RE: Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true
April 22, 2012 at 8:29 pm
(This post was last modified: April 22, 2012 at 8:30 pm by Voltair.)
Ace answered your question Jireh and instead of addressing that you ask him to prove naturalism. Ace said he did not believe because has not seen evidence.
Your response to this was to ask him to show how naturalism is more valid. Before we can talk about validity you need to show why we should even consider theism a valid option. This isn't a contest of let's see how many questions we can ask each other.
::
Let's say you walk into a room and claim to have a medication that can regenerate the human brain. All of us in the room ask you why we should believe your claim about the medication. You then instruct your assistant to shoot himself in the head thus destroying his brain. You administer the medication to him and over the course of two weeks his brain heals. We then ask to see repeated trials of this etc and over time we become convinced that your medication does in fact heal brains.
::
Ace said, once again, he did not believe because he HAS NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE. That is his reason. Now by you jumping from that and saying "Well what about your evidence for naturalism" you seem to be dodging the implication that there was no evidence for theism. In fact you didn't defend theism at all. I think we will all be willing to discuss the "evidence" for naturalism as soon as you say that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THEISM. If you believe there is evidence for theism than state it.
The atheists here believe that THERE IS NO evidence for theism. Without theism you naturally fall into the naturalism (see what I did there?
). So it really isn't an issue of providing evidence for naturalism because without evidence for a higher power it is simply the default choice. So from Ace's point of view and many of ours - There is no evidence for the gods therefore we take a worldview that does not include deity I.E. naturalism. Please address this, if you do not address it I assure you I can be just as repetitive and just as grating as anyone else. If you don't answer this issue you will thankfully demonstrate to the lurkers that you are not willing/cannot support the theistic position.
Naturalism requires no defense if there is no deity. No deity = no theism = naturalism.
Your response to this was to ask him to show how naturalism is more valid. Before we can talk about validity you need to show why we should even consider theism a valid option. This isn't a contest of let's see how many questions we can ask each other.
::
Let's say you walk into a room and claim to have a medication that can regenerate the human brain. All of us in the room ask you why we should believe your claim about the medication. You then instruct your assistant to shoot himself in the head thus destroying his brain. You administer the medication to him and over the course of two weeks his brain heals. We then ask to see repeated trials of this etc and over time we become convinced that your medication does in fact heal brains.
::
Ace said, once again, he did not believe because he HAS NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE. That is his reason. Now by you jumping from that and saying "Well what about your evidence for naturalism" you seem to be dodging the implication that there was no evidence for theism. In fact you didn't defend theism at all. I think we will all be willing to discuss the "evidence" for naturalism as soon as you say that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THEISM. If you believe there is evidence for theism than state it.
The atheists here believe that THERE IS NO evidence for theism. Without theism you naturally fall into the naturalism (see what I did there?
). So it really isn't an issue of providing evidence for naturalism because without evidence for a higher power it is simply the default choice. So from Ace's point of view and many of ours - There is no evidence for the gods therefore we take a worldview that does not include deity I.E. naturalism. Please address this, if you do not address it I assure you I can be just as repetitive and just as grating as anyone else. If you don't answer this issue you will thankfully demonstrate to the lurkers that you are not willing/cannot support the theistic position.Naturalism requires no defense if there is no deity. No deity = no theism = naturalism.
