Will Theists Please Stop It? - 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.





Will Theists Please Stop It?

Debate Information

You know what really annoys me?

The habitual twisting of words by people who aren't atheists, in particular, the word "belief".

The fact is that atheism is the absence of belief.

Now, this is a religion forum and it is accepted by anyone with more than half a brain that when one talks about "belief", the word is used in the religious sense.

To say that atheists have a belief (in the generic sense) to somehow insinuate that atheists have some sort of anti-religious doctrine of their own is simply wrong and under-handed. It just does not cut the mustard.

Of course, it is understandable since non-atheists are continually on the defensive over their own nutty beliefs they will try any desperate tactic to bring others down to their level.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 147 Pts   -  
    >>The fact is that atheism is the absence of belief.

       The problem with the assertion that atheism is simply the "absence of belief" is that there are no dictionary definitions that define it as such. Definitions from Oxford Languages define absence of belief or lack of belief as synonymous with disbelief, which is the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

    the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue. Merriam-Webster

        The metal rejection of something is by definition a belief in itself, one believes that there is no God or god(s). Let's put aside for a moment the fact that in order to entertain such a mind bending and foolish notion such as a "lack of belief" or more precisely a disbelief, one would have to have absolute knowledge of existence, which no one does, making it a rather disingenuous position to hold, giving the false notion that such a thing can be known when in fact it cannot. It merely is an unfalsifiable hypotheses, a religious belief unto itself. The more rational and realistic position to take would be agnosticism, which does not rule out the possibility.

        The only twisting going on would be to insist that a "lack of belief" does not mean an active mental disbelief, but then by that definition a rock is also an atheist. Could this be where this poor judgment idiom originates, as in If you think that absence of metal activity is an accurate summary, you've got rocks in your head. 

    What is the Psychology Behind a "Lack of Belief in God"? 

    What is the Psychology Behind a "Lack of Belief in God"? - YouTube

    "it's just an autobiographical confession; it's not a viewpoint that's true of false." - Dr. Craig
    Sonofason
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • DeeDee 4549 Pts   -   edited January 6
    @Neopesdom

        The only twisting going on would be to insist that a "lack of belief" does not mean an active mental disbelief, but then by that definition a rock is also an atheist. Could this be where this poor judgment idiom originates, as in If you think that absence of metal activity is an accurate summary, you've got rocks in your head. 


    The only one with rocks in their head is you ,repeating gibberish doesn’t make it fact. This is pretty basic stuff but seems beyond you then again you think Lee Strobel is an intellectual “powerhouse “ which is probably why simple concepts leave you totally at sea ……..

    A belief is a belief.

    And a lack of belief is a lack of belief.

    Let’s take an example that Matt Dillahunty often uses.

    You have a jar full of beans. Without having counted them, your friend claims that the number of beans is even.

    You are not convinced.

    That does not mean that you make the opposite claim.

    The number of beans, of course, can only be even or odd.

    But for your knowledge of the situation, there is a third option:

    1. You are convinced that the number of beans is even.
    2. You are convinced that the number of beans is odd.
    3. You are not sure, one way or the other.

    Options 1 and 2 are beliefs. Option 3 is a lack of belief……comprende? 

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 147 Pts   -  

    Does anyone have any scientific proof to support their lack of belief?

                                                 

                                                          
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 212 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom

    I see no reason why anyone should be expected to provide any sort of proof regarding their lack of belief, in this case, lack of belief in your sky wizard.
    I lack belief in the tooth fairy, leprechauns and the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Would you expect me to provide proof for my lack of belief in those things?
    As the burden of proof is on you to show that your god exists you could put the whole matter to bed by providing such proof. To date, no such proof from you or any of your co-believers,
    I have always thought it a nonsense that people who make a claim that something is true but can't provide proof that it is true then expect others to provide proof that it isn't true.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom

    Agnosticism, in this analogy, would be like saying: "There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Mister Jones sexually violated Miss Watkins. However, we cannot rule it out in principle. Let us be agnostic here. Mister Jones is not found innocent or guilty".

