Are Atheism and Theism Two Sides of the Same Coin? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Are Atheism and Theism Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Debate Information

After all, one relies on heads while the other is based on tales.
Blastcat



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
        Atheism and Theism both make religious claims. The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. Since atheistic claims have no proof or evidence to back up such an assertion, it becomes a religious statement of faith. Atheism's claim, according to this definition also assumes absolute knowledge of existence in claiming their is no God, which is completely absurd, honesty would at least produce the label of agnostic. Theists however do not share in this dilemma as the definition simply indicates "a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods" regardless of having absolute knowledge. The theist definition excludes the same absolute certainly that the atheist must maintain. It is fair to say that the word atheist in and of itself is an oxymoron, as only God could have absolute knowledge.
    Plaffelvohfendallased25
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1612 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    Neopesdom said:
    Since atheistic claims have no proof or evidence to back up such an assertion, it becomes a religious statement of faith.
    Replace 'atheistic' with 'theistic' and it will be about right. You do not need to prove that something does not exist: the burden of proof is on theists to prove the existence of their God.
    Neopesdom said:
    The theist definition excludes the same absolute certainly that the atheist must maintain. It is fair to say that the word atheist in and of itself is an oxymoron, as only God could have absolute knowledge.
    And yet if god has absolute knowledge, it cannot have omnipotence, as it already knows the future actions it will take. If you have knowledge of the future, you cannot have free will in the present.
    JoeKerrPlaffelvohfen
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    >>You do not need to prove that something does not exist: the burden of proof is on theists to prove the existence of their God.

    That is not really what is going on though, the "atheist" claim is that something else is responsible for existence, yet when you corner them about that "something else', they run to place the burden of proof on the "theist". There is still a burden of proof to prove that "something else", don't fool yourself.
    Plaffelvohfendallased25
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    >>And yet if god has absolute knowledge, it cannot have omnipotence, as it already knows the future actions it will take. If you have knowledge of the future, you cannot have free will in the present.

    I think you are confusing omniscience with omnipotence, but I know what you mean, however you if you also have omnipresence - the presence of God everywhere at the same time. your assertion fails. Good luck as finite being trying to understand an infinite one, it is simply beyond your capacity.
    Plaffelvohfen
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1612 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    Neopesdom said:
    I think you are confusing omniscience with omnipotence.
    No, I am not. I am stating that if you have omniscience (absolute knowledge), you cannot have omnipotence (absolute control).
    Neopesdom said:
    the presence of God everywhere at the same time.
    You have simply asserted that God is not bound by the same timestream as the rest of us: the one-way time arrow, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the law of entropy. And yet, you have provided no explanation or evidence for how on earth this could be the case.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -  
    Neopesdom said:
        Atheism and Theism both make religious claims. The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. Since atheistic claims have no proof or evidence to back up such an assertion, it becomes a religious statement of faith. Atheism's claim, according to this definition also assumes absolute knowledge of existence in claiming their is no God, which is completely absurd, honesty would at least produce the label of agnostic. Theists however do not share in this dilemma as the definition simply indicates "a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods" regardless of having absolute knowledge. The theist definition excludes the same absolute certainly that the atheist must maintain. It is fair to say that the word atheist in and of itself is an oxymoron, as only God could have absolute knowledge.
    You are confusing lack of belief with belief in lack. Atheism is lack of belief in god; it is not belief in lack of god.

    As an analogy, consider this: I do not know anything about my neighbor. If you ask me, "Do you believe that your neighbor has a dog?", I will say, "No, I do not have such belief". If you then ask me, "So you believe that your neighbor has no dog?" I will say, "No, I do not have such belief either". My lack of belief here is exactly predicated upon my lack of knowledge. And atheists, unlike theists, are not afraid to say, "I do not know", when it is warranted, instead of making stuff up.

    That said, there are things for which it makes sense to set the default position to "does not exist", even in the absence of any knowledge. If you ask me if it is plausible that my neighbor has a dog, I will say, "Yes, he very well may have a dog". But if you ask me if it is plausible that he has a pet T-Rex, I will say, "No way he does". Now, I do not know for sure: there is, strictly speaking, a non-zero probability that he, indeed, has a pet T-Rex. However, based on my lack of ever encountering any shed of evidence of any T-Rexes on Earth existing today, I will have to go with the reasonable assumption that they do not exist. I may be wrong, but this is one of those gambles that are so likely to play out in my favor that I am happy to take it on.
    "God" is from the same category.

    As for your presumption that the theist position makes more sense than that of an atheist - that is to say, belief in god makes more sense than lack of such belief - we can handle this the usual way: the soundness of any such argument can be checked by applying it to any other comparable entities. Take leprechauns; since there is exactly the same amount of evidence in favor of god's existence and leprechauns' existence, it must make more sense to believe that leprechauns exist than to believe that they do not. Is that the position you also hold? If not, then your argument is dishonest, as you do not apply it consistently. And if yes, then... you also must believe in ghosts, green aliens in flying saucepans, invisible unicorns, flying T-Rexes and floating acid-breathing rhinos... and an uncountable set of other imaginable things.

