Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Common misconceptions surrounding atheism

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 8:30:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First I'll define atheism as the position that God (a transcendent being responsible for creating the universe and existence) doesn't exist. I'm not attacking atheism defined as "lack of belief in God" because under that definition it is ontologically synonymous with agnosticism.

The first problem lies with justification. Why is it warranted to believe that God doesn't exist? Many atheists say that 'lack of evidence' is justifiable grounds to believe that God doesn't exist. But is lack of evidence a reason to believe that God - let alone anything - doesn't exist? Here are some examples:

I have no evidence that alien life exists. If I said that alien life exists, and had no evidence backing the claim, would you conclude that 'alien life does not exist'? Or if I said "a man named Shungsoni lives in China" and had no evidence to back my claim would you conclude that a man named Shungsoni *does not* live in China? If I said that there was a dead body on the summit of Mt. Everest deep under the snow but had no evidence backing my claim would you conclude that there is *not* a dead body there? As you can see, I can make you believe that many things aren't true or don't exist just from lack of evidence.

If someone asserts that 'X' exists and has no evidence, the claim is negated. The negation of a belief is agnosticism or "lack of belief and disbelief". If someone says that not accepting (but not rejecting) the claim "God exists" makes you an atheist, then that definition of atheist means lack of belief AND lack of disbelief. More information is needed to reject the claim as untrue or to accept the claim as true.

So unless one has evidence that God doesn't exist, assuming a position that God doesn't exist based on lack of evidence isn't justified.

The second problem that many atheists have is the belief that God no longer has any explanatory power because natural processes already explain everything. For example people may have believed that lightning strikes were zapped into existence by the finger of Zeus. Once scientific explanations of lightning were available there was no reason to believe that Zeus was responsible. In the same way many atheists believe that God is a means to explain natural phenomena and since everything or nearly everything is explained by natural processes themselves, God has no explanatory power.

If God was defined as "that which explains the unexplained" then this line of reasoning from atheists would have merit. Many who believe in God DO implicitly believe that God is defined this way - but their reasoning is fallacious. Under no definition of God will you find the word defined in this way. It's an error in reasoning on the part of anyone who believes God is defined in the way.

The first half of the problem is believing that God is the explanatory power for whatever explains the unexplained and the second half of the problem is believing that natural phenomena provides us with explanations for why something occurs. I'll focus on the second half of the problem now.

I'll illustrate my point with an example of a laptop. We can observe that the various parts of a laptop have certain functions. The screen, battery, motherboard, keyboard, graphics chip, etc. We can study how all of these various functions work. If we learn how all of these various functions work does this mean that the laptop wasn't a product of intelligent design? Of course not. If knowing *how* something worked removed the need for a designer, then we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, learn how it worked, and conclude that no designer for that object exists.

In the same way, many atheists make the mistake of believing that natural processes act as a sufficient explanation for why they exist. To believe that knowing how something works removes the need for explaining why it's there is fallacious. Another point is that anything that has a certain function or anything that is a means towards an end must be the product of intelligent design. For in order to be a means towards an end it must result from a source of intentionality and knowledge. Obviously, something that requires knowledge and intentionality also requires that the source was conscious.

If atheism is true, everything that exists is inherently not a means towards any end because there isn't a source of consciousness necessarily required for anything to be a means towards an end. This means that anything, your brain, heart, stomach, the water cycle, ozone layer, etc. etc. is inherently not a means towards any end. There is absolutely no reason as to why it exists and there isn't any specific function that it carries out. Your heart and the ozone layer are equal in the purpose that they serve. Any product of a mindless process doesn't exist as a means towards an end because it's impossible for it to do so.

So in summary, anyone who believes God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence is unjustified in holding that position. Anyone who defines atheism as a lack of belief in God must simultaneously lack disbelief in God - AKA the ontology of agnosticism.

Nowhere is God defined as "the explanatory power to explain the unexplained". Anyone who uses this line of reasoning is fallacious. Scientific discoveries of phenomena that had previously been unexplained has 0 impact on the explanatory power for God's existence.

Understanding how something works doesn't remove the need for an intelligent designer in the same way understanding how any designed object works removes the need for the designer of that object.

