Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Things all atheists should know

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:19:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.
See here:
http://www.debate.org...
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:23:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.

All excellent points. And I thank you for posting them.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:28:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:23:42 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.

All excellent points. And I thank you for posting them.
I love how meaningless is construed as excellent by the unaware.
See here
http://www.debate.org...
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:31:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

I didn't claim the God exists, "God exists" and "invisible Martians exist" are not analogous claims, both claims have different levels of supporting evidence, your logic that all asserted claims must be accepted if failure to uphold BOP doesn't mean that the claim is false doesn't follow, and your last question makes no sense.
picknpull
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:34:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap? : :

Did you know Superman could fly? It says so in the Superman comic books. It even says that Superman becomes powerless if he gets near kryptonite.

Christians who read a book tell everyone that Jesus is their Lord and Savior. They can't tell you why Jesus couldn't save himself from dying. They certainly can't tell you what this following statement means;

John 6
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. : :

I haven't met a Christian yet who knows what "spirit" means.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:36:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:31:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

I didn't claim the God exists, "God exists" and "invisible Martians exist" are not analogous claims, both claims have different levels of supporting evidence, your logic that all asserted claims must be accepted if failure to uphold BOP doesn't mean that the claim is false doesn't follow, and your last question makes no sense.

Provide your level of supporting evidence and mine will match yours to a tee.
Thus making my claim as true as yours.
I'm waiting.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:39:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

Perhaps, but what gave you the idea there was a dead fish in the pond? How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Was it a vision? A wild guess?

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Then, please explain the rationally justifiable position that "God exists"? Where did this idea come from? How did you reach this conclusion? A vision? A wild guess?

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

Yes, we understand the difference between making a positive claim that requires a burden of proof and what that does not.

Again, how does one come to the conclusion/belief of making a positive claim that "God exists"?

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.
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
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:58:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Its not justifiable to disregard that which was not justified? Upholding a burden is what makes an argument convincing and justified, if that is not accomplished, whether true or not, you can't expect the audience to have pity for the instigator and just carte blanche accept the premise. Barring that, yeah, unsupported doesn't mean false, but it fails as argumentation.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

True, but, again, if there is no evidence to a position, its going to be VERY difficult to make a convincing argument, and the more obvious the suggestion is, just as obvious should be the evidence to that conclusion.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

However no belief in that which hasn't been proven is a rational position. Belief in that which hasn't been proven is not.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.

Flatly, yes it is. Failing that it would be personal opinion. What evidence have you heard of or suggested that is not empirically observable or verifiable?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:59:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

Well it certainly means there is no reason to accept the claim as true.
For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

There is no reason to accept such a claim as true, still less to donate money, spend Sunday mornings or change your sex life based on such a claim, and still less to present it to other people as true.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Absence of evidence means not looking in the drawer for your keys. If you look in the drawer, and it's empty, it's evidence that your keys are not in the drawer.
(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

If there is no evidence for something existing, it is more prudent to proceed as if it doesn't.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.

Well, that and any logical deductions from that.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:59:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:36:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:31:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

I didn't claim the God exists, "God exists" and "invisible Martians exist" are not analogous claims, both claims have different levels of supporting evidence, your logic that all asserted claims must be accepted if failure to uphold BOP doesn't mean that the claim is false doesn't follow, and your last question makes no sense.

Provide your level of supporting evidence and mine will match yours to a tee.
Thus making my claim as true as yours.
I'm waiting.

"God" shall be defined as a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind.

(1) If objective morality is false, God doesn't exist.
(2) Objective morality is true.
(3) God exists.

Objective morality means that moral statements are true irrespective of our opinions to the contrary. "Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is true irrespective of our opinions to the contrary. Therefore objective morality is affirmed rationally.

Empirically, whichever meta-ethical moral theory is correct is determined by inference to the best explanation. There are 3 options

1. (moral objectivism)
2. (moral subjectivism)
3. (moral nihilism)

There is universal consensus that theft, rape, and murder is immoral with increasing respective severity. This trend is empirically observed and can only infer moral objectivism.

