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.
@Jo Re: "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."
Wow! Got one right. Congrats!... *tipping hat*...
@Tin Man - No he didn't get it right. God is not defined. Some gods are simple to debunk, others don't even matter. A God beyond time and space it a moronic concept. Without Time the god can not think or act. Without space there is no place for it to be. Beyond time and space is the same thing as nothing at all. Demonstrate anything that exists with no time or no space. This god does not exist. Many versions of God are easy to debunk and that is why Christians never defend them/ Look at WLC one of the top Christian debaters. He has never defended the God of the Bible. His god is a "first cause" and nothing more. And we all know the Cosmological argument is a bunch of shit that gets you no place near a god. That is the BEST Christians have to offer.
What??? You mean I tipped my hat for nothing?... Dammit... I hate when that happens... *pouting*...
I'm just an arbitrary piece of monkey poo. I challenge people for no reason at all and I consider you a people even though you are made of tin. There are too many gods out there to count and many can be proved to be utterly and completely non-existent. You got to get the theist to explain what in the hell he is talking about first or he will pull a catholicray or an InSpirit on your ass, never tell you, and waste 35 pages in useless verbiage. When you actually pin them down they pull a Maddie. pick up their skirts and run away.
Good science never achieves 100% certainty. However, the weight of evidence is the key.
In your ‘life on other planets’ argument, we can see trillions of stars in the night sky. We know, just by the fact that we are alive, that planets exist around other stars within the habitable zone around their stars. We have already discovered thousands of such planets that we can see with our telescopes. We can see just by looking at the colours of the light emitted what sort of materials and gases these planets are made up of and work out how old they are to determine if they are capable of supporting life. And we can use maths and statistics to calculate how many such planets are likely to exist in our universe and use mathematical probability to work out the likelihood.
All these things are EVIDENCE we can use to formulate our theories on.
You see the point is we may not have 100% proof but we can make judgements based on the weight of evidence.
That’s what religion lacks. It has had thousands of years to come up with just ONE piece of compelling, credible evidence to support the god theory and you have come up with ZERO.
Based on the evidence, there is far more likelihood of life on other planets than that your gods exist.
This is why atheists always win, because we are always the ones who bring evidence to back up our arguments.
I'm honestly just glad it is becoming understood that "atheists seem to win the argument with theists." - even caveated with the lame excuse that it is "whoever goes first" that appears less credible. The fact of the matter is, one of the two holds the obviously more justifiable position - that being the one who is holding out on believing until properly compelling evidence is presented. i.e. atheists.
Accreted, thanks for your response.
If one side has to prove their point, while the other withholds belief. And the other side gets to decide what types of evidence can be presented, and also be the judge of all evidence presented. That puts the other side in a very advantaged position.
If atheists had to prove their point while theist got to decide what evidence is acceptable, and be the judge of that evidence. I think the theist could easily sit back in his comfortable chair of withholding belief until the atheist can prove his point.
"If one side has to prove their point, while the other withholds belief. And the other side gets to decide what types of evidence can be presented, and also be the judge of all evidence presented. That puts the other side in a very advantaged position."
Only if both sides are allowed just one presentation each. But that is not a fair debate. That is why in a court of law and in debates, one side makes their presentation, the other responds, and so on and so on.
Those are the dynamics of this forum. Someone makes an assertion, someone responds, and so on and so on.
Yes that is the dynamics of this forum (debates and responses), but that is not the usual dynamics of an atheists position. The atheist wants to make theists"prove their point, while the other withholds belief. And the other side (atheists) gets to decide what types of evidence can be presented, and also be the judge of all evidence presented." That puts the atheists in a very advantaged position."
Atheists don’t withhold belief because they don’t have a belief in god. If you claim god to be real, we ask for your evidence.
"Yes that is the dynamics of this forum (debates and responses), but that is not the usual dynamics of an atheists position."
You are debating atheists and there is a constant flow of responses and counter-responses. This very conversation proves that.
Again your error is in assuming that an atheist need make any claim, or assert any belief.
All that is required for atheism is the lack or absence of belief, regardless who "goes first".
These irrational attempts to reverse the burden of proof using appeal to ignorance fallacies are in vogue at the moment with religious apologist, but they are based on a known informal logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
No it doesn't, What in the hell is the theist going to present, the Kalam Cosmological argument. A piece of shit argument that gets you no where near a god that was invented by Arabs to support the existence of Allah. How in the hell is a theist going to win? What actual evidence do they have? NONE.
Atheists do not have a point. Atheism does not make a claim. You are confusing the "DEBATE TOPIC" with a claim. Let's take the Resurrection for example. You do understand that not all Christian faiths believe in the resurrections. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIPfXobhSkw Here is a debate between Christians on the resurrection. (Is it physical or metaphorical?)
There is no Atheist position on this. There are atheists who opt to debate the topic chosen for a debate. Richard Carrier has debated the resurrection and he is an Atheist Historian of ancient Rome. It's his job to do these debates. The only position an atheist has is non-belief in God. That is not an assertion. There is no possible way to debate this position. I do not believe in God or gods. What are you going to do, argue that I really do believe in a god like Matt Slick. You will look like a moron. Please prove that I actually do believe in a god after I have told you that I don/t.
There is NO POINT an atheist has. THERE IS A DEBATE TOPIC that two people have agreed to discuss.
There are no "sides". Either a deity exists or it does not. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
I don't believe ANY claim unless or until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for it. This is a default position, not a contrary position. I attach no more importance to my disbelief in the Christian and Muslim deity, than I do in my disbelief of unicorns or mermaids, or than you attach to your disbelief in the Aztec deity of gluttony.
