Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:20PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Paul's description is consistent with hallucination. What is that if not evidence for hallucination?

It is also consistent with a number of other things. Arguing that something is theoretically possible, particularly where other possibilities exist, is not a basis for determining that is what happened. This is basic logic.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:21PM

TheLurker wrote: »

I Mohammad was talking to an angel as he claims then Islam is true. I think that would matter a great deal to Christians since their entire religion is based on a falsehood.

No, your logic is badly flawed.

You are assuming that angels are always truthful. Do you have any evidence to support such an assertion?

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:21PM

Nick Park wrote: »

It is also consistent with a number of other things. Arguing that something is theoretically possible, particularly where other possibilities exist, is not a basis for determining that is what happened. This is basic logic.

It is, and its why I'm not a Christian.

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:21PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, your logic is badly flawed.

You are assuming that angels are always truthful. Do you have any evidence to support such an assertion?

Can I take it that you have resorted to playing games that you realise the point that was being made?

In order to not be a Muslim you must make a judgement that SOMETHING other than what Mohammand claimed was happening was happening to him in the cave. If you want to believe it was a lying angel, fine. Others believe he was simply hallucinated. Either way neither of us are Muslims, and both are happy that his version of events are incorrect despite there only being his version of events.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:23PM

TheLurker wrote: »

I think you are purposefully over stating the confidence that the comment was made in order to attack a straw man. I don't think the OP was stating with certainty that Paul took magic mushrooms, and I think you also dont think that.

Far easier to attack that straw man than to defend the idea of believe Paul's claims.

I don't think it would be possible to overstate that particular poster's confidence.

No straw man here.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:24PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Can I take it that you have resorted to playing games that you realise the point that was being made?

No, that would be a blatant untruth.

I am perfectly open to the suggestion that Mohammed was in communication with a lying angel.

You appear to be the one who is playing games, rather than admit that I had a valid point.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:26PM

TheLurker wrote: »

It is, and its why I'm not a Christian.

And I've no problem with you not being a Christian. Fair play to you. But I wasn't addressing my initial posts to you, I was addressing them to posters who were making claims that they could not support.

galljga1 · 09-03-2015 01:30PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Do you believe Mohammad was talking to an angel?

Was she older than 6?

galljga1 · 09-03-2015 01:31PM

This is faith vs lack of belief: no winners.

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:35PM

Nick Park wrote: »

And I've no problem with you not being a Christian. Fair play to you. But I wasn't addressing my initial posts to you, I was addressing them to posters who were making claims that they could not support.

And as I have explained he is not attempting to support it as a certainty, only a far more plausible explanation.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:37PM

TheLurker wrote: »

And as I have explained he is not attempting to support it as a certainty, only a far more plausible explanation.

That isn't what he said. But your loyalty to your co-religionist is touching.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:38PM

galljga1 wrote: »

This is faith vs lack of belief: no winners.

More a case of two competing faiths, I think.

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:38PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, that would be a blatant untruth.

I am perfectly open to the suggestion that Mohammed was in communication with a lying angel.

You appear to be the one who is playing games, rather than admit that I had a valid point.

It was implied the angel was not lying. Saying you are happy with angel only to later say the angel could have lied, is playing games.

You are not perfectly happy with a truthful angel, which was the orginal point. Some where along the lines you have decided that what ever happened to Muhammad he was not in communication with a truthful angel.

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:39PM

Nick Park wrote: »

That isn't what he said. But your loyalty to your co-religionist is touching.

You choose to take his statement super literally. More games.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:42PM

TheLurker wrote: »

It was implied the angel was not lying. Saying you are happy with angel only to later say the angel could have lied, is playing games.

You are not perfectly happy with a truthful angel, which was the orginal point. Some where along the lines you have decided that what ever happened to Muhammad he was not in communication with a truthful angel.

I don't think he was in communication with a truthful angel. There are a number of alternative hypotheses, but, given that I have no evidence to support any one of them, I see no need to make grandiose claims that I have determined any of them to be true.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:44PM

TheLurker wrote: »

You choose to take his statement super literally. More games.

No, I chose to point out that his method of argumentation was bombastic, made overblown claims and deserved to be exposed for what it was.

If had simply said that there were alternative hypotheses, then that would have been fine. Everybody believes different stuff - that is the nature of faith.

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:45PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think he was in communication with a truthful angel. There are a number of alternative hypotheses, but, given that I have no evidence to support any one of them, I see no need to make grandiose claims that I have determined any of them to be true.

Yet you believe one of them to be true

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:49PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I chose to point out that his method of argumentation was bombastic, made overblown claims and deserved to be exposed for what it was.

If had simply said that there were alternative hypotheses, then that would have been fine. Everybody believes different stuff - that is the nature of faith.

So long as he left open the door for the Christian version of events...

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:51PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Yet you believe one of them to be true

No, that's another logical fallacy.

I can think of a number of hypotheses, but all of them may turn out to be untrue. It's quite possible that another explanation, one that I've never thought of, may turn out to be true.

Either way, it's not particularly important to me which is true. That's the thing about alternative hypotheses. They may lead us to believe that a claim is not true, but they are not evidence or proof of the claim's untruth.

And I'm perfectly happy to say that alternative hypotheses about Paul may cause you to believe that Paul's own version is not the truth. You are entitled to your own faith. But to present that in a debate as if it disproved Paul would be deeply dishonest.

