Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[itsnobody]

We can see with 100% certainty that there is not even one logical argument against the existence of God

There simply is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument, meaning a valid argument that's connected to the existence of God or refutes the existence of God

Well I'm the undeniable winner of this debate by far

 

[hazek]

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

Wait, what? It's ok you to believe in god because you believe in god, but it's not ok for me to not believe in god because I don't believe in god?

Why the double standard?

 

[Trent]

We can see with 100% certainty that there is not even one logical argument against the existence of God

There simply is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument, meaning a valid argument that's connected to the existence of God or refutes the existence of God

Well I'm the undeniable winner of this debate by far

First of all we need to clear up some misconceptions. Atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of a belief in deities. This means that an atheist lacks a belief in thor and zeus as well as the god of the bible.

Now to address the fact that science and logic cannot address the issue of "where did this all come from?". Any fair minded and studied atheist will tell you that you are 100% correct. No one knows where this all came from and if there is a prime mover or not.

Where your dilemma and cognitive dissonance lies is what you are arguing for. Your argument is for deism.

Christianity is a theistic belief, not a deistic one and you have all your work ahead of you proving that your god is loving and cares for every human being on this earth. All the evidence is to the contrary and that is what you need to concentrate on.

If you are a deist...there is nothing to argue about. I disagree, but i can respect that as a valid belief system. Proving that your god is benevolent and intervenes lovingly is the challenge.

Atheists don't have a intellectual qualm with those ho believe there is a god, just those who claim there is a loving one.

 

[hazek]

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"

Wrong. My argument summarizes as: "My reason for believing that there is no god has no connection to the existence of god, but it's logical to conclude that it is practical and reasonable to believe there is no God because of my reason"

 

[itsnobody]

Wait, what? It's ok you to believe in god because you believe in god, but it's not ok for me to not believe in god because I don't believe in god?

Why the double standard?

What?

This thread is about logical reasons for believing in the non-existence of God

Atheists often claim that they are logical, rational, use reasoning, etc....Theists don't

Many Theists will openly admit that it's illogical to believe in God with no problem

If there's nothing logical about atheism, how is it more reasonable or rational to be an atheist?

 

[itsnobody]

First of all we need to clear up some misconceptions. Atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of a belief in deities. This means that an atheist lacks a belief in thor and zeus as well as the god of the bible.

Now to address the fact that science and logic cannot address the issue of "where did this all come from?". Any fair minded and studied atheist will tell you that you are 100% correct. No one knows where this all came from and if there is a prime mover or not.

Where your dilemma and cognitive dissonance lies is what you are arguing for. Your argument is for deism.

Christianity is a theistic belief, not a deistic one and you have all your work ahead of you proving that your god is loving and cares for every human being on this earth. All the evidence is to the contrary and that is what you need to concentrate on.

If you are a deist...there is nothing to argue about. I disagree, but i can respect that as a valid belief system. Proving that your god is benevolent and intervenes lovingly is the challenge.

Atheists don't have a intellectual qualm with those ho believe there is a god, just those who claim there is a loving one.

It depends which definition of atheism you are using.

A "lack of belief" can mean a variation of things as I pointed out in the earlier post.

I am not a Deist, I am a Theist, I have many beliefs in things that are labeled as supernatural, but I know that nothing can ever be considered as supernatural, so by definition there is nothing supernatural.

 

[Trent]

Atheism is not a belief system, it is a disbelief in gods. There is no argument on that, if you are going to argue a known and academically accepted definition of a word, take it up with them and try to change the definition.

If you are going to argue semantics and parse words nothing can be argued about. Its an elementary tactic used by novice debaters.

 

[hazek]

If there's nothing logical about atheism, how is it more reasonable or rational to be an atheist?

I answered this question already. Here, let me quote myself:

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.

I see you have a really hard time with how logic and reasoning works so I'll try and break it down for you:

You admitted that there is no empirical proof of a god therefor existence of a god is not a fact.

