Pointless Debate

[Unveiled Artist]

I cannot see the difference between "some theist making the claim" and "the claim itself", it is same.

Thats the mix up. I see a difference. The topic itself "talking about nothing/nonnexistence" doesnt make sense. No matter who is talking and why they are talking about it. Its like talking about a flying donkey and youre telling me the donkey flying is perfectly logical...makes sense...because we have good reasons to talk about it.

Reasons wont change Gods existence. More to the point, it wont change that the "topic" of talking about nothing doesnt make sense.

i.e.

John: two and two is five because God says it is.

Carol: bit scientifically it equals four

John: God says five.

Logical reasons for convo:

John is trying to prove that God has more authority to break the laws of mathematics even if Carol proves otherwise. So it is logical that Carol would want to disprove him as to let him see reason and tell him not to impose this belief on others.

The topic is illogical for one simple reason: two and two does not equal five no matter the reasons and details involved.

Is there a reason to talk about it? Sure, it benefits Carol and other "victims".

Is it logical? Sure Carols goal is to prevent john from imposing his belief on others

Does the topic make sense? No. How do the reasons make two and two equal five logical just because there are good reasons above for conversation?

If " I " had no benefit from talking about two and two equals five, why would that reason be illogical? How would my reasons affect the incorrect equation? It doesnt.

"God" has too many connotations that we can talk for days. The math problem is simple. Do our logical reasons for talking about two and two is five make the problem itself make sense?

 

[Pudding]

My point: The conversation topic does nothing.

Theist make a claim, atheist disagree with theist, they debate who is right, i cannot see how the conversation topic "does nothing".

The claim/statement alone (talking about the claim not the person making it) "God exists" does nothing.

I cannot see why you need to separate "the claim making by some theist" from "the theist who making the claim".

Some theist claims that "God exists" and non-believer should obey their God, atheist disagree with the claims, that's why they debate.

Atheist is debate with "the theist who making the claim".

Atheist is not debate with nobody but a "claim" that imagined by the atheist himself.
Without "the theist who making the claim", there'll be no "claim" to begin with.

That claim does not hurt anyone. It is an empty or illogical statement creating a title an attributes for non existent/space/nothing. This is illogical.

I cannot see your reason for the needs to want to separate "the claim" from "the theist who making the claim".

Atheist disagree with "the claim which making by some theist", they express their opinion why they think so.
I cannot see why it is illogical.

The theists who have this illogical claim are the ones (some) opposing the threat. "They" (not the belief) are using their illogical claim against people. (E.x. the Church). Hence, why it Is logical for atheist to talk "about" it. That does not erase that the claim in itself is illogical.

In your OP you say that "the debate begin from atheist" is illogical to begin with, now you say that "the claim which claims by some theist that they believe their God exist" is illogical, which one do you think is illogical?

As an athiest to external deities, I debate this illogical claim because I want to understand how it does make sense to the theist. What are the methods and experences do they have that Id understand how they make this illogical statememt true. "For me" it has nothing to do with how the faith affects people. It does nothing "on its own." People use their faith for or against people.

As a former believer, I read scripture and it did not affect me negatively. It did nothing. Its a book saying something that is not true.

It was the people who used this book and Church teachings that influenced me. They said I should believe in God. Rather than address their belief (which Gods existence claim means nothing, why should I argue it), I address their actions on me to belief this claim. I ask about how the Church views this claim. How they make sense of it. To debate the existence of God does not make sense "For Me" becausenit acheives nothing on those who are enforcing their belief.

Other atheist is debate with "the theist who making the claim".

Other atheist is not debate with nobody but a "claim" that imagined by the atheist himself.

Other atheist disagree with the claim, that's why they express their opinion why they think so, i cannot see how it is illogical for them to do so.

Insteadn of my just learning why God exists (for my benefit since He does not), Id think more of how this belief affects peoples actions. I have seen peoples lives saved by their beliefs. I have listened to businesses being shut down because of people (not the belief) impose their belief on the manager to where she had to shut it down temporarly.

"this belief affects some believer's actions", and then "some believer's actions affects other non-believer", then non-believer express their opinion that why they disagree with "the believer's action which affects them".

I cannot get your point why atheist is illogical to express their opinion.