    There is a reason this is not how the system of justice works. There is a reason this is not how science works. There is a reason this is not how 99.99% of your own thinking processes work. That reason is practicality: if you are to assume that everything that has not been completely ruled out should be seriously considered as a possibility, then you can never conclude anything, as the space of possibilities is infinite in a very deep way. Can you rule out the possibility that the second you read this sentence, your head explodes and you die? No. If you are to be truly agnostic about these things, you will go mad by the end of this paragraph, which ends... just about now.  >:)

    A god is a fantasy concept, just like a goblin or a unicorn. Can the existence of these things, say, on Earth be ruled out? Not unless every square meter of Earth is covered by clear video cam footage monitored by some autonomous system 24/7. Nonetheless, nonexistence of these beings on Earth can be posited with a very high degree of confidence. When you are 99.999% sure that something does not exist, saying that you are agnostic about it is not telling the whole story. "Agnostic" in general implies complete impartiality towards the set of alternatives, with no preference. In this case, you have a strong preference one way.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 63 Pts   -  
    So is this your latest dummest excuse for ignoring that your belief is nothing but dog mess. Asking for scientific evidence why someone hasn’t got a belief is the other side of the moon.@Neopesdom
  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Neopesdom

    Agnosticism, in this analogy, would be like saying: "There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Mister Jones sexually violated Miss Watkins. However, we cannot rule it out in principle. Let us be agnostic here. Mister Jones is not found innocent or guilty".

    There is a reason this is not how the system of justice works. There is a reason this is not how science works. There is a reason this is not how 99.99% of your own thinking processes work. That reason is practicality: if you are to assume that everything that has not been completely ruled out should be seriously considered as a possibility, then you can never conclude anything, as the space of possibilities is infinite in a very deep way. Can you rule out the possibility that the second you read this sentence, your head explodes and you die? No. If you are to be truly agnostic about these things, you will go mad by the end of this paragraph, which ends... just about now.  >:)

    A god is a fantasy concept, just like a goblin or a unicorn. Can the existence of these things, say, on Earth be ruled out? Not unless every square meter of Earth is covered by clear video cam footage monitored by some autonomous system 24/7. Nonetheless, nonexistence of these beings on Earth can be posited with a very high degree of confidence. When you are 99.999% sure that something does not exist, saying that you are agnostic about it is not telling the whole story. "Agnostic" in general implies complete impartiality towards the set of alternatives, with no preference. In this case, you have a strong preference one way.
    To say "A god is a fantasy concept, just like a goblin or a unicorn."  Is to say...I don't believe in God, goblins or unicorns.  It is a belief.
  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Neopesdom

    Agnosticism, in this analogy, would be like saying: "There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Mister Jones sexually violated Miss Watkins. However, we cannot rule it out in principle. Let us be agnostic here. Mister Jones is not found innocent or guilty".

    There is a reason this is not how the system of justice works. There is a reason this is not how science works. There is a reason this is not how 99.99% of your own thinking processes work. That reason is practicality: if you are to assume that everything that has not been completely ruled out should be seriously considered as a possibility, then you can never conclude anything, as the space of possibilities is infinite in a very deep way. Can you rule out the possibility that the second you read this sentence, your head explodes and you die? No. If you are to be truly agnostic about these things, you will go mad by the end of this paragraph, which ends... just about now.  >:)

    A god is a fantasy concept, just like a goblin or a unicorn. Can the existence of these things, say, on Earth be ruled out? Not unless every square meter of Earth is covered by clear video cam footage monitored by some autonomous system 24/7. Nonetheless, nonexistence of these beings on Earth can be posited with a very high degree of confidence. When you are 99.999% sure that something does not exist, saying that you are agnostic about it is not telling the whole story. "Agnostic" in general implies complete impartiality towards the set of alternatives, with no preference. In this case, you have a strong preference one way.
    To say "A god is a fantasy concept, just like a goblin or a unicorn."  Is to say...I don't believe in God, goblins or unicorns.  It is a belief.
  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -  
    Neopesdom said:
    >>The fact is that atheism is the absence of belief.