    This is how I like to have fun with preachers asking me if I believe in god. I say, "No, but I believe in minotaurs". The beauty of this response is that, virtually whatever they respond to this with will bare the incoherence of their position. And often I can see right after saying it some small spark of recognition of this fact. They start saying something and suddenly stumble, some deep part of them that still holds some remainder of rationality telling them, "Turn back! You are getting lost!" But, of course, the conditioning they have been subjected to quickly takes over, and they proceed with one of the template responses, suppressing that rational voice.

    I think that religion, honestly, is one of the strangest things ever to take root in the human world. It is literally fantasy stories confused with reality. It is hard to think of anything other than religion that anyone at all takes seriously in which such a basic mistake takes place. It is as bad as someone reading the Lord of the Rings and afterwards telling everyone to fear Sauron and orcs.
    SwolliwBlastcat
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1711 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:

    You are confusing lack of belief with belief in lack. Atheism is lack of belief in god; it is not belief in lack of god.
    That's not true.  Atheism is both a lack of belief in a God of gods and a belief in the non-existence of a God or gods.  The author of this thread claims to be an atheist and has stated that he believes there is no God or gods.
    Swolliwdallased25Blastcat
  • piloteerpiloteer 1401 Pts   -   edited October 10
    Neopesdom said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    That is not really what is going on though, the "atheist" claim is that something else is responsible for existence, yet when you corner them about that "something else', they run to place the burden of proof on the "theist". 
    Neopesdom said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

     Good luck as finite being trying to understand an infinite one, it is simply beyond your capacity.
    Just wanted to point out that you accused us atheists of running from the burden of proof, but in your very next post you claim that we can never understand how we can all have free will even though God knows what the future will be, and the reason we can't understand is because God is infinite?!?!? You just did exactly what you accused us atheists of doing. Even if God is infinite, how can he have given us free will if he knows what the future is, and how can you explain this double standard without trying to deflect any meaningful answer by hiding behind the facade of it being something we mortals can never understand because it is "the will of God"?     

    If you want to get into a discussion of me disproving God's existence over your disproving the objective proof that he doesn't exist, I'm fully willing.    
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    That's not true.  Atheism is both a lack of belief in a God of gods and a belief in the non-existence of a God or gods.  The author of this thread claims to be an atheist and has stated that he believes there is no God or gods.
    The author of this thread is not representative of all atheists. He/she is what is commonly called an "antitheist".

    I am an atheist, and I do not believe that god/gods do not exist. I do believe, however, that altering one's actions based on the conceptual possibility of them existing makes absolutely no sense - so, if you will, you can say that I live as if god/gods did not exist. They are not a part of my world view, any more than Batman and Robin are. I would not bet a million dollars against 1 cent in favor of the claim that gods do not exist - but I also would not spend a single bit of my mental brainpower seriously considering the possibility that they do.
    dallased25Blastcat
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1711 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:

    The author of this thread is not representative of all atheists. He/she is what is commonly called an "antitheist".

    I am an atheist, and I do not believe that god/gods do not exist. I do believe, however, that altering one's actions based on the conceptual possibility of them existing makes absolutely no sense - so, if you will, you can say that I live as if god/gods did not exist. They are not a part of my world view, any more than Batman and Robin are. I would not bet a million dollars against 1 cent in favor of the claim that gods do not exist - but I also would not spend a single bit of my mental brainpower seriously considering the possibility that they do.

    Then again, you're not representative of all atheists.  Swolliw is an antitheist, but that is hardly a common term and regardless, that is irrelevant.  The definition of atheist is "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."  One can disbelieve in the existence of God or gods yet not be opposed to such a belief.  Once again, atheism is both a lack of belief in a God of gods and a belief in the non-existence of a God or gods.
    dallased25Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Correct, I am not. Precisely my point: atheism is a wide term encompassing a large variety of views, the only commonality between which is refusal to believe that god exists. All antitheists are atheists, but not all atheists are antitheists.
    Blastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” 

    The definition of...........full stop, end of story. Trying to make out otherwise is Lala Land fantasy.

    It has no relevance to the issue anyway and is no more than a diversion to the fact that theists are completely defeated on the existence of God issue before any argument even gets off the ground.

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/7596/can-theists-see-what-others-dont

    dallased25
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    There is still a burden of proof to prove that "something else"

    And that burden of proof has been satisfactorily explained a thousand times over in the form of evolution through natural selection. 

    dallased25
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar @CYDdharta
    He/she is what is commonly called an "antitheist".

