What is the reason atheists often appear to win the argument with theists? Is it because they are right, or is it that they just appear to win the argument?
Point - whoever goes first, when the subject is not falsifiable, is the one who looks wrong.
Illustration - Two brilliant professors meet every Friday at a coffee shop to publically debate a topic that is selected for them. This Friday the topic is "Does Intelligent Life Exists Elsewhere In The Universe". Each professors has to pick a side and try to convince everyone of their position. The first professor "Tim" has a slight advantage over the other professor "Tom" because he knows whoever goes first can easily be made to look wrong. So Tom wisely picks one of the sides and graciously lets Tim go first. Tim spends the next hour trying to prove there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. He gives statistics, probabilities, reasoning, and even emotional appeals. He gives facts as to how many stars and possible planets there probably are. He states that life must have occurred other places in our universe. You can imagine all the arguments and appeals Tim would make.
When it is Toms turn he confidently states that he has lack of faith in what Tim said. That Tim had provided no evidence and that his arguments were just opinion and his proclamations not falsifiable. To all there Tom looks right and Tim looks wrong.
As they walk home together Tim says to Tom, what would have happened if you had picked the other side of the argument? Tom replied that the results would have been the same, I could have easily made you look wrong. Whoever goes first can easily be made to look wrong, when the subject cannot be proven either way. Next weeks discussion is on whether or not God exists. Tim has decided to let Tom go first.
When a theist states that God exists, and an atheist says prove it. The theist looks wrong in his futile attempt to prove his belief. But if the theist let the atheist go first he could make him look wrong by denying his argument, by stating that he has provided no falsifiable evidence, with the obvious conclusion that his position should not be believed.
This is one major reason why atheists seem to win the argument.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You are just a bit confused. Position, first or second, does not actually matter. The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. Asserting that there is life in the universe requires facts, evidence, and actual examples. We have none. This person, regardless of how logical their argument has no facts or evidence.
Look at it the other way. A person asserts, there is no other life in the universe. Again, this person has no facts, evidence, or examples. He has not seen every planet in the universe.
In both cases the TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION can not possibly be proved one way or the other without facts.
Theists lose arguments because they make inane assertions not supported by facts, evidence or even logic. Most of their claims are overtly fallacious.
Atheists do not generally make claims. When they do it is against a clearly defined theist position. "God is all loving or the author of morality." Notice no theist ever asserts this all loving god or this god who is the author of morality is in fact the god of the Bible. That would be impossible to prove. Instead they shoot for the most amorphous definition of a god they can find. They do this for the sole purpose of not being overtly rebutted.
An atheist making the claim, "No god exists" is saddled with the burden of proof. Depending on the God being defined by the theist this task can be easy or a bit more difficult. The more that is known about the deity the easier it is to debunk. The less that is known about the deity, the more dishonest and manipulative the theist appears in their argument. Go look at the posts by Maddie.
Debates are won or lost based on the validity of the arguments and the quality of the evidence presented.
Cognostic, thanks for your reply.
If you replace what you said about life on other planets with does God exists, you will be supporting my point.
Here is what you said with me replacing, is there life on other o]planets, with is there god.
" A person asserts, there is no other life (god) in the universe. Again, this person has no facts, evidence, or examples. He has not seen every planet in the universe. "
"Atheists do not generally make claims", to my point that atheist appear to win by letting the theist make claims and try to prove them.
I agree that debates should be won on the arguments and evidence presented, but that is not always how it ends up.
Jo: "I agree that debates should be won on the arguments and evidence presented, but that is not always how it ends up."
It does in our debates. In three debates, the lowest performance we had was only 13 percentage points. The second, 21 percentage points, and the best 35 percentage points. In all three debates, the side I was on (the atheists) won. Why did we win? Because theists lack the three greatest NEEDS for victory: Facts, Truth, Evidence. Without those three, theists will NEVER win any debate. Sorry. But you are on the losing side. Additionally, I have yet to see any theists win any debate against atheists/scientists. My all time favorite is Sean Carroll versus William Lane Craig. Boy, what a complete annihilation that one was.
