Rational Man
First point, I'm a non-religious person who believes in theism the belief we owe our existence to a transcendent being commonly referred to as God. I accept the fact I should offer reasons and facts to support that belief and I have made my case in this forum. Atheists have been shown circumstantial and inferential evidence that does in many cases lead a sane and rational person to conclude we are the result of plan and design. If as you say atheism is not a faith or a belief but is a disbelief and a rejection then that is a knowledge claim that God doesn't exist and therefore some other cause is responsible for our existence. However the majority of your weak kneeded fellow atheists in this forum won't even state for the record God doesn't exist. There only willing to say they doubt that claim.
Esquilax,
And just because an atheist claims to have debunked my arguments doesn't make them false.
I responded to the majority of objections which were merely opinions to begin with. As I said repeatedly, ultimately our respective arguments are decided by impartial and unbiased people, not participants in a debate. You don't get to debate something and also declare yourself the winner.
Barring smoking gun irrefutable evidence you can always say they have failed to shoulder the burden of proof. Theism is a belief just as naturalism is. Even though most atheists believe the universe and life is the result of mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence they also know it is very difficult to defend that belief.
The problem is the word atheism and the claim to be an atheist in the popular lexicon (and dictionary definition) doesn't mean I don't know and is a confession of ignorance. To anyone on the street atheist means a person who doesn't believe God exists. Secondly, I've never stated theism as anything other than a belief based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. The truth is by claiming to be an atheist you promote the belief God doesnt' exist even though your unwilling to defend or support that belief.
Mr Agenda
I made it up [Argumentus Classificatious] in response to the notion that merely labeling an argument in a certain category makes it a fallacy. Almost all arguments fall into some type of argument. An Ad hom argument is a type of argument but in some cases is fully justified.
I'll speak for myself, to be intellectually satisfied that we are not the result of a personal agent who caused and designed the universe and our existence I would want to have reason to believe some other non-God cause is as feasible and as likely to account for our existence.
It is good for me and anyone to examine both sides of a question rather than hold one side to a standard and give the preferred explanation a pass. The claim of atheism, not just as a lack of belief dodge, but if true that we don't owe our existence to a Creator but instead owe the existence of the universe to mindless forces that didn't intend, design or plan our existence is at least if not more difficult to believe then the belief it was intentionally caused to exist. The fact you and many atheists refuse to defend atheism on that basis is because you know and I know there is precious little evidence to defend that belief.
It is you who must not think too highly of alternative biological and cosmological explanations or you would be willing to say in your opinion God doesn't exist. Evidently in your mind the evidence against the existence of God and the evidence in favor of alternative explanations is so weak that even you as an atheist are unwilling to opine God doesn't exist and thats just stating it as an opinion. If as you say you don't find biological and cosmological explanations improbable, then you shoudln't have a problem with rendering the opinion God doesn't exist. Isn't this ironic? I am essentialy arguing with an atheist over the existence of God and it is the atheist who is unwilling to deny the existence of God. What I really suspect is your being disengenous and your using the weak atheist gambit as a dodge. I believe you are confident that God doesn't exist and some mechanistic non-god explanation for our existence will prevail you just don't want to make a case so you hide behind the weak atheist ruse. Why not? Its the best of both worlds you get to enter the thought into the market place of ideas that God doesn't exist while refusing to make the case.
Tell me, are you as skeptical of naturalistic in the gaps explanations as you are of the God explanation? If not then make your case for why those alternate explanations are better.
So it's fair to say you lack belief in any existing alternative biological or cosmological theory just as you lack belief in the existence of God but you prefer such explanations (even if at the moment you lack belief in them) based on the notion they're based on phyiscal evidence and math. I based my conclusion on physical evidence and cited the fact the universe is explicable in mathematical terms and unlike weak athiests I made my case based on evidence. I have to think I believe more in theism than you do atheism. I think its fair to say you lack belief in atheism also yet you claim if I lack belief in alternate explanations (as you yourself apparently do) its personal incredulity.
You mean my lack of faith in alternate explanations that even you lack faith in at the moment is a fallacious argument? You wrote...
Given we won't latch on to one of the proposed explanations until there's more confirming evidence for it, which there may not be in our lifetimes, our skepticism of the natural explanations should be obvious.
I see so its a fallacious argument from personal incredulity when I express skepticism of alternate naturalistic explanations, but you refer to your lack of belief in such theories as skepticism. You are a pretty slippery customer Mr Agenda...
I don't see how you could since as an atheist (I use the term loosely) even you don't deny God exists, you don't subscribe to the belief, but you don't deny it either. I think the majority of people would be very surprised, even shocked to know there are atheists who don't deny God exists. That would be a revelation to most people...probably even some atheists.
I agree its not good science...by the same token there are ligitimate questions and critques that could be leveled at Darwinism.
