Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[itsnobody]

People are born atheists - no one believes in a God out of the womb. They have to be taught, etc. Agnosticism is the position that "God is unknowable". I don't think babies are agnostics out of the womb. Atheism does not require faith. Atheists examine their world, and see nothing that provides any convincing logical evidence for God's existence. Therefore, they do not believe in a God.

Scientists say things with certainty because that is where their experimentation and the evidence they have produced have lead them. If there was any empirical evidence that a God has done these things, then that would be the conclusion they would be professing with the same certainty. I don't think anyone has any convincing evidence that God is behind our respiratory mechanisms. I make a point out of not ridiculing other's faiths.

Oops forgot to refute this common "We're all born atheists argument".

It's completely irrelevant what we're all born. But we're not born believing there is no God, we're born neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of God.

We're also born not believing in evolution, the scientific method, and everything else in modern science. We're also all born illiterate.

You cannot determine whether or not something is true or false by knowing if you were born to believe it or not. It's just irrelevant.

So it's illogical since you cannot determine whether a belief is true or false by knowing if you born believing it or not.

 

[itsnobody]

nr. 1: Religion is a form of mass control and I don't want to be under anyone's control nor do I want the society I live in to be in control of a small minority when it's not even aware they're being manipulated and controlled for the benefit of that small minority. Same logic why I don't want a central bank really.

nr. 2: The better we understand the facts of reality the better off we are in life. We live longer and life is easier.

I can't wait to hear how my logic is flawed.

Sure, I'll explain how it's flawed.

nr. 1 - Even if religion is a form of mass control, that still tells me nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. So believing that God does not exist because religion is a form of mass control is just a non-sequitur.

nr. 2 - The current understanding of the facts also tell us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis, so it's also an illogical argument.

So your desire has been fulfilled and I've shown you how your argument is illogical.

 

[Becker]

Well your argument is pretty vague and weak.

The first definition holds that atheism is the belief that there are no deities, then the second holds that you simply lack the belief in deities, so which one is it?

its a semantic and impractical distinction, they are not mutually exclusive and quite frankly, the same thing.
Lack of belief in unicorns is the same thing as belief in lack of unicorns.
(but don't confuse this as, "lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking")

Then your other argument for evidence being a valid reason was already thoroughly refuted by me in the previous posts. I already explained in detail how absence of evidence for an empirically untestable claim indicates nothing and is not a valid reason for disbelieving.

What would be a valid reasoning to your standards? I can already see where this is going, you're going to apply your standards of logic to tell people why we fail to meet your standards.

Then your unicorn analogy is a false analogy since unicorns are empirically testable, then your FSM argument is just a non-sequitur.

did you just admit your God (or any) is not empirically testable?

 

[hazek]

Sure, I'll explain how it's flawed.

nr. 1 - Even if religion is a form of mass control, that still tells me nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. So believing that God does not exist because religion is a form of mass control is just a non-sequitur.

nr. 2 - The current understanding of the facts also tell us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis, so it's also an illogical argument.

So your desire has been fulfilled and I've shown you how your argument is illogical.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you not even understand your own question?

Here, I'll quote you one more time:

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

There is no logical reason to be an atheist.

I just gave you two. Please refute either.

 

[itsnobody]

Well this is boring me now....I've already thoroughly refuted all atheistic arguments proposed

Knowing my statements to be true and flawless, I encourage people to question, criticize, and scrutinize my statements so that they may see the truth themselves.

Since I've already defeated all atheistic arguments and won this debate so far I guess I'll be back later.

 

[itsnobody]

What the hell are you talking about? Do you not even understand your own question?

Here, I'll quote you one more time:



I just gave you two. Please refute either.

I already did...apparently you're confusing not believing in religion with believing God doesn't exist. Atheism doesn't mean not believing in religion.

Your arguments are not reasons for believing that God doesn't exist.

 

[hazek]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA typical of a religious ***, doesn't even comprehend what questions he is asking.

 

[hazek]

I already did...apparently you're confusing not believing in religion with believing God doesn't exist.

Your arguments are not reasons for believing that God doesn't exist.

No, I wasn't arguing against god's existence, I was arguing for being an atheist, just like your OP is asking. If you somehow think that's one and the same than that's your fault. If your OP was asking to give logical reason against God's existence I would have never even bothered with this thread. But you didn't. You asked me for a logical reason to be an atheist. I gave you two logical reason that you can refute.