Since ALL religion is nothing more than lies and plagiarized myths and legends FAR! older than any religion in existence today, ALL theists shall ALWAYS lose any AND all debates. No Facts = Lies. No Truth = Lies. No Evidence = Lies.
The only way you theists will win is to depose the government, become the government yourselves (like many Islamic countries), rescinding all laws except for belief in your God and Bible under penalty of death. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, your Illusory Sky Faerie, Bewitched Lich Virgin, and Conjured Comical Spook can all go fuck themselves using the Bible pages to clean up the mess.
The greatest sadness I feel is seeing otherwise intelligent persons being so fucking gullible they would rather believe lies rather than search for the truth. That is what is truly sad. ***sheds a few tears while bowing head in silence*** TRULY SAD.
In re-reading your post, I have another question. What do you mean by "Notice no theist ever asserts this all loving god or this god who is the author of morality is in fact the god of the Bible. That would be impossible to prove"? If that would be impossible to prove, why do atheists ask for proof, or evidence?
We ask because we have no idea which god you are talking about until you define it. If you define it as one of the above and attach it to the bible, you must defend rape, murder, sodomy, slavery, and all manner of horror as moral. We have no idea at all what to argue until you define your God.
In reading back through this string I realized I had one more questions on your post above.
You said "Notice no theist ever asserts this all loving god or this god who is the author of morality is in fact the god of the Bible."
I find it surprising that no theist has, since that is actually what many of them believe.
I am going to make history and fulfill your challenge. I believe the God of the Bible is all loving and the author of moral authority.
Do I get some more points? :-)
Jo: Points? Absolutely - as soon as you explain how an all loving God of the Bible can do the following and be called "All Loving."
"I will destroy ... both man and beast." He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. (Genesis 6:7, 17)
"Every living substance that I have made will I destroy." ( Genesis 7:4)
God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. (Genesis 15:9-10)
God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. (Genesis 19:24)
God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. (Genesis 22:2-13)
God brought a seven year, "very grievous" famine on the whole earth for no apparent reason (except maybe to make Joseph wealthy). (Genesis 41:25-32, 54)
God threatens to kill the Pharaoh's firstborn son. (Exodus 4:23)
God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. (Exodus 7:4)
The fifth plague: all cattle in Egypt die.
But a little later (Exodus 9:19-20, 12:29), God kills them again a couple more times. (Exodus 9:6)
These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God was premeditated. (Exodus 12:29-30) 11:4-6
These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God was premeditated. (Exodus12:29-30) 11:4-6
"The Lord is a man of war." Exodus 15:3
God's right hand dashes people in pieces. Exodus 15:6
Whoever puts holy oil on a stranger shall be "cut off from his people." Exodus 30:33
But God wasn't satisfied with the slaughter of the 3000, so he killed some more people with a plague. Exodus 32:35
THIS LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON - YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM TO CALL GOD "ALL LOVING." GOD KILLS - 24 MILLION PEOPLE. Men, women, children and even the unborn. Your god is a complete asshole and anything but loving. (Satan on the other hand, kills 10 people and is more honest than God.)
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (Dawkins)
And if you believe in the Trinity - JESUS HIMSELF IS THIS MURDERING BASTARD. (If not, Jesus has plenty of his own problems) The God of the Bible is a complete asshole.
EXPLAIN WHY YOU WORSHIP A GOD THAT ENDORSES SLAVERY ON TOP OF ALL MANNER OF SAVAGERY.
The verses you asked about are all about 3,000 years old and have been superseded by a new much better contract (testament).
But to directly answer your question. The basic answer is that it was about survival and in some cases justice. It is not wrong for governments to punish those who violate their laws and so the same with God. You mentioned the Egyptians being punished, but don't forget they had held the Israelite's as slaves for 300 years. Sometimes those "kill them all" statements are more figurative than literal. This is evidenced by many of the people surviving that were said to have been all killed. War is brutal.