If theism isn't a reasonable belief (lets not play with words if it isn't reasonable then its unreasonable to believe it) then why are you unwilling to render the opinion God doesn't exist? Personally I can't think of any belief that's unreasonable to believe that I don't reject flat out and say I don't think its true. If some beilef is unreasonable I don't merely lack belief or decline belief I disbelieve it. For example I don't think its reasonable to believe that stars such as in astrology have any predictive value or influence on human behavior. If asked to, I'd be happy to make a solid case why I don't think its true, why I don't believe it and why I think its false and unreasonable to believe in. I suspect it's because given the evidence we do have and the lack of evidence some other cause is responslible its not unreasonable to believe we are the result of a Creator. You do realize belief in theism isn't just held by folks in remote African villiages but by people in all walks of life of varying degrees of eduction including (according to polls) 10% of scientists.
Since your comparing such belief to Africans in a remote villiage who believe in witches do you merely lack belief in such practices but are unwilling to deny there may be something to it? You're like many atheists who compare theism to belief in Santa Claus and Faires yet I assume you don't merely lack belief in such entities but you're willing to go out on a limb and render the opinion such entities don't exist, true? Of do you merely lack belief in fairies?
Quote:The burden of proof is on the religious person who is making claims. Atheists are atheists because we have not been shown any real scientific, logical evidence. Remember atheism is not a belief or a faith. It is a disbelief, it is a rejection of the claim that there is a god. The case for atheism is simply: you can't prove your claims
First point, I'm a non-religious person who believes in theism the belief we owe our existence to a transcendent being commonly referred to as God. I accept the fact I should offer reasons and facts to support that belief and I have made my case in this forum. Atheists have been shown circumstantial and inferential evidence that does in many cases lead a sane and rational person to conclude we are the result of plan and design. If as you say atheism is not a faith or a belief but is a disbelief and a rejection then that is a knowledge claim that God doesn't exist and therefore some other cause is responsible for our existence. However the majority of your weak kneeded fellow atheists in this forum won't even state for the record God doesn't exist. There only willing to say they doubt that claim.
Esquilax,
And just because an atheist claims to have debunked my arguments doesn't make them false.
Quote:No, but the information in those debunkings proves your arguments flawed. The same debunkings that you've ignored. And just continued asserting that what you're saying is true. Which has an interesting subtext.
I responded to the majority of objections which were merely opinions to begin with. As I said repeatedly, ultimately our respective arguments are decided by impartial and unbiased people, not participants in a debate. You don't get to debate something and also declare yourself the winner.
Quote:It means I don't believe current god claims until they're properly shouldered their burden of proof. So, in a way, yes; it means I'm intellectually honest enough to accept that I don't have the answers to every question, and that doesn't give me the right to just make up something that seems comfortable.
Barring smoking gun irrefutable evidence you can always say they have failed to shoulder the burden of proof. Theism is a belief just as naturalism is. Even though most atheists believe the universe and life is the result of mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence they also know it is very difficult to defend that belief.
Quote:Yes! Of course I don't know! And as much as you claim to, you don't either! None of us do, because if you can't show it, you don't know it! You believe that a god exists, you have formulated sufficient evidence for you to justify your own beliefs. That's not the same as knowledge, because knowledge is by definition something that can be demonstrated to be true. All I'm doing, is I'm not pretending that I know the answer to questions that we can't possibly come close to answering yet!
The problem is the word atheism and the claim to be an atheist in the popular lexicon (and dictionary definition) doesn't mean I don't know and is a confession of ignorance. To anyone on the street atheist means a person who doesn't believe God exists. Secondly, I've never stated theism as anything other than a belief based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. The truth is by claiming to be an atheist you promote the belief God doesnt' exist even though your unwilling to defend or support that belief.
Mr Agenda
Quote:Identifying a fallacy within an argument doesn't prove the conclusion isn't true, but it proves the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It proves the argument doesn't support its conclusion. There is no such fallacy as Argumentus Classificatious, where did you get it from? Are you thinking of the 'fallacy fallacy', which is inferring that since an argument contains a fallacy, its conclusion is untrue?
I made it up [Argumentus Classificatious] in response to the notion that merely labeling an argument in a certain category makes it a fallacy. Almost all arguments fall into some type of argument. An Ad hom argument is a type of argument but in some cases is fully justified.
I'll speak for myself, to be intellectually satisfied that we are not the result of a personal agent who caused and designed the universe and our existence I would want to have reason to believe some other non-God cause is as feasible and as likely to account for our existence.
Quote:Good for you.
It is good for me and anyone to examine both sides of a question rather than hold one side to a standard and give the preferred explanation a pass. The claim of atheism, not just as a lack of belief dodge, but if true that we don't owe our existence to a Creator but instead owe the existence of the universe to mindless forces that didn't intend, design or plan our existence is at least if not more difficult to believe then the belief it was intentionally caused to exist. The fact you and many atheists refuse to defend atheism on that basis is because you know and I know there is precious little evidence to defend that belief.