Therefore objective morality is affirmed both rationally and empirically.

Objective morality can only be true if human beings have intrinsic ends. An end requires pre-requisite intent and knowledge. Beings only possess intent and knowledge. Therefore, a being of ultimate moral authority exists.

Therefore, since objective morality is true, a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind exists. AKA God exists.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:04:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:39:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

Perhaps, but what gave you the idea there was a dead fish in the pond? How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Was it a vision? A wild guess?

The notion that it matters how the idea came to fruition and possibly impacts the truth of the matter is an example of the genetic fallacy.


This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Then, please explain the rationally justifiable position that "God exists"? Where did this idea come from? How did you reach this conclusion? A vision? A wild guess?

This is off-topic but see my response to bulproof regarding moral objectivism.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

Yes, we understand the difference between making a positive claim that requires a burden of proof and what that does not.

Again, how does one come to the conclusion/belief of making a positive claim that "God exists"?

It's a claim that can be asserted without evidence or a claim that can be asserted with supporting evidence. It depends on the individual making the claim.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:15:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:59:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:36:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:31:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

I didn't claim the God exists, "God exists" and "invisible Martians exist" are not analogous claims, both claims have different levels of supporting evidence, your logic that all asserted claims must be accepted if failure to uphold BOP doesn't mean that the claim is false doesn't follow, and your last question makes no sense.

Provide your level of supporting evidence and mine will match yours to a tee.
Thus making my claim as true as yours.
I'm waiting.

"God" shall be defined as a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind.
Invisible Martians shall be defined as a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind.
(1) If objective morality is false, God doesn't exist.
It is and you have proven it for years on this forum.
(2) Objective morality is true.
Provide just one objectively moral concept and I will prove you wrong.
(3) God exists.
Not according to the argument just refuted.
Objective morality means that moral statements are true irrespective of our opinions to the contrary. "Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is true irrespective of our opinions to the contrary. Therefore objective morality is affirmed rationally.
So supply one.
Empirically, whichever meta-ethical moral theory is correct is determined by inference to the best explanation. There are 3 options
You have attempted to make this argument for years and have failed at every turn. That's why you keep trying the same non argument incessantly.
1. (moral objectivism)
2. (moral subjectivism)
3. (moral nihilism)

There is universal consensus that theft, rape, and murder is immoral with increasing respective severity. This trend is empirically observed and can only infer moral objectivism.

Therefore objective morality is affirmed both rationally and empirically.

Objective morality can only be true if human beings have intrinsic ends. An end requires pre-requisite intent and knowledge. Beings only possess intent and knowledge. Therefore, a being of ultimate moral authority exists.

Therefore, since objective morality is true, a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind exists. AKA God exists.
Provide an objective moral imperative and convince me.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:19:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 2:15:11 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:59:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:36:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:31:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

I didn't claim the God exists, "God exists" and "invisible Martians exist" are not analogous claims, both claims have different levels of supporting evidence, your logic that all asserted claims must be accepted if failure to uphold BOP doesn't mean that the claim is false doesn't follow, and your last question makes no sense.

Provide your level of supporting evidence and mine will match yours to a tee.
Thus making my claim as true as yours.
I'm waiting.

"God" shall be defined as a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind.
Invisible Martians shall be defined as a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind.

What's your evidence that they are both invisible and martian?

(1) If objective morality is false, God doesn't exist.
It is and you have proven it for years on this forum.
(2) Objective morality is true.
Provide just one objectively moral concept and I will prove you wrong.
(3) God exists.
Not according to the argument just refuted.
Objective morality means that moral statements are true irrespective of our opinions to the contrary. "Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is true irrespective of our opinions to the contrary. Therefore objective morality is affirmed rationally.
So supply one.
Empirically, whichever meta-ethical moral theory is correct is determined by inference to the best explanation. There are 3 options
You have attempted to make this argument for years and have failed at every turn. That's why you keep trying the same non argument incessantly.
1. (moral objectivism)
2. (moral subjectivism)
3. (moral nihilism)

There is universal consensus that theft, rape, and murder is immoral with increasing respective severity. This trend is empirically observed and can only infer moral objectivism.

