Why atheists seem to win the argument with theists.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Read the forum guidelines, then apologize to Tin man please.
@Davemabus Re: "...but you are brain dead moron..."
Says the dude with deplorable grammar and writing skills. Oh, and for your information, I am not brain dead.... I am brain LACKING. (My straw-stuffed buddy cut in line and got the brain.) So there is a difference. As for the moron part, opinions vary.... *shrugging shoulders*...
@davemabus2019: No no no no no.... You got it all wrong. Tin-Man is the heartless moron. It was the Straw-man who was brain dead. And the cowardly lion................ um...................... oops........................ uhhh.................... no offense ment............ ummm............................. oh never mind....
Theists claim god...Atheists don't believe the claim because of lack of evidence.
Lets try that the other way around to see if it makes a difference...
Atheists don't believe the claim of god because of lack of evidence...Theists still claim god.
Hmmmmm...no real difference.
When an opinion is forced upon either, it has to be pointed out that neither position can be absolutely proven. This is the default theist end point, when all avenues of reason fail. However, in this scenario, likeliness is the next best thing to absolutism...and this is the atheists final argument. The probability that god exists is almost infinitely unlikely.
There you go, jo.
doG, thanks for your response.
Do I understand you correctly that "neither position can be absolutely proven?
Correct. There is no metric, to measure supernatural things...besides, you can not reach absolute certainty without knowing everything...which we as a species, are far from. But, and it's a big but...is the fact that, probability can be measured with the knowledge we have. That present knowledge we have, tells us that the likeliness of a god, is near infinitely unlikely.
I am still confused at two of our statements. "Correct. There is no metric, to measure supernatural things." Seems in conflict with "That present knowledge we have, tells us that the likeliness of a god, is near infinitely unlikely."
If we have not metric to measure supernatural things how can you say they are infinitely unlikely? Sounds like you are clearly measuring it?
If Tim lays out evidence and Tom just asserts that he does not believe Tim, and those listening believe that Tom has won the argument, then that audience is just plain stupid.
Just stating that you do not believe is not a pathway to the truth, or a method in winning any debate.
Intelligent people listen to the evidence, listen to the argument from the opposing side, and weight the arguments against the other. That is how people with intelligence and a memory that lasts over ten seconds function.
I started a thread a few days ago, titled "Why can we not observe god?" I invite you to add you input into that thread. Give it your best shot. You just stated that the last wins, go in last, let us see you prove your assertion. I went in first, according to your logic, since you go in last, you should win the day. Give it your best shot, attack my premise, I am not afraid to have my opinion subject to scrutiny.
Come on, give it your best shot, attack my thread.
Scoff... Look very closely and you will see DOUBLE...
Take your meds!
edit: deleted post because that person is not worth any response.
@ davemabus and the other idiots names you have
not you again....after being chucked out at least twice before you come back here again? Ah well shitstick snotgoblins abviously never ever learn.
He's actually been tossed twice, today. Maybe 4-6 times total, lost count.
Thanks Nyar. That Dave Mabus is that dangerous kook that threatens people's lives when he loses arguments.
I just wished he would just go away.
David, thanks for your reply.
I agree that "Just stating that you do not believe is not a pathway to the truth, or a method in winning any debate."
But isn't that the atheists primary point, that they do not believe and that the theists have proven their point?
I'll try to respond as to why we cannot observe God.
"But isn't that the atheists primary point, that they do not believe and that the theists have proven their point?"
This is the sticky part. In almost all cases, the atheist is asking for empirical proof, or testable and repeatable proof, the scientific method. "Science" is a method, and it's track record makes it most effective and consistent method in determining the truth and explaining how things function.
And in almost every scenario, the atheist is not stating "I do not believe you", but rather "I do not believe you because I have not been convinced".
My standard of proving anything is similar to a court of law. If a court of law will not accept some form of testimony, then it is flawed in concept. For example, personal experience is not proof of anything, just that one individual had something happen to them. Neither is anecdotal testimony. Neither is anything in the bible. It was written at least a hundred years after the death of jesus, by unknown authors over an unknown period of time. On top of all that, the organization(s) that compiled the bible from separate texts definitely had an agenda. Reference the Council of Nicea
@ David Killens
"In almost all cases, the atheist is asking for empirical proof, or testable and repeatable proof, the scientific method. "Science" is a method, and it's track record makes it most effective and consistent method in determining the truth and explaining how things function."
Can science test for the supernatural? Isn't science testing the natural world only? Is empiricism and science the only way to know truth? Isn't truth prior to A Priori?
"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. "
I stopped reading here, as that's an awful lot of verbiage to simply point out that the person making the claim carries the entire burden of proof.
