Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is Faith-based

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:13:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:08:53 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Talib, what do you think the "neutral" position is, if one were to have no faith, as you understand it?

I don't have much to say about Agnostics, except that they are not excommunicated.

Agnosticism is a knowledge position. It's not a position on the existence or non-existence of god.

What you seem to be railing against is actually, a more specific atheism, Strong Atheism. Few people, really, are overall Strong Atheists. Most are "Weak Atheists", who may or may not (I got into a debate about this in another forum post) be equated to Agnostic Atheists.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:14:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:09:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
All human action is faith-based.

I prefer to say that it relies on axiomatic beliefs. It sounds cooler.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:15:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:14:24 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:09:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
All human action is faith-based.

I prefer to say that it relies on axiomatic beliefs. It sounds cooler.

There are no axiomatic beliefs.
The Beast
Dakota
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:20:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:15:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:14:24 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:09:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
All human action is faith-based.

I prefer to say that it relies on axiomatic beliefs. It sounds cooler.

There are no axiomatic beliefs.

Why not?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:24:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:20:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:15:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:14:24 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:09:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
All human action is faith-based.

I prefer to say that it relies on axiomatic beliefs. It sounds cooler.

There are no axiomatic beliefs.

Why not?

The demon issue seems to cover them all. But they have other individual issues, usually some kind of linguistic confusion. Provide me a statement you think is an axiom.
The Beast
Dakota
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:29:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:24:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:20:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:15:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:14:24 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:09:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
All human action is faith-based.

I prefer to say that it relies on axiomatic beliefs. It sounds cooler.

There are no axiomatic beliefs.

Why not?

The demon issue seems to cover them all. But they have other individual issues, usually some kind of linguistic confusion. Provide me a statement you think is an axiom.

That reality, as I perceive it, is not a trick of some sort.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:30:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:13:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:08:53 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Talib, what do you think the "neutral" position is, if one were to have no faith, as you understand it?

I don't have much to say about Agnostics, except that they are not excommunicated.

Agnosticism is a knowledge position. It's not a position on the existence or non-existence of god.

What you seem to be railing against is actually, a more specific atheism, Strong Atheism. Few people, really, are overall Strong Atheists. Most are "Weak Atheists", who may or may not (I got into a debate about this in another forum post) be equated to Agnostic Atheists.

Agnosticism is the doubt in the existence of God, a more skeptical position, a more neutral position, but not the actual outright disbelief.

Atheism is Atheism as far as I am concerned. If you disbelieve in God, you believe in the non-existence of God.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:31:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:30:07 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:13:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:08:53 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Talib, what do you think the "neutral" position is, if one were to have no faith, as you understand it?

I don't have much to say about Agnostics, except that they are not excommunicated.

Agnosticism is a knowledge position. It's not a position on the existence or non-existence of god.

What you seem to be railing against is actually, a more specific atheism, Strong Atheism. Few people, really, are overall Strong Atheists. Most are "Weak Atheists", who may or may not (I got into a debate about this in another forum post) be equated to Agnostic Atheists.

Agnosticism is the doubt in the existence of God, a more skeptical position, a more neutral position, but not the actual outright disbelief.

Atheism is Atheism as far as I am concerned. If you disbelieve in God, you believe in the non-existence of God.

Then you will never have a reasonable discussion with an atheist, on the subject.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:31:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:10:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:07:41 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:02:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:00:18 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:54:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:13 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:39:23 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:32:34 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:30:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:12:44 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

And there we have, at complete logical disconnect in action. How do you connect premise 2 and 3, with the conclusion?

You can not know for a fact that God is not real if you do not have definitive and empirical evidence of His non-existence, therefore you can only have complete trust or confidence in God's non-existence.

Do you know what the word disbelief means?

It can be either the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.

See, there we go. Your issue is that you some how equate disbelief in something, with active belief in the non-existence of something. How you do that, I don't know, because you defined disbelief correctly.

You're kidding, right?

Belief is defined as an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief is defined as the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.


Therefore you disbelieve in the existence of God.

Therefore you disbelieve.

I know that you don't know because you would be famous for having definitive and empirical evidence of the non-existence of God.

There, I fixed that for you.

