fix that one for ya partner...
Believers "cannot" back their claims of God with physical (scientific) evidence (because God is not physical), and without a materialist/atheistic substantiation, I am completely "justified" in accepting a straw man position and rejecting their claims based on the ideology atheism provides for me.
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 2:02:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 12:26:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.

Lemme fix that one for ya partner...
Believers "cannot" back their claims of God with physical (scientific) evidence (because God is not physical), and without a materialist/atheistic substantiation, I am completely "justified" in accepting a straw man position and rejecting their claims based on the ideology atheism provides for me.

Atheism is the rejection of your claim that gods exist.
We reject your claim because you can't provide even a modicum of evidence to support your claim.
As an atheist I issue you a challenge to provide evidence that your particular god exists.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 2:10:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 12:26:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.

Lemme fix that one for ya partner...
Believers "cannot" back their claims of God with physical (scientific) evidence (because God is not physical), and without a materialist/atheistic substantiation,

Thank you for admitting that God is merely a fantasy/delusion in your head.

I am completely "justified" in accepting a straw man position and rejecting their claims based on the ideology atheism provides for me.

What ideology? You have admitted God is not real, hence there is no ideology other than the one you imagine in your head.
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
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 2:18:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 6:04:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:02 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

thank you for showing that you don't understand what atheism is
atheism is the lack of belief in any deities
atheism is the default position on any and all god claims

There is no rule that makes Atheism a default position. It could just as easily be said that theism is the default position and people must seek out reasons to suspend belief. Would you please stop with your incessant Atheist cliches. They are not some set in stone logical rule set. They are advertisement catch phrases that if you say often enough you can start to believe them. they are B.S. Don;t even respond to this critique just send me the debate challenge "Atheism is the default position" I'll take con.

atheism is the default position because in reality most people don't believe something to be true, before they are convinced that it is true
if you are so confident that i am wrong, then why don't you start a debate challenge and accept the burden of proof? just because many people believe in an imaginary friends doesn't mean your imaginary friends actually exists.
if you think i'm wrong, then i want you to pray that i receive proof that your god is real.
i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes.
is your god even capable of revealing itself to me?
if your god isn't capable of convincing me that it exists, then how did your god convince you? or are your standards of evidence that much lower than mine?

for instance do you believe that Odin exists? if not then you are an atheist toward Odin

Why are fools, idiots, and Atheist so intent on defining the words as they see fit when they see fit. You just got done saying Atheist is a lack of believe in ANY gods. So how is Odin in the singular case relevant? You are trying to say a Theist is an Atheist to all but one God. That would be a misuse of the way you define Atheism.

i define words so that people who i am talking to have a better understanding what i'm talking about. most people don't believe in hundreds of gods, Odin, Zues, Baal, etc. atheists go 1 god further. so far every religion has failed to meet their burden of proof to convince me that their gods exist.


anti-gnosticism is defined as knowing that no gods exist

Which despite most Atheist on this site self identifying as Atheist their words and actions seem to strongly point to them in reality being Anti-theist and Anti-gnostic. Why is that? Oh because they are cowards and prefer to make assertions then run away saying something "lack I'm not making any statement just critisizing the theists assertions". If you can't honestly say there may be a God, then aren't an agnostic and what ever you call yourself you are indeed anti-theist. That's lack 90% of the atheist I meet.

there is a difference between belief claims , and knowledge claims

beliefs = opinions

Can you please stop making up definitions and trying to twist everything into a perverted misunderstanding of objective+fact and subjective=opinion B.S!!!!!

objective = not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

subjective = based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

beliefs = an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

Can we please just use what the words really mean and how they are defined in a dictionary. As you can see belief is a statement of acceptance, and knowledge is the acquisition of observations. Neither is inherently subjective or objective. And Either can be opinionated or not.

for instance: do you believe it will rain today?

I believe it will rain because I see storm clouds int he sky. Does that mean my belief is an opinion?

yes it does, i'm glad you are catching on. just because you believe it is going to rain has no effect on whether it will rain or not.

