Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

Of course, if you have already started off with the assumption that people by definition can't have genuine conversations with Jesus, then you will inevitably reach the conclusion that such a scenario probably didn't take place. However, that would be a circular argument, which is another logical fallacy, and therefore not a very convincing argument.

But the assumption is based on the lack of evidence that a god ever set foot on the place. For starter you have to accept that judaism was essentially god's only dealing with the planet up to Jesus. And frankly Judaism and the account of god in it is not credible , it lacks any universal attitude or approach to dealing with earthlings.

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not avoiding any points. I'm simply pointing out the poor way in which points are being made, and the basic logical fallacies that are being committed.

And I'm not uncomfortable at all. I'm very comfortable with the idea that people hold different beliefs.

You are avoiding the point that it does not matter if Paul was high when he claims to have had his vision because that fact could not disprove a supernatural event took place. And in fact no alternative explanation can.

The Christian defense that no other alternative explanation has evidence to support it does nothing other than to show the flaws reasoning believers apply to this in the first place, the idea that since no explanation is provable all are reasonable

Nick Park

TheLurker wrote: »

You are avoiding the point that it does not matter if Paul was high when he claims to have had his vision because that fact could not disprove a supernatural event took place. And in fact no alternative explanation can.

I'm not ignoring that point at all. I've already stated that point myself, but in a much clearer way. I've stated that positing an alternative hypothesis to a supernatural event does not disprove the claim of a supernatural event.

The person ignoring that point was the poster who made the claim about the mushrooms. He deliberately over-egged his alternative hypothesis into a claim that he had determined it to be so.

Nick Park

silverharp wrote: »

But the assumption is based on the lack of evidence that a god ever set foot on the place. For starter you have to accept that judaism was essentially god's only dealing with the planet up to Jesus. And frankly Judaism and the account of god in it is not credible , it lacks any universal attitude or approach to dealing with earthlings.

Ah, now we're talking logically. Thank God for that!

What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that we assess evidence by measuring it against other things that we believe to be true or false. Of course there is always a subjective element to this, because our differing worldviews are based on our differing experiences.

Therefore you and I disagree, due to our subjective experiences and views, as to how we assess evidence of some things. That's fine. I'm cool with that.

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

It is faith based because you have no evidence for it.

I haven't ruled anything out or anything in. I've simply pointed out that you have claimed to determine something based on zero evidence.

You seem to be confusing my lack of belief in your mushroom theory with an active assertion that the mushroom theory is untrue. Given what else is going on this thread that's actually quite funny.

You're half right there. I concluded that since you believe that Paul DID see Jesus on the road to Damascus, then what logically follows is that the mushroom hypothesis must of necessity be false. You believe what Paul wrote this all possible natural explanations are false

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah, now we're talking logically. Thank God for that!

What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that we assess evidence by measuring it against other things that we believe to be true or false. Of course there is always a subjective element to this, because our differing worldviews are based on our differing experiences.

Therefore you and I disagree, due to our subjective experiences and views, as to how we assess evidence of some things. That's fine. I'm cool with that.

Just coming at it from different angles. Jesus had 2 options , say that the Jews were wrong or that he was the fulfillment. As he went with the second an obvious shortcut is to dismiss Judaism in which case the jesus case falls down from the getgo.
Given that the ot is so unreliable when it comes to facts plus paints a god which is a maniac throughout the alleged history and has no understing or appreciation of the real history of mankind one would have to rationally conclude that Judaism was just a local religion with a largely invented pre history

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

Ah, so you seem to want me to form an argument that will convince you that God does not exist or something that will negate your existing belief in God? [FALSE arguement]

Why would you ever think that Atheists would want to "convert" you? [FALSE arguement]

You seem more annoyed that these Atheists won't allow you to dismiss ideas like Evolution or the Big Bang without calling you out on it? [FALSE arguement]

It's really strange. I guess if I wasn't raised in religion then I would have been an Atheist by default. My guess is that you were either raised in Religion or have "found" Religion later in life. So your approach is "I have taken up this belief on faith but if you can break my faith then I will join you in not believing". [FALSE arguement] Um, to be honest, if it is gonna make you unhappy to break or lose your faith then I'd personally rather not go there.

I think the best place to start though would be for you explain how you define "God"? [DICTIONARY]

Do you really think that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that God created all the species separately and individually? [FALSE arguement]


Exactly, you have no evidence that God exists so when you claim [FALSE arguement] that God does exist you leave yourself wide open to awkward questions. You then fail to answer the questions [FALSE arguement] but insist that your belief is still true and a result of this is ridicule.[FALSE arguement]

It's like if someone believed in Aliens and upon failure to provide a decent level of proof decided to just start wailing that "you people can't prove that they don't exist [FALSE arguement], what are your arguments and evidence for No Aliens" then you have to expect that people will just laugh at you.

You can't bring a child-like [FALSE arguement] understanding of logic [FALSE arguement] and try to use it in a conversation with educated and thoughtful adults. It's only gonna end one way, with you being treated like a child. [FALSE arguement]

That's true but there are many many many Gods being put forward as existing. [FALSE arguement] There is no evidence for any of them. Can I then assume Christianity is equally as valid as Scientology? [FALSE arguement]

If there is no evidence for any Gods then maybe they are ALL real [FALSE arguement] and there are maybe even Gods out there that we don't even know about. [FALSE arguement]

In the end. If there is no evidence then absence is assumed until evidence is presented. [FALSE arguement]

True but you are not saying things like "men can't marry other men because ET and Fox Mulder forbid it".

Also, the fact that there is life here implies that there may indeed be life out there. The fact that there is life here does not imply that life was created by God.

The leap from "there's life here" to "there is life on other planets" is A LOT smaller than the leap from "there's life here" to "God created everything". [FALSE arguement]

Surely my lack of belief should be a problem for you though? [FALSE arguement] My lack of belief should serve as a reference point for how solid your belief actually is. [If it was based on the on the extreme weakness of all your false argeuments and tatics in this one post, which so happens it isn't, it would be very solid indeed]


You went through all that and still ended up at the same point asking people for a reason and/or argument for Atheism.

It's like you made all those points as "filler" so you could squeeze your dumb [FALSE arguement] question in at the end.

The reason and argument for Atheism is what I already said it was.

You believe that God exists.
You have no proof.

REASON - You have no proof that God exists therefore I cannot believe in your God. [Yet again I did not ask you to] I do not have any belief in God therefore I am an Atheist.

ARGUMENT - Someone who lacks belief in God is an Atheist. This lack of belief is usually based on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of Theists. [Then that would be a very poor false argument, as absence of evidence is not evidence, e.g. belief in alien life]

I dunno. What point are you trying to make here?

Instead of dealing factually with any of the points you’ve resorted back to the old reliables of misrepresentation, straw men, and ad homien already.

I've highlighted just some of them to save everyone time.

If anyone wishes to engage in a discussion, I want you to present your arguments based on sound premises, that are true, and do not contain any fallacies.

Have any other atheists out there got any ?

If not, don’t waste your time or mine

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not ignoring that point at all. I've already stated that point myself, but in a much clearer way. I've stated that positing an alternative hypothesis to a supernatural event does not disprove the claim of a supernatural event.

The person ignoring that point was the poster who made the claim about the mushrooms. He deliberately over-egged his alternative hypothesis into a claim that he had determined it to be so.

Yes but you are ignore that it CANNOT. That is the key point. If RikuoAmero had solid evidence that Paul had taken mushrooms that still wouldn't disprove a supernatural event. Nothing can disprove a supernatural event.

And that is precisely the problem with believing such an event took place.

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

Instead of dealing factually with any of the points you’ve resorted back to the old reliables of misrepresentation, straw men, and ad homien already.

I've highlighted just some of them to save everyone time.

If anyone wishes to engage in a discussion, I want you to present your arguments based on sound premises, that are true, and do not contain any fallacies.

Have any other atheists out there got any ?

If not, don’t waste my time.

What do you mean by "present your arguments based on sound premises, that are true, and do not contain any fallacies"?

You are ignoring the arguments.

Argument - Someone who lacks belief in God is an Atheist.

Can you disprove this?

Nick Park

TheLurker wrote: »

Yes but you are ignore that it CANNOT. That is the key point. If RikuoAmero had solid evidence that Paul had taken mushrooms that still wouldn't disprove a supernatural event. Nothing can disprove a supernatural event.

And that is precisely the problem with believing such an event took place.

Nonsense. Of course you can disprove a supernatural event. Someone could claim that Bangladesh beat England at cricket today because Allah made the cricket ball so intensely hot that it burned Eoin Morgan's hands off.

That claim of a supernatural event could be fairly easily disproved.

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

Instead of dealing factually with any of the points you’ve resorted back to the old reliables of misrepresentation, straw men, and ad homien already.

Except I didn't do any of that.

You need to be more clear on what you want here.

It seems to me that you are asking for "proof that Atheism is true".

Is that correct?

orubiru

Nick Park wrote: »

Nonsense. Of course you can disprove a supernatural event. Someone could claim that Bangladesh beat England at cricket today because Allah made the cricket ball so intensely hot that it burned Eoin Morgan's hands off.

That claim of a supernatural event could be fairly easily disproved.

Why wouldn't you just say this?

"Someone could claim that Bangladesh beat England at cricket today because Allah made it possible."

Could that be easily disproved?

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You're half right there. I concluded that since you believe that Paul DID see Jesus on the road to Damascus, then what logically follows is that the mushroom hypothesis must of necessity be false. You believe what Paul wrote this all possible natural explanations are false

No, the difference here, of course, is that I have not, at any stage in this discussion, claimed to have determined that Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus.

When I weigh up the available evidence I do believe that Paul saw Jesus, but the evidence either way is such that my belief remains a faith proposition, albeit with more evidence than your faith proposition about the mushrooms. I'm not claiming that I have sufficient evidence to convince those who wish to believe otherwise, and I'm open to changing my mind in the future if more compelling evidence is presented.

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

What do you mean by "present your arguments based on sound premises, that are true, and do not contain any fallacies"? [I mean exactly what it states, must be a novel concept in these parts]

You are ignoring the arguments. [FALSE : I'm ignoring all false agreements, just like this one]

Argument - Someone who lacks belief in God is an Atheist.
[Note the strawman pretence that I'm disuputing this]

Can you disprove this? [Why would I disprove something I agree with, oh wait, I see you'd like to pretend I disagree with it, - classic straw manning.]

I'm ignoring false arguments (including ad homien) that contain any logical fallacies, or false premises.

Any atheists out there that have an argument that does not rely on at least one of these yet ?

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

I'm ignoring false arguments (including ad homien) that contain any logical fallacies, or false premises.

Any atheists out there that has an argument that does not contain these yet ?

An argument for what?

Nick Park

orubiru wrote: »

Why wouldn't you just say this?

"Someone could claim that Bangladesh beat England at cricket today because Allah made it possible."

Could that be easily disproved?

Because that would not be an example of a claim that could be easily disproved.

I was demonstrating the falsity of the Lurker's claim that nothing can disprove a supernatural event. To do that I cited a supernatural event that can easily be disproved. That is logic.

Your suggested alternative would be entirely defective from a logical standpoint because it doesn't address the issue of whether it is impossible or not to disprove an event on the basis of it being supernatural.

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

An argument for what?

[Note the false question that pretends to ignore, and tries to divert from everything already answered previously]

" One where afterwards I say, you know what, finally an argument/evidence, not based on any fallacies or false assumptions, or misrepresentations, and where all the premises are true "

Are there any atheists out there, that have an argument for their claims about thiesm or what theists believe, that does not contain these yet ?

orubiru

Nick Park wrote: »

Because that would not be an example of a claim that could be easily disproved.

I was demonstrating the falsity of the Lurker's claim that nothing can disprove a supernatural event. To do that I cited a supernatural event that can easily be disproved. That is logic.

Your suggested alternative would be entirely defective from a logical standpoint because it doesn't address the issue of whether it is impossible or not to disprove an event on the basis of it being supernatural.

Yes, but Eoin Morgan never had his hands burned off. The event did not happen. So the question of whether it was a supernatural event or not is pointless.

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

Are there any atheists out there, that have an argument for their claims about thiesm or what theists believe, that does not contain these yet ?

What claims? Specifically. Please.

What claims are Atheists making about Theism or what Theists believe?

marienbad

Cen taurus wrote: »

Are there any atheists out there, that have an argument for their claims about thiesm or what theists believe, that does not contain these yet ?

I have been following your exchange with oriburo and I just can't make sense of your replies.

If an atheist is just a person that, due to lack of evidence doesn't believe in God or Gods what more is there to be said ?

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

What claims? Specifically. Please.

What claims are Atheists making about Theism or what Theists believe?

Every claim that you posted about me previously and what I believed for starters.

Got anything true yet ?

Viper_JB

orubiru wrote: »

What claims? Specifically. Please.

What claims are Atheists making about Theism or what Theists believe?

I think he means that Atheists need physical evidence that God doesn't exist for it to be valid argument but that's just a guess I truly have no idea...

Cen taurus

marienbad wrote: »

I have been following your exchange with oriburo and I just can't make sense of your replies.

If an atheist is just a person that, due to lack of evidence doesn't believe in God or Gods what more is there to be said ?

That's exactly what I'm wondering.

So why all the false claims about theism and what theists believe ?

Nick Park

orubiru wrote: »

Yes, but Eoin Morgan never had his hands burned off. The event did not happen. So the question of whether it was a supernatural event or not is pointless.

It is hardly pointless if someone has made a claim that a supernatural event cannot be disproved. I have demonstrated that a claim about a supernatural event can be disproved. Therefore the Lurker's statement is falsified.

Btw, I hardly think it is fair to blame me for using a hypothetical example when I was responding to a post by the Lurker where he used a hypothetical example ("if RikuoAmero had solid evidence that Paul had taken mushrooms"). Never mind, keep defending the other atheist lads, even when they make claims that are indefensible.

Cen taurus

Viper_JB wrote: »

I think he means that Atheists need physical evidence that God doesn't exist for it to be valid argument but that's just a guess I truly have no idea...

Nope, false again. That depends entirely on the individual Atheist. No two people are the same, atheist or theist.

Out of interest, what physical evidence would prove God's existence and why would it be proof?

Nick Park

marienbad wrote: »

If an atheist is just a person that, due to lack of evidence doesn't believe in God or Gods what more is there to be said ?

No, that isn't it at all. An atheist is a person that doesn't believe in a god or gods. Very often that lack of belief is for other reasons than a lack of evidence.

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

Every claim that you posted about me previously and what I believed for starters.

Got anything true yet ?

State the claims. Please.

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

State the claims. Please.

[Note the tactic of re asking the same question that was already answered]

Your claims about me and what I believe and why I believe it [accoring to you], were already posted by you, so refer to your own posts, which I've dealt with.

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

Your claims about me and what I believe and why were already posted by you, so refer to your own posts, which I've dealt with.

What claims did I make about you?

What claims did I make about Theists and what Theists believe?

What claims do Atheists make about Theists and what Theists believe?

List them.

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

What claims did I make about you?

What claims did I make about Theists and what Theists believe?

What claims do Atheists make about Theists and what Theists believe?

List them.

Go back and read the posts where you made them, or are you now trying to claim you made no claims in those posts ? lol