    He calls himself what is commonly called a realist.

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    >>As for your presumption that the theist position makes more sense than that of an atheist - that is to say, belief in god makes more sense than lack of such belief -

      That is to say, according to evidence, that God is the more likely reason for existence than random natural forces such as evolution. When the "atheist" comes to grip with this fact they are left nowhere to but run away and claim the same mental state as that of a stone or tree, lack of belief, belief in lack. Most know exactly what it is that they believe, they just cannot justify it by any means, philosophically or scientifically because what they really have is lack of evidence or evidence that is lacking.

    >>Take leprechauns; since there is exactly the same amount of evidence in favor of god's existence and leprechauns' existence

      Leprechauns did not claim to exist, they never left a miraculous book with prophecy, in fact there is no better evidential claim that the Bible is indeed the Word of God than prophecy. The textual evidence for the Bible is also overwhelming from contemporary archaeological affirmations, to its historic veracity. Even creation speaks of itself in the form of a complexity that only God could be responsible for. Then there is the Bible itself and how it came into existence, let alone the moral precepts presented within it's pages that are quite literally beyond this world. Then there is the power of God's word to transform even the most heinous of individuals into saints. Your leprechaun fantasy argument, like a bucket without a bottom, just doesn't hold any water.
    Plaffelvohfen
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom

    How is something the evidence of which does not exist a more likely reason for existence of something than something the evidence of which is everywhere? "Random" natural forces are not random at all, they are everywhere, they are learnable, and they are practically applicable - an example of this application is the technology that allows us to communicate as we are right now while possibly being thousands miles away. On the other hand, where is "god", aside from some people's fantasies and fiction books?
    A T-Rex is far more likely to have caused life to emerge on Earth than a "god", as the former, at least, is known to have existed, while the latter... well...

    Leprechauns absolutely did claim to exist - have you played Heroes of Might and Magic series? Those series are clearly the Word of the Leprechaun King, and the textual and visual evidence of their existence in those games is overwhelming.
    Of course my leprechaun fantasy argument does not hold any water. Interestingly enough, whatever it holds is still bigger and more tangible than what the Biblical argument holds.
    Blastcat
  • dallased25dallased25 19 Pts   -  
    Neopesdom said:
        Atheism and Theism both make religious claims. The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. Since atheistic claims have no proof or evidence to back up such an assertion, it becomes a religious statement of faith. Atheism's claim, according to this definition also assumes absolute knowledge of existence in claiming their is no God, which is completely absurd, honesty would at least produce the label of agnostic. Theists however do not share in this dilemma as the definition simply indicates "a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods" regardless of having absolute knowledge. The theist definition excludes the same absolute certainly that the atheist must maintain. It is fair to say that the word atheist in and of itself is an oxymoron, as only God could have absolute knowledge.
    This is blatantly not true. Atheism is not making a claim, it is a literal rejection of a claim. "Theism" means belief in a god, which is a positive claim that something exists. "A" meaning "Non" or "No" means that "A"Theism literally means "Non or no belief in a god", which is a rejection of the positive claim. No proof is necessary to reject a claim, especially one that has not been proven to be true. For example, let's take the claim that extraterrestrials exist and have visited the earth. This is a positive claim about the nature of reality and that there are beings other than humans who frequent the earth. The person making the claim is required to make a case as to why this is true. I as the skeptic am NOT required to provide evidence as to why extraterrestrials do not exist since I am not making that claim. Instead I'm saying "I don't believe your claim, until you prove it." That's basically what atheism is...it's "No gods have met their burden of proof so far as we can see, so we don't believe in them." It's silly to require evidence from someone who is saying "I don't believe your claim". Put it this way, if a person comes to me and says "I have an invisible pet dinosaur" and can't demonstrate it is real, does that mean that me saying "I don't believe you" is now a religious statement of faith. No. Of course not, how incredibly silly. Saying "I don't believe you have an invisible pet dinosaur" is no more religious than saying "I don't believe there is a god". Both are simple rejections of positive claims made by someone who couldn't convince the skeptic. Also, atheists don't say "there is no god", they say "I don't believe in any gods". So the only dilemma is why the religious keep getting this wrong and dishonestly representing the position of atheists. 
    MayCaesarCYDdharta
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    >>I'm saying "I don't believe your claim, until you prove it."

       God is not something that you can observe in a test tube and make analysis. In fact there would be no way to prove that God is responsible for the universe unless one has supernatural evidence, like precise and detailed prophecies concerning future events, that no one could know or predict, as contained within the Bible. However, we can also observe things in the universe and make an analysis on things we can "put in a test tube". We can conclude that of what we know, the world could not have made itself, that evolution has no natural mechanism to operate and could not have created the diversity that exists. Mutations statistically would create cancer and destroy any population let alone there not being enough time to randomly rely on the correct and astronomical number of mutations to specifically occur within the gametes of organisms, let alone also having said organism survive and produce offspring that would also have to reproduce and have the specific mutations occur in their gametes DNA in order to somewhere down the line produce an evolved trait. The earth's organisms, all of them would each have to win the lottery quadrillions of times, a statistical impossibility. There would also be evidence in the fossil record of transitional organisms, of which we have none.