The main difference is that I am.unbiased and so I make no exceptions, whereas you favour one deity yet have demonstrated no objective reason for this bias?
Let's not forget that whilst your semantics are naught but an appeal to ignorance fallacy to avoid evidencing your deity, it gets you no closer to evidencing Jesus or Allah, than it does to Zeus or Poseidon.
Even were your argument not demonstrably fallacious, all your work is still before you.
I wonder who theists would call ‘the winner’. I suspect that atheists think atheists win, theists think theists win, and fence sitters may call a winner but I’d bet they continue to sit where they are.
Theists have one thing on their side. They have an unquenchable, neverending well of made up crap they can call on to use in their arguments. Evidence and proof take far more effort and time to come up with. So while science is still looking for answers the theist can just make up the first crap idea they think is convenient. It is far more difficult to teach complicated things to people than it is to get them to believe whatever made up crap is easy for them to get their heads round.
I love buybull quotes...it gives me an idea how deluded they are. You would be surprised how many think the buybull are the actual words of god. The theitards disconnect from reason, is both frustrating and fun.
IMO it is not about a winner and loser, but rather a healthy exchange of opinions, hopefully leading everyone closer to the truth.
David, I agree and I hope to become closer to the truth. That is part of my goal why I started this string.
Jo: "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?"
Facts. Evidence. Truth.
Something no theist shall ever have.
Now to read the other replies.
arakish, thanks for your response.
You sound absolutely certain of your view. Can you prove your positive claim that "no theist shall ever have any facts, evidence or truth"?
"You sound absolutely certain of your view. Can you prove your positive claim that "no theist shall ever have any facts, evidence or truth"?"
My apologies to arakish, but I have to offer my opinion.
Theists have had over two thousands of years, with literally millions of dedicated scholars all attempting to provide any facts, evidence or truth. Despite the years and number of people diligently attempting to provide proof, the result has been an empty ZERO.
And this segues into my thread, "Why can we not observe God?" One would assume that theists would make a serious effort using modern tools and techniques to pursue the goal of proving a god. But so far, I have not encountered one theist who endorses such a project.
Wait no more, you have encountered one. I endorse your project.
However, I think your premise might be flawed. Since god can neither be proven or disproven through science. I think that is your position. Than using science to try to do either might not get you what you want.
Could it be that using only science gets you a false negative? If you use a tool that cannot answer the question, you end up with a false negative. If I looked for intelligent life outside of our solar system using a microscope, I would get a negative answer. Not because the test was valid, but because I used a tool that is not capable of answering the question.
The false negative is you stating you endorse this project, then offering reasons why it should not be done, and why it would fail.
Has your god stamped the last little bit of curiosity and courage out of you?
I used to make service calls for a major telecom provider. My position sometimes got me in hot water with my boss, but I did not attempt to find reasons why I could not fix something, but instead find reasons why I should. The amusing part is that I became the go-to guy when someone else gave up on a project and I was the one sent in to fix things. And I always found a solution. Always.
When I was in charge of a project wiring in communications for a hospital, I had to recommend one helper be let go because every time we faced an obstacle, he always said "It can't be done". Guess what, we did it.
If you fail on the first attempt, try, try, try again.
Jo: "You sound absolutely certain of your view. Can you prove your positive claim that "no theist shall ever have any facts, evidence or truth"?"
I don't need to prove that. You theists do it so nicely for me. ALL religions are nothing more than LIES plagiarized from myths, legends, and faerie tales FAR! older than any religion existing today.
Reiteration: "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."
Think Critically about it. Go do some TRUE, real research. I spent over 30 years traveling the Levant and southwestern Asia attempting to prove the Bible correct. However, all I did was prove that ALL religion is plagiarized lies.
The only fact I need is that in accordance to Biblical Law, I walk down the street, wait for my neighbor's 14 year old daughter (maybe 15 by now), rape her, give her father $200 (equivalent of 50 shekels silver), and I have me a young wife to care for me in my old age.
As I said in another response: Your Illusory Sky Faerie, Bewitched Lich Virgin, and Conjured Comical Spook can all go fuck themselves since they are all homosexuals. I even wrote a short treatise about this somewhere on these forums. Go find it. I think it was titled: "Why is your God so Homophobic?"
Can anyone show us the theists who won? Everyone would like to read what they said. Why haven't they copyrighted it and published it as a world best seller? They might even consider including it as a final chapter to the bible, if after all it was a winning argument as you claim.
People most of the time would rather believe that what
Their believe is true to avoid the changes they have to do.
Glad I stayed atheist my entire life.
You "spent over 30 years traveling the Levant and southwestern Asia attempting to prove the Bible correct." You were an atheist during this time?
Yes I was atheist. But foremost, of all the "ists" I was a scientist. I wanted to know from a scientist's perspective why so many people believed in something none of them could prove. Some evidence I found: the Noahacian Flood Myth never occurred, the Exodus never occurred, Moses never existed, the Hebrews did not exist until 800 BCE which is almost 700 years after the Exodus was supposed to occur, there are no records of Yeshua (Jesus) ever existing until at least 40 to 50 years after his death, there are no records of the character Saul (Paul) ever existing. The Romans were incredibly anal when it came to records. If such persons existed, the Romans would have recorded it.
My wife and I actually volunteered to help on archaeological digs in the areas as well. We hit all the major museums to study artifacts.
Sorry. Your religion is based on lies plagiarized from far older myths, legends, faerie tales
Do some real research.
EDIT: inserted omitted words