Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[dust1n]

I will be more forthcoming about Lars on the planet mars: he did something in a box with Fox and in a house with a mouse...Lars is a dirty little squirrel indeed.

Shh, don't give away the evidence!

 

[leibowde84]

Do you realize 'most atheists are materialists' does entail that you can not assume it is true for a particular atheist??

I'm not disputing that. This started with you assigning aspects of materialism to self-identified "atheists".

My only point is that "atheism" should not be assumed in any way to include "materialism" automatically. Atheism and it's different kinds are still evolving rapidly.

 

[George-ananda]

My only point is that "atheism" should not be assumed in any way to include "materialism" automatically.

I have always agreed it is not automatic!!

Atheism and it's different kinds are still evolving rapidly.

I would love to see atheism evolve rapidly. But at this time 'Most atheists are Materialists' and I don't think you can find a single expert (atheist or theist) that would not say the same as me.

 

[Pudding]

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

Theism in the broader sense. So, think of different types of deities, the theism idea to be argued against would have to cover those. Like, gods, etc., though, we can limit it to sentient beings. Things like an ''object'', no, that makes things too complicated. /even though people worship objects/


If you want you can present a specific deity argument, though, it's not a strict format

You challenge people to disprove your theism, and when they ask you to decribe your theism as to which god in your theism you believe exists, you refuse.
You said that the theism of yours, you meant it is in the broader sense.
So, you mean your theism is in the broader sense? What could "your theism is in the broader sense" means or be interpret into?
Do you mean you believe in every and all of those thousands of gods/deities which have been believe/mention/record by humans?
Thousands of NAMES OF GODS, GODDESSES ...
Are you challenge people to disprove all those thousands of theism's gods which you believe exists?

 

[Milton Platt]

Well, if a deity is specified, it could be like a ''type'' of deity/// however, no, not specific, because then we just get into semantics, and there is too much disagreement on specific deity ideas even within the same religions/s/. Anything is welcome, though, this isn't supposed to be formal debate type thread.

So you are asking people to disprove your belief but won't define your belief. How's that gonna work?

But it is not necessary for anyone to disprove your belief or disprove the deity(s) you believe in. If you want others to share your belief, it is up to you to demonstrate the existence of the deity(s).
If you do not wish others to believe what you believe, then it is a moot point.

 

[Desert Snake]

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 ?"

Any argument is acceptable, that has already been stated.

 

[Desert Snake]

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

Huh? I wrote sentient beings, non-''object'' gods, /like an idol or such/, classical ideas of gods, and that you could essentially present any argument within those parameters. What exactly is the problem with those parameters?

 

[David M]

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.

Nope, gnosticism has to do with whether the answers to things can be known (rather than believed). No detail is required to be an atheist, for example there are certainly a large number of proposed deities that I have never heard of, my position on those deities is one of atheism as I lack belied in their existence just as I lack belief in the existence of the Abrahamic God or the Hindu deities.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.


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.



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




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?)

My G-d is the Biblical one. Here is the problem with having people try to present arguments against that; the argument then becomes about semantics, and appeal to authority. Thus, it is more problematic than a broad argument. This is because people have their own idea of who the Biblical Deity is.

 

[Desert Snake]

He didn't give us anything to convince him of. He didn't provide his beliefs.

That is because it won't help your argument or rather clearly, your lack of an argument. The Biblical G-d is the title that I personally adhere to /I'm not an exclusivist/; however, I'm not going to continually correct mistakes made from poor research, or mistakes in general, and I'm not going to refute pointless appeals to authority.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My G-d is the Biblical one. Here is the problem with having people try to present arguments against that; the argument then becomes about semantics, and appeal to authority. Thus, it is more problematic than a broad argument. This is because people have their own idea of who the Biblical Deity is.

Sheesh! Thank you. You are right, we each have our own idea of what the Bibilical God is (and I am sure other readers can find the right arguements based on what your post). It is not that we cannot prove you wrong, it is because we have different definitions of what the biblical God is that we will be talking past each other. So, it's not enough to say "I am Jewish. I am Christian. I am Muslim." The believer (or nonbeliever, whomever is on the spotlight) has to at least tell us how he or she defines the God they believe in so the other party they are debating against knows (at least a little more) about what that believer believes and not what the other party wants to belieive about the believer. Gosh. Tongue twister.

Instead of a Christian saying "I am Christian. I believe in the Biblical God" he needs to say something like "I follow Christ. He is my God. He is love and all the above" and the other party can rule out using non-trinitarian argurements on a trinitarian believer. The more specific a person states his belief, the less the other party is able to conteract those believes with his own bias.

