Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Desert Snake]

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 is asking, what is X?

The problem is that they are claiming to know what 'x' is. You see, you are turning ''your problem'', into mine. This doesn't follow logic

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

The problem with that argument, is that it equates every idea of deity, as somehow all equally likely; now, there is no reason to believe this, necessarily, it's arbitrary. Or, perhaps we say there are many deities, or one deity with many forms, then your argument is also no longer an argument. I'm not an exclusivist, btw, so more than one ''Deity'' can be legit, as I believe in Deity having more than one expression or form.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The problem is that they are claiming to know what 'x' is. You see, you are turning ''your problem'', into mine. This doesn't follow logic

They are trying to define X based on the info you gave so they can answer your OP. Instead of having them guess at beliefs you may not hold, tell us what X is and we can move forward to prove "theism" is wrong.

Theism is the arithmatic in the analogy. We can prove a problem wrong "within" arithematic but even if you gave us the problem, that doesnt proove arithematic is wrong just that specific equation.

As the OPer, you have to give a solid definition of the word to base our arguments on. If there is no definition you have for theism ad a whole, we can only argue against the problems not the subject itself.

 

[Desert Snake]

They are trying to define X based on the info you gave so they can answer your OP. Instead of having them guess at beliefs you may not hold, tell us what X is and we can move forward to prove "theism" is wrong.

You wouldn't be proving theism wrong. You would be arguing against a specific deity or religious idea.

Theism is the arithmatic in the analogy. We can prove a problem wrong "within" arithematic but even if you gave us the problem, that doesnt proove arithematic is wrong just that specific equation.

This would make anything approaching explicit atheism, to be contradictory and false, as a position.

As the OPer, you have to give a solid definition of the word to base our arguments on. If there is no definition you have for theism ad a whole, we can only argue against the problems not the subject itself.

Your supplying your own word, ie ''theism'' //atheism/; Why would I be the only one supplying a definition for a word that you are using?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You wouldn't be proving theism wrong. You would be arguing against a specific deity or religious idea.

This would make anything approaching explicit atheism, to be contradictory and false, as a position.

Your supplying your own word, ie ''theism'' //atheism/; Why would I be the only one supplying a definition for a word that you are using?

Go back to my analogy.

Math (theism) has many subjects Algebra, Arithmetic, Geometry (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism) under that umbrella.

You, the person who "brings the burdden or problem" present us with "proove that my beliefs in math are wrong."

Because. There are so many subjects under math, where do we start?

There is no foundation. You even said theism is broad. If that be the case, what beliefs do you hold "so that we know what arguments to use against them"?

Best I can say it. We need info to counteract the info given. The words theism and beliefs are not specific enough for a debate.

 

[Desert Snake]

Go back to my analogy.

Math (theism) has many subjects Algebra, Arithmetic, Geometry (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism) under that umbrella.

You, the person who "brings the burdden or problem" present us with "proove th@t my beliefs in math are wrong?"

Atheism implies that my beliefs /theistic/,are wrong.

Because. There are so many subjects under math, where do we start?

Anywhere, I gave broad parameters.

There is no foundation. You even said theism is broad. If that be the case, what beliefs do you hold "sonthat we knownwhat arguments to use against them"?

How does this make sense? Even if you proved something specific that I believed in, to be incorrect, by your own admission, this means nothing as to whether ''theism'' is incorrect. But the claim is ''atheism''.

Best I can say it. We need info to counteract the info given. Thr wors theism and beliefs are not specific for a debate.

How much info do you need? Do you know what a deity or deities is? That's the info, lol. What do you want to know, besides that? The fact that you want to argue semantics, does not prove my theism incorrect, it merely means that you want me to present something that you think you can argue against. This isn't logical.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism implies that my beliefs /theistic/,are wrong.

Actually, this is one thing you're entirely wrong about.
Atheism implies nothing, especially since your beliefs are unknown.
Moreover there is another possibility, ie, that you cannot be wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually, this is one thing you're entirely wrong about.
Atheism implies nothing, especially since your beliefs are unknown.

I think that this is subjective. You may have a very implicit form of atheism, or rather non-assertive type of atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that this is subjective. You may have a very implicit form of atheism, or rather non-assertive type of atheism.

You didn't quote my whole post.
The additional possibility of how we (atheists) could view your faith (currently unknown) is what made your claim wrong.
Atheism does not imply you're wrong.