       The problem with the assertion that atheism is simply the "absence of belief" is that there are no dictionary definitions that define it as such. Definitions from Oxford Languages define absence of belief or lack of belief as synonymous with disbelief, which is the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

    the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue. Merriam-Webster

        The metal rejection of something is by definition a belief in itself, one believes that there is no God or god(s). Let's put aside for a moment the fact that in order to entertain such a mind bending and foolish notion such as a "lack of belief" or more precisely a disbelief, one would have to have absolute knowledge of existence, which no one does, making it a rather disingenuous position to hold, giving the false notion that such a thing can be known when in fact it cannot. It merely is an unfalsifiable hypotheses, a religious belief unto itself. The more rational and realistic position to take would be agnosticism, which does not rule out the possibility.

        The only twisting going on would be to insist that a "lack of belief" does not mean an active mental disbelief, but then by that definition a rock is also an atheist. Could this be where this poor judgment idiom originates, as in If you think that absence of metal activity is an accurate summary, you've got rocks in your head. 

    What is the Psychology Behind a "Lack of Belief in God"? 

    What is the Psychology Behind a "Lack of Belief in God"? - YouTube

    "it's just an autobiographical confession; it's not a viewpoint that's true of false." - Dr. Craig
    Absolutely right!!!
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    Does anyone have any scientific proof to support their lack of belief?

    Yes there is. Anyone who firmly believes there is a God is deluded.

    So why would I want to believe what they do?

    Sonofason
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 147 Pts   -  
    @JoeKerr

    >>I see no reason why anyone should be expected to provide any sort of proof regarding their lack of belief, in this case, lack of belief in your sky wizard.

         Firstly, anyone making the positive claim that they "lack a belief" places the burden of proof on them. Am I just expected to blindly believe someone has a lack a belief without them providing some sort of evidence? I simply deny or question the assertion being made. If you make a claim, I like you, want proof, evidence, or an argument . If I took your stand, I also would see no reason why I should be expected to provide any sort of proof regarding any claims I make, which would be ridiculous in a debate.

       Secondly, if someone truly lacked a belief then I should not expect to hear anything from them at all, they should step aside and remain silent, yet that seems to be the opposite of the case, the people that claim to not to have a belief seem to be the most vocal of them all, extraordinarily suspect, either they have some sort of verbal diarrhea disease or they are were lying when they said they lack a belief, either way I'm call out the bull.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 147 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    >>Anyone who firmly believes there is a God is deluded.

    Ok, you made claim, what do you want a pat on the head?
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    Ok, you made claim, what do you want a pat on the head?

    I properly answered your question which was "Does anyone have any scientific proof to support their lack of belief?"

    You then quoted me out of context and posted your condescending comment above. What do you want? A medal for being a prized patronizing pr***?

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 147 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    >>A medal for being a prized

       You're saying I'm prized, well thank you, but I assure you flattery has no real place in a debate. Just as the opposite does not do anything other than undermine your position. Such a rhetorical strategy is intended to convey intensity of conviction.' But in truth, it's just 'a lazy shortcut to secure an emotional response,' designed to cut off legitimate debate

       Name-calling is a form of argument in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines such as anthropology, child psychology, and political science. In this case child psychology seems the most appropriate study by which to understand this spectacle.

    "Sometimes there is an implied threat that if you make an unpopular decision or arrive at a conclusion that isn't favored, a negative label will be applied to you. For instance, someone might say, 'Only a naive moron would believe that' to influence your attitude on an issue. This strategy of anticipatory name calling makes it difficult for you to declare that you favor the negatively valued belief because it means that you make yourself look like a 'naive moron.' Anticipatory name-calling can also invoke positive group memberships, such as asserting that 'all true Americans will agree . . .' or 'people in the know think that . . ..' Anticipatory name calling is a shrewd tactic that can be effective in shaping people's thinking." - (Wayne Weiten, Psychology: Themes and Variations, 9th ed. Wadsworth, 2013)

    Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists name-calling as the lowest type of argument in a disagreement.



       Basically it a psychological position to take when in a situation of intellectual bankruptcy regarding the subject at hand. I'll simply take it as an admission of defeat and complete and utter annihilation, in other words flawless victory.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 212 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom

    Well, I'm sure you have heard it before that if atheism is a belief, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    We can keep on arguing the point, but when all's said and done it doesn't matter that you think atheism is a belief because it in no way alters how I feel, just as I'm sure that my lack of belief does not affect what you feel. So, go ahead, knock yourself out, you stick to what you say atheism is, and I'll stick to saying what it isn't.
    Just promise me that you won't ask me to supply evidence to support my lack of belief in leprechauns.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -   edited January 7
    Sonofason said:

    To say "A god is a fantasy concept, just like a goblin or a unicorn."  Is to say...I don't believe in God, goblins or unicorns.  It is a belief.
    You just ignored my entire argument and summed it up in a frivolous manner. My point was exactly that it is not impossible that goblins, unicorns or gods exist, yet this does not imply me being an agnostic, because I have a strong preference one way. Goblins may or may not exist; my running assumption will be that they do not, with the caveat that there is a non-zero (albeit extremely small) probability that my running assumption is wrong.

    An agnostic, true agnostic, on the other hand, would say, "I do not know if goblins exist or not" - and that would be the extent of the analysis preference-wise.
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 147 Pts   -  
    @JoeKerr @MayCaesar

    >>>evidence to support my lack of belief in leprechauns..... I do not know if goblins exist or not

       The attempt to equivalize belief in God and leprechauns, etc., is a serious flaw in thinking. Believing in God includes the explanation of why and how reality exists, belief or "lack of belief" in goblins has no explanatory value, they are simply creatures of the imagination invented for the purpose of story telling. God on the other hand explains reality in a way that leprechauns can never do. Belief in goblins do nothing to explain nature, it has no intrinsic or epistemological value with regards to questions science cannot answer. Surely you must be able to see the asymmetry in such a comparison. 

    Whether you think God exists or not, it is clear that the comparison between God on the one hand, and things like fairies and leprechauns on the other hand, is a profoundly flawed comparison. When atheists compare theology to fairyology or leprechology, they are talking nonsense. We should recognize it as such and reject that line of argument - whether or not we are atheists. - Alvin Carl Plantinga
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • BarnardotBarnardot 63 Pts   -  
    Leprechauns and goblins and god are all the same because they are all made up. Even if god explains reality that means nothing so you got it wrong because you actually said nothing but trying to make it look like something. You must be real despirit to cover up your weird thinking.@Neopesdom
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -   edited January 8
    Neopesdom said:
    @JoeKerr @MayCaesar

    >>>evidence to support my lack of belief in leprechauns..... I do not know if goblins exist or not

       The attempt to equivalize belief in God and leprechauns, etc., is a serious flaw in thinking. Believing in God includes the explanation of why and how reality exists, belief or "lack of belief" in goblins has no explanatory value, they are simply creatures of the imagination invented for the purpose of story telling. God on the other hand explains reality in a way that leprechauns can never do. Belief in goblins do nothing to explain nature, it has no intrinsic or epistemological value with regards to questions science cannot answer. Surely you must be able to see the asymmetry in such a comparison. 

    Whether you think God exists or not, it is clear that the comparison between God on the one hand, and things like fairies and leprechauns on the other hand, is a profoundly flawed comparison. When atheists compare theology to fairyology or leprechology, they are talking nonsense. We should recognize it as such and reject that line of argument - whether or not we are atheists. - Alvin Carl Plantinga
    This distinction seems fairly arbitrary to me. It is true that the existence/non-existence of leprechauns have less impact on the nature of reality than the existence/non-existence of god, but in both cases we deal with something the evidence of existence of which is lacking. It does not really matter how much impact something has on something when this something has never been found to exist. Ghosts, if they existed, would have pretty serious implications on some aspects of reality.  Or imagine if the simulation theory was right and we all lived in an actual Matrix... These all are still purely fantastical concepts, regardless of what it would mean if they were true.

    It does not matter if you believe that a hundred dollars just randomly appeared in your closed, or a trillion dollars did. The impact of these events if they were true is clearly very different, yet you still have zero reason to assume that either of these events may have happened. A false assumption is a false assumption, and what it would mean if it was true is irrelevant as long as it is false.

    Alvin appears to confuse wishful thinking with reality, and cause with effect. The question of what is true must be completely separated from the question of what something being true or not being true would mean to you. The question of whether communism works is independent from the question of, if communism worked, how awesome it would be.
  • VaulkVaulk 760 Pts   -   edited January 9
    I was here on debateisland.com when the first debates began on religion, I believe @MayCaesar was as well and can likely attest to the aggressors being the Atheists on the site.  The religious debates between theists and atheists were started by a few members (In an impolite and callous manner) of the atheist persuasion and eventually one of them made an argument that, while I don't fall into either category, I eventually responded to by explaining how Western Atheism is a system of beliefs and possibly a religion.  The debate was so upsetting to some that eventually the owner/administrator of the site brought myself and my opponent into the message board and asked our permission to lock the debate out from further comments.  While we agreed to allow the debate thread to be locked, we all knew it would eventually spill over into other debates and now there are a never-ending supply of debates posed as insults to goad the opposition into playing the ad-hominem game.  If everyone truly wants an end to these debates...I'd recommend letting them die and move on to alternative categories.

    But I still stand on my ground as having established that Western Atheism is absolutely a belief system and is built upon (Not all but some) faith in ideas that have no foundation in the natural world.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 212 Pts   -  
    @Vaulk

    "But I still stand on my ground as having established that Western Atheism is absolutely a belief system and is built upon (Not all but some) faith in ideas that have no foundation in the natural world."

    Please demonstrate how you believe you established that atheism is a belief system and give examples of what you call faith in ideas that have no foundation in the natural world. 
  • BarnardotBarnardot 63 Pts   -  
    That’s a load of arrogant dog mess because it is the theists who insult and offend and threaten everyone else about going to hell all the time if they don’t Neil down and pray to god. And it is even dummer and insulting to tell lies about atheists having a belief system in the natural world whatever you try to mean about natural world. I bet that you are going to say that it’s all about all the world that is beyond science because nobody has seen your made up nonsents about god. Your about as offensive as it gets with your dog mess.@Vaulk
  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -  
    Barnardot said:
    That’s a load of arrogant dog mess because it is the theists who insult and offend and threaten everyone else about going to hell all the time if they don’t Neil down and pray to god. And it is even dummer and insulting to tell lies about atheists having a belief system in the natural world whatever you try to mean about natural world. I bet that you are going to say that it’s all about all the world that is beyond science because nobody has seen your made up nonsents about god. Your about as offensive as it gets with your dog mess.@Vaulk
    Do you know as a matter of fact that there is no God?  If so, please provide the evidence to support the fact that there is no God.
    Do do you believe that there is no God?  If so, please tell us why you believe there is no God.
    Barnardot, do you lack any sort of belief concerning the existence of God?  If so, why do you bother engaging in debates about the existence of God?

  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -   edited January 9
    Swolliw said:
    You know what really annoys me?