Is my belief about the rain based on emotions?

possibly, if you used the phrase "i hope it does/ doesn't rain" or "i have faith that it will/ won't rain"

Could my belief that it will rain be based on facts, asserted with justifications that call into favor the suspension of doubt? Could that possibly be happening?

yes, but just because your beliefs are based on facts, doesn't mean that your conclusion is actually true. is it so hard for you to accept that you may be wrong?


knowledge = facts
do you know that 2 +2 = 4

Prove it.

hold up 2 fingers ( i assume you know what 2 is?), now hold up 2 more fingers
add them all together and that is the number 4



it is amazing to me how many people confuse these issues

It is amazing. It's because the waters have becomes muddied by Atheist hell bent on defending their non-position and supporting their no-Burden of Proof.

why are so many theists so ashamed of their gods/ and religions that they don't accept the burden of proof as "their cross to bear"?


people can be gnostic theists - "i believe that god exists, and i know that god exists"

You mean "know" as in they have had experiences or a practical understanding of the subject.

people can be agnostic theists " i believe that god exists, but i might be wrong"

Epistemologically in doubt but with a hopeful faith.

people can be agnostic atheists" i don't believe that god exists, and i don't know that any gods exist"

Oh I see your trick. Instead of negating the subject you choose to negate the verbiage.


what you need to understand is that words change depending on how people use them

You mean when an Atheist uses them.

oh you mean like how slavery is used in the bible
or are you saying that slavery in the bible is the same as slavery in american history?
if you don't believe me, then do a search for "slavery in the bible"
the bible talks about where to buy your slaves, how much to pay for them, how much you are allowed to beat your slaves, how you can trick jewish men into being slaves forever.



for instance do you believe i have an even or odd number of hair on my head?
the answer has to be even or odd (knowledge), but if all you can do is guess then that is a belief claim ( even or odd, or not enough information to choose)

No beleif claims do not need to be unfounded guesses. Or opinions. Claims about beleif are just that. Assertions about what a person accepts as true.

Why people accept something as true can be based in knowledge, inference, logic, rational, ect...

or why people accept something as true can be because of inclination, education, taste, ect...

Thanks for making it clear you can't read a dictionary and lack basic reading comprehension but I am sure you are so knowledgeable about reality that you can present solid justifications for suspending belief in God or gods.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,064
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 2:20:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

I love it but some how I don't think it will sway atheists...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 2:40:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 2:20:24 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

I love it but some how I don't think it will sway atheists...

So, you admit to loving false statements and erroneous conclusions? That would explain a lot.
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
graceofgod
Posts: 5,064
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 2:42:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 2:40:09 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/28/2015 2:20:24 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

I love it but some how I don't think it will sway atheists...

So, you admit to loving false statements and erroneous conclusions? That would explain a lot.

I was actually referring more to the fact that atheists wouldn't see any argument against them not believing in a favourable light..

but nice try...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 2:49:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 2:42:54 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/28/2015 2:40:09 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/28/2015 2:20:24 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

I love it but some how I don't think it will sway atheists...

So, you admit to loving false statements and erroneous conclusions? That would explain a lot.

I was actually referring more to the fact that atheists wouldn't see any argument against them not believing in a favourable light..

That isn't true at all, but nice try.

but nice try...
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
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 3:17:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Philosophically there is always some uncertainty about everything. Who knows - perhaps we are just brains in vats after all. Maybe we're just characters in a super-beings game of Sim City. I don't think it is so, but it's theoretically possible.

But I prefer to be called an atheist (not an agnostic) because I consider the possibilty of god existing to negligible, in the literal sense of negligible - i.e. it can be safely ignored.

I don't claim omniscience of infallibility, but I do believe that my disbelief is fully justified in practical terms. It's not a 50-50 issue. It is not even a 99-1 issue. I can't put an actual number on it - I can only say whatever the possibility of god existing is, it is just not worth bothering with.