 

[itsnobody]

its a semantic and impractical distinction, they are not mutually exclusive and quite frankly, the same thing.
Lack of belief in unicorns is the same thing as belief in lack of unicorns.
(but don't confuse this as, "lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking")

No it's not the same.

If someone lacks the belief in unicorns that could mean:
- They believe unicorns do not exist
- They believe unicorns are unlikely to exist
- They believe the existence of unicorns is unknown

"lacking the belief" in something could mean any of the three I listed. On the other hand believing that unicorns do not exist would be a much less vague statement than "lacking the belief in unicorns".

What would be a valid reasoning to your standards? I can already see where this is going, you're going to apply your standards of logic to tell people why we fail to meet your standards.

There is no such thing as "your" standards of logic, logic is objective not subjective.

Valid reasoning be would to give an actual reason that God does not exist.

Take for instance with unicorns.

If I was an atheist, I would probably use extremely weak illogical argument like "I don't believe in unicorns because I don't believe in a FSM".

If I wasn't an atheist, then I would probably use an actual valid argument like "Unicorns do not exist because fossil records indicate so".

You see "fossil records indicating that unicorns didn't exist" is an actual reason as opposed to just using non-sequiturs and other illogical atheistic arguments.

It's the duty of Theists to teach atheists about logic and reasoning.

did you just admit your God (or any) is not empirically testable?

What do you mean "just admit".

This entire time I've said God is an empirically untestable hypothesis.

 

[itsnobody]

No, I wasn't arguing against god's existence, I was arguing for being an atheist, just like your OP is asking. If you somehow think that's one and the same than that's your fault. If your OP was asking to give logical reason against God's existence I would have never even bothered with this thread. But you didn't. You asked me for a logical reason to be an atheist. I gave you two logical reason that you can refute.

Being an atheist has to do with God's existence.

Someone can not follow any religion or take part in any religion and still be a Theist.

I've already entirely destroyed your weak arguments.

 

[itsnobody]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA typical of a religious ***, doesn't even comprehend what questions he is asking.

Just an ad hominem. I don't understand why when people lose a debate they start throwing personal attacks at people.

I asked you for a logical reason for being an atheist. Being an atheist doesn't mean not following any religion.

 

[TheViper]

Instead of giving an actual reason as to why it's illogical to believe that "there is no logical reason to be an atheist", all you do is make the statement that it's illogical, what a substance-less argument.

As for your 2nd paragraph, like I said you cannot determine whether or not a statement is true or false by determining the psychology behind the belief.

I cannot determine whether or not General Relativity, the Field Theory, the string theory, multiple universes, etc...exist by determining the psychology of why people believe in those things.

The way you determine if something is true or false in science is by using the scientific method. But the scientific method can only function if a hypothesis is empirically testable.

I gave you a substance-less answer for your substance-less talking point.

The logical reason for being an atheist is simply a lack of empirical evidence a deity exists. No proof something exists, why believe it does anyway? To me, that's the illogical route.

String theory and all that are actually being tested so don't give me that "they are untestable" nonsense. Besides, theoretical sciences are based on empirical sciences.


So in conclusion, I have refuted your claim and you are illogical.
This is boring now. You can't give anything more valid than everything you've already said.

 

[itsnobody]

I gave you a substance-less answer for your substance-less talking point.

The logical reason for being an atheist is simply a lack of empirical evidence a deity exists. No proof something exists, why believe it does anyway? To me, that's the illogical route.

String theory and all that are actually being tested so don't give me that "they are untestable" nonsense. Besides, theoretical sciences are based on empirical sciences.

What are you talking about? I've already entirely refuted the lack of evidence argument since the existence of God is an empirically untestable hypothesis then by default scientific evidence cannot exist for God.

So your argument is just circular reasoning. You can read the past posts I explained in more details.

The string theory may become testable in the future but it still doesn't change that you cannot gather evidence for anything empirically untestable.

The only way people can gather scientific evidence for the string theory or multiple universes is if they find ways to empirically test those hypotheses right?

So if no one finds a way to test those hypotheses then no scientific evidence can exist for those hypotheses even if those hypotheses are true, right?

So it's just as I said, you can only gather scientific evidence for an empirically testable hypothesis.

 

[hazek]

Do you think you're belief in god makes god exist? Do you believe my non belief in god makes god not exist? I didn't think so. So it's doesn't matter what either of us believe in regards to whether or not god exists. He does or he doesn't independent of our beliefs.