    The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” - Sir Fred Hoyle

      Once we can rule out the possibility of order happening in the universe on its own, we are simply left with the conclusion that things came about because of a higher power, that we have laws governing the universe because there is a law giver. In others words it simply needs to be shown that the natural explanations for existence are untenable and that the inescapable conclusion is that God does indeed exist.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • DeeDee 4385 Pts   -   edited October 13
    @Neopesdom

       God is not something that you can observe in a test tube and make analysis

    Yes , your belief in a god is a faith based position which is based on supernatural conviction nothing else 


    In fact there would be no way to prove that God is responsible for the universe unless one has supernatural evidence,

    “Supernatural evidence” LOL …..if your god is explainable then your god becomes part of the natural world as it’s perfectly comprehensible within that framework  

    There is not one shred of evidence for god , ghosts or supernatural entities and there never has been that despite the fact that the gullible and superstitious have been claiming such for centuries and each claim failing miserably 

     like precise and detailed prophecies concerning future events, that no one could know or predict, as contained within the Bible

    Like what exactly? You did say detailed right? 

    However, we can also observe things in the universe and make an analysis on things we can "put in a test tube". 

    But not god claims right? So now you wish to try proving your god case by roundabout tactics ….always the way with you guys

    We can conclude that of what we know, the world could not have made itself,

    “The world” as in planet earth has a pretty good explanation backed by science if you’re trying to say something cannot come from nothing that’s an unjustified assumption , how do you go about demonstrating such?

    that evolution has no natural mechanism to operate and could not have created the diversity that exists. Mutations statistically would create cancer and destroy any population let alone there not being enough time to randomly rely on the correct and astronomical number of mutations to specifically occur within the gametes of organisms, let alone also having said organism survive and produce offspring that would also have to reproduce and have the specific mutations occur in their gametes DNA in order to somewhere down the line produce an evolved trait. The earth's organisms, all of them would each have to win the lottery quadrillions of times, a statistical impossibility. There would also be evidence in the fossil record of transitional organisms, of which we have none.


    Even if Evolution was baloney that still does not prove a god exists so your point is to be honest pointless 

    Where are your peer reviewed papers that destroy Evolution? If you disprove Evolution you would win a Nobel prize so why don’t you do that?
     Evolution is fact denial of such puts you in a minority that’s growing ever smaller over time , it puts you on a level with flat earthers 

    “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” - Sir Fred Hoyle

    Hoyle believed the Universe had no beginning and no end , you ought to be more careful when you cherry pick quotes 

    It’s also a fallacious argument called the Lottery paradox,   It’s also an appeal to authority 



      Once we can rule out the possibility of order happening in the universe on its own, we are simply left with the conclusion that things came about because of a higher power,

    That’s you conclusion and one you admit you cannot prove it’s a faith based position and nothing else. Also you’re in a totally lost position because you’re not just saying it’s a “higher power “ you’re saying it’s a specific god as in the Christian god which makes your postion even more ridiculous 

    that we have laws governing the universe because there is a law giver.

    Prove it? Wait you cannot right? A “law giver” as in the Christian god who approves of slavery LOL 

     In others words it simply needs to be shown that the natural explanations for existence are untenable and that the inescapable conclusion is that God does indeed exist.

    Yet they’re fact , your denial of fact doesn’t make them disappear. You want people to dent fact that’s backed by mountains of evidence and instead accept nonsense that has not one shred of evidence for it , this is a clear demonstration of the damage indoctrination does 

    All we can have are natural explanations of the world accepted by most rational agents you wish to deny facts yet want people to accept faith based claims which are all asserted without one shred of evidence if your god becomes explainable he/she  /it becomes part of the natural world as he/ she/it is explainable within that framework 

    Your whole argument is just the usual Godidit to everything you cannot explain and thus void of meaningful implication 



    Goddidit

    Not to be confused with an act of God.
    “”A theory which introduces miracles on an ad hoc basis every time it runs into trouble would certainly be inferior.
    Russell HumphreysYEC, pissing on his own feet[3]

    Goddidit is one of the masterstrokes and trump-cards that creationists and other biblical literalists have at their disposal when debating points with naturalists and rationalists.[4][note 1] It proposes that anything is and was possible because of the omnipotence of God — specifically the ability to bend the laws of timelogic and physics. This means that arguments that focus on the feasibility of a global flood, for instance — complicated analyses of how much water would be required, if food could be provided for Noah's animals and the construction of his ark — can be swept away and ignored.