I will concede to theists a 0.0001 chance God exists (I am feeling generous). Will a theist give me similar odds He doesn't?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 4:31:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 12:26:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.

Lemme fix that one for ya partner...
Believers "cannot" back their claims of God with physical (scientific) evidence (because God is not physical), and without a materialist/atheistic substantiation, I am completely "justified" in accepting a straw man position and rejecting their claims based on the ideology atheism provides for me.

Claims of god cannot be substantiated. Period. If they could, then "faith" would not be needed, now would it? I stand by my original statement.
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
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:13:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 2:18:44 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 6:04:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:02 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:

atheism is the default position because in reality most people don't believe something to be true, before they are convinced that it is true

Just because a lot of people do it does not make it logical. Default positions are used in systems, like the system of law, where it is established by consensus that we should error on the side of innocence. But this consensus could just as easily be the other way. So Atheism as a default position is just what you want to make it. But it's not a precept of logic. It's not even logically derived.

if you are so confident that i am wrong, then why don't you start a debate challenge and accept the burden of proof? just because many people believe in an imaginary friends doesn't mean your imaginary friends actually exists.

I challenged you to the debate first. And you are the way making the assertion "Atheism is the default position". Even in your own Atheist jargon that means you are making a positive claim and therefore should hold the burden of proof. It seems it doesn't matter what the statement is the Atheist will always begin by shifting the burden of proof to the other person. So send me the challenge you pro and me con to the resolution "Atheism is the default position" if you don't you admit it is a cliche of weak minds and such B.S. you should never use again, with anyone.

if you think i'm wrong, then i want you to pray that i receive proof that your god is real.

Not relevant to your assertion. Can you back up your assertions.

i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes.
is your god even capable of revealing itself to me?

How is this relevant. We weren't even talking about God. We were talking about "Atheism being the default position" Whether God exists or not is immaterial to the resolution.

if your god isn't capable of convincing me that it exists, then how did your god convince you? or are your standards of evidence that much lower than mine?

It can be a lot harder to convince an idiot of anything.


i define words so that people who i am talking to have a better understanding what i'm talking about. most people don't believe in hundreds of gods, Odin, Zues, Baal, etc. atheists go 1 god further. so far every religion has failed to meet their burden of proof to convince me that their gods exist.

Your equating God's existence to the knowledge found in a particular religion. Could you explain why you think this is logical to do?



anti-gnosticism is defined as knowing that no gods exist

Which despite most Atheist on this site self identifying as Atheist their words and actions seem to strongly point to them in reality being Anti-theist and Anti-gnostic.
Can we please just use what the words really mean and how they are defined in a dictionary. As you can see belief is a statement of acceptance, and knowledge is the acquisition of observations. Neither is inherently subjective or objective. And Either can be opinionated or not.

for instance: do you believe it will rain today?

I believe it will rain because I see storm clouds int he sky. Does that mean my belief is an opinion?

yes it does, i'm glad you are catching on. just because you believe it is going to rain has no effect on whether it will rain or not.

I see you are still confused. no one is saying an opinion will make anything happen. And an opinion is not always based on emotions. An opinion about how a rocket will fly by a scientist is based on evidence and knowledge. And they can say I think, or I believe the rocket will splash down over here.

Belief is an assertion of accepting something as true. You are injecting what you want those reason to be. But those reason for accepting something as true, can be just as objective and informed as possible.

You simply want belief to be a realm of emotion, conjecture, and imagined. But that is not what the word implies.


Is my belief about the rain based on emotions?

possibly, if you used the phrase "i hope it does/ doesn't rain" or "i have faith that it will/ won't rain"

That's not what I am saying. I look at the scenery and I conjecture "I believe it will rain today". Clearly that assertion, which I will accept as true and begin to roll up my car windows, is not based on emotions. So your premises and understanding are demonstrably flawed.