If something is a means towards an end, it must have an intelligent designer because anything that is means towards any end requires input of intent and knowledge. If the heart exists for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body it is a means towards an end. If atheism is true everything is inherently not a means towards any end. This means that the water cycle is equally there for circulating oxygenated blood throughout our body as our heart is. In other words, there is no means towards any end for any natural process or for the products resulting from any natural process if atheism is true.

Thanks for reading.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:06:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's a list of things man could not "prove exist" in the past.

1)A sphere shaped Earth
2)Atoms
3)Bacteria
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 10:01:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 8:30:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
First I'll define atheism as the position that God (a transcendent being responsible for creating the universe and existence) doesn't exist. I'm not attacking atheism defined as "lack of belief in God" because under that definition it is ontologically synonymous with agnosticism.

The first problem lies with justification. Why is it warranted to believe that God doesn't exist? Many atheists say that 'lack of evidence' is justifiable grounds to believe that God doesn't exist. But is lack of evidence a reason to believe that God - let alone anything - doesn't exist? Here are some examples:

I have no evidence that alien life exists. If I said that alien life exists, and had no evidence backing the claim, would you conclude that 'alien life does not exist'? Or if I said "a man named Shungsoni lives in China" and had no evidence to back my claim would you conclude that a man named Shungsoni *does not* live in China? If I said that there was a dead body on the summit of Mt. Everest deep under the snow but had no evidence backing my claim would you conclude that there is *not* a dead body there? As you can see, I can make you believe that many things aren't true or don't exist just from lack of evidence.

If someone asserts that 'X' exists and has no evidence, the claim is negated. The negation of a belief is agnosticism or "lack of belief and disbelief". If someone says that not accepting (but not rejecting) the claim "God exists" makes you an atheist, then that definition of atheist means lack of belief AND lack of disbelief. More information is needed to reject the claim as untrue or to accept the claim as true.

So unless one has evidence that God doesn't exist, assuming a position that God doesn't exist based on lack of evidence isn't justified.

The second problem that many atheists have is the belief that God no longer has any explanatory power because natural processes already explain everything. For example people may have believed that lightning strikes were zapped into existence by the finger of Zeus. Once scientific explanations of lightning were available there was no reason to believe that Zeus was responsible. In the same way many atheists believe that God is a means to explain natural phenomena and since everything or nearly everything is explained by natural processes themselves, God has no explanatory power.

If God was defined as "that which explains the unexplained" then this line of reasoning from atheists would have merit. Many who believe in God DO implicitly believe that God is defined this way - but their reasoning is fallacious. Under no definition of God will you find the word defined in this way. It's an error in reasoning on the part of anyone who believes God is defined in the way.

The first half of the problem is believing that God is the explanatory power for whatever explains the unexplained and the second half of the problem is believing that natural phenomena provides us with explanations for why something occurs. I'll focus on the second half of the problem now.

I'll illustrate my point with an example of a laptop. We can observe that the various parts of a laptop have certain functions. The screen, battery, motherboard, keyboard, graphics chip, etc. We can study how all of these various functions work. If we learn how all of these various functions work does this mean that the laptop wasn't a product of intelligent design? Of course not. If knowing *how* something worked removed the need for a designer, then we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, learn how it worked, and conclude that no designer for that object exists.

In the same way, many atheists make the mistake of believing that natural processes act as a sufficient explanation for why they exist. To believe that knowing how something works removes the need for explaining why it's there is fallacious. Another point is that anything that has a certain function or anything that is a means towards an end must be the product of intelligent design. For in order to be a means towards an end it must result from a source of intentionality and knowledge. Obviously, something that requires knowledge and intentionality also requires that the source was conscious.

If atheism is true, everything that exists is inherently not a means towards any end because there isn't a source of consciousness necessarily required for anything to be a means towards an end. This means that anything, your brain, heart, stomach, the water cycle, ozone layer, etc. etc. is inherently not a means towards any end. There is absolutely no reason as to why it exists and there isn't any specific function that it carries out. Your heart and the ozone layer are equal in the purpose that they serve. Any product of a mindless process doesn't exist as a means towards an end because it's impossible for it to do so.

Just because an outcome exists absent a prior goal in mind doesn't mean therefore it exists without a reason/s.


So in summary, anyone who believes God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence is unjustified in holding that position. Anyone who defines atheism as a lack of belief in God must simultaneously lack disbelief in God - AKA the ontology of agnosticism.