    The concept of 'God did it' can be used to create unfalsifiable theories. A creationist need never doubt creation because God could have made anything. It may also be used as a euphemism to indicate something that cannot yet be explained by natural laws, most likely due to lack of information or knowledge.

    Despite the convenience of the Goddidit explanation, entire reams of literature have been written by creationists to avoid it, attempting to present a scientific-sounding narrative instead, with Goddidit called in to whitewash over the flaws.

    • There are a few small gaps in most fossil records linking one species to another. Goddidit!
    • No one knows what is the (if there is any) carrier force of gravityGoddidit!
    • Love is a strong and mysterious emotion. Goddidit!
    • The universe appears rather fine-tuned for life on earth. Goddidit!
    • We cannot explain how memory works. Goddidit!
    • This chicken mayonnaise sandwich is deliciousGoddidit!
    • There is no way God did it. Goddidit!

    Rational Wiki
    Blastcat
  • @Swolliw

    Nice joke, but I'd say they are both faces on a die with many many sides.
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • dallased25dallased25 19 Pts   -  
    Neopesdom said:
    @dallased25



      Once we can rule out the possibility of order happening in the universe on its own, we are simply left with the conclusion that things came about because of a higher power, that we have laws governing the universe because there is a law giver. In others words it simply needs to be shown that the natural explanations for existence are untenable and that the inescapable conclusion is that God does indeed exist.
    That is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove is the only explanation. If you can't explain something, that means that the only answer is "We don't know", not "Therefore this other unproven idea must be true". Nothing unfortunately you said about big bang and evolution is true and I won't bother to educate you on why you are wrong, because it doesn't matter ultimately, because your conclusion is a logical fallacy. Even if evolution and big bang were proven to be completely false today, that wouldn't lend any credibility to there being a god, let alone a specific one. There could be many gods, or just really advanced beings that created our universe, or that all of this could be a computer simulation. When you get in the business of inventing answers that have no evidence...you can pretty much come up with anything. What you cannot do is point at real things...like science and say "This is incomplete, or false, therefore my explanation wins by default". That is not how things work. If you admit that your god cannot be proven, then you shouldn't believe in it...period. If someone believes for example that aliens visit the earth, but can't prove it, then it should be something that the person holds as a skeptical belief. In other words, "I think there might be aliens, but I don't have evidence to back it up, so I remain skeptical". But you and others do the opposite. You say "I can't prove there is a god, but I'm going to believe it anyways, because I can't imagine a better explanation." You hold some really, really old...outdated beliefs that clearly you got from a creationist claptrap. Might want to go to talkorigins and input all of these arguments independently as far as evolution and big bang. It'll give you not only the argument, when it was coined and by whom and detailed explanations with evidence to back up why they are wrong. Please, educate yourself.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1612 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    So, your argument is that we cannot prove God, but we can prove that certain things are very, very unlikely to occur, and so we should invoke God to explain these things?
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 352 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    "The author of this thread is not representative of all atheists. He/she is what is commonly called an 'antitheist'."

    Actually, I'd be more inclined to use the term "antireligion" to describe them, as they have been vehemently against religion in general on their many debates
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • SonofasonSonofason 367 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    After all, one relies on heads while the other is based on tales.
    Yes, both are based on zero evidence, and a great deal of faith.
    dallased25Blastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    Yes, both are based on zero evidence, and a great deal of faith.

    You are wrong about atheism and nor did you back up your claim. 

    You made an absurdly flippant claim without evidence and is thereby dismissed without evidence.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Luigi7255
    Actually, I'd be more inclined to use the term "antireligion" to describe them, as they have been vehemently against religion in general on their many debates

    "Them" happens to be an individual; one person. And that person happens to have a name (avatar)....Swolliw.

  • SonofasonSonofason 367 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Sonofason
    Yes, both are based on zero evidence, and a great deal of faith.

    You are wrong about atheism and nor did you back up your claim. 

    You made an absurdly flippant claim without evidence and is thereby dismissed without evidence.

    I am never wrong.  Only a nitwit would think such a thing.

    Blastcat
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    >>>That is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove is the only explanation. If you can't explain something, that means that the only answer is "We don't know", not "Therefore this other unproven idea must be true". 

    This is what I take from your response;

    We find a desktop computer sitting on a stump in the woods. 

    Me:Someone must have put it there, another person must have designed it.

    You: "No, you cannot say that, it’s a logically fallacy, you don’t know how it got there, how it was made, you have no evidence to explain it."

    Me:It it obvious that something like that could not have just happened naturally on its own, someone must have designed it, it is self evident."

    You: You are inventing answers, it does not prove that a person put it there, maybe an alien put it there, you have no credibility, this all could be a computer simulation, again that is a logical fallacy

    Me:Even a computer simulation requires a programmer, buildings need a builder, art requires an artist.