Could my belief that it will rain be based on facts, asserted with justifications that call into favor the suspension of doubt? Could that possibly be happening?

yes, but just because your beliefs are based on facts, doesn't mean that your conclusion is actually true. is it so hard for you to accept that you may be wrong?

Thank you and now the Atheist comes back to epistemological nihilism. IT IS TRUE FOR ALL the knowledge we have that the what we based in facts could actually still be false. But let's try to stay on target here. For a Theist his burden of proof for the assertion that God exists, is to present the rational justifications (most of them based on facts) that lend weight to suspending doubt about the same claim.

100% proof is only possible in 1st order deductive logical arguments. Things get less sure in reality. So could I be wrong? Yeah. Do you ever think you could be?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:31:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 2:18:44 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 6:04:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:02 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote::

knowledge = facts
do you know that 2 +2 = 4

Prove it.

hold up 2 fingers ( i assume you know what 2 is?), now hold up 2 more fingers
add them all together and that is the number 4

Those are fingers not "2". In the original equation you presented "2" was an entity. But in the finger exercise "2" is a description of how many fingers.

Because of my experiences of objects I know when I have the same number of something then I have doubled my overall amount. What experience do you have with the abstract entity "2"?

The Math is a description of actual events. 2 apples plus 2 apples equal 4 apples. 2 horses plus 2 horses equal 4 horses. This same pattern was seen time and time again. So an extrapolation of the relevant variables gave us "2+2=4"

But just because your conclusions are based in fact does not make it true. Those are your own words are they not?

So when I asked for proof I was asking for the logical objective universally accepted proof that 2+2=4 ALWAYS TRUE.

Such a proof is not possible without a set of axioms. A set of rules assumed to be true. Because accepting as false affirms their truthfulness.




it is amazing to me how many people confuse these issues

It is amazing. It's because the waters have becomes muddied by Atheist hell bent on defending their non-position and supporting their no-Burden of Proof.

why are so many theists so ashamed of their gods/ and religions that they don't accept the burden of proof as "their cross to bear"?

I do accept my cross. But before we get into me presenting my justifications WHY DON'T YOU present first. You have the BoP that:

1. Atheism is the default position
2. God's existence is predicated on a specific religions knowledge of God. (my criticism is couldn't God exist with no religion being accurate about God?)
3. 2+2=4

We can go down this list easily. Just send me a debate challenge on 1. with you being pro and having BoP. It would be unusual to see an Atheist actually defend the Bull $h!t they say.



people can be gnostic theists - "i believe that god exists, and i know that god exists"

You mean "know" as in they have had experiences or a practical understanding of the subject.

people can be agnostic theists " i believe that god exists, but i might be wrong"

Epistemologically in doubt but with a hopeful faith.

people can be agnostic atheists" i don't believe that god exists, and i don't know that any gods exist"

Oh I see your trick. Instead of negating the subject you choose to negate the verbiage.


what you need to understand is that words change depending on how people use them

You mean when an Atheist uses them.

oh you mean like how slavery is used in the bible
or are you saying that slavery in the bible is the same as slavery in american history?
if you don't believe me, then do a search for "slavery in the bible"
the bible talks about where to buy your slaves, how much to pay for them, how much you are allowed to beat your slaves, how you can trick jewish men into being slaves forever.

No the Bible has slavery in it. And it was a different kind of slavery than chattel slavery in America. the word still means the same in all instances "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." The overtones of generational slavery and brutal beatings is an injection on your part.

Slavery in the bible was the making of a person legal property of another forced to obey a master. Do you understand that the conditions and practice of different kinds of slavery have been practiced all over the world? And that there are institutions that still use a slave system (Military for example.)

So no. the word "slavery" means the same thing in both cases. And that's why the word is used. But read the definition, what ever else in way of cruel punishments you add to it is your mistake.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:48:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 6:13:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 2:18:44 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 6:04:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:02 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:

atheism is the default position because in reality most people don't believe something to be true, before they are convinced that it is true

Just because a lot of people do it does not make it logical. Default positions are used in systems, like the system of law, where it is established by consensus that we should error on the side of innocence. But this consensus could just as easily be the other way. So Atheism as a default position is just what you want to make it. But it's not a precept of logic. It's not even logically derived.

can you give me 1 example (other than religion) where you believe something to be true, before you are convinced that it is true?