Nowhere is God defined as "the explanatory power to explain the unexplained". Anyone who uses this line of reasoning is fallacious. Scientific discoveries of phenomena that had previously been unexplained has 0 impact on the explanatory power for God's existence.

Understanding how something works doesn't remove the need for an intelligent designer in the same way understanding how any designed object works removes the need for the designer of that object.

If something is a means towards an end, it must have an intelligent designer because anything that is means towards any end requires input of intent and knowledge. If the heart exists for circulating oxygenated blood throughout the body it is a means towards an end. If atheism is true everything is inherently not a means towards any end. This means that the water cycle is equally there for circulating oxygenated blood throughout our body as our heart is. In other words, there is no means towards any end for any natural process or for the products resulting from any natural process if atheism is true.

Thanks for reading.

Every time I hear about eyes, heart being a "means to an end" I ask the same question and get the same response which clearly shows the person didn't really think it through..........

What is the means to the end of the parasite that blinds a child ?

What is the "purpose" of the Ebola virus ?

PS: Medieval Christianity called, it wants it's argument for intelligent design back.
"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
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 3:46:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 8:30:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
First I'll define atheism as the position that God (a transcendent being responsible for creating the universe and existence) doesn't exist. I'm not attacking atheism defined as "lack of belief in God" because under that definition it is ontologically synonymous with agnosticism.

The definition of agnostic that I have seen is and go by is:
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." (Oxford), or as per the original meaning of the word, " one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" (http://www.etymonline.com...). In the US, the popular use of this word has been altered to mean one who is undecided because the vast majority of the US is religious.

The first problem lies with justification. Why is it warranted to believe that God doesn't exist? Many atheists say that 'lack of evidence' is justifiable grounds to believe that God doesn't exist. But is lack of evidence a reason to believe that God - let alone anything - doesn't exist? Here are some examples:

1. Depending on the definition of God that is forwarded by the claimant, it can be dismissed out of hand if the definition contains one or more contradictions (a) with itself as an analytic proposition or (b) with the observations and knowledge of the world. This applies to all differing claims of God separately.

2. From a position of agnosticism (as per above), a being that is said to exist outside our ability to perceive it makes it ultimately unknowable. If a claimant presents the assertion that *some* God exists, then the claimant's assertion can be dismissed unless it can be demonstrated *how* this knowledge of God has been obtained.

I have no evidence that alien life exists. If I said that alien life exists, and had no evidence backing the claim, would you conclude that 'alien life does not exist'? <snipped> As you can see, I can make you believe that many things aren't true or don't exist just from lack of evidence.

This primary difference here is that all of the examples that you have provided are known to be possible: we know that life can exist here, so why could it not exist somewhere else? The other two need no explanation about this. How could it be known if the existence of God is even possible? If one claims that "it is possible for a God to exists", with what knowledge is this claim being made?

If someone asserts that 'X' exists and has no evidence, the claim is negated. The negation of a belief is agnosticism or "lack of belief and disbelief". If someone says that not accepting (but not rejecting) the claim "God exists" makes you an atheist, then that definition of atheist means lack of belief AND lack of disbelief. More information is needed to reject the claim as untrue or to accept the claim as true.

This may be a definitional conflict between us. Since I consider agnostic differently from you, I define atheism as a believe that God doesn't exist or a lack of belief in a God. Either way. If I want to be specific, I may call someone who believes that God doesn't exist an antitheist, but people who have such a strong belief generally have that belief towards specific notions of God, such as the Abrahamic God.

So unless one has evidence that God doesn't exist, assuming a position that God doesn't exist based on lack of evidence isn't justified.

See above points.

The second problem that many atheists have is the belief that God no longer has any explanatory power because natural processes already explain everything. For example people may have believed that lightning strikes were zapped into existence by the finger of Zeus. <snipped>

Science and naturalistic explanations do not disprove God. The significance of your example with the lightning is the demonstration of human tendency to attribute unexplained or unexplainable phenomenon to a God or other invisible force or being. For instance, some adopt a belief that an object possesses "luck" if an unexplainable, novel event occurs, because the human mind is driven to formulate or rationalize an explanation. The multitude of now-disproven religious beliefs (such as your example) provides good evidence that even our currently held beliefs is a reflection of our natural tendency to formulate and embrace explanations that appear rational to us, without correlating with reality. In short (too late, I know), humans are driven to seek answers more than they are driven to seek the truth.