    You: “If you cannot prove it, you shouldn’t believe it. I remain skeptical, educate yourself.”

    Me:You know, claiming what I say is fallacious and therefore not true, is fallacious on it’s own, it’s called the fallacy fallacy. Just because you deem an argument is fallacious doesn’t mean that it is not true.”

    You:What you cannot do is point at real things...like science”

    Me: Unfortunately science cannot prove anything either, educate yourself

     "In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility." Scientific Proof Is A Myth (forbes.com) 

    So I guess if you want to keep banging your head against the trees wondering where the computer came from you are free to do so. 

    A designer, by far, is the best explanation as to where the computer came from. But what designer you ask?

    The One that has proven Himself through 100% accuracy in biblical prophesy. 
    dallased25
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -   edited October 14
    @Sonofason
    I am never wrong.  Only a nitwit would think such a thing.

    You made a statement, being: "Yes, both are based on zero evidence, and a great deal of faith." did you not?

    Whilst theism and the belief in God have absolutely no evidence have no evidence to back it up, atheism does, namely:

    The very fact that there is no evidence to justify the belief in God.

    There is overwhelming evidence that life was not created as theists claim.

    Your claim therefore has no validity and you have still failed to back it up. A pointed, sarcastic comment does not qualify as a reply either.

    I have made the appropriate representations to have you removed from this site due to your continuous offensive behavior. It is disgusting and totally uncalled for.



    dallased25
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 352 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Okay, let me fix it for you.

    Actually, I'd be more inclined to use the term "antireligion" to describe Swolliw, as he has been vehemently against religion in general in his many debates.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Luigi7255
    Actually, I'd be more inclined to use the term "antireligion" to describe Swolliw, as he has been vehemently against religion in general in his many debates.

    Okay, now I'm happy :)

  • dallased25dallased25 19 Pts   -  
    Neopesdom said:
    @dallased25

    >>>That is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove is the only explanation. If you can't explain something, that means that the only answer is "We don't know", not "Therefore this other unproven idea must be true". 

    This is what I take from your response;

    We find a desktop computer sitting on a stump in the woods. 

    Me:Someone must have put it there, another person must have designed it.

    You: "No, you cannot say that, it’s a logically fallacy, you don’t know how it got there, how it was made, you have no evidence to explain it."

    Me:It it obvious that something like that could not have just happened naturally on its own, someone must have designed it, it is self evident."

    You: You are inventing answers, it does not prove that a person put it there, maybe an alien put it there, you have no credibility, this all could be a computer simulation, again that is a logical fallacy

    Me:Even a computer simulation requires a programmer, buildings need a builder, art requires an artist.

    You: “If you cannot prove it, you shouldn’t believe it. I remain skeptical, educate yourself.”

    Me:You know, claiming what I say is fallacious and therefore not true, is fallacious on it’s own, it’s called the fallacy fallacy. Just because you deem an argument is fallacious doesn’t mean that it is not true.”

    You:What you cannot do is point at real things...like science”

    Me: Unfortunately science cannot prove anything either, educate yourself

     "In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility." Scientific Proof Is A Myth (forbes.com) 

    So I guess if you want to keep banging your head against the trees wondering where the computer came from you are free to do so. 

    A designer, by far, is the best explanation as to where the computer came from. But what designer you ask?

    The One that has proven Himself through 100% accuracy in biblical prophesy. 
    For all that you wrote, this is just the classic watchmaker argument. We know design, not because of complexity, but because we contrast what happens in nature, with what does not naturally occur in nature. That is why if an ignorant person, such as one of those people from tribes that have had little interaction with the modern world saw a computer, they would assume it's magic, or the work of demons, or a gift from the gods. They would be wrong though, wouldn't they? Even if they did recognize it as designed, it wouldn't be because it is complex, or "looks designed", it would be because computers don't occur in nature. That is why the watchmaker argument fails so miserably because nothing like a computer, or a watch...just happens in nature. A watch, nor a computer can procreate, or has biological dna, or cells...or anything that is subject to biology. A painting does not occur in nature, neither does a computer simulation, nor a building. Your examples are even worse, because we can replicate all of these things, show how they are designed, look up the blueprints, find the painter, find the materials, look up permit codes...and even if the person thought a building was "designed by god", it would be demonstrable that it was not. There is so much evidence for all of these things, while there is none of any god as the "designer". 

