Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[willwash]

I recommend the writings of Keith Ward. He has done wonders to bridge this gap. On the one hand, there are spiritual people who wish to have a rational grounding for their thinking that is in accordance with a modern understanding of science. On the other hand, you have scientific types who seek to answer questions of more than a plain mechanistic nature. In reality these two groups are very nearly one and the same. By the same token, a religious fundamentalist (stereotypical Southern Pentacostal, for example) and a hardcore atheist scientist are one and the same.

 

[TER]

A reason God does not exist? Or a reason to believe He doesn't exist? (Maybe there isn't a difference, or you don't make the distinction, just asking)

No one is claiming that a reasoning person might choose to believe He doesn't exist. It happens all the time. What also happens all the time is reasoning people who choose to believe that He does exist, people, for example, like Ron Paul. Such people, namely Christians, see the reasons for God and the reasons of God most fully revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, in the Incarnate Word and Logos of God, the Eternal Tao made flesh which saves us completely, wholly, both in spirit and flesh, sanctifying us, purifying us, and deifying us, enjoining us with the Holy Spirit, made possible by His love on the cross and the joy of His glorious resurrection, granting us the path to true eternal life, in the peace of God and the comfort of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Becker]

No one is claiming that a reasoning person might choose to believe He doesn't exist.

I am claiming that

It happens all the time.

well yeah. but nobody's claiming it. ok...

What also happens all the time is reasoning people who choose to believe that He does exist, people, for example, like Ron Paul.
Such people, namely Christians, see the reasons for God and the reasons of God most fully revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, in the Incarnate Word and Logos of God, the Eternal Tao made flesh which saves us completely, wholly, both in spirit and flesh, sanctifying us, purifying us, and deifying us, enjoining us with the Holy Spirit, made possible by His love on the cross and the joy of His glorious resurrection, granting us the path to true eternal life, in the peace of God and the comfort of the Holy Spirit.

I know that.

 

[TER]

Forgive me, I misunderstood your statement and answered with a fallacy in the first sentence of my post. I am happy to know the rest we are in agreement.

 

[Becker]

Forgive me, I misunderstood your statement and answered with a fallacy in the first sentence of my post. I am happy to know the rest we are in agreement.

cool. thanks for the correction

 

[JohnGalt1225]

I don't believe in god because I find no logical reason to do so. I'm open to the idea that some sort of god may exist but I just simply don't believe that it does. As far as an Abrahamic god I find that god to be offensive and morally repugnant. I believe organized religion is a force of oppression and tyranny. The history of organized religion reads like the history of the state: violent, petty, oppressive, brutal, and intolerant. I find it hard as lover of liberty and independence to believe in any organized religion.

For what it's worth, I don't discuss religion with people when talking about Ron Paul. Living in the Bible Belt I understand that my atheism would probably handicap my ability to convert people to the message of liberty. People around here think of atheism as weird and immoral so they may dismiss Ron because I support him.

 

[hazek]

JohnGalt1225, sorry to break it to you, but I won this challenge two pages ago and it is now over.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

JohnGalt1225, sorry to break it to you, but I won this challenge two pages ago and it is now over.

Oh well then +rep to you sir.

 

[libertarian4321]

I thought I already refuted this argument as well...it's just a non-sequitur, the existence of God has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a FSM.

Using atheists' reasoning I can conclude that multiple universes do not exist if I don't believe in a FSM. There's no proof that multiple universes exist and there's no proof that a FSM exists.

The reason this argument is illogical is because an FSM and God are two different concepts.

What are you talking about? The FSM and God are the exact same concept, because The Flying Spaghetti Monster IS GOD!

You can't prove that he isn't.

Nor can you prove that Jesus isn't the son of the FSM.

My religion, Pastafarianism, is no more, and no less, ridiculous than any of the others.

I was touched by his noodly appendage, it was the most amazing experience of my life.

Praise the FSM. Praise Jesus. Praise pirates and strippers.

Ramen.

 

[sickmint79]

I challenge any atheist to give me even one logical atheistic argument or logical reason for being an atheist.

I've seen lots of atheistic arguments and have never seen even one logical argument from atheists. I declare that there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

Everything is free and open, as soon as you provide your argument I'll just explain how it's illogical.

There is no logical reason to be an atheist.

there is no logical reason to believe in unicorns

there is no logical reason for me to believe in a god

 

[robert68]

What are you talking about? The FSM and God are the exact same concept, because The Flying Spaghetti Monster IS GOD!

You can't prove that he isn't.

Nor can you prove that Jesus isn't the son of the FSM.

My religion, Pastafarianism, is no more, and no less, ridiculous than any of the others.

I was touched by his noodly appendage, it was the most amazing experience of my life.

Praise the FSM. Praise Jesus. Praise pirates and strippers.

Ramen.

Did the FSM authorize/command a tribe to do countless barbaric acts to other groups of people, like the Biblical God did, I’m curious?

 

[hazek]

Did the FSM authorize/command a tribe to do countless barbaric acts to other groups of people, like the Biblical God did, I’m curious?

How dare you say such a lie! The Bible never says anything like that!!!111 and those who say it does are impostors and pretenders who intentionally misinterpret Gods words for their own political goals..

/end sarcasm

 

[libertarian4321]

Did the FSM authorize/command a tribe to do countless barbaric acts to other groups of people, like the Biblical God did, I’m curious?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a kind and benevolent God, who wants us to enjoy beer, strippers, and, of course, pasta.