If God was defined as "that which explains the unexplained" then this line of reasoning from atheists would have merit. Many who believe in God DO implicitly believe that God is defined this way - but their reasoning is fallacious. Under no definition of God will you find the word defined in this way. It's an error in reasoning on the part of anyone who believes God is defined in the way.

The first half of the problem is believing that God is the explanatory power for whatever explains the unexplained and the second half of the problem is believing that natural phenomena provides us with explanations for why something occurs. I'll focus on the second half of the problem now.

I'll illustrate my point with an example of a laptop. <snipped example>.

(1) In the same way, many atheists make the mistake of believing that natural processes act as a sufficient explanation for why they exist.
(2) To believe that knowing how something works removes the need for explaining why it's there is fallacious.
(3) Another point is that anything that has a certain function or anything that is a means towards an end must be the product of intelligent design. For in order to be a means towards an end it must result from a source of intentionality and knowledge. Obviously, something that requires knowledge and intentionality also requires that the source was conscious.

(1) See my previous reply.
(2) You use "why" as if everything is assumed to have a purpose, which is presumptuous.
(3) I don't agree with this. The heart appears to have a specific function, but that doesn't mean that the task and the task-doer requires intent. As per our previous conversation about the unintelligent processes of evolution, the heart (and other organs) are the result of a mindless process, and the idea of a "purpose" is introduced by the observing mind, as is the concept of a means towards an ends. For instance, a river's "purpose" is not to flow, but rather, the flow is just the result of natural forces (i.e. gravity) affecting matter (i.e. water).

If atheism is true, everything that exists is inherently not a means towards any end because there isn't a source of consciousness necessarily required for anything to be a means towards an end. <snipped> Any product of a mindless process doesn't exist as a means towards an end because it's impossible for it to do so.

Well, I think addressing this to atheism, specifically, is overreaching. There are people who believe that a general "spirit-world", or whatever, drives the happenings of the natural world with volition. This really addresses existential nihilism or naturalism.

So in summary, anyone who believes God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence is unjustified in holding that position. Anyone who defines atheism as a lack of belief in God must simultaneously lack disbelief in God - AKA the ontology of agnosticism.

I have a contention to this: evidence is in the existence of extraordinary explanation as an aspect of human nature, as explained above.

Nowhere is God defined as "the explanatory power to explain the unexplained"...
<snipped>
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 3:53:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I tell someone that there's an invisible leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and that he will grant wishes if you ask him in just the right way, is there any reason to believe it?

If you tell me there's some invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that created the world and the entire universe but there's no way to demonstrate it with facts, is there any reason to believe it?
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 4:12:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:06:42 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Here's a list of things man could not "prove exist" in the past.

1)A sphere shaped Earth
2)Atoms
3)Bacteria

Do you remember how thunder, lightening and volcanoes went?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 4:28:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 3:53:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
If I tell someone that there's an invisible leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and that he will grant wishes if you ask him in just the right way, is there any reason to believe it?

Is that your claim or not? Because if it's not than it is not applicable here.

If you tell me there's some invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that created the world and the entire universe but there's no way to demonstrate it with facts, is there any reason to believe it?

I've said this elsewhere, when you reduce others beliefs to what you feel are absurdities it is an insult to their intelligence and in turn only shows what you are willing to spend much of your time discussing and debating, which make you inadvertently a loser.
This is the problem Hardage, these examples aren't comparable because a Creator is not an absurd concept like a little fairy in your garage. However if you'd like to support your dragon claim, we are all ears but this is the wrong forum.

If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 4:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 4:28:31 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:53:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
If I tell someone that there's an invisible leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and that he will grant wishes if you ask him in just the right way, is there any reason to believe it?

Is that your claim or not? Because if it's not than it is not applicable here.

Trying to make a point that you're simply trying to ignore. If such a claim is made, would you just believe it without some kind of corroboration?

If you tell me there's some invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that created the world and the entire universe but there's no way to demonstrate it with facts, is there any reason to believe it?

I've said this elsewhere, when you reduce others beliefs to what you feel are absurdities it is an insult to their intelligence and in turn only shows what you are willing to spend much of your time discussing and debating, which make you inadvertently a loser.

Once again, you ignore the point. You make a claim and just expect it to be believed without any real reason. It's not about feeling something is absurd, it's that there exists no corroboration of the claim. It's a conclusion.

This is the problem Hardage, these examples aren't comparable because a Creator is not an absurd concept like a little fairy in your garage. However if you'd like to support your dragon claim, we are all ears but this is the wrong forum.

At last you see the issue. You would demand support of a claim that is extraordinary and yet you can't see that your claim of a supernatural invisible being is extraordinary and would require corroboration if it were anything but your God. It's a form of special pleading that you are making and it's not a valid reason to accept your assertion.

If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality.

No, it's based on reality and the lack of real evidence.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 5:07:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 4:35:37 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:28:31 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:53:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
If I tell someone that there's an invisible leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and that he will grant wishes if you ask him in just the right way, is there any reason to believe it?

Is that your claim or not? Because if it's not than it is not applicable here.

Trying to make a point that you're simply trying to ignore. If such a claim is made, would you just believe it without some kind of corroboration?

And you are ignoring the point that it is an irrelevant comparison, if I have to explain to you why any further you might as well go debate another topic.

If you tell me there's some invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that created the world and the entire universe but there's no way to demonstrate it with facts, is there any reason to believe it?

I've said this elsewhere, when you reduce others beliefs to what you feel are absurdities it is an insult to their intelligence and in turn only shows what you are willing to spend much of your time discussing and debating, which make you inadvertently a loser.

Once again, you ignore the point. You make a claim and just expect it to be believed without any real reason. It's not about feeling something is absurd, it's that there exists no corroboration of the claim. It's a conclusion.

What claim? when did I make a claim and when did I just expect you to just believe something? I'm saying people have reasons and good logical support to believe in a Creator, whereas your your example is absurd 1. you don't actually believe it (which makes it irrelevant) and two, it is absurd. I have asked you to do nothing absurd or have tried to force you to believe anything absurd, have I? I have only conversed with you and showed you my position and why I believe it.

This is the problem Hardage, these examples aren't comparable because a Creator is not an absurd concept like a little fairy in your garage. However if you'd like to support your dragon claim, we are all ears but this is the wrong forum.

At last you see the issue. You would demand support of a claim that is extraordinary and yet you can't see that your claim of a supernatural invisible being is extraordinary and would require corroboration if it were anything but your God. It's a form of special pleading that you are making and it's not a valid reason to accept your assertion.

Neither one of us believes in leprechauns, I've never once told you to believe in anything I say just because, I have communicated with you rationally have I not? If I have done what you are implying show me please?

If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality.

No, it's based on reality and the lack of real evidence.

What is? be specific...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 5:44:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 5:07:05 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:35:37 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:28:31 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:53:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
If I tell someone that there's an invisible leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and that he will grant wishes if you ask him in just the right way, is there any reason to believe it?

Is that your claim or not? Because if it's not than it is not applicable here.

Trying to make a point that you're simply trying to ignore. If such a claim is made, would you just believe it without some kind of corroboration?

And you are ignoring the point that it is an irrelevant comparison, if I have to explain to you why any further you might as well go debate another topic.

Can't answer a simple yes or no question? Really?

If you tell me there's some invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that created the world and the entire universe but there's no way to demonstrate it with facts, is there any reason to believe it?

I've said this elsewhere, when you reduce others beliefs to what you feel are absurdities it is an insult to their intelligence and in turn only shows what you are willing to spend much of your time discussing and debating, which make you inadvertently a loser.

Once again, you ignore the point. You make a claim and just expect it to be believed without any real reason. It's not about feeling something is absurd, it's that there exists no corroboration of the claim. It's a conclusion.

What claim? when did I make a claim and when did I just expect you to just believe something?

Every time you claim your God exists. Every time you argue for its existence. You have yet to offer a single objective, testable fact to support it.

I'm saying people have reasons and good logical support to believe in a Creator,

Then please demonstrate these reasons and show me how they are logical if they have no factual underpinning.

whereas your your example is absurd 1. you don't actually believe it (which makes it irrelevant) and two, it is absurd.

It is no more absurd than claiming something you cannot see, hear, sense, detect, or in any way demonstrate exists and supposedly had the power to create the universe.

I have asked you to do nothing absurd or have tried to force you to believe anything absurd, have I? I have only conversed with you and showed you my position and why I believe it.

You've made a fantastic claim you cannot support and want me to believe it. That's absurd.

This is the problem Hardage, these examples aren't comparable because a Creator is not an absurd concept like a little fairy in your garage.