You are completely ignorant: Show me anyplace Jesus says not to own a slave. What are you throwing out? The 10 commandments? It's not my fault you don't follow your own frigging bible. Like I said. NO ONE DEFENDS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. EXCUSES, EXCUSES, EXCUSES. YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE THROWN OUT GENESIS AS WELL. EITHER YOU ARE LYING, JESUS IS LYING, OR GOD IS LYING OR JUST EVERYONE IS LYING.
God will hear and answer them-- Even the one who sits enthroned from of old-- Selah With whom there is no change, And who do not fear God.
"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
The crowd then answered Him, "We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this Son of Man?"
Be certain, then, that the Lord your God is God; whose faith and mercy are unchanging, who keeps his word through a thousand generations to those who have love for him and keep his laws;
1 Kgs 8:23
Said, O Lord, the God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven or on the earth; keeping faith and mercy unchanging for your servants, while they go in your ways with all their hearts.
1 Chron 16:34
O give praise to the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy is UNCHANGING for ever.
King James Bible
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17
IT'S NOT MY FAULT YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR OWN BIBLE.
I think you partially answered your question with your quotes. Yes, God does not change, but once he fulfills the law, it is no longer applicable.
You are right that Jesus never said not to own a slave. He did say things "like lover your neighbor as yourself", which go directly against owning a slave.
Fulfilling the law; that sounds like a change.
@jO: I think you partially answered your question with your quotes. Yes, God does not change, but once he fulfills the law, it is no longer applicable. WTF - PROVE IT. That is a bold ass assertion to make in light of the verses I have quoted.
Love your neighbor as yourself DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT OWNING A SLAVE. You are dishonestly reaching. Jesus never condemns slavery and often condones it by simply using it in his parables. Slaves in the parable of the prodigal son perform routine work in the background of the estate (Luke 15:22, Luke 15:26). Other parables depict cruel treatment of slaves, such as the parable of the wicked tenants. Slaves are disposable: they suffer beatings and death at the hands of tenants (Matt 21:33-44, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-18). Some New Testament writers accepted violence against slaves as normal as seen in these parables (see Matt 18:23-35, Luke 19:11-27.
"Love your neighbor" does not get you there....
I think I misunderstood your point or your question. I thought your list of quote was about God not changing, so that is why I said what I did about Jesus fulfilling the law. But if I now have it right, I think your point was just about slavery. So my answer below is a response to Jesus and slavery.
The parables you cited are not teaching directly about slavery and are not meant to justify or condemn slavery. The purpose of a parable is to teach something. What is being taught is not about slavery but about something else. For example - in the prodigal son story it is teaching about redemption and not about slavery. However, it is telling that the father in the story is symbolic of God who essentially redeems his son from slavery. So slavery is presented as a negative and not as something that is justified.
But yes, you are right, Jesus never directly condemns slavery.
@Jo Missed the point entirely. Slavery was common. Even Jesus uses parables to support the idea. He never condemns it. The Bible supports slavery. Slavery is absolutely JUSTIFIED throughout the bible. "Slaves Obey Your Masters"
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear ...
At no time does Jesus have a problem with slavery. At no time is it indicated anyplace in your book that it is amoral or wrong for one person to own another. All you have to do as a slave owner is follow the rules set forth by God. "Don't kill your slave or poke out his eyes." That's it.
"You are right that Jesus never said not to own a slave. He did say things "like lover your neighbor as yourself", which go directly against owning a slave."
Now I'm not an omniscient, but how about there is no context where one human buying and owning another is ever moral. How hard was that ffs?
JO! You are wrong and you are reaching again.
1 Peter 2:18 18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Timothy 6:1 1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
Colossians 3:22 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Ephesians 6:5 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Exodus 21: 20-2120 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Leviticus 25:44 - Your male and female slaves shall come from the nations around you; from them you may purchase slaves.
So much for the GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY.
There is no new testament, only two distinct books. In Matthew 5:18 jesus clearly stated he would follow the old laws.
