Outsmarted by a Christian, need help to contradict

[Eilonnwy]

I agree with Adrian. That's absolutely not how logical arguments go and it's very possible for an atheist to lose if they don't properly argue the points made. That's why I've not only been learning about the answers to theists claims, but logical fallacies and things like that.

---

Just to check that I understand this correctly, being a newcomer to atheism and philosophy, the OP lost the debate because he made the positive claim that there was no god, but since there is no evidence to prove that, he lost. There is a lack of evidence, which means it is unreasonable to believe in god, with out any claim on whether he exists or not, but the OP didn't take this line of reasoning.

And a philosophical debate starts from ground zero, no one is more right or wrong than the other until the first argument is made.

Correct?

In essence, yes.

The fact is that when you assert a positive claim about something you have to back it up with evidence. When you make the positive claim of "There is no God." then you must assert the evidence.

On the other hand when you debate theist and they are asserting a god does exist, they must prove it and for the atheist to take the default position of not accepting a claim until it's been proven.

It is possible to debate for the nonexistence of a god, IMO. But it would have to be the Abrahamic God, I think it's possible to show evidence that god does not exist. I think Victor Stenger did a great job of that.. It's impossible to debate a deistic god, though.

However, when debating a theist it is always better to take the default no then posit no god.

[Tiberius]

Just to check that I understand this correctly, being a newcomer to atheism and philosophy, the OP lost the debate because he made the positive claim that there was no god, but since there is no evidence to prove that, he lost. There is a lack of evidence, which means it is unreasonable to believe in god, with out any claim on whether he exists or not, but the OP didn't take this line of reasoning.

And a philosophical debate starts from ground zero, no one is more right or wrong than the other until the first argument is made.

Correct?

Pretty much.

The atheist lost the debate because he fell into the "trying to prove a negative" trap, when he should have said "you can't prove a negative, but you can reject the so-called evidence for theism on grounds of logic". He could have then simply informed them of the burden of proof, and proceeded to refute their "evidence". He also let them make a strawman of his position, saying that he couldn't be an atheist and reduced his position to "agnostic". At this point he could have refuted this by passing them a dictionary and telling them to look up the word "agnostic", but instead he went with it and tried to reject his re-labelling, which failed because the label was correct (i.e. he doesn't believe in god but doesn't think god is unprovable either).

[Demonaura]

Thing with debates is it was never about who is right. It's all about the audience. You could make a theist become an atheist but, if the crowd thinks the theist won, he did.

As with the original post, I skimmed over it because it was so large and it's late but, I think his entire thing is brought down with: sure the christian church had done some good. EVERYONE has, they also do lots of bad things. But the real kicker is that every single good thing they have ever done is not dependant on god, it is dependant on them being good people. In general people are pretty good, some happen to be christian.

If you are a good person that congratulations! You have saved your sanity and become a welcome member of society despite all the bad things in this world! Please don't give all the credit away for all your hard work.

[Edwardo Piet]

I just don't think its possible for an atheist to 'lose a debate' against a theist though...theists have already lost by default until they have provided evidence.

That's such an arrogant statement. Sorry to say EvF, but you have no idea how debates on philosophy work. Nobody has "lost by default" because in the whole concept of philosophy is to give no absolute answers. The whole philosophical debate is all about presenting the best logical argument of your position.

Now if we were talking about scientific debate, then yes. You couldn't publish a scientific paper on "The existence of God" without providing empirical evidence to support it. It would get rejected, and the theists (and atheists) have both lost the scientific debate by default. This is why science has no position on the existence of the so-called "supernatural". As soon as it does have a position on something supernatural, that supernatural becomes natural.

Philosophical debates are all about scoring points using logic. It doesn't matter about the reality of the situation, because the debate isn't about reality, it is about logic. If you make bad logical arguments, you lose the debate.

IS it a philosophical debate? I didn't actually know that. Why doesn't science have a place here? The existence of God isn't outside science is it? Science deals with existence claims and the debate starts with evidence for the existence of God to be provided right?

Why doesn't science come into it?

If you are saying its merely a philosophical debate...then would it be treated the same with the FSM or Zeus? Rather...would anyone even be having a philosophical debate over that? I think "God" gets special treatment.

So if a believer in Zeus or the FSM was in a debate and I said something fallacious like "Zeus/the FSM DEFINITELY doesn't exist" and made fallacious arguments I would have lost the debate then? Wouldn't the Zeus or FSM believer need to provide some support for their belief first...I mean even if its a philosophical debate? Would we really be having a debate over Zeus or the FSM? And if the idea would be laughable with them...shouldn't it be the same with "God"?