First, it's a leprechaun in my back yard. At least remember with whom you are speaking. Second, it is no more absurd than you claim that your deity exists. You cannot see beyond your own preconceptions to be objective enough to admit that.

However if you'd like to support your dragon claim, we are all ears but this is the wrong forum.

I have as much evidence for my claim as you have for yours. Show me something you have that I don't to support your God claim and we will have a discussion.

At last you see the issue. You would demand support of a claim that is extraordinary and yet you can't see that your claim of a supernatural invisible being is extraordinary and would require corroboration if it were anything but your God. It's a form of special pleading that you are making and it's not a valid reason to accept your assertion.

Neither one of us believes in leprechauns, I've never once told you to believe in anything I say just because, I have communicated with you rationally have I not? If I have done what you are implying show me please?

You have claimed that your God exists. You are here to try and convince people that is true. If not, why are you on a debate forum about religion? As far as communicating rationally, that would involve exchange of valid information and admitting the possibility that you could be wrong. You have yet to provide and valid information to support your stance and you have never said "I could be wrong." so no, you have not been rational.

If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality.

No, it's based on reality and the lack of real evidence.

What is? be specific...

Really? You're going to be that intentionally obtuse? Ok. You said, "If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality." My assertion that there are no viable reasons to believe in your God or any other is a conclusion based completely in reality and the absolute absence of any factual, testable evidence to support it.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:18:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 8:30:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Thanks for reading.

First off, you're assuming there is a "mean to an end", when in reality, there could be no such thing. Also, I could claim that there revolves, around the sun, an invisible teapot, and no technology we have can detect it. Tell me, if I am to reject your claim, do I have to provide evidence? Or must you provide evidence for your claim? Also keep in mind that necessity does not imply actuality: the need for something to exist doesn't mean that the thing actually exists. The only way to verify that the thing exists is to find empirical data that supports its existence. Also, if there is a god, how could we determine which god it is? Vishnu, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Shango, or one of the many different deities that exist.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:19:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:06:42 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Here's a list of things man could not "prove exist" in the past.

1)A sphere shaped Earth
2)Atoms
3)Bacteria

But we proved them empirically: how exactly can we empirically prove god? And those were scientific hypotheses: for they were falsifiable. How could we falsify the existence of god?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:27:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 5:44:02 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 5:07:05 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:35:37 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/30/2015 4:28:31 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/30/2015 3:53:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
If I tell someone that there's an invisible leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and that he will grant wishes if you ask him in just the right way, is there any reason to believe it?

Is that your claim or not? Because if it's not than it is not applicable here.

Trying to make a point that you're simply trying to ignore. If such a claim is made, would you just believe it without some kind of corroboration?

And you are ignoring the point that it is an irrelevant comparison, if I have to explain to you why any further you might as well go debate another topic.

Can't answer a simple yes or no question? Really?

If you think there are reasons to believe in leprechauns present them otherwise shush. You made the claim not me.
I've given you an explanation as to why it is a poor example, you are trying to force me to conform to your strawman. I will answer yes or no to what is applicable.

If you tell me there's some invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that created the world and the entire universe but there's no way to demonstrate it with facts, is there any reason to believe it?

I've said this elsewhere, when you reduce others beliefs to what you feel are absurdities it is an insult to their intelligence and in turn only shows what you are willing to spend much of your time discussing and debating, which make you inadvertently a loser.

Once again, you ignore the point. You make a claim and just expect it to be believed without any real reason. It's not about feeling something is absurd, it's that there exists no corroboration of the claim. It's a conclusion.

What claim? when did I make a claim and when did I just expect you to just believe something?

Every time you claim your God exists. Every time you argue for its existence. You have yet to offer a single objective, testable fact to support it.

An when did I claim God exists and tell everyone to just believe it lol? Your last statement is a strawman and untrue. Every time I get on this site I'm offering something objective, my beliefs are not based on personal feeling or opinions.

I'm saying people have reasons and good logical support to believe in a Creator,

Then please demonstrate these reasons and show me how they are logical if they have no factual underpinning.

Create a topic and you will get answers from Theists. Do you really expect me to pack all that in here? there are many reasons and I'm sure everyone can speak for themselves. Who says there is no factual underpinning
underpinning- a set of ideas, motives, or devices that justify or form the basis for something:
Factual-concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it.

Yes Theism has all of that.

whereas your your example is absurd 1. you don't actually believe it (which makes it irrelevant) and two, it is absurd.

It is no more absurd than claiming something you cannot see, hear, sense, detect, or in any way demonstrate exists and supposedly had the power to create the universe.

Yes is it more absurd, it may not be to an atheist because that is your own perception. You view God as an absurdity.
Those traits you listed are irrelevant to the concept of a Creator and does not make it an absurdity. God is Spirit and on a normal basis spirits go undetected, but that does not mean there is no way to relate on a spiritual level, only a material one.
The concept of a Creator is not absurd, that is an atheistic opinion, you're trying to force a point that is just not there, sorry.


I have asked you to do nothing absurd or have tried to force you to believe anything absurd, have I? I have only conversed with you and showed you my position and why I believe it.

You've made a fantastic claim you cannot support and want me to believe it. That's absurd.

When and where?

This is the problem Hardage, these examples aren't comparable because a Creator is not an absurd concept like a little fairy in your garage.

First, it's a leprechaun in my back yard. At least remember with whom you are speaking. Second, it is no more absurd than you claim that your deity exists. You cannot see beyond your own preconceptions to be objective enough to admit that.

With all the nonsense and ignorance going around they begin to blend together, however my sentiments are thew same because it goes the same with both examples, it is stupidity.
So I cannot see beyond my own perceptions because I won't accept that believing in leprechauns is the same as believing in God lol? you are twisted son.

However if you'd like to support your dragon claim, we are all ears but this is the wrong forum.

I have as much evidence for my claim as you have for yours. Show me something you have that I don't to support your God claim and we will have a discussion.

I have reason, logic, application, observation, experience, references, spiritual encounters, philosophical and theoretical support, spiritual leaders, scripture, literature ect ect....
If you are going to make your case about leprechauns then do so and stop talking, you are the one making positive claims, not me.


At last you see the issue. You would demand support of a claim that is extraordinary and yet you can't see that your claim of a supernatural invisible being is extraordinary and would require corroboration if it were anything but your God. It's a form of special pleading that you are making and it's not a valid reason to accept your assertion.

Neither one of us believes in leprechauns, I've never once told you to believe in anything I say just because, I have communicated with you rationally have I not? If I have done what you are implying show me please?

You have claimed that your God exists. You are here to try and convince people that is true. If not, why are you on a debate forum about religion? As far as communicating rationally, that would involve exchange of valid information and admitting the possibility that you could be wrong. You have yet to provide and valid information to support your stance and you have never said "I could be wrong." so no, you have not been rational.

Where in the world did this come from?? Also you are a hypocrite, in the underlined, where have you done that?? again why the double standard again and I have yet to make any claims, that is what created topics are for, I'm responding to your idiotic claim about leprechauns.

If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality.

No, it's based on reality and the lack of real evidence.

What is? be specific...

Really? You're going to be that intentionally obtuse? Ok. You said, "If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality." My assertion that there are no viable reasons to believe in your God or any other is a conclusion based completely in reality and the absolute absence of any factual, testable evidence to support it.

Based on an atheistic ideology, not reality.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:37:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I tell someone that there's an invisible leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and that he will grant wishes if you ask him in just the right way, is there any reason to believe it?

Is that your claim or not? Because if it's not than it is not applicable here.

Trying to make a point that you're simply trying to ignore. If such a claim is made, would you just believe it without some kind of corroboration?

And you are ignoring the point that it is an irrelevant comparison, if I have to explain to you why any further you might as well go debate another topic.

Can't answer a simple yes or no question? Really?

If you think there are reasons to believe in leprechauns present them otherwise shush. You made the claim not me.

Still won't just say yes or no. It's not that difficult.

I've given you an explanation as to why it is a poor example, you are trying to force me to conform to your strawman. I will answer yes or no to what is applicable.

Just asking a very simple question that you seem to be reluctant to answer. Wonder why?

If you tell me there's some invisible, undetectable, omnipotent being that created the world and the entire universe but there's no way to demonstrate it with facts, is there any reason to believe it?

I've said this elsewhere, when you reduce others beliefs to what you feel are absurdities it is an insult to their intelligence and in turn only shows what you are willing to spend much of your time discussing and debating, which make you inadvertently a loser.

