Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Demonslayer]

NFL? dont know what it is

Are you messing with me now?? I mean I don't watch soccer, but I know what the English Premier League is.

The NFL is the National Football League and they are featuring a regular season game in London tomorrow. I just wondered if anyone in the UK actually gave a rat's ***.

 

[Demonslayer]

actually, it is A definition of evidence, not the be all end all definition of evidence.

No valid defintion of evidence includes "a gut feeling."

 

[Robert.Evans]

Are you messing with me now?? I mean I don't watch soccer, but I know what the English Premier League is.

The NFL is the National Football League and they are featuring a regular season game in London tomorrow. I just wondered if anyone in the UK actually gave a rat's ***.

Haha... that's twice you've thought I've been kidding you. I looked it up just, American fooball. I don't think it will get much coverage, but your probably asking the wrong person. We watch English football and Rugby here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is vague. Whats the point.

Huh? Honestly I cannot fully understand what your saying. Are you saying that I'm a theist because I want something? you need to be more specific, the way you formulated this question is unclear.

Whaa? What does this have to do with my religious beliefs, or whatever, this is not a clear statement as to purpose.

All of those reasons I have in my last posts is an observation and personal experience of different reasons why people have a religion or faith. Some people need security, others sense of purpose, and the list goes on (these are in general. I dont know specific reasons why some people need a purpose in life while others dont want suffering. If you read any religious book can find details there.

So, point 1: People have many reasons to believe in a religion and those reasons are psychological as well as spiritual.

You said you dont share these reasons (my definition), so why do you believe what you do? What are your beliefs in relation to why you believe them. Is it just because?

Point 2: These reasons are not just spiritual they are psychological.

Hence anyone with these reasons believe not only for spiritual reasons but psychological as well.

Thats all Im saying.

It is a generalization (like the depression example) of my observations, experience, etc that religious motivations for belief are psychological.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What does that even mean? You are conflating ''reasons'', for some people having religious beliefs, with religious belief; /mixing up the different things./

again, people have different beliefs for different reasons.

People have different beliefs for different reasons. I listed some and many are psychological. Thats my point.

 

[Desert Snake]

To first address your "theism" lets look at the reasons you are a theist. What is your supporting structure to your belief? What is it based on?

Is it faith? Pure faith? If so why? What reason do you have with faith other than you were told to be that way? If it is true or it is not true you would never know if all you relied on was faith. There must be something more. Or is there?

The question I have, is, why are my specific beliefs necessary in order for you to refute them; because, you are making the claim, /implicit claim/, that my beliefs are incorrect./by inference from 'theism/ Hence, shouldn't you be able to refute them? If you can't refute my beliefs, then why are you claiming that they are incorrect?

 

[Demonslayer]

Haha... that's twice you've thought I've been kidding you. I looked it up just, American fooball. I don't think it will get much coverage, but your probably asking the wrong person. We watch English football and Rugby here.

Wow, I honestly didn't think there was a person in the world who didn't know what the NFL was. Not that I think everyone watches American sports, I just thought everyone knew for example what the Superbowl was.

 

[Yorutenchi]

The question I have, is, why are my specific beliefs necessary in order for you to refute them; because, you are making the claim, /implicit claim/, that my beliefs are incorrect./by inference from 'theism/ Hence, shouldn't you be able to refute them? If you can't refute my beliefs, then why are you claiming that they are incorrect?

Two reasons. The first reason is because one cannot logically argue against something that isn't well defined.

Second reason is that the best argument against theism is the lack of support it has. I can never prove to you that god doesn't exist. However I can provide a convincing argument as to why your beliefs are misplaced.

 

[YmirGF]

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

Though it might prove to be fun, I'm just not bored enough to take you up on your offer. That said, it is very difficult to formulate an argument against a very vague topic.

 

[Desert Snake]

Two reasons. The first reason is because one cannot logically argue against something that isn't well defined.

Then what does ''atheism'' mean? If theism is not even well defined enough to argue against. Why use the word ''atheism''. Seems pointless, if not incorrect, for your position.

Second reason is that the best argument against theism is the lack of support it has.

Theoretically.

I can never prove to you that god doesn't exist.

However I can provide a convincing argument as to why your beliefs are misplaced.

You seem very confident in this, and I wonder why. In reality, presenting an argument that is ''convincing'', in this context, would be quite difficult.
//Earlier in the thread I did specify that I adhere to the G-d of the Bible, and am panentheistic. G-d can have more than one form.
//aside from that, any argument that refutes theism in the sense of sentient beings, classical type gods, is welcome.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, again, the OP could be argued against ''as is''. I could present an opposing argument, theoretically. The reason why people ''couldn't'' argue the op as is , is because they don't have the argument material in order to formulate an argument against the op. some people do argue the OP ''as is'', ie ''theism''. These arguments tend to be of two kinds, the non-detailed kind, or what I would consider a not very well researched type, and then, a very well researched type, which is actually difficult for a theist to argue against. Both are possible from the OP premise, and some people have presented the non-detailed type, already, in the thread.