The Egyptians did not hold the Israelites as slaves. The Exodus story is a myth.
Actually you lose points. Your deity is all-loving?
***long silence ensues, then paramedics can be heard arriving, some mumbled actions, then "Clear!" Followed by thump, then "We've got pulse. That was close one sir. Can't have anyone dying of laughter on my watch."***
Have you truly read the Bible?
NO! Couldn't have if you think the deity of the Bible is all-loving.
God's Nastiest Turd. Take time to read all the verses listed. Then answer this question about each verse, "Why does this not show that God is the most immoral monster to ever be created by humans in ALL of history?"
I don't have the time to address everything on your list, but I will address one.
You said "And here is the most pettiest thing I have ever heard of: Ezekiel 13:20: I am against your pillows!"
A cursory reading of the chapter makes it obvious that it is not talking about pillows that you lay your head on.
You are referencing KJV. Many other translations "pillows" as something like magic charms or amulets.
God says that he is going to tear the pillows from their arms or clothes, so it is not alluding to pillows we lay our heads on.
In my words, the chapter is about people using religion to deceive and lie to believers for their own personal gain.
I am thinking of some televangelists.
So maybe your pillory of the pillows is what is petty?
HAH! A chapter about using religion to deceive and lie to believers in their literature. Guess the authors got annoyed people keep ripping off their ideas to make money and for control. When ofcourse the writers of that chapter, that is exactly what they did. It is like a thief stealing from another thief, no honor among thieves. Except of course, instead of some unwritten word of honor among thieves, this is written down. Then edited, then translated, then plagiarized then edited and translated some more.
If religions are/were not so evil it would be hilarious.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
I have to ask this question: Are you truly as dense and thick as you are posting?
Read this again. You just fucked yourself and your shitty religion.
More ad hominem attacks.
Does it usually work for you?
Intentional Ad Hominem: Jo, you are a fucking liar!
Prove I made an ad hominem.
The evidence is from what you said. You are attacking me and not my arguments.
In your two most recent responses to me you said:
"Are you truly as dense and thick as you are posting?"
"Read this again. You just fucked yourself and your shitty religion."
"Jo, you are a fucking liar!"
None of the three quotes above have anything to do with the arguments I made. They are attacking the person who made them.
I showed that your caricature of the "God hates pillow" verse in the Bible, was not as you had claimed. You have never responded to my argument, you just resorted to name calling.
@Jo, IT IS NOT AN AD-HOMINEM ATTACK WHEN YOU ARE BEING DENSE. It is just a statement of fact. A better statement may be "You appear to be dense to many of us." DENSE: slow to understand : was too dense to get the joke. Given that you keep making the exact same mistakes over and over again in your posts, you are most certainly slow to understand. I don't think you have the word atheism adequately defined yet. You are handed factual information that supports one person's point of view and you try to argue against the facts. This does tend to make you look slow witted.
My only argument as an atheist is"I don't believe". So I have nothing to prove really. It's theists who feel driven to convince others that their various gods are real, perhaps as a way of compensating for their own doubts. They try to logic god into existence with so-called cosmological and ontological arguments, and when that fails to convince anyone they start claiming that their gods exist outside of space and time.
The only time theists win this argument is when they hold power over people's lives, as in medieval Europe and the Middle East now. "Believe or we'll kill you" is a line that wins a lot of debates.
lol only because they ban the ones that crush them to bits
@Davemabus Re: "only because they ban the ones that crush them to bits"
Odd... I've been very active here almost a year and half now, and I have yet to see ANY theist "crush to bits" anybody on this site, whether they get banned or not. Moreover, if any theist DID happen to come in here and present a reasonable and rational argument that somehow blew our atheist asses out of the water, then I know I would be one of the first to pat him/her on the back and offer congratulations. And I dare say I would not be the only one to do so. Shit just ain't happened yet, though. But, by all means, please feel free to give it a shot.
yeah, but you are brain dead moron, so you wouldn't even notice if God came down and smacked you in the face.