Our history teaches us that when we learn important facts about reality our quality of lives improves. Believing a god exists is not a fact therefor believing one exists will not improve my quality of life.

Worse off, history teaches us that the belief in god's existence is consistently being abused by power hungry individuals who seek control over the rest of the masses for their own often violent reasons therefor not only the belief in god's existence can't improve the quality of my life, it may in fact worsen it.

There for it is logical and reasonable to be an atheist.


Are you starting to see the light?

 

[Trent]

You also claim to be a theist but all of your arguments in this thread are deistic arguments. Not one single person on this planet knows if there is a god or not. All us atheists can say is that we have not been given sufficient evidence to believe that there is a god. Just as i have not been given sufficient evidence that santa clause exists or medusa exists.

Like i said previously, you have all your work still ahead of you in convincing any thinking person that a benevolent celestial father exists.

 

[hazek]

You also claim to be a theist but all of your arguments in this thread are deistic arguments. Not one single person on this planet knows if there is a god or not. All us atheists can say is that we have not been given sufficient evidence to believe that there is a god. Just as i have not been given sufficient evidence that santa clause exists or medusa exists.

Exactly. The second god's existence is a fact I'll obviously believe he exists.

 

[itsnobody]

I answered this question already. Here, let me quote myself:



I see you have a really hard time with how logic and reasoning works so I'll try and break it down for you:

You admitted that there is no empirical proof of a god therefor existence of a god is not a fact.

Our history teaches us that when we learn important facts about reality our quality of lives improves. Believing a god exists is not a fact therefor believing one exists will not improve my quality of life.

Worse off, history teaches us that the belief in god's existence is consistently being abused by power hungry individuals who seek control over the rest of the masses for their own often violent reasons therefor not only the belief in god's existence can't improve the quality of my life, it may in fact worsen it.

There for it is logical and reasonable to be an atheist.


Are you starting to see the light?

I've already refuted this argument in the previous posts yet you post it again. The only one having a hard time understanding logic is you.

I guess I'll have to explain slowly.

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

The facts of reality do not tell us whether or not God exists or not. Absence of empirical proof for an empirically untestable hypothesis tells us nothing.

The facts of reality tell us that science makes no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God.

Therefore your argument is illogical and is not a valid argument against the existence of God.

 

[itsnobody]

Atheism is not a belief system, it is a disbelief in gods. There is no argument on that, if you are going to argue a known and academically accepted definition of a word, take it up with them and try to change the definition.

If you are going to argue semantics and parse words nothing can be argued about. Its an elementary tactic used by novice debaters.

How is relevant if atheism is labeled as a "belief system" or not? It's just semantics

I guess I'll have to repeat myself again, if someone "lacks the belief in God" it could mean that they:
- Believe God does not exist
- Believe God is unlikely to exist
- Believe the existence of God is unknown

So saying you "lack the belief" in something is vague and abstract and doesn't tell me what you believe

 

[itsnobody]

Wrong. My argument summarizes as: "My reason for believing that there is no god has no connection to the existence of god, but it's logical to conclude that it is practical and reasonable to believe there is no God because of my reason"

What? How is it logical to conclude that is practical and reasonable to believe there is no God if your reasoning has no connection to the existence of God?

Why do you have such a hard time understanding logic?

It's just like saying "I believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, the reason I believe so doesn't have any connection to the Sun revolving around the Earth, but it's still logical because I think it's practical and reasonable to believe so"

 

[Trent]

itsnobody i agree....but then we have to get to why you believe the way you do.

By what standard and what evidence did you come to your belief? If science and logic did not play a roll in that, what did?

And argument is 100% based in logic and reasoning that have scientific basis. So if you don't accept scientific evidence or logic as valid rebuttals....why are you wanting to argue? Argument is dependent on these things.

 

[Trent]

itsnobody....my belief is the belief in uncertainty....i dont know, neither do you or anyone else on the existence of god.