Why is it treated any different with "God" than with Zeus or the FSM?

And why isn't the debate considered scientific? And if it IS indeed to be merely considered philosophical...would a believer in Zeus or the FSM not need any support for their belief either? And if someone presented fallacious arguments against them would the Zeus/FSM believer have 'won the debate'? Where's the debate? Is this that debatable? I mean sure if it IS just a philosophical debate...but does this still really start on an even-footing here? Wouldn't a Zeus/FSM believer not be given a debate? Wouldn't they just be laughed at? Or someone who believes that Elvis is still alive? You COULD have a philosophical debate over those things too....but it would be considered laughable and waste of time for those things to be given special treatment over so many weird supernatural or paranormal things wouldn't it? Why should "God" be given what it seems to be, special treatment over Zeus or the FSM?

I know that God, Zeus or FSM are not disproved....and you cannot absolutely say people who believe in either of them are wrong...but surely the fact that they are huge beliefs that are completely unsupported counts for something? Even in a philosophical debate...because it seems to be treated differently over Zeus and the FSM for example...if this is an even-footing thing, shouldn't we be spending equal time debating over all the other countless possible Gods too? Zeus, the FSM or whatever?

So like I said: Why isn't it considered a scientific debate anyway? Science doesn't need absolute proof or disproof....but the burden is still on the believer in such unsupported supernatural beliefs. Science deals with existence, right?

And if this was chosen as just a philosophical debate then I didn't realize it was. I thought it was just a debate I didn't know a philosophical debate was specified. I saw no reason for why science shouldn't/didn't fit into the equation.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I found a new avatar for you EvF



</joke>

[leo-rcc]

I found a new avatar for you EvF



</joke>

[Tiberius]

The whole concept of God isn't a scientific concept, even most theists would argue that. Therefore it is in the realms of philosophy, where it has always been. Sure, arguments from design could be used, but that doesn't make it a scientific debate.

[fr0d0]

The whole concept of God isn't a scientific concept, even most theists would argue that. Therefore it is in the realms of philosophy, where it has always been. Sure, arguments from design could be used, but that doesn't make it a scientific debate.

^^^ (he's on my side )

[Edwardo Piet]

The whole concept of God isn't a scientific concept, even most theists would argue that. Therefore it is in the realms of philosophy, where it has always been. Sure, arguments from design could be used, but that doesn't make it a scientific debate.

Well that is where you and I disagree then...because I do not believe religion or God is outside the realm of science...

E.G: I do not subscribe to NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) - Stephen J. Gould's notion that science and religion do not overlap...they are about two different things, that science cannot say anything about the existence of God...

I do not subscribe to this view because I believe with Dawkins that if God exists and has any effect on the universe and the natural world whatsoever then he cannot possibly steer clear of science...and even just by existing - being part of the universe...that is still an existence claim and thus still a scientific one..I agree with Dawkins that a universe without a God would be a fundamentally different kind of universe than a universe WITH one.... - whichever version of the universe we are currently living in...be it Godless or Godly - the alternative universe would have to be different.

From the Stephen J. Gould wikipedia page, the part about NOMA - and here is Dawkins view on it: "Richard Dawkins has criticized the NOMA principle on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope. Dawkins argues that "[a] universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. [...] Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." These "existence claims" include miracles such as the Catholic Assumption of Mary: whether Mary's body decayed when she died or was physically lifted to Heaven is a material fact, and thus outside the moral magisterium to which NOMA would limit religion. [51]"

And the link to NOMA on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlap....28NOMA.29

So I think God is a scientific claim as well as a philosophical one and religions are basically just bad sciences:I think religion is not only a philosophy but also bad failed sciences of the past....

So I agree with Dawkins here...I do not see why God isn't an scientific claim like any other existence claim...when a universe without a God would be different to a universe with one....and an intervening theist God would have even more effect on the natural world and the universe...they would not simply just set it up! They come into contact with the natural world - that effects science. Its a scientific claim as well as a philosophical one.

Unless I have misunderstood..?

EvF

[Meatball]

EvF, you're coming at this from an entirely incorrect angle and embarrassing yourself here.

I can lose a debate when my position is "Richard Dawkins is a human being." Like everyone else has already said, it's not about universal truth and scientific evidence. It's about logical support and valid arguments.

"Dawkins is a human being because he wears a suit." - I'd be hard pressed to find someone who would contest my position, but logically, it's easy to see that my argument is invalid. One might say I have not sufficiently supported my position and thus lost any logical debate I might be engaged in.

You should do some research.

See: Argument