I challenged you to the debate first. And you are the way making the assertion "Atheism is the default position". Even in your own Atheist jargon that means you are making a positive claim and therefore should hold the burden of proof. It seems it doesn't matter what the statement is the Atheist will always begin by shifting the burden of proof to the other person. So send me the challenge you pro and me con to the resolution "Atheism is the default position" if you don't you admit it is a cliche of weak minds and such B.S. you should never use again, with anyone.

that's easy because i know that i'm right, but i accept that i could be wrong
so if you think i am wrong, then give me a convincing reason to change my mind

if you think i'm wrong, then i want you to pray that i receive proof that your god is real.

Not relevant to your assertion. Can you back up your assertions.

yes i could, but i think it would be a waste of time since i think you are here to argue rather than have a conversation


i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes.
is your god even capable of revealing itself to me?

How is this relevant. We weren't even talking about God. We were talking about "Atheism being the default position" Whether God exists or not is immaterial to the resolution.

thank you for proving my point, if your god isn't capable of convincing me then either your god doesn't exist or your god doesn't want me to know that it exists
either way atheism is my only option
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 6:55:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 4:31:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 12:26:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.

Lemme fix that one for ya partner...
Believers "cannot" back their claims of God with physical (scientific) evidence (because God is not physical), and without a materialist/atheistic substantiation, I am completely "justified" in accepting a straw man position and rejecting their claims based on the ideology atheism provides for me.

Claims of god cannot be substantiated. Period. If they could, then "faith" would not be needed, now would it? I stand by my original statement.

Claims of God of course can be substantiated what are you talking about?? You mean substantiated according to what your ideology calls "evidence", yes I knew that.
And another strawman because faith is not belief in the existence of God, faith is confidence in God, faith cannot even be considered unless you know God exists lol, read Hebrews 11..... and verse 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I stand by my correction of your statement, you feel justified accepting strawmen and an ideology that leads to falsity.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 7:45:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 6:55:02 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:31:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 12:26:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.

Lemme fix that one for ya partner...
Believers "cannot" back their claims of God with physical (scientific) evidence (because God is not physical), and without a materialist/atheistic substantiation, I am completely "justified" in accepting a straw man position and rejecting their claims based on the ideology atheism provides for me.

Claims of god cannot be substantiated. Period. If they could, then "faith" would not be needed, now would it? I stand by my original statement.

Claims of God of course can be substantiated what are you talking about?? You mean substantiated according to what your ideology calls "evidence", yes I knew that.
And another strawman because faith is not belief in the existence of God, faith is confidence in God, faith cannot even be considered unless you know God exists lol, read Hebrews 11..... and verse 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I stand by my correction of your statement, you feel justified accepting strawmen and an ideology that leads to falsity.

If we're being rational, then claims must be substantiated or they can be dismissed. The claim "God exists" is not substantiated with objective evidence (i.e. something not based on opinion). The Bible records the claims for the existence of God from antiquity, and, unless we're willing to rely on circular arguments, cannot be the evidence as well. Not to mention, the Bible has so many flaws - anachronisms, additions, scientific absurdities, ignorance, etc. - that to think it is the inspired work of a being with the characteristics it claims is nonsensical. In other words, it makes no sense to think a perfect being wrote such an imperfect work.
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
Jbmelk
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 8:18:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hey, writer of this forum, you are an IDIOT. I am atheist because I know there is no god. There is no god or deity because I know that there was and is evolution. There is not a mythical creature named god or jesus who can make everything happen in their mind. If there was a god, then how come there are terrorists executing people for not believing in a mythical god. How do you know what gender your so called god is. Maybe your god is a goddess, not a god? You are stupid. I am an atheist because I know there is no proof that I cannot argue and rebut against. I am a mortal, non omniscient human being, because there are no deities or gods. See you never and go get a brain through neurosurgery, because your god cannot give you one. Stupid.
The Republican Atheist. Go be human.
Jbmelk
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 8:19:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And also, I forgot to add that I do not know all of reality, stupid.
The Republican Atheist. Go be human.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 9:05:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 7:45:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 6:55:02 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:31:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 12:26:15 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:45:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:
And only against atheism. All you agnostics are fine here.