Therefore objective morality is affirmed both rationally and empirically.

Objective morality can only be true if human beings have intrinsic ends. An end requires pre-requisite intent and knowledge. Beings only possess intent and knowledge. Therefore, a being of ultimate moral authority exists.

Therefore, since objective morality is true, a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind exists. AKA God exists.
Provide an objective moral imperative and convince me.

I've already provided one in the post.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:20:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Oh just BTW, the only thing atheists should know is that the godbotherers have nothing to support their claim that gods exist, thus making the atheist position of rejecting the godbotherers CLAIM as the only intelligent human thing to do.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:22:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 2:19:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 2:15:11 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:59:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:36:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:31:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

I didn't claim the God exists, "God exists" and "invisible Martians exist" are not analogous claims, both claims have different levels of supporting evidence, your logic that all asserted claims must be accepted if failure to uphold BOP doesn't mean that the claim is false doesn't follow, and your last question makes no sense.

Provide your level of supporting evidence and mine will match yours to a tee.
Thus making my claim as true as yours.
I'm waiting.

"God" shall be defined as a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind.
Invisible Martians shall be defined as a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind.

What's your evidence that they are both invisible and martian?

(1) If objective morality is false, God doesn't exist.
It is and you have proven it for years on this forum.
(2) Objective morality is true.
Provide just one objectively moral concept and I will prove you wrong.
(3) God exists.
Not according to the argument just refuted.
Objective morality means that moral statements are true irrespective of our opinions to the contrary. "Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is true irrespective of our opinions to the contrary. Therefore objective morality is affirmed rationally.
So supply one.
Empirically, whichever meta-ethical moral theory is correct is determined by inference to the best explanation. There are 3 options
You have attempted to make this argument for years and have failed at every turn. That's why you keep trying the same non argument incessantly.
1. (moral objectivism)
2. (moral subjectivism)
3. (moral nihilism)

There is universal consensus that theft, rape, and murder is immoral with increasing respective severity. This trend is empirically observed and can only infer moral objectivism.

Therefore objective morality is affirmed both rationally and empirically.

Objective morality can only be true if human beings have intrinsic ends. An end requires pre-requisite intent and knowledge. Beings only possess intent and knowledge. Therefore, a being of ultimate moral authority exists.

Therefore, since objective morality is true, a being of ultimate moral authority over mankind exists. AKA God exists.
Provide an objective moral imperative and convince me.

I've already provided one in the post.
You may need to try again.
I haven't seen it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:27:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:59:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There is universal consensus that theft, rape, and murder is immoral with increasing respective severity. This trend is empirically observed and can only infer moral objectivism.
My bad.
I didn't see this drivel.
Your contention is that theft, rape and murder are not possible because your god exists?
WOW!
That would seem to indicate that your god doesn't exist, perhaps it's another god that you have rejected?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 2:20:44 PM, bulproof wrote:
Oh just BTW, the only thing atheists should know is that the godbotherers have nothing to support their claim that gods exist, thus making the atheist position of rejecting the godbotherers CLAIM as the only intelligent human thing to do.

I'll refer you to the OP. Are you saying that there isn't a dead fish in the pond?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:38:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

This is similar to the logical fallacy, Argument from Fallacy (a.k.a. the Fallacy Fallacy) (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...). Just because a claim is not proven doesn't mean that said claim is necessarily false; just that it can't be shown to be true. However, this depends on what was done in an effort to prove it and how it failed, though. This will largely tie in with point #2...

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Again, this depends. If no evidence is found where evidence is expected, then the lack of evidence is evidence of absence. For instance, if you dragged the waters for days in an effort to prove the previous claim and came up with no dead fish, then it serves as evidence against the claim. Not proof, mind you, just evidence.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

Basically, yes. One can oppose and contest either claim whilst retaining a skeptical position on the issue, just to add.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.