Once again, you ignore the point. You make a claim and just expect it to be believed without any real reason. It's not about feeling something is absurd, it's that there exists no corroboration of the claim. It's a conclusion.

What claim? when did I make a claim and when did I just expect you to just believe something?

Every time you claim your God exists. Every time you argue for its existence. You have yet to offer a single objective, testable fact to support it.

An when did I claim God exists and tell everyone to just believe it lol? Your last statement is a strawman and untrue. Every time I get on this site I'm offering something objective, my beliefs are not based on personal feeling or opinions.

Please show me this 'objective' evidence you keep claiming you have?

I'm saying people have reasons and good logical support to believe in a Creator,

Then please demonstrate these reasons and show me how they are logical if they have no factual underpinning.

Create a topic and you will get answers from Theists. Do you really expect me to pack all that in here? there are many reasons and I'm sure everyone can speak for themselves. Who says there is no factual underpinning
underpinning- a set of ideas, motives, or devices that justify or form the basis for something:
Factual-concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it.

Yes Theism has all of that.

Show me. Anything that fits the bill of objective and factual would be fine.


Yes is it more absurd, it may not be to an atheist because that is your own perception. You view God as an absurdity.
Those traits you listed are irrelevant to the concept of a Creator and does not make it an absurdity. God is Spirit and on a normal basis spirits go undetected, but that does not mean there is no way to relate on a spiritual level, only a material one.
The concept of a Creator is not absurd, that is an atheistic opinion, you're trying to force a point that is just not there, sorry.


I have asked you to do nothing absurd or have tried to force you to believe anything absurd, have I? I have only conversed with you and showed you my position and why I believe it.

You've made a fantastic claim you cannot support and want me to believe it. That's absurd.

When and where?
First, it's a leprechaun in my back yard. At least remember with whom you are speaking. Second, it is no more absurd than you claim that your deity exists. You cannot see beyond your own preconceptions to be objective enough to admit that.

So I cannot see beyond my own perceptions because I won't accept that believing in leprechauns is the same as believing in God lol? you are twisted son.


I have as much evidence for my claim as you have for yours. Show me something you have that I don't to support your God claim and we will have a discussion.

I have reason, logic, application, observation, experience, references, spiritual encounters, philosophical and theoretical support, spiritual leaders, scripture, literature ect ect....

Show me a fact, one I can test and prove or disprove for myself. All that personal feeling does not qualify as objective.

If you are going to make your case about leprechauns then do so and stop talking, you are the one making positive claims, not me.



At last you see the issue. You would demand support of a claim that is extraordinary and yet you can't see that your claim of a supernatural invisible being is extraordinary and would require corroboration if it were anything but your God. It's a form of special pleading that you are making and it's not a valid reason to accept your assertion.

Neither one of us believes in leprechauns, I've never once told you to believe in anything I say just because, I have communicated with you rationally have I not? If I have done what you are implying show me please?

You have claimed that your God exists. You are here to try and convince people that is true. If not, why are you on a debate forum about religion? As far as communicating rationally, that would involve exchange of valid information and admitting the possibility that you could be wrong. You have yet to provide and valid information to support your stance and you have never said "I could be wrong." so no, you have not been rational.

Where in the world did this come from?? Also you are a hypocrite, in the underlined, where have you done that?? again why the double standard again and I have yet to make any claims, that is what created topics are for, I'm responding to your idiotic claim about leprechauns.


Every time I've said that my stance on the subject will change if valid evidence is presented. You've never made an equivalent statement.
If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality.

No, it's based on reality and the lack of real evidence.

What is? be specific...

Really? You're going to be that intentionally obtuse? Ok. You said, "If you don't believe there are viable reasons to believe in God that is your opinion, but that does not mean people who are Theists believe in absurd things, that is your own perception, not reality." My assertion that there are no viable reasons to believe in your God or any other is a conclusion based completely in reality and the absolute absence of any factual, testable evidence to support it.

Based on an atheistic ideology, not reality.

Atheists have no ideology. That's why they are atheists. Still waiting for something 'real' to demonstrate the veracity of your assertion of existence of your supposed deity.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 8:07:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 8:30:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
First I'll define atheism as the position that God (a transcendent being responsible for creating the universe and existence) doesn't exist. I'm not attacking atheism defined as "lack of belief in God" because under that definition it is ontologically synonymous with agnosticism.

Before I address any other part of your post, can I ask why you chose that definition for "god?"