That's why I chose him as my version of God, over the thousands of other versions of "God" mankind has made up over the years.

 

[itsnobody]

Well it's time for me to destroy atheistic arguments again, it's just so easy

Because they justify my belief in god's non-existence not god's non-existence.

Same as your reasons justify your belief in god's existence and not it's existence.



You can't even grasp what the argument you setup is.

If your reasons for believing in the non-existence in God aren't reasons for God's non-existence then it's illogical, it's just a non-sequitur

It's just like someone saying "The reason I believe multiple universes do not exist has absolutely no connection to the existence of multiple universes, but they logically justify my belief in the non-existence of multiple universes"

If your reason has no connection to the existence of God then how can it be logical?

It's just like I said you disproved your own argument

 

[itsnobody]

Basically, you are trying to say that because we cannot empirically proof God's existence that we shouldn't use that as grounds for not believing a God exists.

Do you realize that it is YOU that is adding the circle to the argument? So, what is the logical stance, be a theist just in case?

Your entire debate has had so many fallacies involved, it's not even funny.
Argument from ignorance.
Ad Nauseum fallacy.
Suppressed Correlative fallacy.
False Attribution.
False analogy.
Argumentum ad populum.
Association fallacy.
Argument from silence.
Masked man fallacy.
Affirming a disjunct.
Existential fallacy.

Get rid of these fallacies, then we'll debate.

Actually not, you're just using a straw man or misrepresentation

My argument would be closer to: Since the existence of God is empirically untestable science makes no claims regarding the existence of God.

 

[itsnobody]

Man I feel like I should get a prize or something for winning this challenge.

Or maybe a prize for being delusional

Your argument summarized is "My reason for believing that there is no God has no connection to the existence of God, yet some how it's logical to conclude that there is no God because of my reason"

I asked for a logical argument not a "I believe this because I believe it" argument

 

[itsnobody]

Believing they are unlikely to exist wouldn't change the fact they believe they do not exist, with the information they have thus far.
Believing something is unknown, or unknowable, is not changing the fact they believe (not know) it is untrue, with the information they have thus far.
The fact you are willing to admit you may be wrong doesn't change what you believe.



The statement is much less vague, but the belief and fact are the same. You can be specific about the details, but facts are the same.



Logic itself may be objective, that doesn't mean every person has the same (much less correct) understanding of it. Therefore, each person has his own understanding of what is correct (even if there is one correct standard), which means each person has his own standard of what logic is, or what is logical.

If I needed you to tell me what is illogical, I wouldn't and couldn't possess the obvious objective logic you claim exists. You and I have probably a different understanding and standard of logic, and we can both be wrong.



A reason God does not exist? Or a reason to believe He doesn't exist? (Maybe there isn't a difference, or you don't make the distinction, just asking)



Oh, so then this discussion is quite pointless. Why explain to somebody about something he admits is untestable, as to whether I have a good reason to deny his untestable hypothesis?

Well you basically agreed with everything I said and just agreed that you have no logical reason for God's non-existence.

It's just as a I said there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument

 

[itsnobody]

I don't believe in god because I find no logical reason to do so. I'm open to the idea that some sort of god may exist but I just simply don't believe that it does. As far as an Abrahamic god I find that god to be offensive and morally repugnant. I believe organized religion is a force of oppression and tyranny. The history of organized religion reads like the history of the state: violent, petty, oppressive, brutal, and intolerant. I find it hard as lover of liberty and independence to believe in any organized religion.

For what it's worth, I don't discuss religion with people when talking about Ron Paul. Living in the Bible Belt I understand that my atheism would probably handicap my ability to convert people to the message of liberty. People around here think of atheism as weird and immoral so they may dismiss Ron because I support him.

So what is your reason for believing so?

You seem to be arguing against organized religion rather than arguing against the existence of God

I'm not really interested in arguments against religion, or corruption, or whatever, I'm talking about against the existence of God

 

[itsnobody]

What are you talking about? The FSM and God are the exact same concept, because The Flying Spaghetti Monster IS GOD!

You can't prove that he isn't.

Nor can you prove that Jesus isn't the son of the FSM.

My religion, Pastafarianism, is no more, and no less, ridiculous than any of the others.

I was touched by his noodly appendage, it was the most amazing experience of my life.

Praise the FSM. Praise Jesus. Praise pirates and strippers.

Ramen.

I don't understand your argument here, it is a vague and abstract.

Are you trying to rename God to an FSM? If so then your renaming argument fails because renaming something an FSM doesn't refute it...

Otherwise what do you mean by a FSM? Can you define it?

I've already entirely destroyed the FSM argument by pointing out that it's just a non-sequitur, the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with existence of an FSM

It's just like saying "General Relativity is false because I don't believe in an FSM" or "I rename General Relativity to FSM...therefore it must not be true"

It just doesn't make sense, just like all atheistic arguments

 

[itsnobody]

there is no logical reason to believe in unicorns

there is no logical reason for me to believe in a god

What do you mean? The existence of unicorns can be falsified by fossil records. So there are many logical reasons for believing in the non-existence of unicorns.

Are you saying there is no logical reason to believe there is a God, therefore there is not a God?

I'm not sure if you're arguing against the existence of God or what?