To disbelieve in God is to believe in no God.

Correct. But it is not to believe the god does not exist. I do not believe in a god, but I do not believe that god does not exist. It's kind of hard to either without a definition of god, you see.

I defined Atheism. Disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:33:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:11:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:06:55 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:01:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:51:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:42:53 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:08:12 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

so is not believing in unicorns

That's a cliche, only the ignorant use that. The concepts of God and religion are nowhere near the level of mythological beasts such as the unicorn.

How is it different?

One, the concept of God is nowhere near the level of the idea of the unicorn. It has been a topic of serious discussion and debate since the beginnings of mankind.

Nothing to do with the concept. One can have "serious discussions" about anything. I have binders for a Zombie Apocalypse plan.


Two, the concept of God is found within every single culture of mankind, the unicorn is relevant to only certain cultures.

That's at best a minor point, but I concede it. Still has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the concept. The example could simply be expanded to "mythical creatures" instead of "unicorns", sort of like saying "God" instead of "Allah" (Yes, I'm aware of the meaning of the words, I'm saying that Allah is generally considered specific to the Islamic god, in English speaking countries, while God is generally judeochristian, in general conversation it can also be non-specific).


Three, the message typically behind the concept of God, is that of eternal hell or bliss, the purpose of our existence, the nature of our existence, and much more. Far from comparable to the unicorn.

That has nothing to do with the belief, itself. Of course they aren't identical. I concede I asked "what's the difference", but I was speaking more "in terms of the analogy"


Four, there are no longer witnesses of any kind about the existence of the unicorn, yet on the contrary, there are millions of witnesses as far as the existence of God. A main kind of witness being a philosopher who logically and rationally concludes the existence of God.

No, it isn't. That's not a "witness". That's a philosopher. I can conclude who committed a crime, I'm not a witness of the crime unless I saw it.


Five, it's an insulting psychological tactic that completely ignores the above reasons and others to imply that the concept of God has the weight of a mythological creature that is considered by all to be non-existent.

And yet, you can give no compelling reason that there is a difference in kind to the beliefs, instead pointing out only surface details, like someone saying their conception of the unicorn is TOTALLY DIFFERENT, because it has WINGS, therefore it is a much more valid kind of unicorn than those dumb wingless ones.

You don't take what I said point for point, you take it as a whole. The idea of God as a whole compared to the idea of a unicorn as a whole is nowhere near the same level. That is why it is a cliche. Show me similarities between the two that are as strong or stronger, that does not involve the inability to see either.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:34:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:31:32 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:10:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:07:41 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:02:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:00:18 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:54:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:13 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:39:23 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:32:34 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:30:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:12:44 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

And there we have, at complete logical disconnect in action. How do you connect premise 2 and 3, with the conclusion?

You can not know for a fact that God is not real if you do not have definitive and empirical evidence of His non-existence, therefore you can only have complete trust or confidence in God's non-existence.

Do you know what the word disbelief means?

It can be either the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.

See, there we go. Your issue is that you some how equate disbelief in something, with active belief in the non-existence of something. How you do that, I don't know, because you defined disbelief correctly.

You're kidding, right?

Belief is defined as an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief is defined as the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.


Therefore you disbelieve in the existence of God.

Therefore you disbelieve.

I know that you don't know because you would be famous for having definitive and empirical evidence of the non-existence of God.

There, I fixed that for you.

To disbelieve in God is to believe in no God.

Correct. But it is not to believe the god does not exist. I do not believe in a god, but I do not believe that god does not exist. It's kind of hard to either without a definition of god, you see.

I defined Atheism. Disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Do you believe that people should be able to define their own terms?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:36:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:29:57 PM, muzebreak wrote:
That reality, as I perceive it, is not a trick of some sort.

Now, is your definition of "axiom" that it's a given truth or that it's simply a chosen assumption to base reasoning upon?
The Beast
Dakota
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:38:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:36:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:29:57 PM, muzebreak wrote:
That reality, as I perceive it, is not a trick of some sort.

Now, is your definition of "axiom" that it's a given truth or that it's simply a chosen assumption to base reasoning upon?