The theist position is that a deity exists, the atheist position is that they don't and won't believe that claim until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated to support it.
No argument is necessary for the atheist position, and none sufficient for the theistic position, as they can demonstrate no objective evidence at all for any deity.
The rest is coloured bubbles...
Sheldon, thanks for you response.
You are right about my "verbose" point simply being that the person making the claim caries the burden of proof. If an atheist made a claim such as, there are is no god, than he would have to prove that belief. Then the theist could say they don't believe their claim and will not believe the claim until sufficient evidence is demonstrated. Then who appears to be winning the debate?
"If an atheist made a claim such as, there are is no god, than he would have to prove that belief."
Darn right, and I am of the strong opinion that a god cannot be disproven. But neither can one disprove the existence of invisible farting pixies.
Any god can not be proven, or disproven. Thus that god is imaginary, it does not exist outside of people's imaginations.
You are making profound claims without proving them. Please provide evidence that god is imaginary,for me to judge. Are you presenting belief's as facts?
Is believing in god equivalent to believing in invisible farting fairies? Sounds like opinion to me, or maybe you are just trying to make theists look stupid? Either way, it is just a belief without proof.
If god cannot be disproven, what does that say about atheists attempts to do just that? How rational is it to try and disprove something that you know cannot be?
"Is believing in god equivalent to believing in invisible farting fairies? "
What they have in common is neither belief can be objectively evidenced.
Why is one belief ok without evidence and the other not? As an atheist I set an open minded or unbiased standard for all claims and beliefs.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
If you can provide evidence of a god, I am very willing to change my position.
" If an atheist made a claim such as, there are is no god, than he would have to prove that belief. "
An atheist need not make this claim at all.
"Then the theist could say they don't believe their claim and will not believe the claim until sufficient evidence is demonstrated. Then who appears to be winning the debate?"
No one, that's axiomatic, were talking about believe in something. It is axiomatic you should base belief on sufficient objective evidence if you care whether what you believe is true. However withholding belief requires no contrary evidence. What evidence, beyond the lack of it, proves unicorns aren't real?
Of course, but again atheism isn't a contrary claim, and even if an individual atheist made this claim and failed to sufficiently evidence it, this wouldn't evidence a deity at all.
So whilst your be justified in rejected the claim as unevidenc, you'd also still be epistemologically justified in not believing a deity exists.
Atheism is not a contrary claim to theism.
A claim or belief is neither proved nor disproved because of a lack of sufficient evidence.
If you claimed mermaids didn't exist you'd have precisely the same burden of proof. Does that mean you believe mermaids exist, or even might exist, or do you disbelieve the claim as it is not properly evidenced?
You're attempting to reverse the burden of proof your belief holds, by using a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
What I have to say on the matter is very similar to what Algebe posted.
If the atheist's position is "I don't believe god is real", and the theists position is "I can prove god is real"; then the theist has saddled themselves with an impossible task. Even if god is real, they won't be able to prove it. Meanwhile the atheist's position is extremely easy to defend. Is the idea that an atheist doesn't believe god is real, really that controversial to anyone? It is almost a tautology.
If the theists sets for themselves an impossible task, while the atheist sets for themselves a ridiculously easy task; then clearly it isn't a level playing field. And that is the impression I got from your post, that you intuitively know it isn't a level playing field. I agree it isn't a level playing field, but not for the reason you suggested (it has nothing to do with who goes first, imo).
Nyarlathotep, thanks for your response.
If your statement of each position was reversed than the atheist would have an impossible task. If an atheist said "God is not real and I can prove it" The atheist has an impossible task and the theist an easy one.
"If your statement of each position was reversed than the atheist would have an impossible task. If an atheist said "God is not real and I can prove it" The atheist has an impossible task and the theist an easy one."
Yeah, I agree too.
John, do you know what falsifiability is?
If a claim or belief is unfalsifiable, this means there is no way to falsify it EVEN IF IT IS in fact false.
This tells us nothing about the validity of the claim.
So if I claimed we each were followed by an invisible unicorn, undetectable in any empirical way, and we couldn't breath without it, so when it dies we die.
Do you believe that claim?
I'll assume not. Now can you disprove it? This is what you're asking atheists to do, to disprove an unfalsifiable concept.
Atheism doesn't require the concept of a deity be entirely negated. Anymore than you need to disprove invisible unicorns in order not to believe it.
"Who goes first" in this debate is irrelevant, it's what they say that counts.
If I go first I would say I don't believe any deity exists as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence.
That carries no burden of proof as it is not a claim or a belief, it is in fact the lack or absence of a belief.
A belief is the affirmation of a claim. Disbelief is not the affirmation of a contrary or negating claim.