That's why I ask about details. Nothing about semantics or anything like that. To your OP, after all this, I cannot disprove your theism. I don't believe in the Abrahamic God in any other extent than concepts and personifications of our psychological wants and needs for spiritual growth and development.

If I had enough knowledge, I can share how belief in God is psychological rather than purely supernatural based. I could also share repeated statements of people believing in multiple Gods and each person saying their God is the right God and yet each God is influenced and shaped by the culture and group of people that believe in him or her.

If God existed (if your theism is correct), God would be universal. There would be no "this is my god and this is yours". Religion would not be based on the person but based on the fact that a Creator does exist. Since it is just a belief it can't be proved true. Since I don't believe in a God as a being, I can't prove something that doesn't exist, does not exist.

That's a combination of your post and the OP.

 

[Desert Snake]

So you are asking people to disprove your belief but won't define your belief. How's that gonna work?

That is the only way it could work, if it is going to have anything to do with ''theism', or ''atheism''. If semantics, and unprovable ideas presented, and appeals to authority are presented, that doesn't prove anything either, it's not even a decent argument, in this context.

But it is not necessary for anyone to disprove your belief or disprove the deity(s) you believe in. If you want others to share your belief, it is up to you to demonstrate the existence of the deity(s).
If you do not wish others to believe what you believe, then it is a moot point.

I don't care what people believe, what they worship, etc. That's not the intent of the thread. I don't think I could convince most atheists of anything. I might be able to change a theists view on things, though, using Scripture and such.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sheesh! Thank you. You are right, we each have our own idea of what the Bibilical God is (and I am sure other readers can find the right arguements based on what your post). It is not that we cannot prove you wrong, it is because we have different definitions of what the biblical God is that we will be talking past each other. So, it's not enough to say "I am Jewish. I am Christian. I am Muslim." The believer (or nonbeliever, whomever is on the spotlight) has to at least tell us how he or she defines the God they believe in so the other party they are debating against knows (at least a little more) about what that believer believes and not what the other party wants to belieive about the believer. Gosh. Tongue twister.

Instead of a Christian saying "I am Christian. I believe in the Biblical God" he needs to say something like "I follow Christ. He is my God. He is love and all the above" and the other party can rule out using non-trinitarian argurements on a trinitarian believer. The more specific a person states his belief, the less the other party is able to conteract those believes with his own bias.

That's why I ask about details. Nothing about semantics or anything like that. To your OP, after all this, I cannot disprove your theism. I don't believe in the Abrahamic God in any other extent than concepts and personifications of our psychological wants and needs for spiritual growth and development.

If I had enough knowledge, I can share how belief in God is psychological rather than purely supernatural based. I could also share repeated statements of people believing in multiple Gods and each person saying their God is the right God and yet each God is influenced and shaped by the culture and group of people that believe in him or her.

If God existed (if your theism is correct), God would be universal. There would be no "this is my god and this is yours". Religion would not be based on the person but based on the fact that a Creator does exist. Since it is just a belief it can't be proved true. Since I don't believe in a God as a being, I can't prove something that doesn't exist, does not exist.

That's a combination of your post and the OP.

Actually the problem with specifics is that that is where you will get the most incorrect reasoning, appeals to authority, misdirected arguments, and so forth. The insistence on specifics is actually a giveaway that people do not have very good arguments for atheism, in the first place; this is actually obvious, but it has occurred to me, that perhaps most atheists were not very knowlegeable about their previous theism /if they were ever theists/, in the first place.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually the problem with specifics is that that is where you will get the most incorrect reasoning, appeals to authority, misdirected arguments, and so forth. The insistence on specifics is actually a giveaway that people do not have very good arguments for atheism, in the first place; this is actually obvious, but it has occurred to me, that perhaps most atheists were not very knowlegeable about their previous theism /if they were ever theists/, in the first place.

Sorry for the long post. My point. There is only one good arguement I know for atheism and its just by its definition, lack of belief in God. The theist makes the claim. The atheist disbelieves it. The problem is, the theist believes his beliefs are facts. Atheists know they are disbelieving in claims and most don't consider them facts...if that be the case, they would believe it.