Basically, this shows that atheism is self-defeating.

Okay, let's hear it!

Here it is:

If you are an atheist, you claim to know that God does not exist (otherwise you would not be sure God existed and you would be an agnostic).
If you claim to know God does not exist, you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality.
If you claim to know God does not exist anywhere in reality, you claim to know all of reality.
If you claim to know all of reality, you claim you are omniscient.
If you claim you are omniscient, you claim you are God.
If you claim you are God, you claim God exists.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, you claim God exists.

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.

Lemme fix that one for ya partner...
Believers "cannot" back their claims of God with physical (scientific) evidence (because God is not physical), and without a materialist/atheistic substantiation, I am completely "justified" in accepting a straw man position and rejecting their claims based on the ideology atheism provides for me.

Claims of god cannot be substantiated. Period. If they could, then "faith" would not be needed, now would it? I stand by my original statement.

Claims of God of course can be substantiated what are you talking about?? You mean substantiated according to what your ideology calls "evidence", yes I knew that.
And another strawman because faith is not belief in the existence of God, faith is confidence in God, faith cannot even be considered unless you know God exists lol, read Hebrews 11..... and verse 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I stand by my correction of your statement, you feel justified accepting strawmen and an ideology that leads to falsity.

If we're being rational, then claims must be substantiated or they can be dismissed. The claim "God exists" is not substantiated with objective evidence (i.e. something not based on opinion). The Bible records the claims for the existence of God from antiquity, and, unless we're willing to rely on circular arguments, cannot be the evidence as well. Not to mention, the Bible has so many flaws - anachronisms, additions, scientific absurdities, ignorance, etc. - that to think it is the inspired work of a being with the characteristics it claims is nonsensical. In other words, it makes no sense to think a perfect being wrote such an imperfect work.

Of course the atheist always assumes theism is not rational, why? It's not rational when you adopt an atheistic ideology of course but why is this word always thrown around like atheism is rational? or your atheistic views are somehow more rational?

You repeated a straw man anyway but just for fun let's look at the definition...
Objective Evidence is physical evidence that someone, when reviewing an audit report, can inspect and evaluate for themselves. It provides compelling evidence that the review or audit was actually performed as indicated, and that the criteria for the audit/review was upheld.

What are you applying this to? Be specific like maybe with an example of what you want here...
Because as I've been saying, spirituality is an application that can be applied and evaluated through principle, in that sense this would absolutely apply but what you really mean is that some scientist hasn't put forth substantial evidence for a Creator for you, well I got news for you, that isn't gonna happen and that is not what science is for so why don't you consider other alternatives?
You repeated another thing as if I never said it, claims for God CAN be substantiated, there are other forms of knowledge besides material evidence. Other forms are considered because of the nature of material vs spirit. That is why we have to turn to logic, reason and theories to help assist non believers with inquiries when they refuse to apply spirituality and see what transpires. But atheists constantly present strawmen that they refuse to move, most likely because they don't want to, not because they truly understand.

It wouldn't matter what the Bible recorded about the existence of God, that is great but that is not why I believe in God or a spiritual existence. So your claim of "antiquity" is yet another straw man Skeptic...
Who said the Bible must be perfect? Why do you compare it with scientific data? It's a spiritual book not a science book.
Who said God wrote it? Inspiration and authorship are not the same...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 9:22:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 9:05:11 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Because as I've been saying, spirituality is an application that can be applied and evaluated through principle,

What principle?

in that sense this would absolutely apply but what you really mean is that some scientist hasn't put forth substantial evidence for a Creator for you, well I got news for you, that isn't gonna happen and that is not what science is for so why don't you consider other alternatives?