Every year I see people go into the Church. It is beautiful when they live how their belief teaches them. Sometimes they do not follow it (hence sin). To help them through it, it is logical to talk about their belief.

You're right.

If there is no problem, because the claim is illogical, the best I can do as an atheist is to learn from it.

For you there is no problem.

But for other atheist there is problem.
Other atheist disagree with the claim which making by some theist which the claim may cause this theist's action to affects the atheist's life.
This is why atheist debate with theist.

Understand?

I cannot see your point lead to the conclusion that atheist is illogical to debate with theist about the topic of God's existence. Your point doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Pudding]

I cannot see the difference between "some theist making the claim" and "the claim itself", it is same.

Thats the mix up. I see a difference. The topic itself "talking about nothing/nonnexistence" doesnt make sense. No matter who is talking and why they are talking about it. Its like talking about a flying donkey and youre telling me the donkey flying is perfectly logical...makes sense...because we have good reasons to talk about it.

Example:
You have an opinion.
I have an opinion different than yours.
I discuss/debate with you why my opinion is different than yours and why i disagree with your opinion.

The discuss/debate is logical.

I cannot see your point for the metaphor of "flying donkey", your statement is illogical.

Reasons wont change Gods existence.

Atheist disagree with theist's claims that God exist, that's the reason why they debate.

More to the point, it wont change that the "topic" of talking about nothing doesnt make sense.

Your statement doesn't make sense to me.

i.e.

John: two and two is five because God says it is.

Carol: bit scientifically it equals four

John: God says five.

Logical reasons for convo:

John is trying to prove that God has more authority to break the laws of mathematics even if Carol proves otherwise. So it is logical that Carol would want to disprove him as to let him see reason and tell him not to impose this belief on others.

The topic is illogical for one simple reason: two and two does not equal five no matter the reasons and details involved.

Is there a reason to talk about it? Sure, it benefits Carol and other "victims".

Is it logical? Sure Carols goal is to prevent john from imposing his belief on others

Does the topic make sense? No.

The topic above is make sense to beigin with, because Carol disagree with John's opinion, that's why they debate, the topic is logical to debate.

How do the reasons make two and two equal five logical just because there are good reasons above for conversation?

Your using of the example of "illogical reason of thinking that two and two equal five is logical from theist side" that it is same with "atheist's logical reason/argument to disagree with theist's claims that God exist" is incomparable and illogical.

If " I " had no benefit from talking about two and two equals five, why would that reason be illogical? How would my reasons affect the incorrect equation? It doesnt.

I'm sorry i cannot understand your statement, your statement is illogical to me.

"God" has too many connotations that we can talk for days. The math problem is simple. Do our logical reasons for talking about two and two is five make the problem itself make sense?

Do our logical reasons for talking about two and two is five make the problem itself make sense?

What do you mean?

You mean Carol and John's reason for want to talking and debate about whether "two and two is five", make the problem itself make sense?
Their reason for want to talking and debate is because they disagree with each other's opinion, their reason is totally logical.
What is the "problem" you mean here?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

EDITED

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

I should has said how. I thought if they knew how, regardless their reasons which are logical, they would still find the debate/topic(EDIT: Topic NOT the conversation) illogical.

How I read these posts is "Atheists have good reasons (listed repeatedly) to debate a illogical (my view) debate/topic; because their reasons are logical, it makes their debate (the conversation not the topic) logical.

If it did not affect atheist, were not curious about it, etc, would they still find reason in the topic and if no reasons apply, why talk about it? Is the illogical topic alone a reason not to talk about it IF the atheist was not affected by it (and all other reasons in these posts?)

Theist make a claim, atheist disagree with theist, they debate who is right, i cannot see how the conversation topic "does nothing

Its not. The theist claim is.

Atheist is not debate with nobody but a "claim" that imagined by the atheist himself.
Without "the theist who making the claim", there'll be no "claim" to begin with

I am saying there is. Therefore, I can say the theist claim is illogical and based on how much it doesnt make sense, how it affects me, and if I want to learn from it, I can decide if it makes sense to debate it.

In your OP you say that "the debate begin from atheist" is illogical to begin with, now you say that "the claim which claims by some theist that they believe their God exist" is illogical, which one do you think is illogical?