    The habitual twisting of words by people who aren't atheists, in particular, the word "belief".

    The fact is that atheism is the absence of belief.

    Now, this is a religion forum and it is accepted by anyone with more than half a brain that when one talks about "belief", the word is used in the religious sense.

    To say that atheists have a belief (in the generic sense) to somehow insinuate that atheists have some sort of anti-religious doctrine of their own is simply wrong and under-handed. It just does not cut the mustard.

    Of course, it is understandable since non-atheists are continually on the defensive over their own nutty beliefs they will try any desperate tactic to bring others down to their level.
    What you have to admit is that what we are all doing here is weighing the odds.  What we know...what we think we know...and what we believe... are all the same thing with only one difference.  The difference between what we know, what we think we know, and what we believe is weighted by odds that we set upon each of them as being true; and those odds are established through experience. 

    Our understanding of the world around us comes from our experience of it.  And it is our experiencing the world that gives us knowledge.  Everything we experience in the world we experience through our perceptions.  Without it being perceived, we cannot know, think we know, or even believe that we had an experience.  Thus all knowledge is screened through our perceptions.  

    I believe I can walk out the front door and not fall into a trap.  I have walked out the front door on many occasions, and I have not fallen into a trap.  There is no guarantee that I will not fall into a trap, but I believe the odds are high that I will not fall into a trap.  I will not say that I know I will not fall into a trap because I will not say that I know anything with absolute certainty.  But, that's just me.  But I believe I can say with a high degree of certainty that I will not fall into a trap walking outside my front door.  

    You say you lack a belief about the existence of God.  Surely, you have had no experience of God, or you would not lack a belief about His existence.  You also lack a great deal of perception.  What I mean to say is that you cannot perceive what other people perceive.  You can perceive their stories, and you can perceive their claims, but you cannot perceive their experiences, and therefore cannot perceive what they have perceived.  There are people who claim to have experienced God.  I am one of them.  Just as I cannot perceive what you mean when you say you lack a believe in God, you cannot perceive my experience of God.  You do not believe that I have had the experiences I claim to have had.  You think I am deluded, or that I am for some odd reason lying about it.  In the same way, I do not believe that you lack a belief in God.  You are going to have to prove that to me, otherwise it is just another claim by another atheist.  What can you show me...what evidence do you have that you lack a belief in God?  Please...convince me that you are telling me the truth, because from my experience, everyone who has heard about the possible existence of God has a belief about His existence.  Prove me wrong.




  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -   edited January 9
    You can say that you lack an experience of God, and therefore you lack a belief in God, but I think you are deluded.  I believe atheists have experienced God, but they have deluded themselves or are under a delusion of thinking that they haven't.  I'd love to see evidence to the contrary.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    You can say that you lack an experience of God, and therefore you lack a belief in God, but I think you are deluded.  I believe atheists have experienced God, but they have deluded themselves or are under a delusion of thinking that they haven't.  I'd love to see evidence to the contrary.
    What is your evidence to that? You said yourself "I believe...", without any justification or evidence - yet you would love to see evidence to the contrary. Why would a random claim like this not satisfy you without any evidence, if your own claims without any evidence satisfy you?

    There is an amazing saying I encountered recently: "Credi quia absurdum" ("I believe since it is absurd"). This is belief-based claims in a nutshell: it only makes sense to believe in completely absurd and impossible things, as anything that is not absurd and impossible can be understood through logic and does not require believing in anything.
  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Sonofason said:
    You can say that you lack an experience of God, and therefore you lack a belief in God, but I think you are deluded.  I believe atheists have experienced God, but they have deluded themselves or are under a delusion of thinking that they haven't.  I'd love to see evidence to the contrary.
    What is your evidence to that? You said yourself "I believe...", without any justification or evidence - yet you would love to see evidence to the contrary. Why would a random claim like this not satisfy you without any evidence, if your own claims without any evidence satisfy you?