Quote:When you say 'more likely or probable' you mean 'convincing to you, personally'. You find the explanations of cosmology and biology improbable, we don't. So stay a theist. You seem to be under the impression we want you to change your mind, but we actually don't care much. We didn't go to a theist forum to convince the theists. We're just entertaining yet another theist visitor daring us to convince them.
It is you who must not think too highly of alternative biological and cosmological explanations or you would be willing to say in your opinion God doesn't exist. Evidently in your mind the evidence against the existence of God and the evidence in favor of alternative explanations is so weak that even you as an atheist are unwilling to opine God doesn't exist and thats just stating it as an opinion. If as you say you don't find biological and cosmological explanations improbable, then you shoudln't have a problem with rendering the opinion God doesn't exist. Isn't this ironic? I am essentialy arguing with an atheist over the existence of God and it is the atheist who is unwilling to deny the existence of God. What I really suspect is your being disengenous and your using the weak atheist gambit as a dodge. I believe you are confident that God doesn't exist and some mechanistic non-god explanation for our existence will prevail you just don't want to make a case so you hide behind the weak atheist ruse. Why not? Its the best of both worlds you get to enter the thought into the market place of ideas that God doesn't exist while refusing to make the case.
Tell me, are you as skeptical of naturalistic in the gaps explanations as you are of the God explanation? If not then make your case for why those alternate explanations are better.
Quote:Given we won't latch on to one of the proposed explanations until there's more confirming evidence for it, which there may not be in our lifetimes, our skepticism of the natural explanations should be obvious. They're better because they're based on physical evidence and math that works.
So it's fair to say you lack belief in any existing alternative biological or cosmological theory just as you lack belief in the existence of God but you prefer such explanations (even if at the moment you lack belief in them) based on the notion they're based on phyiscal evidence and math. I based my conclusion on physical evidence and cited the fact the universe is explicable in mathematical terms and unlike weak athiests I made my case based on evidence. I have to think I believe more in theism than you do atheism. I think its fair to say you lack belief in atheism also yet you claim if I lack belief in alternate explanations (as you yourself apparently do) its personal incredulity.
Quote:It's not your incredulity that's a problem. It's using your personal incredulity of the alternative as an argument that's fallacious.
You mean my lack of faith in alternate explanations that even you lack faith in at the moment is a fallacious argument? You wrote...
Given we won't latch on to one of the proposed explanations until there's more confirming evidence for it, which there may not be in our lifetimes, our skepticism of the natural explanations should be obvious.
I see so its a fallacious argument from personal incredulity when I express skepticism of alternate naturalistic explanations, but you refer to your lack of belief in such theories as skepticism. You are a pretty slippery customer Mr Agenda...
Quote:It depends on the atheist. I don't have a beef with theists...
I don't see how you could since as an atheist (I use the term loosely) even you don't deny God exists, you don't subscribe to the belief, but you don't deny it either. I think the majority of people would be very surprised, even shocked to know there are atheists who don't deny God exists. That would be a revelation to most people...probably even some atheists.
Quote:No gripe for the belief. A lot of us have a gripe with Creation Science or Intelligent Design being taught in taxpayer-funded science classes when, at the very best, it's not established science.
I agree its not good science...by the same token there are ligitimate questions and critques that could be leveled at Darwinism.
Quote:It's reasonable that theists believe, and a particular theist's personal experiences may be adequate justification for them. That doesn't make it a very reasonable belief. It's just as reasonable for people in a remote African village to believe their ancestors and witches account for pretty much all chance events between them, but the belief itself isn't reasonable. You pretty much have to believe it to think it's reasonable.
If theism isn't a reasonable belief (lets not play with words if it isn't reasonable then its unreasonable to believe it) then why are you unwilling to render the opinion God doesn't exist? Personally I can't think of any belief that's unreasonable to believe that I don't reject flat out and say I don't think its true. If some beilef is unreasonable I don't merely lack belief or decline belief I disbelieve it. For example I don't think its reasonable to believe that stars such as in astrology have any predictive value or influence on human behavior. If asked to, I'd be happy to make a solid case why I don't think its true, why I don't believe it and why I think its false and unreasonable to believe in. I suspect it's because given the evidence we do have and the lack of evidence some other cause is responslible its not unreasonable to believe we are the result of a Creator. You do realize belief in theism isn't just held by folks in remote African villiages but by people in all walks of life of varying degrees of eduction including (according to polls) 10% of scientists.
Since your comparing such belief to Africans in a remote villiage who believe in witches do you merely lack belief in such practices but are unwilling to deny there may be something to it? You're like many atheists who compare theism to belief in Santa Claus and Faires yet I assume you don't merely lack belief in such entities but you're willing to go out on a limb and render the opinion such entities don't exist, true? Of do you merely lack belief in fairies?
