Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Robert.Evans]

But you did say 'Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my theism?'.

That's VERY specific.

Just have a go...otherwise it will look like you've got no answers

 

[Koldo]

Just have a go...otherwise it will look like you've got no answers

I asked him something, and I am still waiting for his answer.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So if they present an argument against the Christian God, this would not argue against 'theism'; just against the Christian God. How can they make an argument against every possible theism?

My answer is, because as an atheist all gods are the same to me. An argument against one is an argument against all. It's like explaining why you don't believe in fantasy creatures. You don't need one arugment for Goblins and another for Trolls and a third for Orcs. The reasoning behind your disbelief will be the same for all.

There is no comparison with mysitcal things and an intellignece being involved in creation. It shows you don't understand the fullness of the argument. Silly arguments like that take you nowhere

 

[Robert.Evans]

I asked him something, and I am still waiting for his answer.

so is he, and he asked first

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my theism? Here is the thing though, no help from me, you'll have to simply present your argument, or realize that you don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge.
I'm an honest person, not religious, this isn't a ''trick'' question. Non atheists can answer to

/fun thread

Aethistic position is the result of not having a reason to beilive in a deity.

You are asking us to prove a negative.

Can your prove to me that Unicorns do not exist?

 

[Koldo]

so is he, and he asked first

I asked for clarification. I can't properly reply without further clarification.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Aethistic position is the result of not having a reason to beilive in a deity.

You are asking us to prove a negative.

Can your prove to me that Unicorns do not exist?

I could prove a negative bank balance. Will that do?

 

[Augustus]

So, you are implying that ''theism'' hence atheism , by default, are meaningless terms, without signifiers

The word theism is a signifier, a signifier is the symbol (word, image, etc.).

The signified is what people might have a problem with.

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

The concept of a negative in Logic is the equivalent of a 0 in mathematics.

The concept of a negative number or a positive number in mathematics would both be a positive in logic.

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

You are basically asking me to prove to you that 0 exists when the only way to prove a 0 is to show the absence of a quantity.

Becuase there is no evidance for a deity there is no reason to beilive that one exists.

 

[Terryj]

q konn, as been stated before there are many different types of theism, the classic definition of theism is that one believes in an anthropomorphic god or gods that is responsible for the creation of all things. Based on this definition then the claim is easy to refute based on the information that science has provided us and backed up by peer review.

My belief is close to pantheism, meaning (to keep things simple) that all thing are of god and there is no anthropomorphic god, for all things are god therefore there can be no separate god.

 

[Desert Snake]

I asked for clarification. I can't properly reply without further clarification.

The OP states ''theism''; it's a fairly broad thing that one could 'argue against'. (theoretically). How ''specific'' do you need something in order to argue against it? That is really becoming the issue here. It's an indication that the moniker ''atheism'', isn't very accurate.

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

The OP states ''theism''; it's a fairly broad thing that one could 'argue against'. (theoretically). How ''specific'' do you need something in order to argue against it? That is really becoming the issue here. It's an indication that the moniker ''atheism'', isn't very accurate.

So tell me how to prove that there are not unicorns.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can you convince me this isn't one of the most intellectually bankrupt threads I've ever encountered here?

Ok, go.

 

[Desert Snake]

q konn, as been stated before there are many different types of theism, the classic definition of theism is that one believes in an anthropomorphic god or gods that is responsible for the creation of all things. Based on this definition then the claim is easy to refute based on the information that science has provided us and backed up by peer review.

My belief is close to pantheism, meaning (to keep things simple) that all thing are of god and there is no anthropomorphic god, for all things are god therefore there can be no separate god.

Anything is ''easy to refute''. You merely claim that it isn't true. The science and peer review part is false, btw, unless science is in the business of bad suppositions.

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

If you want to define theism as beilief in a creater deity that made mankind (which it is not) then it could be refuted becuase we have evidance for human evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

So tell me how to prove that there are not unicorns.

Actually, I can prove that there are unicorns.....

 

[Demonslayer]

There is no comparison with mysitcal things and an intellignece being involved in creation. It shows you don't understand the fullness of the argument. Silly arguments like that take you nowhere

Do you get far in life being so condescending?

My point was an argument against the existence of Yahweh would be the same as an argument against the existence of Zeus or against the existence of Kokopelli. I wasn't comparing Goblins to Gods.

Perhaps you need to throttle back the attitude and read a little more closely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The OP states ''theism''; it's a fairly broad thing that one could 'argue against'. (theoretically). How ''specific'' do you need something in order to argue against it? That is really becoming the issue here. It's an indication that the moniker ''atheism'', isn't very accurate.

Theism isn't one single thing. The arguments against different parts of it are different.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The OP states ''theism''; it's a fairly broad thing that one could 'argue against'. (theoretically). How ''specific'' do you need something in order to argue against it? That is really becoming the issue here. It's an indication that the moniker ''atheism'', isn't very accurate.

Compare it to a math equation.

Sally, "Proove to me that my beliefs in arithematic is wrong"

Jane, "what about arithmatic? You have an problem for me to solve?

Sally, "well, if I gave specifics, wed be debating semantics"

Jane scratches her head.

The most out of this debate I got was this equation:

"Proove to me that X and X does not equal Two."

Everyone keeps asking, Konn, what is X?