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

i.e. If I had an invisible box (whats in the box!! Sorry, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt movie flash back) and millions of people just believed it exist and I know it does not....why would I say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim? With God, why would I want evidence for someone that doesnot exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?

1. I was thinking why/how would it make sense to talk about nothing. Not why does it make sense to debate theist claims.

2. How or why does it make sense to ask evidence for nothing Not why does it make sense to asks theist about the claim. (The firsf is focusing on the claim. The latter, which youre stuck on, is the conversation not the topic itself.

Their reason for want to talking and debate is because they disagree with each other's opinion, their reason is totally logical.
What is the "problem" you mean here

There isnt. Its the claim I have a problem with. Its the confusion or oddness Not problem that an atheist would talk about nothing.

In my head, not because of the theist claims , but just only and only in itself talking about nothing.

I separated so the reader can give an opinion if the claim is illogical even though they find good reason to talk about it.

Since they do find good reasons that I have No problem with it. My "next" question that we keep going around is do atheist believe the claim itself is logical to debate it IF there are no reasons that affect the atheist or they want to learn from it?

I feel it is illogical so i debate it to understand the logic behind it.

 

[Pudding]

EDITED



I should has said how. I thought if they knew how, regardless their reasons which are logical, they would still find the debate (EDIT: Topic NOT the conversation) is illogical.

Can't get your point.

How I read these posts is "Atheists have good reasons (listed repeatedly) to debate a illogical (my view) debate; because their reasons are logical, it makss their debate (the conversation not the topic of it) logical.

The conversation is relevant to the topic, no need to separate it.

If it did not affect atheist, where not curious about it, etc, would they still find reason in the topic and if no reasons app)y, why talk about it? Is the illogical topic alone a reason not to talk about it IF the atheist was not affected by it (and all other reasons in these posts?)

Atheist give you their reason for why they talk about it, the topic affects them, they're curious...etc, now you ask if they without their reason for want to debate, will they still want to debate?

If without their logical reason for want to debate, of course there'll be no debate to begin by them.

But they have reason, they have their logical reason for want to debate.

Your statements is illogical.

Its not. The theist claim is.

Theist make a claim, atheist disagree with theist, they debate who is right, i cannot see how the conversation topic "does nothing.

My point: The conversation topic does nothing.

You previously say "The conversation topic does nothing", but now you say that you don't agree with what you say previously?

I am saying there is. Therefore, I can say the theist claim is illogical and based on how much it doesnt make sense, how it affects me, and if I want to learn from it, I can decide if it makes senss to debate it.





1. I was thinking why would it make sense to talk about nothing. Not why does it make sense to debate theist claims.

2. How or why does it make sense to ask evidence for nothing Not why does it make sense to asks theist about the claim. (The firsf is fo,using on the claim. The latter, which youre stuck on, is the conversation not the topic itself.

Your statement is illogical to me.

There isnt. Its the claim I have a problem with. Its the confusion or oddness Not problem that an atheist would talk about nothing.

In my head, not because of the theist claims , but just only and only in itself talking about nothing.

I separated so the reader can give an opinion if the claim is illogical even though they find good reason to talk about it.

Since they do find goods that I have No problem with, my "next" question that we keep going around is do atheist believe the claim itself is logical?

I feel it is illogical so i debate it to understand the logic behind it.

The "claim" - theist believe God exist.

Atheist think the "claim" to be illogical and untrustable, they disagree with the "claim", they debate with theist why they think so.

It is logical for a person to debate something that he think is illogically present to him by other people, it's nothing illogical for the people for want to debate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is logical for a person to debate something that he think is illogically present to him by other people, it's nothing illogical for the people for want to debate

Please reread the point in 244. It has nothing to do with why it is logical to act in a debate with theist claims.

 

[Pudding]

Please reread the point in 244. It has nothing to do with why it is logical to act in a debate with theist claims.

I cannot see any of your point in 244 which has supported your statement.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I cannot see any of your point in 244 which has supported your statement.

Which statement? I replied to your posts and listed my two main points in my OP and commented or clarified them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I honestly believe you are missing my point. Either a statement I said does not make sense to you or you are telling me that it is logical for atheist to have conversations with theist, why is that illogical (not a question)

OP (My OP words in quotes. Comments outside of quotes)

"Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?"

Thr answers are given in these posts. They all say it IS logical...moving on.