    There is an amazing saying I encountered recently: "Credi quia absurdum" ("I believe since it is absurd"). This is belief-based claims in a nutshell: it only makes sense to believe in completely absurd and impossible things, as anything that is not absurd and impossible can be understood through logic and does not require believing in anything.
    Surely, I have no evidence that you are deluded into thinking there is no God.  I only know that you say you have no belief in God.  But rather than entertain the idea that there might be a God, you and most atheists seem more inclined to refute the possibility of the existence of God, and that is evidence that you actually believe there is no God.  Yet, I cannot understand why a person without evidence for or against the existence of God would choose to believe there is no God, when I know from experience that belief in God is far more satisfying.  Thus, I have concluded that the atheist has experienced God, and knows that there is a God, but for some unknown reason to me, and perhaps even themselves they have convinced themselves that there is no God.  There are a myriad of reasons why someone might do that.  And I don't pretend to know what your excuse is, nor even if you know that you require an excuse.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason

    No, I have absolutely entertained this idea; I never dismiss any ideas before considering them, at least, for a moment. In case of god, it took me quite a bit less time to consider it and come to a conclusion than it did with Santa Claus, as I already had a precedent behind my back and was a bit older by the time - but the consideration absolutely took place, as long as reconsideration multiple times in the future for the sake of various arguments. At no point did the need to introduce "god" into my picture of the world arise.

    You keep claiming that atheists "believe that there is no god", but that is actually not true with a lot of people - certainly not true with me. To the best of my knowledge, I do not "believe" in anything. I combine the epistemological tools I have developed on my own and learned during my work in the fields of physics, mathematics and programming to develop the most authentic model of the world I am capable of. Introducing "god" into this model at no point seemed to me like an improvement to the model.

    What does it mean to "experience god"? This sentence makes little sense to me. I understand the concept of experiencing something; but experiencing an event and interpreting that experience are two very different things. I try to keep my interpretations in check and not make any far-fetched conclusions about my experiences; I am not sure if it is true for you too, given how big some of the claims you have made on this website are and how little evidence you have managed to present in support of them.
  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -   edited January 9
    MayCaesar said:
    @Sonofason

    No, I have absolutely entertained this idea; I never dismiss any ideas before considering them, at least, for a moment. In case of god, it took me quite a bit less time to consider it and come to a conclusion than it did with Santa Claus, as I already had a precedent behind my back and was a bit older by the time - but the consideration absolutely took place, as long as reconsideration multiple times in the future for the sake of various arguments. At no point did the need to introduce "god" into my picture of the world arise.

    You keep claiming that atheists "believe that there is no god", but that is actually not true with a lot of people - certainly not true with me. To the best of my knowledge, I do not "believe" in anything. I combine the epistemological tools I have developed on my own and learned during my work in the fields of physics, mathematics and programming to develop the most authentic model of the world I am capable of. Introducing "god" into this model at no point seemed to me like an improvement to the model.

    What does it mean to "experience god"? This sentence makes little sense to me. I understand the concept of experiencing something; but experiencing an event and interpreting that experience are two very different things. I try to keep my interpretations in check and not make any far-fetched conclusions about my experiences; I am not sure if it is true for you too, given how big some of the claims you have made on this website are and how little evidence you have managed to present in support of them.
    Well, that is just it.  As I explained to Swolliw just above, you cannot know what it means to experience God unless you have experienced God.  You cannot know what it is like to experience weightlessness unless you have experienced weightlessness.  However, although I have never experienced weightlessness, I imagine that experiencing God feels a bit like experiencing weightlessness.  But that is just my own perception based on my own understandings that of course you cannot share with me.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -   edited January 9
    @Sonofason

    I can explain to you in quite a lot of detail what it means to experience anything I have experienced and you have not. Sure, it will not compare to an actual first-hand experience, but you will be able to mentally put yourself in my shoes and generally understand what the experience is like.