However my belief matters to me. And I told you two logical reasons for being an atheist i.e. not believing in god's existence. Can you refute them? Remember; my reasons were not for god's non existence but for my belief in god's non existence.

 

[itsnobody]

Do you think you're belief in god makes god exist? Do you believe my non belief in god makes god not exist? I didn't think so. So it's doesn't matter what either of us believe in regards to whether or not god exists. He does or he doesn't independent of our beliefs.

However my belief matters to me. And I told you two logical reasons for being an atheist i.e. not believing in god's existence. Can you refute them? Remember; my reasons were not for god's non existence but for my belief in god's non existence.

Seems like you've refuted your own argument right here "my reasons were not for god's non existence but for my belief in god's non existence" if you're reasons aren't for God's non-existence then how do they logically justify your belief in God's non-existence?

You disproved your own arguments.

 

[hazek]

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 disproved your own arguments.

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

 

[TheViper]

*snip*.

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.

 

[hazek]

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

 

[TER]

Oops forgot to refute this common "We're all born atheists argument".

It's completely irrelevant what we're all born. But we're not born believing there is no God, we're born neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of God.

We're also born not believing in evolution, the scientific method, and everything else in modern science. We're also all born illiterate.

You cannot determine whether or not something is true or false by knowing if you were born to believe it or not. It's just irrelevant.

I would humbly add that children do believe in God, simply because in the mind of the child, ANYTHING is possible. But this is not on account of any great worldly knowledge, for of course, being children, they still know little of the world and the mechanics of it. As such, they may believe things that other people might claim are impossible, what others may say are against the accepted understanding of things and the nature of things and their mechanics. But is this not being a bit presumptuous? History says indeed! For example, a person in ancient history who studied the stars and the sciences might never have believed we would one day fly, yet the dreamer who did has been found to be true. The one who was a dreamer and believed it would be so, even though he could not explain why or how, he has been justified and affirmed. This is the mystery of faith.

Sadly, we often limit the possibilities of what it means to 'fly' or 'love' or 'live'. Yet, consistently the history of man has demonstrated that the greatest achievements of mankind and the most beautiful works of art ever produced have been created by those who were dreamers, for those who searched for greater truths, divine, eternal and timeless truths. If one looks closely they will see that this is basically the mechanics of the mind of the child, who in their appreciation of the glory and wonder and immensity of life and the world around them, find their greatest joys and fulfillment in their personal and relative experience of the eternal goodness of beauty and love.

What a wonder, the mind of the child is! What a good and beautiful thing! The young and undefiled mind of the child works tirelessly and with great perseverance to know such glory and live in such beauty. They yearn to forever exist in such love and share in such glory, to be united and one with it's very Source and Giver.

The mind of the child naturally discovers that the knowledge of God in the experience of time and space is in relationship, a form of intellectual communing, a growth in wisdom relative to their own knowledge and according to their wakefulness. This is done by discerning the reason, or logos, of things, things such as life and the meaning of it, those things which the philosophers of old spoke about, what the prophets of old foretold about - eternal truth found in every people in every time, that there is a power greater, a One which is above and apart from us and knows us and wants us to know Him and reaches down to us and helps us and protects us and saves us.

And one of the greatest things to see in this life is to see the sparkle in the eye of the young child who because of their purity in faith and purity in heart sees God and knows God, for to such are revealed the Kingdom of God and to those belong the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Becker]

No it's not the same.

If someone lacks the belief in unicorns that could mean:
- They believe unicorns do not exist
- They believe unicorns are unlikely to exist
- They believe the existence of unicorns is unknown

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.

"lacking the belief" in something could mean any of the three I listed. On the other hand believing that unicorns do not exist would be a much less vague statement than "lacking the belief in unicorns".

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.

There is no such thing as "your" standards of logic, logic is objective not subjective.

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.

Valid reasoning be would to give an actual reason that God does not exist.

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)

Take for instance with unicorns.

If I was an atheist, I would probably use extremely weak illogical argument like "I don't believe in unicorns because I don't believe in a FSM".

If I wasn't an atheist, then I would probably use an actual valid argument like "Unicorns do not exist because fossil records indicate so".

You see "fossil records indicating that unicorns didn't exist" is an actual reason as opposed to just using non-sequiturs and other illogical atheistic arguments.

It's the duty of Theists to teach atheists about logic and reasoning.


What do you mean "just admit".

This entire time I've said God is an empirically untestable hypothesis.

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?