There are no other alternatives. If something exists, then science can deal with it. You are simply confirming your God doesn't exist.

You repeated another thing as if I never said it, claims for God CAN be substantiated, there are other forms of knowledge besides material evidence.

Such as what?

Other forms are considered because of the nature of material vs spirit.

You mean real vs. imaginary, existing vs. not existing.

That is why we have to turn to logic, reason and theories to help assist non believers with inquiries when they refuse to apply spirituality and see what transpires.

You have never use logic or reason, ever. You can't apply spirituality if you have yet to even explain what that is.

But atheists constantly present strawmen that they refuse to move, most likely because they don't want to, not because they truly understand.

Now, you're just lying.

It wouldn't matter what the Bible recorded about the existence of God, that is great but that is not why I believe in God or a spiritual existence.

Yes, it is, that along with your hilarious claim that you talk to God.

So your claim of "antiquity" is yet another straw man Skeptic...
Who said the Bible must be perfect? Why do you compare it with scientific data? It's a spiritual book not a science book.

It's just a book with many irrational claims that are indistinguishable from myths and superstitions.

Who said God wrote it? Inspiration and authorship are not the same...

Admitting that men wrote the Bible only serves to show there is no evidence for God.
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
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2015 11:08:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 6:48:11 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 6:13:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 2:18:44 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 6:04:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 11/28/2015 4:38:02 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/28/2015 3:37:37 AM, Checkers wrote:

atheism is the default position because in reality most people don't believe something to be true, before they are convinced that it is true

Just because a lot of people do it does not make it logical. Default positions are used in systems, like the system of law, where it is established by consensus that we should error on the side of innocence. But this consensus could just as easily be the other way. So Atheism as a default position is just what you want to make it. But it's not a precept of logic. It's not even logically derived.

can you give me 1 example (other than religion) where you believe something to be true, before you are convinced that it is true?

You were at some point in your life very accepting of things. Accepting almost everything your parents and teachers told you. You believed atoms look like little solar systems of particles, that ice is slippery because the top layer melts to water, that your government is here to protect you, ect..


I challenged you to the debate first. And you are the way making the assertion "Atheism is the default position". Even in your own Atheist jargon that means you are making a positive claim and therefore should hold the burden of proof. It seems it doesn't matter what the statement is the Atheist will always begin by shifting the burden of proof to the other person. So send me the challenge you pro and me con to the resolution "Atheism is the default position" if you don't you admit it is a cliche of weak minds and such B.S. you should never use again, with anyone.

that's easy because i know that i'm right, but i accept that i could be wrong
so if you think i am wrong, then give me a convincing reason to change my mind

right about what?


if you think i'm wrong, then i want you to pray that i receive proof that your god is real.

Not relevant to your assertion. Can you back up your assertions.

yes i could, but i think it would be a waste of time since i think you are here to argue rather than have a conversation

right like every atheist on this forum refusing to back up your assertions. Your just here to sling crap and not have a discussion.



i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes.
is your god even capable of revealing itself to me?

How is this relevant. We weren't even talking about God. We were talking about "Atheism being the default position" Whether God exists or not is immaterial to the resolution.

thank you for proving my point, if your god isn't capable of convincing me then either your god doesn't exist or your god doesn't want me to know that it exists
either way atheism is my only option

That doesn't logically follow. Whether God can or can not convince you is irrelevant to if Atheism is the default position. What are the logical reasons for making Atheism the position prior to any experiences?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 2:24:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/28/2015 9:05:11 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Believers cannot back their claims of God, and without substantiation, I am completely justified in rejecting their claims. Your argument misses the mark.

Lemme fix that one for ya partner...
Believers "cannot" back their claims of God with physical (scientific) evidence (because God is not physical), and without a materialist/atheistic substantiation, I am completely "justified" in accepting a straw man position and rejecting their claims based on the ideology atheism provides for me.