But the strength of that evidence relies on demonstrable factuality, though, and the farther you stray from that, the weaker the evidence becomes. Straight logical reasoning with no verifiability and testability should always be treated with ample skepticism, no matter how sound the argument might appear. Logic is a human-invented concept of structured reasoning, and it's not infallible.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:39:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 2:04:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:39:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

Perhaps, but what gave you the idea there was a dead fish in the pond? How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Was it a vision? A wild guess?

The notion that it matters how the idea came to fruition and possibly impacts the truth of the matter is an example of the genetic fallacy.


This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Then, please explain the rationally justifiable position that "God exists"? Where did this idea come from? How did you reach this conclusion? A vision? A wild guess?

This is off-topic but see my response to bulproof regarding moral objectivism.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

Yes, we understand the difference between making a positive claim that requires a burden of proof and what that does not.

Again, how does one come to the conclusion/belief of making a positive claim that "God exists"?

It's a claim that can be asserted without evidence or a claim that can be asserted with supporting evidence. It depends on the individual making the claim.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.

Fine, you wish to invoke the Genetic Fallacy, then we can look entirely at the claim itself to see if it has merit, "God exists", which it doesn't, hence it can be easily dismissed without any burden of proof as there is no evidence to support the claim.
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
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 2:55:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:59:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

(1) If objective morality is false, God doesn't exist.
(2) Objective morality is true.
(3) God exists.

Hey Ben - I just wanted to point out a logical fallacy, here: the Fallacy of the Consequent (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...).

Your argument in propositional logic:

P1) ~m>~g
P2) m
C) g

The conclusion requires "m>g", but you can't get there from the (P1) that's given. If you apply the logical rule of transposition, you get "g>m". From here, it should be clear how this matches the structure of the cited fallacy in moving from (P1) and though the implicit implication statement behind (P2).

The only way this would logically work is if (P1) was "objective morality is false if, and only if, god doesn't exist" (material equivalence).
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 3:05:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 2:55:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:59:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

(1) If objective morality is false, God doesn't exist.
(2) Objective morality is true.
(3) God exists.

Hey Ben - I just wanted to point out a logical fallacy, here: the Fallacy of the Consequent (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...).

Your argument in propositional logic:

P1) ~m>~g
P2) m
C) g

The conclusion requires "m>g", but you can't get there from the (P1) that's given. If you apply the logical rule of transposition, you get "g>m". From here, it should be clear how this matches the structure of the cited fallacy in moving from (P1) and though the implicit implication statement behind (P2).

The only way this would logically work is if (P1) was "objective morality is false if, and only if, god doesn't exist" (material equivalence).

Well, I suppose it's just Denying the Antecedent, to put it more simply (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...).

P1) ~m>~g
P2) m
P2.1) ~~m [P2, Double Negation]
P2.2) ~~g [P1, P2.1, Denying the Antecedent]
C) g [P2.2, Double Negation]
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:07:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.

There are a lot of different ideas of what/who "god" is. Can you define the god you are referring to in terms of (non) interventionist and (non) judging? What is it's/his relationship to humans?

A lot of people debate existence without defining what they are debating the existence of.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:15:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.

For example, if I claimed "there is a dead fish in this pond" but wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't mean that the claim is false.

This is equally applicable to the claim "God exists" where failure to uphold the burden of proof wouldn't mean that the claim is false. I've seen many atheists reject the claim "God exists" as untrue simply based on failure to uphold the burden of proof. This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

The issue is that I have to make any related choices based on the perceived truth of the claim. So when a theist says I need to do x, y, and z because god, I need to see some evidence to support the god claim. If the burden of support is not met, I have no reason to behave as though the claim is true, so I'm going to behave as though it is false.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

"Evidence" is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "Absence" means the lack of. This translates to the following: "Lack of information to indicate that the proposition is true is information that indicates the proposition is false." This is a rationally unjustifiable position.