    That theists make all these mystical claims about their experiences, that there is no point to even try to describe them to those who have not had them, tells me that they do not really understand their own experiences. You may have experienced something profound, but you likely have interpreted it in a frivolous and wishful manner. Otherwise you would be able to explain what it was like in words.

    As for weightlessness, I have experienced it, and I can describe what it is like pretty accurately. Imagine that the blood in your body suddenly shot up, much like when you hit a gas pedal and it shoots back, nailing you to the back of the seat - it is very similar, only the direction is different. And you feel a bit like your food is about to come out, as your stomach goes up along with everything inside of it, resembling the gag reflex some.
    If I had ever experienced something that I have no scientific explanation for, I definitely would go out of my way to understand what it is and try to classify it somehow. I would not hide behind fancy words, claim that I have had some extraordinary experience that only other people from my narrow cult can have, and that no one will understand it unless they experience it themselves.

    Experience that you cannot describe is experience that you cannot understand. And if you cannot understand it, then you certainly should not make big claims about it involving magic and other things that do not exist based on any available verifiable evidence.
  • SonofasonSonofason 389 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Sonofason

    I can explain to you in quite a lot of detail what it means to experience anything I have experienced and you have not. Sure, it will not compare to an actual first-hand experience, but you will be able to mentally put yourself in my shoes and generally understand what the experience is like.

    That theists make all these mystical claims about their experiences, that there is no point to even try to describe them to those who have not had them, tells me that they do not really understand their own experiences. You may have experienced something profound, but you likely have interpreted it in a frivolous and wishful manner. Otherwise you would be able to explain what it was like in words.

    As for weightlessness, I have experienced it, and I can describe what it is like pretty accurately. Imagine that the blood in your body suddenly shot up, much like when you hit a gas pedal and it shoots back, nailing you to the back of the seat - it is very similar, only the direction is different. And you feel a bit like your food is about to come out, as your stomach goes up along with everything inside of it, resembling the gag reflex some.
    If I had ever experienced something that I have no scientific explanation for, I definitely would go out of my way to understand what it is and try to classify it somehow. I would not hide behind fancy words, claim that I have had some extraordinary experience that only other people from my narrow cult can have, and that no one will understand it unless they experience it themselves.

    Experience that you cannot describe is experience that you cannot understand. And if you cannot understand it, then you certainly should not make big claims about it involving magic and other things that do not exist based on any available verifiable evidence.
    I am blind...please explain your experience of seeing color.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 63 Pts   -  
    Of course there’s no god but I don’t need to prove it because nobody has to prove nothing but if you reckon there is something then you have to prove it and you can’t do you don’t need to tell me such dufus stuff. And why do I need to disprove something that isn’t proven, your mind is nowhere to think such insensible things.@Sonofason
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4244 Pts   -   edited January 10
    @Sonofason

    I could explain how I experience color without much issues. Even blind people themselves often understand quite well what it is like to see color: watch Tommy Edison's channel on Youtube, he sometimes talks about it, and his description of color makes sense to me, even though he was born blind.

    Furthermore, if your "experience of god" is akin to having a 6th sense experience, then you definitely should be very careful about interpreting it and should through everything at studying it through reproducible experiments. You may be onto something that no one throughout the millennia managed to accurately document and study; maybe some grand revolution in physics is coming and you could become its herald.
    I do not expect this to happen though. ;)
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1328 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    You do not believe that I have had the experiences I claim to have had. 

    Do you honestly take me for some dim-wit that was born yesterday and your being so arrogant that you somehow know what my beliefs and experiences are when you don't know me from a bar of soap?

    I have heard it all before and sure enough, it took just fifteen words before the "E" word came slithering out, trying to gradually lull the reader into being persuaded into accepting the special nature of the "e" word that is so special to the beholder and completely incomprehensible to the heathen layman. What you so laboriously call "experiences" are known to anybody else as "delusions". 

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