Atheism

triple oopsie

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WalterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro.

>Reason for Decision: Sorry, Debaticus but you didn't defend the other religions and straight up conceded saying atheism isn't bad. Instead, you chose to create this questionable "cult" idea out of nowhere which doesn't argue against atheism. So sorry mate good luck debating.

>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

Saying that, this does not qualify as a conceded debate, and thus the voter does not sufficiently assess any of the voting points awarded. The voter should review the voting requirements section of the code of conduct

*******************************************************************

If no one has voted on this in a couple days, remind me and I'll vote. ... Also in case no one has said it, atheism isn't a religion (surprised con did not raise this point).

Just because it'll likely doesn't mean it exists

I just think that, the debate isn't about it. It's about if it's good or bad, not the best. So far you haven't proved a single reason why it was bad

We could debate this later, I have a lot of debates to do now.

I would argue that the "Stone Too Heavy to Lift" paradox is not mathematical-- it's actually illogical. It also depends on how one defines "omnipotence", does it not? If you define "omnipotence" to include also having the ability to do the illogical, or the logically impossible, (such as creating a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, a married bachelor, a one-ended stick, etc etc) then I would agree your version of "omnipotence" is impossible. But I would (and I'm willing to guess most Christian theologians wouldn't either) not define "omnipotence" as being able to do the logically impossible (i.e. the illogical).

The "stone too heavy to lift" paradox is often used to "dis-prove" the existence of God, or at least God's Omnipotence. But I would argue that the paradox is illogical and doesn't make sense. The paradox is basically asking "Can a being of Unlimited Power produce something to limit him", but it's Unlimited Power, by definition, rules out that possibility. One can say (argue) that there are some things an Unlimited Being can't do precisely because it's Unlimited (i.e. omnipotent).

I'll admit, the "stone too heavy to lift" scenario is fun thought experiment, much like the "Can an all-powerful God create a square circle? Or a married bachelor? Or a one-ended stick? Or a triangle with 2 sides?" A being with unlimited power would have to create a rock that is infinite in size. But a rock, by definition, is finite. It just "doesn't make sense".

I'll close by adding this. I've heard someone respond to the "stone too heavy to lift" question this way:

An Omnipotent Being could indeed create anything it wants, including a stone of infinite size, and the Omnipotent Being would also be able to lift it.

Proof is mathematical.
Evidence points to a conclusion.

For example, I can prove that omnipotence is impossible because an omnipotent being cannot create an unliftable rock. That's proof, it's mathematical.
If a criminal commits a crime and we find his fingerprints, that's evidence because it points to the conclusion that he did it.

** "But evidence =/= proof". **

If I may dig a little deeper, what exactly is "proof"....or how would you define "proof"?

Yeah, you got me. But evidence =/= proof.

Alright, back from a long weekend. So you admit that some people may not recognize or acknowledge, for whatever reason, any evidence that is presented (regardless of topic). My assumption is that you are not immune from this as well-- in other words, there could be a topic out there, that for whatever reason, you may not acknowledge or recognize any evidence presented, correct?

So let's just say hypothetically I would present some evidence (regardless of topic), there is a very real possibility you could say "Nope, that is not evidence. YOu haven't presented evidence yet", even though the evidence is before you, correct? There is a very real possibility that that could happen, correct?

I'm hoping you're going to post next round...

30 seconds

1 minute!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 MINUTES!!!!!!!!!!

15 minutes left!!!!

I have a nagging feeling that Debaticus is going to win.

I'm kinda lost, you went from sugar in coffee to "you don't have any evidence"

lol how many comments

Break it up you three, I am the person who is arguing here.

You haven’t presented anything which you claim to be evidence. That’s how I know that you have not presented evidence.

But go ahead, do it. Present it.

**Yes, it’s true that when presented evidence some people can be blind. But you haven’t presented any evidence. At all.**

Again, that begs the question- what if you are unable to see the evidence or unable to recognize it. If you are unable to, then how can you make the claim I haven't presented any? I'm playing Devils' Advocate here.

Are you so sure you can recognize the evidence of XYZ's existence if it was presented before you? How can you be so sure you would or can. I could present A, B, and C as evidence, but you could be blind to it and say "nope, that's not evidence. You haven't presented any evidence yet that proves XYZ exists."

XYZ could be anything....God....sugar in coffee...an honest lawyer.

** To determine if the person is able to recognize evidence, you must first provide some evidence. You haven't.**

That begs the question, if you are unable to recognize the evidence, how can you make the claim that I haven't presented any?

Yes, it’s true that when presented evidence some people can be blind. But you haven’t presented any evidence. At all.

** Can you provide a cite for that? Seem like an oddly free-wheeling definition to me- I ascribe supreme importance to my pursuit of respiration- is breathing therefore my religion? **

The definition I added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." was the result of a quick (very quick!) Google search on the word "religion". It's actually the first thing that Google displayed when I searched "religion". I guess it's Google Dictionary, for lack of a better term?

Merriam-Webster offers a very similar definition as well: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

I agree it is oddly free-wheeling, and really underscores how words and definitions can be changed (don't get me started on the whole "gender" definition).

"You're commiting the false analogy fallacy (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). Just because the guy in your analogy has proof that the coffee is sweet, doesn't mean that theists have proof that God exists."

Um, no. No i'm not. I'm not saying that all. Give me a moment.... ** sifts through notes and comments, just to confirm **. Nope, not saying that all. In no way at all do I say or imply because X (proof that the coffee is sweet) then Y (theists have proof that God exists). I'm not even sure how you made that leap.

AGain, what I meant to illustrate with that ANALOGY was an example of how people, when presented with evidence, can still be blind to it. They may not see it or they may refuse to see it. Perhaps they are so obstinate in their ways or thinking that they are unable. Perhaps they have such a strong philosophical objection to something that they don't see it.