    The funny thing is though, that your "watchmaker argument" doesn't at all address the actual logical fallacy, because the fallacy was that "if you can't explain something, then god must be the default answer" and the reply you gave is an argument for design, not for something unexplained. As far as science, I guess you didn't read the article, because science doesn't claim to be an absolute, nor does it claim to have absolute truth. Nothing in the article is of any surprise to me, because I actually minored in science in my undergrad and know how it works. Only those who are religious get this wrong, but the ironic thing is that while they dishonestly claim that science speaks in absolutes....it's really only the religious who speak in absolutes. You claim to have absolute truth about a god, yet cannot demonstrate it. So you insult science, try to say how "inaccurate" it is, or how flawed, etc....meanwhile offer no alternative except blind faith. Science doesn't make proclamations like religion does, no instead it just goes wherever the evidence leads, unlike religion that decides in advance what the truth is and then tries to make the evidence fit and when it doesn't, will dismiss or insult it. 

    Now you make one final claim about biblical prophecy. I've heard every single one and most are at best wishful thinking and stretching so hard, you dislocate your arms in doing so, but I'll bite...give me your absolute best one and I'll be happy to knock it down. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -   edited October 14
    Neopesdom said:
    @dallased25

    >>>That is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove is the only explanation. If you can't explain something, that means that the only answer is "We don't know", not "Therefore this other unproven idea must be true". 

    This is what I take from your response;

    We find a desktop computer sitting on a stump in the woods. 

    Me:Someone must have put it there, another person must have designed it.

    You: "No, you cannot say that, it’s a logically fallacy, you don’t know how it got there, how it was made, you have no evidence to explain it."

    Me:It it obvious that something like that could not have just happened naturally on its own, someone must have designed it, it is self evident."

    You: You are inventing answers, it does not prove that a person put it there, maybe an alien put it there, you have no credibility, this all could be a computer simulation, again that is a logical fallacy

    Me:Even a computer simulation requires a programmer, buildings need a builder, art requires an artist.

    You: “If you cannot prove it, you shouldn’t believe it. I remain skeptical, educate yourself.”

    Me:You know, claiming what I say is fallacious and therefore not true, is fallacious on it’s own, it’s called the fallacy fallacy. Just because you deem an argument is fallacious doesn’t mean that it is not true.”

    You:What you cannot do is point at real things...like science”

    Me: Unfortunately science cannot prove anything either, educate yourself

     "In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility." Scientific Proof Is A Myth (forbes.com) 

    So I guess if you want to keep banging your head against the trees wondering where the computer came from you are free to do so. 

    A designer, by far, is the best explanation as to where the computer came from. But what designer you ask?

    The One that has proven Himself through 100% accuracy in biblical prophesy. 
    First, if you just find an isolated desktop computer in the middle of nowhere, seemingly disconnected from everything, then you absolutely should posit its extraneous origin by default. It is quite different when you encounter millions computers in all corners of the globe, all having a similar design, yet clearly showing chronological evolution - then you can form a clear picture of where those computers came from; you do not need to assume that they came from outside Earth, let alone the Universe as a whole.

    Second, computers do not do anything on their own; they do not reproduce; they cannot even be turned on without a human input. Living beings can and do reproduce, and their evolutionary histories can be traced back hundreds millions years, with trilobites (who have certain clear structural similarities with modern animals) predating humans by nearly 550 million years. This whole thing is absolutely coherent in itself, it does not require any external input to function - and even if one assumes that abiogenesis is extremely unlikely to occur (the idea that is based on a very profound misunderstanding of how probabilities work), at least past abiogenesis the system is capable of evolving on its own, not requiring any "divine intervention". 

    Third, your "god" idea does not explain anything: if, by your logic, everything must be created by something or someone, then so should god. Religious people go around that by saying, "god is eternal". But that is a cop-out. I could just as well say, "Universe is eternal", and say with no evidence that, you know, before the Big Bang the Universe still existed, just in a different form - or that there is a "larger Universe" that includes ours that is eternal. Your "god" idea does not contain any useful information, it just substitutes one word for another.

    Fourth, if humans were really designed by a "god", then that "god" must have been drunk and high at the same time to design them in such an inefficient way. Look at a computer: it has no redundant parts, everything in it, every single part, is built in a way to maximize its efficiency to the best of engineers' knowledge, and those few glaring inefficiencies that have not been solved are merely a product of difficulty of adapting old designs to newer engineering ideas.
    Now look at a human... Humans cannot even reproduce naturally without experiencing extreme pain - something that modern sciences easily solved, but the "grand designer" apparently could not. It is an extension of Dawkins' notion that "god" made Shakespeare a better writer than himself, as the quality of Shakespeare's writing from any reasonable linguistic perspective far surpasses that of any of the existing "holy books". Humans also have countless redundant organs, awfully inefficient termoregulation and energy generation systems... A human can die to a small malignantly growing bacteria with few ways to combat that growth. Can a computer die to a couple of small capacitors leaking acid? Can a car die to a small rust underneath it? Apparently pitiful human engineers using that useless science that apparently cannot prove anything still make much better products than the omniscient grand designer... who managed to design the whole Universe, but could not figure out how to solve countless human undergraduate-level engineering problems - many of which humans since solved with little to no effort.