Claims of god cannot be substantiated. Period. If they could, then "faith" would not be needed, now would it? I stand by my original statement.

Claims of God of course can be substantiated what are you talking about?? You mean substantiated according to what your ideology calls "evidence", yes I knew that.
And another strawman because faith is not belief in the existence of God, faith is confidence in God, faith cannot even be considered unless you know God exists lol, read Hebrews 11..... and verse 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I stand by my correction of your statement, you feel justified accepting strawmen and an ideology that leads to falsity.

If we're being rational, then claims must be substantiated or they can be dismissed. The claim "God exists" is not substantiated with objective evidence (i.e. something not based on opinion). The Bible records the claims for the existence of God from antiquity, and, unless we're willing to rely on circular arguments, cannot be the evidence as well. Not to mention, the Bible has so many flaws - anachronisms, additions, scientific absurdities, ignorance, etc. - that to think it is the inspired work of a being with the characteristics it claims is nonsensical. In other words, it makes no sense to think a perfect being wrote such an imperfect work.

Of course the atheist always assumes theism is not rational, why? It's not rational when you adopt an atheistic ideology of course but why is this word always thrown around like atheism is rational? or your atheistic views are somehow more rational?

I spoke of how claims come to be accepted reasonably, and nothing about the rationality of theism. That is you jumping to conclusions on my behalf. Also, there is no 'atheistic ideology', at least not that I am aware. I used to be a theist, and when that changed I didn't suddenly adopt some default 'atheistic' way of looking at the world. My views, with exception to my belief in gods, were/are pretty much the same. The only difference between then and now is that I now completely avoid superstition, pseudoscience, and BS (where they are obvious) since they typically submit ignorance as knowledge.

You repeated a straw man anyway but just for fun let's look at the definition...
Objective Evidence is physical evidence that someone, when reviewing an audit report, can inspect and evaluate for themselves. It provides compelling evidence that the review or audit was actually performed as indicated, and that the criteria for the audit/review was upheld.

Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Objective evidence - facts or information, not influenced by personal feeling or opinions, indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Apparently, you plugged "objective evidence" into Google and took the first thing that popped up. However, we're not talking accounting principles so it should be obvious that is not what I am advocating. I'm having serious doubts about how productive this conversation may be if you are unwilling to honestly consider my position.

Because as I've been saying, spirituality is an application that can be applied and evaluated through principle, in that sense this would absolutely apply but what you really mean is that some scientist hasn't put forth substantial evidence for a Creator for you, well I got news for you, that isn't gonna happen and that is not what science is for so why don't you consider other alternatives?

As soon as someone show they can do something with spirituality, besides claim they have it or use it to back other claims, I will consider it as an alternative. Until then, I will consider it to be a nebulous concept used to advocate for spurious and valid concepts alike.

You repeated another thing as if I never said it, claims for God CAN be substantiated, there are other forms of knowledge besides material evidence. Other forms are considered because of the nature of material vs spirit. That is why we have to turn to logic, reason and theories to help assist non believers with inquiries when they refuse to apply spirituality and see what transpires. But atheists constantly present strawmen that they refuse to move, most likely because they don't want to, not because they truly understand.

I will repeat it again if need be - you, nor anyone else, has ever provided valid evidence for God. You claim God can be substantiated, but your substantiation (spirit) is in need of substantiation itself.

It wouldn't matter what the Bible recorded about the existence of God, that is great but that is not why I believe in God or a spiritual existence. So your claim of "antiquity" is yet another straw man Skeptic...

No, that is factual unless "Bible 2.0 with all new authors!" has been released without my knowledge. ;-)

Who said the Bible must be perfect? Why do you compare it with scientific data? It's a spiritual book not a science book.
Who said God wrote it? Inspiration and authorship are not the same...

A perfect (competent) being would not allow falsity to be presented in his name. Even imperfect beings (us) resist false information being attributed to them.
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