I'm just going to share what I observed before we actually understood what your OP meant:

"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"

You ask us to prove your theism is incorrect not theism in general. You told us you will not help us with this answer. You hang the fish out and tell us to build an argument (or fish without bait). Then you say you are no religious.

So the only conclusions and questions we can find and ask to actually proceed in your OP is to

1. Define what your theism is. How can we give arguments for something we know nothing about (aka your theism). We know nothing about your theism. How can we build anything to prove against it?

Then you say you are not religious. Which tells us

2. Your theism must not have anything to do with anything religious in nature. (This means, no God--but theists believe in God.. so that's a contradiction right there)

So in the end we are left with no definition of what you theism is other than that you are not religious.

Then, posts later, you mention, I think, that you believe in a Creator. So, that is theism. Okay. What did I say. Finally! Now we can find arguments to prove your theism (your belief in a Creator?) is incorrect.

When I try to do so, you tell me what I said is wrong and go on and on about this psychological thing when I already gave you enough information to say:

I believe religious thought has a lot to do with psychology. I also believe that is where our belief in God stems from. We have many reasons (as so say too) we believe what we do. I listed some reasons and pointed out how they are related to psychology. For some reason you are debating against my opinion which I believe is true.

What are you trying to tell me? That there is no psychological connection between the reasons we believe? Are you saying they are not good enough answers for you as proof that your theism is incorrect?

Well, that's all I can muster over just saying your belief is theism and you believe in a Creator. Without more to go on, that's my answer.

Please read this in full. Quote whatever you wish. I will clarify but if you understand my point and disagree, we will have to agree to disagree.

Nam.

 

[JustWondering]

This is untrue.

Gee, yet another theist claiming there is evidence for their claims but doesn't present any.

Untrue

Then please present said evidence or stop wasting my time.

The mere fact that you say ''sky daddy'' is indicative of your mindset and shows you have not sufficiently understood the theology behind it. Any ration person (to use you own words) would do that.

You obviously don't know me or my life so I would appreciate it if you stop talking like you do.

 

[Demonslayer]

"So yes, they have evidence for god."

"You may disagree with their evidence, but your disagreeing with it does not make it disappear."

"There has been all manner of evidence presented on Religious Forums in support of the existence of several different gods."

"That you disagree with said evidence does not make said evidence disappear."


So what is the evidence? Can you give me one example?

 

[McBell]

"So yes, they have evidence for god."

"You may disagree with their evidence, but your disagreeing with it does not make it disappear."

"There has been all manner of evidence presented on Religious Forums in support of the existence of several different gods."

"That you disagree with said evidence does not make said evidence disappear."


So what is the evidence? Can you give me one example?

Your very existence.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Then what does ''atheism'' mean? If theism is not even well defined enough to argue against. Why use the word ''atheism''. Seems pointless, if not incorrect, for your position.

Atheism is to be without theism. While theism is large and vague it is simple enough to show that one is without it.

You seem very confident in this, and I wonder why. In reality, presenting an argument that is ''convincing'', in this context, would be quite difficult.
//Earlier in the thread I did specify that I adhere to the G-d of the Bible, and am panentheistic. G-d can have more than one form.
//aside from that, any argument that refutes theism in the sense of sentient beings, classical type gods, is welcome.

What is the reason you believe in god?

 

[David M]

3Ym
There is no such meanings, only delusional people. You cannot be an agnostic theist. Agnostic means to not know. One cannot believe in God without 'knowing', it is that FACT that allows you to know in the first place..

Wrong yet again. Agnostic theists certainly do exist and have always existed.

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheism is to be without theism. While theism is large and vague it is simple enough to show that one is without it.

So, your saying that you are not claiming that theism is necessarily a false position?

What is the reason you believe in god?

This is what I am referring to; as in, why would this matter for your argument?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again From Wikipedia: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

You are attempting to broaden the definition of 'materialism' in a way that the term is not intended to be used making it almost meaningless. It is intending to say everything is matter (in our colloquial conventional meaning of the word matter). Consciousness must then be just the movement of this matter is one of the important derivatives of this philosophy. Consequently, materialists do not believe in ghosts, souls, gods, consciousness without a physical brain, etc. unless made of matter. That is how the term is intended to be used.

Materialists are as free as non-materialists to believe in ghosts, souls, gods, etc. The only difference is that if a materialist believes in any of those things, he or she will consider them to be material in nature.

The confusion arises because there's a significant (though not perfect) overlap between materialists and people who care about reasonable standards of evidence.

The real divide you describe is this: some people have a double standard where they accept evidence of the "supernatural" of much lower quality than they'd accept for claims about the "natural".

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

Agnotics, Ignostics and Atheists all don't believe. Atheism takes it further. they are the ones that argue and therefore think they know and therefore can be said to have a belief. No one surely thinks Dawkins religious ministry is based on him believing nothing...do they?

You just said that Dawkins had a RELIGOUS ministry.......

 

[Spiritual Ascendancy]

So, your saying that you are not claiming that theism is necessarily a false position?


This is what I am referring to; as in, why would this matter for your argument?

Becuase our argument is that you do not have a reason to beilive in a god.

If you had a good reason backed by evidance then I would beilive in this deity.