Basic logic again.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 01:54PM

TheLurker wrote: »

So long as he left open the door for the Christian version of events...

That's how possible hypotheses work. If you want to shut the door then you have to come up with hard evidence to back up your alternative hypothesis.

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:58PM

Nick Park wrote: »

But to present that in a debate as if it disproved Paul would be deeply dishonest

Ah, the real crime isn't it, not wiggle room for believers to escape into.

Of course just because he was high doesn't mean he wasn't talking to Jesus. Just because he was hallucinating doesn't mean he wasn't talking to Jesus.

Believers always find that wiggle room, so I wouldn't stress.

what ever the explanation for Paul's account it is unlikely to the point of irrelevance that he was actually talking to Jesus. When you say that to a Christian though they just hear "so there was a chance"

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 01:59PM

Nick Park wrote: »

That's how possible hypotheses work. If you want to shut the door then you have to come up with hard evidence to back up your alternative hypothesis.

No evidence can shut the door to a supernatural event. That is what a supernatural event is, something that follows no rules.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 02:03PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Ah, the real crime isn't it, not wiggle room for believers to escape into.

Of course just because he was high doesn't mean he wasn't talking to Jesus. Just because he was hallucinating doesn't mean he wasn't talking to Jesus.

Believers always find that wiggle room, so I wouldn't stress.

what ever the explanation for Paul's account it is unlikely to the point of irrelevance that he was actually talking to Jesus. When you say that to a Christian though they just hear "so there was a chance"

No, the real crime was the pretence that he hadn't left enough wiggle room to drive a double decker bus through. If he had honestly admitted that he was presenting an alternative hypothesis with no evidence to back it up then no-one would have batted an eyelid. It's a free country and atheists are free to believe what they want to believe. Just so long as they don't go around presenting it as something they have 'determined' - making it sound like they have a scrap of evidence somewhere.

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.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 02:05PM

TheLurker wrote: »

No evidence can shut the door to a supernatural event. That is what a supernatural event is, something that follows no rules.

No, that isn't the case. But I hope you have a lot of fun building that straw man.

A supernatural event is an event that might involve some rules that go beyond your subjective opinion of what is and isn't possible.

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 02:10PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, that isn't the case. But I hope you have a lot of fun building that straw man.

A supernatural event is an event that might involve some rules that go beyond your subjective opinion of what is and isn't possible.

What? Under that logic electricity was supernatural up until the 19th century?

More games.

You know very well that a supernatural event is an event that breaks natural law, irrespective of whether we understand those laws or not.

And given that a supernatural event adheres to no natural laws it can never be demonstrated to have not happened since it exists with in no framework.

orubiru · 09-03-2015 02:12PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

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, I think I'll no longer believe in God, I now lack belief as well.

Have you got anything ?

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?

Why would you ever think that Atheists would want to "convert" you?

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?

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". 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"?

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

No, just in the same way you have explained, you do not claim that God does not exist. I believe God exists, it's not a claim that he does exist, it's a belief.

Again it's not a claim, it's a belief, see above. I have no evidence that an atheist will accept, if they did accept it as evidence, they would not be an atheist.

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

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, 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 understanding of logic 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.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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

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

In the end. If there is no evidence then absence is assumed until evidence is presented.

Many people for example believe in alien life being out there somewhere (myself included), but, to date, there is no evidence for alien life.

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".

It's not a claim, see above.
It's not my God, whether God exists or not, does not depend on me.

Your lack of belief, is not my problem, I'm not asking you to believe.

Surely my lack of belief should be a problem for you though? My lack of belief should serve as a reference point for how solid your belief actually is.

But, when you make a claim about theism or what theists believe, as a reason and argument for atheism, I'll be examining it to determine is it based on any fallacies, false assumptions, or misrepresentations, and are all your premises true.

I've yet to see one advanced here or elsewhere so far from any atheists.

So, I'm all ears . . . Have you got one ?

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 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. 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.

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

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 02:12PM

TheLurker wrote: »

What? Under that logic electricity was supernatural up until the 19th century?

More games.

You know very well that a supernatural event is an event that breaks natural law, irrespective of whether we understand those laws or not.

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of 'playing games' is hardly going to convince anyone of God's non-existence.

It's the internet. People have different beliefs. Get used to it.

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 02:14PM

orubiru wrote: »

Surely my lack of belief should be a problem for you though? My lack of belief should serve as a reference point for how solid your belief actually is.

I don't think any of us on here are so important that our non-belief in something should be a problem for anyone else.

A shrug of the shoulders and the rest of us move on.

TheLurker · 09-03-2015 02:15PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of 'playing games' is hardly going to convince anyone of God's non-existence.

It's the internet. People have different beliefs. Get used to it.

You are playing games by purposefully avoiding the points being made and deciding to instead argue nonsense.

I suspect because you are profoundly uncomfortable with the actual points being made and the effect they might have on any believes reading. But that is rather hear nor there. The fact of the matter is that this game playing you partake in wastes time and energy and clouds the real discuss (on purpose I suspect)

Nick Park · 09-03-2015 02:18PM

TheLurker wrote: »

You are playing games by purposefully avoiding the points being made and deciding to instead argue nonsense.

I suspect because you are profoundly uncomfortable with the actual points being made and the effect they might have on any believes reading. But that is rather hear nor there

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.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments