(December 3, 2011 at 3:40 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(December 3, 2011 at 3:32 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Indeed, you could moderate the debate.
Theist mod after all....

Yeah, I could, but I'd rather have tackattack do it even though he's a retired mod.
I think this is going to be weird "formal" debate (if it happens). It should be called a "devil's advocate" debate.

Yeah, in a way you can see it as such. Its meant to get you to understand the other sides arguments by assuming the role of advocate of their dogma.

(December 3, 2011 at 2:21 pm)lucent Wrote: You have a belief, that God doesn't exist. You've said this many times.

NO you ignorant TWAT because I'm not even arguing there is no god. No, I have a lack of belief in any deity. I reject theistic claims about "god" because they present no evidence, since they assert the deity itself cannot or will not prove its own existence to mankind demonstrably so there would be no more debate. I think the term "god" meaningless in almost every context because there is no valid coherent definition or ontology put forward. Its a nonsensical concept. Theists are all each presenting their own different gods claims with arbitrary criteria and faulty reasoning. I can easily reject them all because while it's not logically possible all theists are right, it is possible that they are all wrong.

Quote:It says nothing for whether something is true or false. It is an irrelevent detail about your psychology. The answer is either yes, no or I don't know.

Right, but we're currently talking about people's standards of evidence and the justification for accepting other's claims within an epistemic dispute. We've yet to brush upon their ascribed truth values because you *refuse* to fucking acknowledge at one rebuttal that I've offered so far. I reject your claims because you refuse to employ scientific methodologies that obtain empirical and measurable evidence subject to reasoning. You haven't presented a valid-working theory for god, merely an assertion that barely qualifies as a hypothesis. Therefore, because you fail to meet your burden of proof I remain in the default position of disbelief. Sorry you cannot accept that.

Quote:It has nothing to do with gaps. Either life and the Universe had an intelligent causation or it was the result of chance. So, the idea of God does have explanatory power. And it is not a God of the gaps when it is a better explanation for the phenomenon.

Ugh, this is pathetic and almost painful to read. Asserting god has explanatory power does not make it so. Try again next time. And next time APPLY yourself.

Quote:Apparently you have no idea what constitutes historical evidence...

I'm getting tired of reading your bullshit lucent. Since you refuse to acknowledge what I've said I'm going to disregard the inane drivel that you've just spouted out and repeat myself until it sinks in that amazingly dense cranium of yours.

We have no historical evidence of Jesus. Even with good theological scholarship we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. We have no contemporaries of the life of Jesus, at all. All you have is people who are reporting heresy. That's why when you ask your *educated* Christian friends they will remind you that you have to take the writings on Jesus' life and divinity on faith, because all you have is blind hope he was/is real.

Quote:You take quite a lot of faith, actually.

You make a lot of erroneous assumptions actually. I take nothing on faith.

Quote:Well, that's the difference betwen you and I. I believe that you're worthy of respect, and even love. I believe in treating you the way I would want to be treated. I believe that even if we disagree that you have an essential dignity that I can't ignore. So, I guess you can chop that up to different values; you don't value me, I value you. More than that, God values you, which is why I am here.

Now you're starting to piss me off. I don't care what you think of me, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Truth is you know nothing about me in real-life, at all. You're addressing me rather than your own 'argument' and failing to meet the obligation of your own damn burden of proof for your god claims and that is making this (dare I say it) "debate" even more tedious than it was before.

Quote:No it isn't. If someone called you and told you that a bomb was going to go off in your house in two minutes, would you sit there and wait it out? No, you would leave that house even though it hadn't been sufficiently proven as true.

That's asinine. Containers, vessels, objects filled with explosives, incendiary materials, smoke, gases, or other destructive substances, designed to explode via various means EXIST you pollock. Their effects are measured and the damage they cause is well understood. Even if the devices didn't exist in reality, a bomb threat is not even remotely comparable to a supernatural universe-creating god. Unlike bombs, god has not been demonstrated to exist.

Quote:Totally false.

Sorry but you're wrong. Try again without the appeal to common belief fallacy next time.

Quote:It claims that God doesn't exist. So you have no evidence that atheism is true?

You have no fucking clue what 'atheism' means. I no longer care.

Prove there's a god, or go away.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:11 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Shut up. I'm finished debating with you. Believe what you want.

Debate the facts then:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"

(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"

(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.

(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"

(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

(The World Book Encyclopedia-1991)

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god.

(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967)

Atheism denies the existence of deity

(Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia-Vol I)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03pyLpdbA...sults_main

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T76Rp6pS...playnext=1

lucent Wrote:I'm non-denominational and a trinitarian, as well as a bible literalist and a young earth creationist. My beliefs are all pretty mainline within that..I believe in original sin, the fall, the life death and resurrection, substitutionary atonement, the second coming, judgement day, heaven and hell. Here is a site that sums most of it up:

Yep, it pretty much sums you're a complete idiot, you forgot you believe in demons

Its worthless guys, this one is hopeless.

Already have lucent. Time and time again. The debate is over. I've seen enough and now I'm adding you to ignore to finish it. Take the fucking hint.

Grow up.

---

What I hate most about some theists is that they talk and act as if they rule the fucking universe.
As if they can just redefine things at will. And to assert that only god is the plausible of all things. I guess ignoring them is the best way to deal with them. Give'em no attention. Those who talk bollocks shall have a very empty hall.

People who would shamelessly admit to being a young earth creationist are the most worthless and dangerous kind of xtian. They're the kind that would stifle truth if given the power, and trample upon things such as the beauty and elegant nature and reality of life, the universe, and everything.

I am an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. It's impossible to know whether gods exist, so the people who believe in gods have to take a leap of faith to do so. I have seen evidence with my own eyes that the earth is much older than 6k years, and that evolution is a fact. What kind of absurd fucking idiot would I be if I denied it because it wasn't recorded that way in some shitty fucking book written by ignorant fuck sticks with an agenda? I'd be a Lucent, with hot tits, and a good brain, wasted. Thank fuck I am me.

I choose to not take a leap of faith. I choose to scoff at the idea of mythical figures existing in reality, and stand in awe with the proven knowledge that I am a human being, a primate, whose origins are literally in the stars. I choose to be a kind person who values life, truth, and evidence. If I believed in god, I would be none of those things. I would be a backward person who values death, myth, and nothing much else. If there is a god, and he condemns me for using the brain he gave me, then he can go fuck himself. I have no respect for him, and I would be proud to accept his condemnation.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: NO you ignorant TWAT because I'm not even arguing there is no god. No, I have a lack of belief in any deity. I reject theistic claims about "god" because they present no evidence, since they assert the deity itself cannot or will not prove its own existence to mankind demonstrably so there would be no more debate. I think the term "god" meaningless in almost every context because there is no valid coherent definition or ontology put forward. Its a nonsensical concept. Theists are all each presenting their own different gods claims with arbitrary criteria and faulty reasoning. I can easily reject them all because while it's not logically possible all theists are right, it is possible that they are all wrong.

You're in denial about the definition of atheism, and you have redefined it to avoid having to justify your position. If you could be intellectually honest about it, maybe we could have a conversation. It is not a default position. To say atheism is a lack of belief is like saying you lack a preference for a kind of ice cream when someone asks you what flavor you want. It's irrelevant to the question. To say it is a lack of belief means it is neither true or false, but if theism is true, atheism is false. If atheism is true, theism is false. Therefore it's a position. I'll repeat for the crowd..you're debating the facts, not me:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"
(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"
(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.
(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"
(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

(December 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Right, but we're currently talking about people's standards of evidence and the justification for accepting other's claims within an epistemic dispute. We've yet to brush upon their ascribed truth values because you *refuse* to fucking acknowledge at one rebuttal that I've offered so far. I reject your claims because you refuse to employ scientific methodologies that obtain empirical and measurable evidence subject to reasoning. You haven't presented a valid-working theory for god, merely an assertion that barely qualifies as a hypothesis. Therefore, because you fail to meet your burden of proof I remain in the default position of disbelief. Sorry you cannot accept that.

Even if all of my arguments failed, it still wouldn't mean that God doesn't exist, and you wouldn't have any justification for your disbelief.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Ugh, this is pathetic and almost painful to read. Asserting god has explanatory power does not make it so. Try again next time. And next time APPLY yours

Asserting that it doesn't does not disprove it either, and so far that is all you have done. God is better explanation for the DNA code, because naturalistic processes cannot account for it. It is also a better explanation for the fine tuning we observe in physical laws.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: We have no historical evidence of Jesus. Even with good theological scholarship we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. We have no contemporaries of the life of Jesus, at all. All you have is people who are reporting heresy. That's why when you ask your *educated* Christian friends they will remind you that you have to take the writings on Jesus' life and divinity on faith, because all you have is blind hope he was/is real.

Since you're not going to respond to my comments, I'll point you to other sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZhUrKiRGrQ

(December 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: You make a lot of erroneous assumptions actually. I take nothing on faith.

Have you personally investigated everything everyone has ever told you and confirmed everything? No? Then you have faith.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Now you're starting to piss me off. I don't care what you think of me, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Truth is you know nothing about me in real-life, at all. You're addressing me rather than your own 'argument' and failing to meet the obligation of your own damn burden of proof for your god claims and that it making this (dare I say it) "debate" even more tedious than it was before.

Sounds like you need to go to anger management. You said you could treat me however you wanted because of what I believe, which shows quite a bit about you, and serves to dilleniate the differences between my values and your values.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: That's asinine. Containers, vessels, objects filled with explosives, incendiary materials, smoke, gases, or other destructive substances, designed to explode via various means EXIST you pollock. Their effects are measured and the damage they cause is well understood. Even if the devices didn't exist in reality, a bomb threat is not even remotely comparable to a supernatural universe-creating god. Unlike bombs, god has not been demonstrated to exist.

This was your claim: Disbelief in a claim until it has met its burden of proof with sufficient evidence IS the default position.

My example demonstrates it to be false. Your weak refutation doesn't speak to this at all.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: You have no fucking clue what 'atheism' means. I no longer care.

It's quite the other way around according to the authorities I listed above.

There is a down side to being an atheist, and that's facing the sheer overwhelming absurdity and insanity from the many crazies out there. They push your patients to the very limits and no matter how much facts you have, or scientific support or other. They'll never listen. Somehow they are always right, even when completely wrong. Facing the most absurd can be most frustrating.
Shutting them out is often the best move available.
At least there are plenty of good things, we're free. No burden of proof, nothing to defend. No religion to follow, no religious rules and no church attendance.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)aleialoura Wrote: People who would shamelessly admit to being a young earth creationist are the most worthless and dangerous kind of xtian. They're the kind that would stifle truth if given the power, and trample upon things such as the beauty and elegant nature and reality of life, the universe, and everything.

Most dangerous to your preconceived notions about reality, most certainly.

(December 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)aleialoura Wrote: I am an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. It's impossible to know whether gods exist, so the people who believe in gods have to take a leap of faith to do so. I have seen evidence with my own eyes that the earth is much older than 6k years, and that evolution is a fact. What kind of absurd fucking idiot would I be if I denied it because it wasn't recorded that way in some shitty fucking book written by ignorant fuck sticks with an agenda? I'd be a Lucent, with hot tits, and a good brain, wasted. Thank fuck I am me.

What evidence is that?

(December 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)aleialoura Wrote: I choose to not take a leap of faith. I choose to scoff at the idea of mythical figures existing in reality, and stand in awe with the proven knowledge that I am a human being, a primate, whose origins are literally in the stars. I choose to be a kind person who values life, truth, and evidence. If I believed in god, I would be none of those things. I would be a backward person who values death, myth, and nothing much else. If there is a god, and he condemns me for using the brain he gave me, then he can go fuck himself. I have no respect for him, and I would be proud to accept his condemnation.

You stand in awe that you're a space chimp? If you believed in God, your eyes would be open and you would see the truth as it really is, as opposed to how you prefer it to be. God does expect you to use your brain and not be satisified with just-so stories that masquarade themselves as science. How about you actually challenge yourself and refute the arguments in this book?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0...ition=used

I think originally "atheist" meant "belief no god exists". Agnosticism was that you don't know either way.

But most people take it to mean non-belief in god(s). Agnosticism is also not taken as only not knowing, but also used in the sense that you don't believe either way.

So we sort have a mess now.

Agnostic can mean non belief in whether God exists or not. It can be used in that sense. Or it can be used in the sense of agnostic as it's impossible to know, but I believe God doesn't exist. So you can be agnostic strong atheist as well as agnostic weak atheist. You can also be agnostic theist. Also agnostic theist/athiest can be used in the sense I don't know as opposed to stating it's impossible to know.

So agnosticism really has three meanings. Atheism has two meanings now. And theism has but one meaning.

Atheism use to be the word that was use to denote believing no god exists. But that has changed.