I define an axiom as an assumed truth.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:40:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:34:40 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:31:32 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:10:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:07:41 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:02:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:00:18 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:54:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:13 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:39:23 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:32:34 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:30:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:12:44 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

And there we have, at complete logical disconnect in action. How do you connect premise 2 and 3, with the conclusion?

You can not know for a fact that God is not real if you do not have definitive and empirical evidence of His non-existence, therefore you can only have complete trust or confidence in God's non-existence.

Do you know what the word disbelief means?

It can be either the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.

See, there we go. Your issue is that you some how equate disbelief in something, with active belief in the non-existence of something. How you do that, I don't know, because you defined disbelief correctly.

You're kidding, right?

Belief is defined as an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief is defined as the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.


Therefore you disbelieve in the existence of God.

Therefore you disbelieve.

I know that you don't know because you would be famous for having definitive and empirical evidence of the non-existence of God.

There, I fixed that for you.

To disbelieve in God is to believe in no God.

Correct. But it is not to believe the god does not exist. I do not believe in a god, but I do not believe that god does not exist. It's kind of hard to either without a definition of god, you see.

I defined Atheism. Disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Do you believe that people should be able to define their own terms?

I made a specific argument against a specific group of people with a specific belief. The belief that there is no God in any way, shape or form. If you have a problem with my argument, then refute it. I doubt you can though, as it is sound.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:45:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:40:27 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:34:40 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:31:32 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:10:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:07:41 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:02:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:00:18 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:54:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:13 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:39:23 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:32:34 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:30:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:12:44 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

And there we have, at complete logical disconnect in action. How do you connect premise 2 and 3, with the conclusion?

You can not know for a fact that God is not real if you do not have definitive and empirical evidence of His non-existence, therefore you can only have complete trust or confidence in God's non-existence.

Do you know what the word disbelief means?

It can be either the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.

See, there we go. Your issue is that you some how equate disbelief in something, with active belief in the non-existence of something. How you do that, I don't know, because you defined disbelief correctly.

You're kidding, right?

Belief is defined as an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief is defined as the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.


Therefore you disbelieve in the existence of God.

Therefore you disbelieve.

I know that you don't know because you would be famous for having definitive and empirical evidence of the non-existence of God.

There, I fixed that for you.

To disbelieve in God is to believe in no God.

Correct. But it is not to believe the god does not exist. I do not believe in a god, but I do not believe that god does not exist. It's kind of hard to either without a definition of god, you see.

I defined Atheism. Disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Do you believe that people should be able to define their own terms?

I made a specific argument against a specific group of people with a specific belief. The belief that there is no God in any way, shape or form. If you have a problem with my argument, then refute it. I doubt you can though, as it is sound.

I already did, you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Your argument relies on equivocation.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:45:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:33:49 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

You don't take what I said point for point, you take it as a whole. The idea of God as a whole compared to the idea of a unicorn as a whole is nowhere near the same level. That is why it is a cliche. Show me similarities between the two that are as strong or stronger, that does not involve the inability to see either.

But the analogy was about the fact that "not believing in unicorns" is equally "faith based" as "not believing in God", it wasn't that Unicorns are as complicated a concept as God. it's very similar to the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy Dawkins has used...the idea that "Oh, this must be legit, because we've talked about it so much, and it's totally different than anything else and..."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:45:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:40:27 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:34:40 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:31:32 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:10:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:07:41 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:02:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:00:18 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:54:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:13 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:39:23 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:32:34 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:30:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:12:44 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Faith is defined as the complete trust or confidence in something.

Atheism is defined as the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

And there we have, at complete logical disconnect in action. How do you connect premise 2 and 3, with the conclusion?

You can not know for a fact that God is not real if you do not have definitive and empirical evidence of His non-existence, therefore you can only have complete trust or confidence in God's non-existence.

Do you know what the word disbelief means?

It can be either the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.

See, there we go. Your issue is that you some how equate disbelief in something, with active belief in the non-existence of something. How you do that, I don't know, because you defined disbelief correctly.

You're kidding, right?

Belief is defined as an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists or something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Disbelief is defined as the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real or the lack of faith in something.


Therefore you disbelieve in the existence of God.

Therefore you disbelieve.