You claim to be a theist...can we get off the deistic diatribes you have been on and stay on topic and hear some of your mind blowing theistic arguments?

We have established that no one knows if there is a god or not. That is my belief, that i don't know. Ill be waiting for your theistic arguments.

 

[itsnobody]

You also claim to be a theist but all of your arguments in this thread are deistic arguments. Not one single person on this planet knows if there is a god or not. All us atheists can say is that we have not been given sufficient evidence to believe that there is a god. Just as i have not been given sufficient evidence that santa clause exists or medusa exists.

Like i said previously, you have all your work still ahead of you in convincing any thinking person that a benevolent celestial father exists.

How is it Deistic?

Newton was not a Deist, because Newton believed in Divine Revelation.

Santa Claus is a false analogy and I don't know what medusa is. Santa Claus is empirically testable, it's a false analogy and also a non-sequitur.

So you're just using the same non-sequitur arguments just like the FSM argument.

Its just like saying "An argument against the existence of multiple universes is: I don't believe in Santa Claus, Medusa, or anything else that lacks proof"

You can't refute something by pointing out something else that lacks proof, it's just a non-sequitur.

As for my beliefs (that I am 100% certain are true and exist) they include:
- Multiple time-lines (similar to many-worlds interpretation)
- Spirits
- Heavens, hells, rebirth
- Superhuman powers
- God

As for this whole supernatural/natural vs. Deist/Theist thing by definition there cannot be anything supernatural in science.

So claiming for instance that "there's no scientific evidence of the supernatural" is equivalent to saying:
- "None of these natural explanations indicate that anything supernatural exists"
- "There's no evidence of the supernatural in natural explanations"
- "The natural explanations scientists have found have never turned out to be supernatural"

It's just circular reasoning, equivalent to saying "there's nothing supernatural in natural explanations"

If for instance someone scientifically proves that hellish worlds exist then hell would not be supernatural, it would be natural.
If someone observes that quarks behave differently from other particles they do not conclude that "quarks are supernatural particles" only instead that "quarks behave in strange ways"
If someone breaks a supposed law in physics scientists would simply conclude that "the laws of physics are different from what we thought they were"

By definition, the way atheists have made things, nothing can EVER be supernatural.

 

[Trent]

Why do you believe in a theistic loving god if natural evidence is not convincing?

The only way to be a theist is to believe that god does good things in your life which can be seen and observed in the natural world.

 

[Trent]

You are setting up a system where no evidence = evidence, because evidence is confined to the natural realm, and not the supernatural realm.

So how did you come to your theistic belief if evidence in the natural realm is not convincing to you?

 

[hazek]

The empirical evidence of reality do not tell us whether or not God exists or not. Absence of empirical proof for an empirically untestable hypothesis tells us nothing.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, it tells us absolutely nothing, except.. wait for it.. that it's not a fact. You said it yourself:

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

Therefor god's existence is not a fact.

Just because science can't yet answer all the questions about our origin of existence doesn't mean I have to jump on board on the most popular hypothesis. Actually I'm going to be especially reluctant with one that's often abused by power seeking individuals for their own political and materialistic reasons.

You can stand on your head but you can't make god's existence a fact. Just like you can stand on your head and you can't argue with my logic and reasoning when I'm not willing to believe something that isn't a fact. Btw, I'm wondering, how come you aren't asking me if I can list any logical reasons to not believe in the easter bunny or any other fairy tale for that matter?


Btw for a long time it was a hypothesis that the Earth was the center of our solar system. Guess what, the empirical evidence proved it was wrong and showed us what the real fact of reality is and the quality of our lives improved. I rather not repeat the same mistake as people did in our history.

 

[hazek]

Btw I love how you want your own little rules about the verb "to exist".

It just shows how you fail with all of your arguments at that very spot. Stefan Molyneux has a really nice video about what you're doing. I'm so sorry, but the second you utter the word "exists" you step in the arena of the scientific method and proof and your non-sequitur argument falls apart.