This is simply untrue when evidence of presence would be expected. If I tell you my wife and I have a newborn, you would reasonably expect to find diapers, toys, baby clothes, and a bassinet in my house, and a baby seat in my car. If you don't see any of those things, then that is absolutely evidence of absence. Your particular definition of god is such that evidence of presence might not be expected, but the god of most religions most definitely would produce effects for which we would expect evidence. Absence of evidence in that case is, in fact, evidence of absence. At the very least, it's evidence that the claims being made are inaccurate.

(3) the definition of atheism

"Atheism" literally means "not theism." It's an umbrella term that encompasses several different positions, one of which requires a burden of proof. The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof. Merely "lacking belief" in God does not require a burden of proof because it's a position (or lack thereof) that has no bearing on reality. If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.

This hairsplitting is silly, but if you want to call me an agnostic instead of an atheist, I don't really care. As long as we both understand that I do not believe any god claims, I'm fine with that.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.

Sure, but the most convincing of evidence tends to be empirical. You can make all the arguments you want with weak evidence. Just understand that empirical counter-evidence is going to be more believable.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:30:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

Invisible Martians do exist. Now what
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:31:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:30:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

Invisible Martians do exist. Now what

They just zapped your jebus.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:33:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:31:27 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/23/2016 4:30:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

Invisible Martians do exist. Now what

They just zapped your jebus.

Okay. Now what
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:33:21 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/23/2016 4:31:27 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/23/2016 4:30:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:12:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
Yes it does.
You claim that gods exist.
I claim that invisible martians exist.
We both supply the same amount of evidence to support our claims.................ie NOTHING.
So you accept that invisible martians exist just because I claim they do?
Do you want to buy a bridge I'm selling cheap?

Invisible Martians do exist. Now what

They just zapped your jebus.

Okay. Now what

Life goes on as , normal.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:47:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:07:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Failing to uphold a claim's burden of proof does not mean that the claim is false.
That would depend on how reasonable the burden, and how badly one has failed. However asserting authority from claims to knowledge that test serially false is both wicked and invalid.

(2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
That depends on what evidence ought to be seen, and how much is missing.

Where claims of absolute knowledge sufficient to control a life should reasonably be able to serially and accurately predict the world in important particulars, absence of evidence is evidence of vast, immoral fraud.

(3) The position that "God does not exist" is true, or the position that "God exists" is untrue, requires a burden of proof.
As does any attempt to assert revelation as absolute truth. The serial failure of revelationists to correctly deliver on reasonable expectations for validation and verification overwhelmingly supports the position that all claims of revelation are false, as is all theology, and that all belief in gods is a product of learned delusion.

If you merely lack belief in God, there is no favorability between "God exists" and "God does not exist." Judgement is witheld.
Utter tosh.

It has always been the desire of theologues to bargain atheism down to agnosticism and bully agnosticism into silence. Yet the reality is that there are as many good moral, ethical, pyschological and social reasons to dismiss theology as there are epistemological ones.

(4) "Evidence" is not just confined to whatever is empirically observable/verifiable.
Among the paranoid and the superstitious. For everyone else, it's the gold standard of evidence in law, public policy, commerce, and all professions but astrologer, charlatan and cleric.

Nevertheless, even if one hoped for non-empirical evidence (whatever that is) of one's metaphysical conjectures, one cannot ignore the vast empirical evidence associated with human psychology and sociology, all showing clearly how religiosity arises in humans as a form of socially-acquired confirmation bias, tracing how it follows political and cultural lines over history, how it is overwhelmingly transmitted by authority figures teaching theological doctrines to the young and vulnerable, and how clergy have known for centuries that control of childrens' education represents their only hope for job-security.

Irreligion has a very high rate among scientists in general and physicists in particular due to how wildly differently the universe behaves compared to theological prediction, but that's dwarfed by atheism among psychologists and sociologists, who see first hand how religiosity forms and is sustained.