I know that you don't know because you would be famous for having definitive and empirical evidence of the non-existence of God.

There, I fixed that for you.

To disbelieve in God is to believe in no God.

Correct. But it is not to believe the god does not exist. I do not believe in a god, but I do not believe that god does not exist. It's kind of hard to either without a definition of god, you see.

I defined Atheism. Disbelief in God in any way, shape or form.

Do you believe that people should be able to define their own terms?

I made a specific argument against a specific group of people with a specific belief. The belief that there is no God in any way, shape or form. If you have a problem with my argument, then refute it. I doubt you can though, as it is sound.

I already did, you simply refuse to acknowledge it. Your argument relies on equivocation.

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:51:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:45:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:33:49 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

You don't take what I said point for point, you take it as a whole. The idea of God as a whole compared to the idea of a unicorn as a whole is nowhere near the same level. That is why it is a cliche. Show me similarities between the two that are as strong or stronger, that does not involve the inability to see either.

But the analogy was about the fact that "not believing in unicorns" is equally "faith based" as "not believing in God", it wasn't that Unicorns are as complicated a concept as God. it's very similar to the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy Dawkins has used...the idea that "Oh, this must be legit, because we've talked about it so much, and it's totally different than anything else and..."

The fact is, the idea of God and the idea of a unicorn are not at the same level. Both Atheists and Theists have faith for their position. So to use this cliche is most certainly an insult with no worth even to the Atheist, who himself has faith for the non-existence of God.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,827
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:56:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:38:28 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:36:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:29:57 PM, muzebreak wrote:
That reality, as I perceive it, is not a trick of some sort.

Now, is your definition of "axiom" that it's a given truth or that it's simply a chosen assumption to base reasoning upon?

I define an axiom as an assumed truth.

Well, that's doable then. Required, actually. But I don't think your exact statement would be my own. My assumed truth is time, more than anything else. And the idea that cause has effect.
The Beast
Dakota
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:58:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:56:26 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:38:28 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:36:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:29:57 PM, muzebreak wrote:
That reality, as I perceive it, is not a trick of some sort.

Now, is your definition of "axiom" that it's a given truth or that it's simply a chosen assumption to base reasoning upon?

I define an axiom as an assumed truth.

Well, that's doable then. Required, actually. But I don't think your exact statement would be my own. My assumed truth is time, more than anything else. And the idea that cause has effect.

What do you mean you assume time?

Do you assume cause and effect is a necessary concept?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:08:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

Whew! That strawman is well and truly beaten.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:09:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:51:42 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

The fact is, the idea of God and the idea of a unicorn are not at the same level. Both Atheists and Theists have faith for their position. So to use this cliche is most certainly an insult with no worth even to the Atheist, who himself has faith for the non-existence of God.

That was an almost effective dodge of the issue. How about we take this a different tack:

Do you believe in unicorns?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:16:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

Whew! That strawman is well and truly beaten.

It's not a strawman, because it's an expression of the argument in dialogue format. I'm not posting it as an actual argument. Can you actually refute any of the dialogue?

To disbelieve is to believe in the disbelief. Do believe without definitive and empirical evidence is to have complete trust or confidence in the belief. To have complete trust or confidence in the belief is to have faith in the belief.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:18:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:16:09 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

Whew! That strawman is well and truly beaten.

It's not a strawman, because it's an expression of the argument in dialogue format. I'm not posting it as an actual argument. Can you actually refute any of the dialogue?

To disbelieve is to believe in the disbelief. Do believe without definitive and empirical evidence is to have complete trust or confidence in the belief. To have complete trust or confidence in the belief is to have faith in the belief.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:20:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:09:16 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:51:42 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

The fact is, the idea of God and the idea of a unicorn are not at the same level. Both Atheists and Theists have faith for their position. So to use this cliche is most certainly an insult with no worth even to the Atheist, who himself has faith for the non-existence of God.

That was an almost effective dodge of the issue. How about we take this a different tack:

Do you believe in unicorns?

Unicorns aren't real. This is a fact. Not only does the vast, vast majority of mankind believe this to be true, there is also definitive and empirical evidence saying that they do not exist.

But seeing as how God is both incorporeal and transcendent, all physical evidence is fruitless and unreliable. There is no definitive and empirical evidence saying for a fact that there is no God. As there is no definitive and empirical evidence saying for a fact that there is a God. So both the Atheist and the Theist have faith in the non-existence of God and the existence of God, while both know that unicorns do not exist.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:21:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:18:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:16:09 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

Whew! That strawman is well and truly beaten.

It's not a strawman, because it's an expression of the argument in dialogue format. I'm not posting it as an actual argument. Can you actually refute any of the dialogue?

To disbelieve is to believe in the disbelief. Do believe without definitive and empirical evidence is to have complete trust or confidence in the belief. To have complete trust or confidence in the belief is to have faith in the belief.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

I don't think you know what the difference between an argument and a dialogue is.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:22:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:16:09 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

Whew! That strawman is well and truly beaten.

It's not a strawman, because it's an expression of the argument in dialogue format. I'm not posting it as an actual argument. Can you actually refute any of the dialogue?

First off, that it's a dialogue doesn't negate the possibility of it being a strawman.

Second: Well, yes.

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Hmm, depends on what you're using "disbelieve" to mean, but I'll say yes, based on the current arguments for his existence."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"No. I lack a belief in God, I disbelieve any of the claims that have been made."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"No. What I have is a lack of belief in the positive claim "God exists"."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

"No, I have simply rejected the positive claims that he exists. I have a strong belief that those who assert God's existence have failed to fulfill the burden of proof of showing that's a rational statement, however, I cannot deny that there could be some other option out there that could also be called "God" that we just haven't met yet. Lacking any reason to believe in god, while I cannot assert that "God does not exist", I see no reason to do anything but assume he does not, as I assume any other thing which has no reason for me to believe in its existence."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:23:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:21:19 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:18:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:16:09 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/26/2013 12:08:23 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:49:31 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

"Do you, sir, disbelieve in God, in any way, shape or form."

"Yes."

"So then logically you believe in the non-existence of God in any way, shape or form, yes?"

"Yes."

"Do you, sir, have definitive and empirical evidence proving that there is no God in any way, shape or form?"

"No."

"Then you do not know for a fact that God is not real, but instead have complete trust or confidence in the non-existence of God, correct?"

"Yes."

"Then you, sir, have faith that there is no God."

Whew! That strawman is well and truly beaten.

It's not a strawman, because it's an expression of the argument in dialogue format. I'm not posting it as an actual argument. Can you actually refute any of the dialogue?

To disbelieve is to believe in the disbelief. Do believe without definitive and empirical evidence is to have complete trust or confidence in the belief. To have complete trust or confidence in the belief is to have faith in the belief.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

I don't think you know what the difference between an argument and a dialogue is.

You're denying you were posting an argument, simply because it was in dialogue form? Plato would be surprised to hear that's the case...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:24:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/26/2013 12:20:03 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

Unicorns aren't real. This is a fact. Not only does the vast, vast majority of mankind believe this to be true, there is also definitive and empirical evidence saying that they do not exist.

Oh? What is this "definitive and empiracal evidence"? Because AFAIK, there is only the total LACK of evidence FOR the existence of unicorns. But please, show me.


But seeing as how God is both incorporeal and transcendent, all physical evidence is fruitless and unreliable. There is no definitive and empirical evidence saying for a fact that there is no God. As there is no definitive and empirical evidence saying for a fact that there is a God. So both the Atheist and the Theist have faith in the non-existence of God and the existence of God, while both know that unicorns do not exist.

We're talking about existence or non existence, not attributes. And as I said above: go ahead and show this evidence of which you speak.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 12:28:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:32:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:17:09 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Not seeing a God who is typically defined as transcendent, beyond the range of normal or merely physical human experience, and incorporeal, not composed of matter, having no material existence, is not definitive and empirical evidence that there is no God.

You're islamic, where's our miracles? Why'd god just suddenly stop the miracles? Why'd he stop telling huge groups of people, to murder other huge groups of people? What's up with your gods lack of action in the real world lately?

Don't you know? He only does things thousands of years ago, how convenient eh? Oh, and there is justice in the world but you just won't know until you die. How convenient eh?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.