    Of course, you folks have an explanation for that one too. "God designed us to be imperfect intentionally, so as to let us overcome our own challenges". Yeah... And the bearded guy also flew around the planet dropping fossils in random places so as to confuse people and test their faith: "Do you truly believe in me, or are you going to side with the devil and embrace logic and reason, examine the evidence and see what it suggests?" Convenient story. You can justify anything this way. Everything is a conspiracy; everything that points out at natural origin of the world actually was planted there by the stealthiest creature in existence that for some reason desires to remain hidden from humans, yet wants them to believe in it. Great!

    To really buy your argument, one has to ignore all facts, suppress their critical thinking and just fully immerse themselves into a fiction book. They have to isolate themselves from the world (probably why so many religionists spend a lot of time in isolated monasteries - so as to not let the real world interfere with their fantasies) and lose any touch with reality. And then they can come back to the world, look around and say, "Yeah, all of this proves that god exists".
    It has to be an intentional process. You cannot take as ridiculous a position by just observing the world around you; you have to go out of your way to poison your thinking with exponentially growing fantasies to arrive at a conclusion of this kind.
    dallased25SkepticalOneBlastcat
  • dallased25dallased25 19 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Swolliw said:
    After all, one relies on heads while the other is based on tales.
    Yes, both are based on zero evidence, and a great deal of faith.
    What exactly is the "faith" an atheist holds?
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 261 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Your question was a good one. However, your argument sucks.

    @Swolliw

    Hi, Swolliw !
    ______________________

    PREAMBLE TO THE ARGUMENT

    " 1. Are Atheism and Theism Two Sides of the Same Coin?
    2. After all, one relies on heads while the other is based on tales."
    __________________________

    THE ARGUMENT :

    1.The argument is nothing but a silly joke.

    2. It does nothing to convince us, and more damning, has no conclusion.

    3. This argument, is therefore, a cute waste of time.
    Dee
  • SonofasonSonofason 367 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Sonofason
    I am never wrong.  Only a nitwit would think such a thing.

    You made a statement, being: "Yes, both are based on zero evidence, and a great deal of faith." did you not?

    Whilst theism and the belief in God have absolutely no evidence have no evidence to back it up, atheism does, namely:

    The very fact that there is no evidence to justify the belief in God.

    There is overwhelming evidence that life was not created as theists claim.

    Your claim therefore has no validity and you have still failed to back it up. A pointed, sarcastic comment does not qualify as a reply either.

    I have made the appropriate representations to have you removed from this site due to your continuous offensive behavior. It is disgusting and totally uncalled for.



    It must be so easy for you to continue to claim that there is an abundance of evidence for something, yet you are always incapable of providing it.
    Surely you have no evidence to share on this subject.

    So you think it is okay to call people weird.  And you think it is okay to call to call people nitwits.  You can dish it out I see, but you can't take the truth when it flies into your face.  



    Blastcatdallased25
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    >> you do not need to assume that they came from outside Earth, let alone the Universe as a whole.

    The assumption is that they have a designer.

    >>Living beings can and do reproduce, and their evolutionary histories can be traced back hundreds millions years, with trilobites (who have certain clear structural similarities with modern animals) predating humans by nearly 550 million years.

    Just because things have structural similarities does not mean they come from one another, it could just as easily mean they have a common designer. There is no such thing as evolutionary histories other than in theoretical models. The only concrete history we have is the fossil record and it clearly indicates that there were no transitional forms between animal kinds.

    >>>Fourth, if humans were really designed by a "god", then that "god" must have been drunk.....Now look at a human... Humans cannot even reproduce naturally without experiencing extreme pain

    Your argument is clearly based on ignorance. God did not design things the way they are now. The earth and everything in it has been cursed, that is why we have decease, pain, suffering and even death in this world, the result of rebellion against God.

    To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.....And to Adam He said: ....cursed is the ground because of you (Gen. 3:16)

    >>Of course, you folks have an explanation for that one too. "God designed us to be imperfect intentionally, so as to let us overcome our own challenges".

    Again wrong as indicated above, here's a little hint, you might want to familiarize yourself with what it is you wish to criticize, just an idea... The question I would have for you is, was this an non intentional process or are you just willfully being pretentious?

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)


    dallased25
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom

    Your assumption that quotes from an old fantasy book are evidence of anything is quite far-fetched. To me they mean no more than quotes I can pull out from Twilight.

    Computers have a designer which you can shake hands with. The Universe’s designers you so far can only fantasize about.

    Structural similarities suggest that things are connected, and in conjunction with obviously observed reproduction of countless species, draw a picture of continuous and natural evolution. That is not the case with computers: 8086 did not have sex in order to pop out Pentium 1.
    Blastcatdallased25
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch