Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Festus wrote: »

This is a theological questions based on the premise that God exists.

Ah ok, that is clear, thank you. Given that premise has been in no way established therefore.... then there is no reason to "satisfy" myself of any consequences in this regard then.

Harika wrote: »

You, me and the others here know that the non-existence of something cannot be proven

Exactly.

Equally I could say that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist but I refer you to a you tube link I posted earlier that makes the case for the non existence of Richard Dawkins.

Festus wrote: »

Exactly.

Wonderful, now prove the non existence of my pink unicorn and I prove you the non existence of god. If this cannot be achieved will we try to prove god and the unicorn? Or will we continue to turn in circles? (Basically the sniped part

)

Festus wrote: »

Exactly.

What's your opinion on the Tooth Fairy?

Should we treat the lack of evidence for their non-existence any differently from what you're proposing? If so, why?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no distinction and I explained why in a post you appear not to have read.

and you like debating. if you are good at debating you could argue the case for God.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

This is a theological questions based on the premise that God exists.
So, do you think this is the right thread to discuss a point made by another poster that relies on the premise that God's existence is a given?

Please Don't misrepresent me Festus. I made the following statement:

"As soon as you try to delve into "God's perspective" you enter a quagmire of opinion and man made interpretations of God's desires for us. Then you are back to the misery scenario, if you break seemingly innocuous, silly rules. (EG: missing Mass on Sunday). Therefore I believe we are better off leading a "good life" as laid down by common sense, reason and society. I genuinely believe that the religious types should get on with their lives, and those who want to stay away from their idea of Godly beliefs, should be left alone."

I never based any comment on a premise that God exists. That is you using your vivid imagination.

Festus wrote: »

and you like debating. if you are good at debating you could argue the case for God.

I have done. Mostly back in debating clubs where you can be arbitrarily assigned a topic and a side, and you have to defend it even if it is not the side you subscribe to. I have also done so later than this in challenges where in front of audience we were asked to argue the other side of the debate for half the debate.

I did not find it easy with the god question because that is how poor I find the arguments for god. When I have been asked to debate the "wrong" side of other issues, like homosexuality, abortion, certain wars and other things I could do it. I could come up with convincing and moving arguments which in some cases my opposition could not really rebut.

But with the god thing.... I simply sucked at it. Not only has no one presented me with any arguments for the existence of a god.... I could not even piece together any myself when asked to do so. Since I would not lie or cheat, I was essentially left with appeal to emotion and other such arguments.

Deleted User wrote: »

What's your opinion on the Tooth Fairy?

Atheists talk about it and other creatures like pink unicorns so often that over time and with increased numbers of atheists talking about it and writing about them it might at some point be reasonable to conclude that atheists might actually believe in them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Should we treat the lack of evidence for their non-existence any differently from what you're proposing? If so, why?

Yes because there is no comparison. What can a tooth fairy do?

Festus wrote: »

Atheists talk about it and other creatures like pink unicorns so often that over time and with increased numbers of atheists talking about it and writing about them it might at some point be reasonable to conclude that atheists might actually believe in them.

Yes because there is no comparison. What can a tooth fairy do?

Is this not the very definition of a Special Pleading?
I personally don't believe in a the Tooth Fairy so don't believe that they can do anything.

However, are we able to agree that there's a similar lack of evidence for their non-existence as a lack of evidence for the non-existence of god? If not, what evidence is available in the second case?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I did not find it easy with the god question because that is how poor I find the arguments for god.

not like you to give up on a challenge so easily

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But with the god thing.... I simply sucked at it.

Not only has no one presented me with any arguments for the existence of a god.... I could not even piece together any myself when asked to do so.

I think at this stage all I can really do is pray for you.

Festus wrote: »

Atheists talk about it and other creatures like pink unicorns so often that over time and with increased numbers of atheists talking about it and writing about them it might at some point be reasonable to conclude that atheists might actually believe in them.

Fantastic, now you agree that the pink unicorn might be believed into because people are writing and talking about it long enough. Where do I know this from...?

Festus wrote: »

Yes because there is no comparison. What can a tooth fairy do?

It replaces the tooth against a small payment. :P

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this not the very definition of a Special Pleading?

The introduction of the tooth fairy is. The general rule here is we are talking about God.

Deleted User wrote: »

However, are we able to agree that there's a similar lack of evidence for their non-existence as a lack of evidence for the non-existence of god? If not, what evidence is available in the second case?

not similar. lack of evidence for something no-one believes in is not the same as lack of evidence for something people believe in.

Harika wrote: »

Fantastic, now you agree that the pink unicorn might be believed into because people are writing and talking about it long enough.

Yes but only atheists are capable of believing in pink unicorns.

Harika wrote: »

It replaces the tooth against a small payment. :P

and what can God do?

Festus wrote: »

not like you to give up on a challenge so easily

Not sure where you got that. I summarized a whole section of my debating background in a few lines. The summary represents a number of attempts, a LOT of trying, work, investment and study....... and after all that I never "gave up" either.... I did present a case. Just not a good one. Perhaps you and I use English differently but I do not know how you got "give up" from me saying "I did not find it easy".

Festus wrote: »

I think at this stage all I can really do is pray for you.

Someone with a better heard for quotes than me will have to put a name to this. But some popular atheist is reported to have replied to "I will pray for you" with "Great, and I will think for you".

Festus wrote: »

Yes but only atheists are capable of believing in pink unicorns.

So are you able to speak for all non-atheists and none of them believes in pink unicorns? I think you nailed me on that some pages ago. lol

Festus wrote: »

and what can God do?

Which god?

Festus wrote: »

not similar. lack of evidence for something no-one believes in is not the same as lack of evidence for something people believe in.

Why not? I think that this idea needs expansion further if you don't mind.

Festus wrote: »

not similar. lack of evidence for something no-one believes in is not the same as lack of evidence for something people believe in.

Except yes it is. It is exactly the same. You are falling into Argumentum ad populum traps now. The reality is an unsubstantiated claim remains an unsubstantiated claim, regardless of how many people purport to believe in it. Let alone how many of them _actually do_.

Festus wrote: »

Atheists talk about it and other creatures like pink unicorns so often that over time and with increased numbers of atheists talking about it and writing about them it might at some point be reasonable to conclude that atheists might actually believe in them.

Fatuous and facetious conclusion from you actually. The reason Atheists bring up such things increasingly is that the theist reliance on the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" canard. It is mere cause and effect. The more you trot out that "argument" the more you will hear the rebuttal.

Festus wrote: »

Exactly.

So the question then becomes, out of ALL the INNUMERABLE things that can not be falsified, why believe one and not the rest. What is the methodology to be used to select one from the others given the lack of substantiation for any of them? Aside from bias, wishful thinking, or indoctrination, how does one distingush the choice to believe in a god and not the other innumerable unsubstantiated but unfalsifiable nonsense in our world?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure where you got that. I summarized a whole section of my debating background in a few lines. The summary represents a number of attempts, a LOT of trying, work, investment and study....... and after all that I never "gave up" either.... I did present a case. Just not a good one. Perhaps you and I use English differently but I do not know how you got "give up" from me saying "I did not find it easy".

Perhaps the internet and search engines didn't exist back then. Today there is an untold wealth of PhD scientists who believe in God able and willing to share their evidence. There is also any number of former atheists who also share their experience and evidence. using some of that would not be cheating if you referenced them in your delivery.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Someone with a better heard for quotes than me will have to put a name to this. But some popular atheist is reported to have replied to "I will pray for you" with "Great, and I will think for you".

I believe it comes from a barbed response website designed for those incapable of thinking up their own demeaning and belittling responses.

here is a website for anyone else who feels the need...

http://www.the-brights.net/movement/toolbox/p4y/

Anyway, I'm sorry you took offence - none was intended.
However having looked at a number of websites where this response is suggested as being a useful tool in the atheist arsenal I'll leave you people to it.

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps the internet and search engines didn't exist back then.

I am only 35, I am not sure when internet came to where you grew up.

Festus wrote: »

Today there is an untold wealth of PhD scientists who believe in God able and willing to share their evidence.

Not that I have seen no. Perhaps you are aware of some that I have missed that you can make me aware of.

Festus wrote: »

using some of that would not be cheating if you referenced them in your delivery.

That is why I said cheating AND lying. There are arguments I know of that are simply bad arguments and false. Like making temporal causality arguments about states where time was not an element.

I would not and could not use them because to do so would be lying, as I myself knew the arguments to be false and why they failed.

So I have to construct arguments based on things that, while unconvincing to me, were at least not lies. It rather curtailed my presentation over people like, say, convicted criminal Kent Hovind who would happily lie and distort at length while making his.

Festus wrote: »

here is the a for anyone else who feels the need...

I did not ask for a site that include it in a list of responses. I asked if anyone knew who originally said it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not that I have seen no. Perhaps you are aware of some that I have missed that you can make me aware of.

Send me the search parameters you used in your search engine and I'll review it

That would be a LONG post of meaningless words. And we are talking several years ago. Not happening. But if you are aware of anyone, phd or not (as the phd is irrelevant to me entirely) that is espousing convincing arguments or evidence that there is a god, simply let me know who and where.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would be a LONG post of meaningless words. And we are talking several years ago. Not happening. But if you are aware of anyone, phd or not (as the phd is irrelevant to me entirely) that is espousing convincing arguments or evidence that there is a god, simply let me know who and where.

Can you not simple tell me which words you would put into a search engine?

Festus wrote: »

Can you not simple tell me which words you would put into a search engine?

httpREMOVE://lmgtfy.com/?q=list+scientists+believe+god

Harika wrote: »

httpREMOVE://lmgtfy.com/?q=list+scientists+believe+god

are you thinking for Noz?

Festus wrote: »

are you thinking for Noz?

Will you provide us with the mysterious list of PhD scientist who believe in God able and willing to share their evidence, before the end of time?

Harika wrote: »

Will you provide us with the mysterious list of PhD scientist who believe in God able and willing to share their evidence, before the end of time?

Do you not know how to use an internet search engine?

Festus wrote: »

Do you not know how to use an internet search engine?

So you want me to verify your claim?

Harika wrote: »

So you want me to verify your claim?

No. I want you to think for yourself and do your own research.

Festus wrote: »

not similar. lack of evidence for something no-one believes in is not the same as lack of evidence for something people believe in.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not? I think that this idea needs expansion further if you don't mind.

Festus, in case you missed this, I'm really very interested in you expanding on the above.

Personally I think that peoples' beliefs are independent from the evidence / lack of evidence (happy to hear otherwise), and if this is the case, can't we add that they can't provide any additional information that we can use to differentiate the two cases ('lack of evidence for the non-existence' of either the Tooth Fairy or a Deity). Where am I making a mistake?