Now, I want to know the topic itself.

"Why would I (an atheist) say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim?"

Posters said they would not. They are just answering and challenging theist claims.

"With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist?"

Still discussing the topic Not the conversation (Verb).

i.e. It is logical to talk about God because it affects me. Regarding the topic itself, "the question" Not the purpose does not make sense. How can anyone provide evidence for nothing. The question is irrelevant in a God-conversation.

"What is behind building debates around nothing?"

Same as above. The question, not the purpose, does not make sense. If you take away the titles and names theist use and strip God of all language that defines Him, there is Nothjng left. He is a concept or idea. Take away the "mask" nothing is there. Debaters (myself included) are talking about the man behind the mask. As I am thinking more about these God-debates, I am realizing both theisf and atheist are structuring their debates around nothing but a mask. The purpose of debate is irrelevant. The debate/topic of debate does not make sense. We (God debaters) are talking about nothing. What is the "logic behind" NOT the "purpose" behind this debate/conversation on nothing (debate topic).

"If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?"

Again, I should have said "how". This question has been answered repeatedly. How can you debate nothing? Likewise with theist. How can they belief in nothing. Topic only not purpose/why.

Can't get your point.

I think the debate/topic of "talking about nothing/the man behind the mask" is illogical. It "the topic" is illogical because when you take away the titles, the concepts, words, you have nothing. Theist claims thay God exist beyond words. Their claim is illogical. Why not the other way around? Talking about an false claim? Good reasons to dicuss it. Again, the claim is illogical" I see no reason that "stands alone" to justify how this claim can be solved. There is nothing behind the mask.

The conversation is relevant to the topic, no need to separate it."
Ok. That goes back to an old question way back in of many posts. Does the reasons make a topic logical in itself? (Can finding a good reason to talk about two and two is five make the math problem true; or, is it Not true regardless the good reasons behind the discussion?)

Atheist give you their reason for why they talk about it, the topic affects them, they're curious...etc, now you ask if they without their reason for want to debate, will they still want to debate?

not "will they still debate" will they think the topic logical without reasons to debate it.

If without their logical reason for want to debate, of course there'll be no debate to begin by them.

But they have reason, they have their logical reason for want to debate.

I know. We answeres the reasons already. I agree there are logical reasons.

You previously say "The conversation topic does nothing", but now you say that you don't agree with what you say previously?

Your statement is illogical to me.

Id have to find where. I cleared up my OP up top. Hope that helps.

It is logical for a person to debate something that he think is illogically present to him by other people, it's nothing illogical for the people for want to debate.

So he "does" believe the topic is illogical.

This one is tricky.

One: It is not illogical to debate an illogical topic (covered)

Two: The debate/topic in and of itself regardless the reasons already mentioned is illogical.

If I had no good reason to have god-conversations, I would not. Not because I dont want to. Without good justification for talking about an illogical topic, my debate would be pointless.

EDIT

Reason: I talk about two and two is five because i like to study math

Why is it illogic: Two and two is not five. I can show you. Two fingers i show on left hand and two on right. I pull them together, they make four not five.

Reasons had nothing to do with the incorrecf original equation and the correct version.

Likewise, I know the reasons god talk. I find the topic is illogical like two and two is five. Can you correct the problem as i did above? If not, its a pointless debate in my opinion BUT I still discuss it anyway.

Anyway, I should get some sleep. We keep flipping between reasons behind something and logic behind something. Are they the same to you? Reasons to me seem like purpose. Logic is more what ways make this topic true or false for the reasons to be justified with the topic itself.

 

[Pudding]

Which statement? I replied to your posts and listed my two main points in my OP and commented or clarified them.

I cannot see your point nor how it lead to the conclusion that it is illogical for an atheist to debate with theist about God's existence.

 

[Pudding]

I honestly believe you are missing my point. Either a statement I said does not make sense to you or you are telling me that it is logical for atheist to have conversations with theist, why is that illogical (not a question)

OP (My OP words in quotes. Comments outside of quotes)

"Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?"

Thr answers are given in these posts. They all say it IS logical...moving on.

Now, I want to know the topic itself.

"Why would I (an atheist) say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim?"

Posters said they would not. They are just answering and challenging theist claims.

"With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist?"