The friction lies in the fact verses claim stance. An atheist propes a theist about the claims he makes, the theist is offended because he believes his claims are facts/true--so it becomes personal. When a theist questions a stable atheist on his claims, the atheist is like "well, I just don't believe what the theist believes in. If you didn't make the claim, I wouldnt be an atheist." type of thing. Atheism depends on theism. That's why theism holds the burden of proof and that is why theists are always asked more questions. To ask an atheist to disprove his disbelief in God is illogical. That's like asking me, "do you believe in God," and I say "No, he does not exist" and you say "proof it" and I think "how? when there is nothing here. What measurements can I use to measure nothing? What tools should I use? Questions I should ponder over? Is it Zen? A Koran? Give me a hint, theist."

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry for the long post. My point. There is only one good arguement I know for atheism and its just by its definition, lack of belief in God. The theist makes the claim. The atheist disbelieves it. The problem is, the theist believes his beliefs are facts. Atheists know they are disbelieving in claims and most don't consider them facts...if that be the case, they would believe it.

This then means that atheists are relying on the theists claims to be incorrect, or obviously wrong, etc. And that is precisely why it is not a good ''position'' in the first place. There are too many variables between a theistic claim, and the refutation or disbelief of the atheist. It just isn't logical, ..
I could not be an ''actual'' atheist at this point, /can't configure the argument/, however, I actually could come up with a couple arguments based on the op, (arguing with my own op); so I know that it can be done. Usually when the insistence is on changing a viable argument, it means the person doesn't know the subject.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This then means that atheists are relying on the theists claims to be incorrect, or obviously wrong, etc. And that is precisely why it is not a good ''position'' in the first place. There are too many variables between a theistic claim, and the refutation or disbelief of the atheist. It just isn't logical, ..
I could not be an ''actual'' atheist at this point, /can't configure the argument/, however, I actually could come up with a couple arguments based on the op, (arguing with my own op); so I know that it can be done. Usually when the insistence is on changing a viable argument, it means the person doesn't know the subject.

Yes. Athiesm does depend on theism, I'll say...since there are different atheist and theists who believe in different things yet keep their prefered label. Maybe that is why many atheists have multiple beliefs because they realize that atheism is not a belief system...so maybe needing a label is a big thing these days, who knows.

Though, if you can answer your own question and find that people can't answer your question correctly, why do you ask it? It seems like you already knew the thread will fail beforehand.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes. Athiesm does depend on theism, I'll say...since there are different atheist and theists who believe in different things yet keep their prefered label. Maybe that is why many atheists have multiple beliefs because they realize that atheism is not a belief system...so maybe needing a label is a big thing these days, who knows.

Yes, could be; and there is a problem with labels, right there.

Though, if you can answer your own question and find that people can't answer your question correctly, why do you ask it? It seems like you already knew the thread will fail beforehand.

No, there is no inherent reason why there aren't arguments presented. There are people who present these types of arguments, in books, and such. Some of these arguments/positions are decent, some aren't.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why are people disagreeing/answering a thread that they are not knowlegable enough to argue about?

That, I have always wanted to know. Some people want to clarify the arguement to see if they can continue? Others, I think would fall in that category. Taking out generalizations.

 

[Pudding]

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

This is like a student saying that: "Can any teacher convince me that i'm incorrect in my answer to one question from those many thousands millions of questions in the examinations which can be found since the begin of the history of school? Here is the thing though, i won't specify which question i'm refering to, every teacher have to simply randomly pick one question from all those questions and guessing what my answer is, then present their argument why my answer is wrong, or realize that they don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge."

What is this challenge about?
To see which teacher is the most accurate psychic/fortune-teller? To see which teacher have the best luck to randomly guessing the right question and right answer which is being keeping secret by the student?
...

If some theist makes the claims that their God exists, then the burden of proof is on those theist to prove their God exists, not on atheist to prove their God doesn't exists.
Even if any atheist fail to prove any theist's God doesn't exists, it in no way helps to prove that any of those God indeed exists.

To prove that any God exists, it needs to have convincing evidence/reason/argument that prove any of those God indeed exists.

Some theist explain/present their evidence/reason/argument that proves their God exists to atheist.
If atheist think those evidence/reason/argument is convincing to them, then they may accept it as correct and may join the specific theism.
If atheist think those evidence/reason/argument is unconvincing to them, they then explain why it's unconvincing to them using their reasoning/logic.

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

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.

I am Agnostic in knowledge (implies get that I do not have knowledge about wether or not deity exists)

But I am an Aethiest by beileif.

If there is no evidance that Bigfoot exists so I say, he COULD exist but probably not.

Since their is no evidance that a god exists so I say, he COULD exist but probably not.