Edit:
The OP's title doesn't work either because there's no challenge to atheism.
It's just a question about whether anyone can convert you.

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

Aethism is the lack of beilief in an deity.

It is the default belief.

In order to sway me from it please provide evidance for a deity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your belief is theism? Some theists belief in deities as concepts. Some believe them as labels or personifications of nature. Some believe a deity is a being while others say he is an idea. All these people are theists.

There are different arguments we can use "depending" on the details provided. There were no details. You said in one post theism is to broad and in another, we would be debating semantics if you explained further. Debates work better when we dont assume what the other person believes because they attach a label to their belief system. Humans are complex.

As a theist, what do you believe so we can choose which logical arguments to counter "your" theism (and not theism in general)?

If you said you believe in multiple gods, I wouldnt use an argument that disproves one god. If you believe gods as concecpts, I wouldnt approach you as if you believed they were beings.

With that said.

Atheism implies that my beliefs /theistic/,are wrong.

Okay? I dont see how atheism prooves your beliefs wrong given atheism has many definitions just as much as theism. Thats why there is a need to be specific when asking questions that make us think.

How does this make sense? Even if you proved something specific that I believed in, to be incorrect, by your own admission, this means nothing as to whether ''theism'' is incorrect. But the claim is ''atheism''.

We cant judge if theism is correct until you define what you mean by the word. (Going by my intro above befoee you "quote")

How much info do you need? Do you know what a deity or deities is? That's the info, lol. What do you want to know, besides that? The fact that you want to argue semantics, does not prove my theism incorrect, it merely means that you want me to present something that you think you can argue against. This isn't logical.

Going back to my intro. We cant prove theism is wrong. Some theist beliefs have to do with "concepts and ideas" not beings. How can one disprove this type of theism when everything comes from the mind?

-
I cant prove "your" theism is incorrect (as per OP) because I dont know what you believe to successful make an argument against it.

I cant prove theism in general is false because there are so many types from actual deities to conceptions of deities from the mind.

We have too many variables in your OP. Which are you asking for, prove against your theism? (What IS your theism, anyway?) or prove against theism in general (Which theism since there are so many?)

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

That is not what I read.
You said:

"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."

Sounds somewhat condescending I would say, and further to that, not a credible argument. All of those arguments just show people who do not wish to discuss and therefore their minds are closed.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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?

I was alright with that till she scratched her head.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Aethism is the lack of beilief in an deity.

It is the default belief.

In order to sway me from it please provide evidance for a deity.

atheism is not the default. Someone has to go into it some detail to be atheist. The default would either be agnostic or ignostic...... though i have to say, it would depend on one's own definition. There are many.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Aethism is the lack of beilief in an deity.

It is the default belief.

In order to sway me from it please provide evidance for a deity.

If you, as per your note to the side says, 'Hold no faith in anything', do you have no faith that a bus will turn up, that a friend is telling the truth?

 

[Koldo]

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.

You must have missed the question in a former post:

"I can't show that a literally undetectable being doesn't exist.
I can, however, try to convince you that you have no reason to believe in its existence. Is that acceptable ?"

 

[Robert.Evans]

Still no one can convince you that you are incorrect in your theism it seems

 

[Parsimony]

Changing anyone's mind about God, for or against, is almost impossible in a single discussion. Or even a hundred discussions.

 

[leibowde84]

So, you are implying that ''theism'' hence atheism , by default, are meaningless terms, without signifiers, and specifications, etc. Even the broad context is not enough for people to present an argument. In this case, it is not ''theism'', that is being argued, then, is it? And if it's not theism, then it can't be ''atheism''. (literally)

/by the way, I did give some parameters, are those not specific enough, in your opinion?

You literally said "theism in the general sense". So, no. Not nearly enough.

 

[dust1n]

Still no one can convince you that you are incorrect in your theism it seems

I feel his pain. I applied his reasoning for God to Lars, and I'm still waiting myself.

Can you convince me there isn't a notoriously evasive squirrel names Lars on the planet Mars? Here is the thing though, I'm not going to tell you anything about Lars at all. You'll have to simply present your argument, or realize that you don't have an argument suitable and pass on the challenge... challenge... challenge... challenge... I'm an honest person, totally not, like, all in love with Lars; just believe in him. No tricks here.