Still discussing the topic Not the conversation (Verb).

i.e. It is logical to talk about God because it affects me. Regarding the topic itself, "the question" Not the purpose does not make sense. How can anyone provide evidence for nothing. The question is irrelevant in a God-conversation.

"What is behind building debates around nothing?"

Same as above. The question, not the purpose, does not make sense. If you take away the titles and names theist use and strip God of all language that defines Him, there is Nothjng left. He is a concept or idea. Take away the "mask" nothing is there. Debaters (myself included) are talking about the man behind the mask. As I am thinking more about these God-debates, I am realizing both theisf and atheist are structuring their debates around nothing but a mask. The purpose of debate is irrelevant. The debate/topic of debate does not make sense. We (God debaters) are talking about nothing. What is the "logic behind" NOT the "purpose" behind this debate/conversation on nothing (debate topic).

"If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?"

Again, I should have said "how". This question has been answered repeatedly. How can you debate nothing? Likewise with theist. How can they belief in nothing. Topic only not purpose/why.



EDIT

Reason: I talk about two and two is five because i like to study math

Why is it illogic: Two and two is not five. I can show you. Two fingers i show on left hand and two on right. I pull them together, they make four not five.

Reasons had nothing to do with the incorrecf original equation and the correct version.

Likewise, I know the reasons god talk. I find the topic is illogical like two and two is five. Can you correct the problem as i did above? If not, its a pointless debate in my opinion BUT I still discuss it anyway.

Anyway, I should get some sleep. We keep flipping between reasons behind something and logic behind something. Are they the same to you? Reasons to me seem like purpose. Logic is more what ways make this topic true or false for the reasons to be justified with the topic itself.

Theist doesn't believe in nothing, theist believe in their God's existence.

Logic? Reason? I cannot get your point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Theist doesn't believe in nothing, theist believe in their God's existence.

Logic? Reason? I cannot get your point.

Theist does believe in nothing. Behind the mask: the holy scriptures, the concepts theist and atheist about, the questions, they all taking about someone that does nor exist. That statement assumes their God exists just because they say they believe he does.

Their belief does not make their claim true.
--
Only a few on this thread got my point. Everyone else seem to take it personal, focus on reasons they talk to theist (which if you have read my last long post, I went through my whole OP.)

I asked a theist is it pointless to talk as if God does not exist. Most said yes. They are forced to preasume Gods non existence. It does not register in their brain that such a claim could be true. To some, as one jewish person said here, it is an insult to His God. Do they talm about God? Sure they do. Do they go back and forth explaining the reasons for Gods existenc? Sude they do. Do they have good reason to? Sure they do: evalangalization, learning, studying, to more negative but understandable reasons behind their talk. Regardless thieir reasons, they still assert talking as if God does not exist in itself is pointless. It has no foundation for reason to make it make sense to them.

I thought atheist who know God does not exist (as many theist claim they Do know) would feel the same but the other way around.

It seems atheists of course are not offended by talking about God in concepts. They have good reasons to do so, as so repeatidly stated. Id assume those who Know he does not existay find it hard to go "beyond" concept as to see the theist point of view.

Maybe they can step in their shoes. I am sure a few atheist would fine that silly to do. Many atheist on this board dont really jump in a theist shoes. Especially, when they know God does not exist. Thoses that know God does not exist may talk in conversation, but not to the point of making a genuine assumption of Gods existence. Since they dont, Id assume they think it is because it is silly? No one has yet to answer me. Do they give me reasons why they talk about concepts? Repeatly.

Ya missing my point. The best I can describe it is in the last post with the quotations and this one.

 

[Pudding]

I admit that i'm missing your point, at the same time i also cannot understand or see how your point can lead to the conclusion that "it is illogical for atheist to debate God's existence".
Since i cannot understand or see your point no matter how i try, i give up.

 

[Marsh]

Um...
Because unlike the theist, the atheist acknowledges he may be wrong?

Not all atheists acknowledge the possibility of error in this regard. I for one am convinced no gods exist. Some things, like the Easter Bunny and Santa simply have never exited and I am not about to acknowledge, for the sake of wishful thinking, that they may possibly exist. I place belief in gods on the same playing field. I will only acknowledge that something may possibly exist if someone presents a valid reason for thinking so. So far I have never encountered an argument that was in the least bit persuasive.

Why acknowledge that something may exist if no valid argument has ever shown that such a thing is a possibility?

 

[McBell]

Not all atheists acknowledge the possibility of error in this regard. I for one am convinced no gods exist. Some things, like the Easter Bunny and Santa simply have never exited and I am not about to acknowledge, for the sake of wishful thinking, that they may possibly exist. I place belief in gods on the same playing field. I will only acknowledge that something may possibly exist if someone presents a valid reason for thinking so. So far I have never encountered an argument that was in the least bit persuasive.

Why acknowledge that something may exist if no valid argument has ever shown that such a thing is a possibility?

I don't.
Nor am I arrogant enough to declare something I do not know as a fact.

Since I do not know either wy if some god exists, I do not make a declaration concerning the existence of a god either way.

 

[Marsh]

I don't.
Nor am I arrogant enough to declare something I do not know as a fact.

Since I do not know either wy if some god exists, I do not make a declaration concerning the existence of a god either way.

Many people take your position, but is it truly a matter of arrogance? Would you make the same case for Ganesha, the Hindu elephant headed god? Will you make the argument that lack of evidence prevents you from arrogantly claiming Ganesha does not exit? I say Ganesha does not exist, and I see no more reason to claim the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god exists either. That is not arrogance my friend; that is only refusing to grant that any god might exist until such time that evidence to the contrary is provided.

 

[WirePaladin]

To pick up the above; I think for me and folks like Sam harris and Hitchens (gone but forgotten) for us it is NOT god we argue against. God(s) do not exist. It is the BELIEF in gods we are concerned with. We are stuck by this truism: No one ever died or killed for a god they didn't believe in.

We see in the belief in supernatural religion a dangerous anti-human anti-knowledge anti-progress ideology that, unless checked, will eventually produce a theocracy. And we have good reason. History AND current events prove this can happen. We observe this universal fact of history. Everywhere and at all times people of "faith" have had political power they have used it to advance their mythology - without exception - in every place and at every time. And we see it now in Huck-a-folly, Brownback, Inhofe, Cruz, and others less well known. A few years ago folks like Pat Robertson would wink and nod at their religious supporters while telling the rest if us they were only interested in politics. Now they have become bolder - more honest really - and loudly proclaim their aim to force the rest of us - at gun point if necessary - force the rest of us to honor the tenets of their mythology. To ACT like we believed whether we do or not.

We take them at their word. We BELIEVE, we have "faith" they mean exactly what they say. And we tremble.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?

Only if you feel that it's also illogical for the Catholic Church (those who sexually molest little children defin. for this reply) to debate morality.

...

Q. - Shouldn't anyone who feels that I've erred grievously in my "definition" agree that the OP erred in hers?

i.e. If I had an invisible box (whats in the box!! Sorry, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt movie flash back) and millions of people just believed it exist and I know it does not....

How do you know that this invisible box does not exist?

why would I say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim?

Are Gnostic atheists (those who claim to know that <<<insert your god or gods here>>> doesn't exist) arguing that a god could exist just because believers made such a claim?

With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?

I know without a doubt that square circles don't exist. Why would I require that anyone who claims that they do exist be required to supply the evidence?

Maybe it could be because in some atheist definitions, there is only a disbelief in God which, that, doesnt require that God be non-existent.

Perhaps it could be that many atheists are not claiming to know that a god does not exist and are instead simply answering the unfounded claims made by theists that such a being literally does exist?

It leaves room for debate because they are hanging on possibilities, theory, philosophy.

Which ones? The theists or the atheists?

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

If you knew that Ypsilanti was not the capital of the United States, would you feel compelled to argue against those who insisted to know that it was? Is that a debate about "nothing?"[/quote]

 

[McBell]

Many people take your position, but is it truly a matter of arrogance? Would you make the same case for Ganesha, the Hindu elephant headed god? Will you make the argument that lack of evidence prevents you from arrogantly claiming Ganesha does not exit? I say Ganesha does not exist, and I see no more reason to claim the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god exists either. That is not arrogance my friend; that is only refusing to grant that any god might exist until such time that evidence to the contrary is provided.

My position is not.
The claim that you KNOW one way or the other is.

Yes

Yes

It is arrogance if you claim YOU KNOW they do not exist.

