RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
May 30, 2015 at 7:57 pm
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2015 at 8:16 pm by Anima.
Edit Reason: Typo
)
(May 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If it's Shakespeare and christianity we're talkin then you can't ignore Aaron.
Titus Andronicus. I love that play!!!
(May 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 1. Just as atheists tend to say theist apply god in everything so to might a theist say atheist apply atheism in everything.
-but neither statement would be true, eh? -thankfully, I might add.
Thankfully not.
(May 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 2. Just as atheists call a theist bias for applying one set of requirements for god and another for not god so to might theist call atheists bias.
-biased...for?......seems like you dropped off on that one at the end.
Did not drop off. If one party is bias for applying different requirements than so to would the other party be bias for doing the same.
(May 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 3. Just as atheists will not accept a theist answer of because for belief in god so to might a theist not accept because for atheists disbelief.
-I'd take that answer twice on tuesday. Why do you believe in god? "Because." Because what? "Just, because" - ah..okay, fair enough.
Ha ha. Exactly. Though I have run into a surprising amount of people who keep trying to tell me that Atheism is nothing more than a no answer to the question of whether they believe in good. If it is literally nothing more than that then any further inquiry is answered with because.
(May 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 4. Just as atheists will critique theist reasons for belief by application to non-theist entities so might a theist do the same for atheist disbelief.
-I've got a jar of home-made vinigrette in my fridge - goes well with salad.
Prove it!!
(May 30, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Disbelief in god claims. Not disbelief in everything. You really are making heavy weather of this.
Once again. If I ask why you do not believe god claims your answer would be unjustified in saying because. So the common answer has been "lack of proof". To which my response is that in order to avoid being a hypocrite you should not believe any claims which fail to meet that standard of proof. Then when asked what standard of proof the general answer is direct explicit empirical proof. To which I respond that only tautologies shall meet such a level of proof. Nothing else reasoned or experienced will meet such a threshold of proof.
I recognize that the intention of Atheism is not to disbelieve everything. The intention is to only disbelieve god. But the result of the argument upon which the disbelief is founded (lack of proof) has the result of requiring disbelief in everything in order to avoid hypocrisy or bias.
While many theists would like to use the argument of intelligent design to prove the existence of god, the argument becomes untenable as they are not justified at stopping at the point they intended to reach. (universe is order as if made by something intelligent that is god) They, just as atheist, are to follow the argument to its logical conclusion (universe is order as if made by something intelligent that is god. God is order as if made by something that is intelligent god of god, god of god is order as if made by something more intelligent god of god of god, etcetera). Thereby the argument is invalid due to infinite regression.
If I am not to let the theist stop when they want (and believe me I will not) than I am not to let the atheist stop when they want. Otherwise I am permitted only to consider the information they provide in the manner they provide it to the extend that they provide. Needless to say each is going to exclude by manner and extent what does not favor their argument .