Any more strawmen you want to try moving goal posts with?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll try to clearify what you posted. Of course, what I say is up for debate. I still believe that it is inheritedly illogical for an atheist-like me, like every other hard atheist out here--to debate about a theist claim. The claim does not hurt people. It does not do anything on its own.

The God-debate is like arguing over an invisible gun theist hold. Whether it exists does not matter. What matters is "theists" Not the invisible gun, are hurting people, belittling people, etc just for what they believe, who they love, how they wish to live their life, and their political opinions. If an atheist convince theist they are holding nothing in there hand, that defeats the claim. That doesnt mean theist will back off.

People here are constantly saying they are abused in some what by theist. I dont seenthat they are abused by the material itself but how the theist pushes their material on them. To debate and solve how the theist can not abuse others is logical. Debating whether their claim exist wont solve anything.

Q: Also, do you find it logicalnl for theist to find it inheritedly logical to debate "as if" God does Not exist?

Only if you feel that it's also illogical for the Catholic Church (those who sexually molest little children defin. for this reply) to debate morality

I take offense. I love the Church. I love their teachings. Many priests have helped me with with issues that I cannot replace my gratitude with what Other individual priests do on their spare time. The child melestation is NOT part of Catholic doctrine. If is Not a part of the Church. Dont associate the Church with such non sense.

The Church "debates" morality all the time against God's Word. Read their apologetics, Catechism, the Bible. All saints, theologians, biblical authors debating and challenging God in one way or another. It is logical because they are Not prooving their claim is false. They are discussing about the Church's doctrine in different ways that are in interest by to-be priests, people who study Gods Word, elders of the Church, etc.

Now if they debated "as if" God did not exist, that, inheritedly, would be illogical.

Q. - Shouldn't anyone who feels that I've erred grievously in my "definition" agree that the OP erred in hers?

Rephase?

How do you know that this invisible box does not exist?

If I opened my hand now, I KNOW a box is not in my hand. Im holding a smart phone. Its not a hard analogy. If something is not there, its not there.

Are Gnostic atheists (those who claim to know that <<<insert your god or gods here>>> doesn't exist) arguing that a god could exist just because believers made such a claim?

I was told gnostics KNOW God does not exist REGARDLESS of the theist claim. An atheist does not "believe" God exist. Therefore, unlike the gnostic knowledge that leaves put possibility for God existence, lack of belief leaves room for Him To exist.

So, no. I dont see how that ralates to what you and i have been saying.

Perhaps it could be that many atheists are not claiming to know that a god does not exist and are instead simply answering the unfounded claims made by theists that such a being literally does exist

I got that answer many many posts later. I would have assumed a lot of atheist know God does not exist. If they dont know...he could exist and they can just not believe in Him. Like my and Christ. I know Christ (as human and spirit not God) exist. I dont believe in Him anymore. I can talk about Him because of my experiences. If He did not exist and the claim itself that he does does not hurt me, i see no logic in talking about Him "as if" he exists. We do so for many "logical 'reasons'". The debate in itself is not a reason. Its just odd.

Which ones? The theists or the atheists?

Both

If you knew that Ypsilanti was not the capital of the United States, would you feel compelled to argue against those who insisted to know that it was? Is that a debate about "nothing?"

No. If I did, my reasons are fine, that doesnt mean the topic is. No one seems to know the difference between logic reasons and logical conversation/topic itself.

Only if you feel that it's also illogical for the Catholic Church (those who sexually molest little children defin. for this reply) to debate morality.

...

Q. - Shouldn't anyone who feels that I've erred grievously in my "definition" agree that the OP erred in hers?



How do you know that this invisible box does not exist?



Are Gnostic atheists (those who claim to know that <<<insert your god or gods here>>> doesn't exist) arguing that a god could exist just because believers made such a claim?



I know without a doubt that square circles don't exist. Why would I require that anyone who claims that they do exist be required to supply the evidence?



Perhaps it could be that many atheists are not claiming to know that a god does not exist and are instead simply answering the unfounded claims made by theists that such a being literally does exist?



Which ones? The theists or the atheists?



If you knew that Ypsilanti was not the capital of the United States, would you feel compelled to argue against those who insisted to know that it was? Is that a debate about "nothing?"

EDIT

Please read post 241. Thats the best I can explain it