I am going to take this debate to test my own skill.
I am an atheist, but arguing other people's points can really help me get better at arguing.

Sticking with the sugar discussion-- Your response was funny I admit. But it was also revealing-- seems like you are distracting from the real topic (Did I put sugar in your coffee or not) by throwing in other issues

- taking issue with someone drinking your coffee
- taking issue with the spelling of the word sugar (or was it Sugar?)

anyway, that was fun.

I agree with you though-- the discussion (sugar in coffee) is comparable to the God debate. My point of it all was to illustrate how people can be presented with all sorts of evidence, no matter what the topic (sugar in coffee, is Lebron a better player, should the Spurs have kept Kawhi, does God exist), but still be blind to it or refuse to see it (perhaps because of a philosophical objection to it).

For the record, it's not MY analogy. lol. Mr. Oragami was the one that brought it up when he wrote:

"Atheism is an observation. This coffee has no sugar that I can see or taste or observe. Now maybe my senses are dull or my instruments insufficient but if you want me to believe that you put sugar in this coffee the burden of proof is now yours. This planet has no creator that I can see or taste or observe. If you want me to believe this planet has a creator the burden of proof is now yours. A lack of evidence of something can’t be, by definition, also best at that something."

I just took it and ran with it. :)

I'm not sure what you mean by "The belief in SCIENCE, and NO GODS". Atheism is not science. It's simply the lack of belief in God.

"Can the person recognize or is able to recognize, the evidence that is there?"

To determine if the person is able to recognize evidence, you must first provide some evidence. You haven't.

You're commiting the false analogy fallacy (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). Just because the guy in your analogy has proof that the coffee is sweet, doesn't mean that theists have proof that God exists.

=>The "sugar in my coffee" is interesting. What that (and the God debate) ultimately comes down to is this: can the person recognize or is able to recognize, the evidence that is there?

Your PRO-sugar/ANTI-sugar dichotomy is both inapplicable and revealing. I detect no sweetness to my coffee- there are all kinds of possible explanations for the lack of sweetness but a philosophical objection to sugar ain't one of them.

*******
Wide-eyed Pro-Sugar Guy Emerging from Under the Starbucks Counter: "Dude, the sugar was put in. Can't you taste it? The coffee is so sweet, it's so obvious."

Me: "If you tasted this cup of coffee then I'd like a fresh cup, please"

Wide-eyed Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have an empty sugar packet right here."

Me: "I saw you pull that out of the trash just now"

Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have witnesses who are willing to give their life as a testament to the fact that I put Sugar in the coffee."

Me: "Fuck! That is sad....and now I see you are capitalizing the word sugar. Look, should I call the police because what you're describing to me now sounds like some kind of coercion?"

Pro-Sugar Guy: "But again, I have people who are saying that the coffee is sweet."

Me: "People! PLURAL? More than one person has had their lips on this cup of coffee? I...I...think I have to leave now."

Pro-Sugar Guy: "Ok. Help me out here. I've shown you evidence that many would consider obvious that would lead one to believe I put sugar in the coffee-- but you refuse to believe it. What sort of evidence do you want to see that would convince you that I put sugar in the coffee?"

Me: (running away from Starbucks as fast as possible)

=>Depends on how you define "religion". While historically, "religion" has meant a belief in a God or gods, newer definitions have added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

Can you provide a cite for that? Seem like an oddly free-wheeling definition to me- I ascribe supreme importance to my pursuit of respiration- is breathing therefore my religion?

Depends on how you define "religion". While historically, "religion" has meant a belief in a God or gods, newer definitions have added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

The "sugar in my coffee" is interesting. What that (and the God debate) ultimately comes down to is this: can the person recognize or is able to recognize, the evidence that is there?

Pro-Sugar Guy: "Dude, the sugar was put in. Can't you taste it? The coffee is so sweet, it's so obvious."
Anti-sugar Guy: "Nope. Sorry, my taste buds don't work. I simply can't taste it. And if I can't taste it, I'm not going to believe it."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have an empty sugar packet right here."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Sorry. That doesn't necessarily mean the sugar went into the coffee."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have witnesses who are willing to give their life as a testament to the fact that I put Sugar in the coffee."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Doesn't prove a thing. Those folks may just be crazy."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But again, I have people who are saying that the coffee is sweet."
Anti-Sugar Guy: "Sorry. Doesn't necessarily mean the coffee as sugar in it. For all I know the sweetness could have been cause by honey or molasses and not sugar. Or perhaps, the chemicals in the coffee organized in such a random way so as to effect the taste of the coffee."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "Ok. Help me out here. I've shown you evidence that many would consider obvious that would lead one to believe I put sugar in the coffee-- but you refuse to believe it. What sort of evidence do you want to see that would convince you that I put sugar in the coffee?"

I think that is the question that boils down for the atheist-- what sort of evidence (i.e. proof) would be "acceptable" for them to "believe" in a God?

+1 prior comments Atheism is neither religion nor belief so is easily disproven “best” of either. Atheism is an observation. This coffee has no sugar that I can see or taste or observe. Now maybe my senses are dull or my instruments insufficient but if you want me to believe that you put sugar in this coffee the burden of proof is now yours. This planet has no creator that I can see or taste or observe. If you want me to believe this planet has a creator the burden of proof is now yours. A lack of evidence of something can’t be, by definition, also best at that something.

Some basic definitions are needed:

Religion - how would you define religion? What do you mean by religion.
"Best" - how would you define the terms "good", "better", and "best" (this is very important, as these are descriptors used to measure something comparatively against something else, often a "standard")

You need to explain your stance more. In what sense is atheism good? Is atheism a religion?

You can challenge Dr. Franklin to a debate.

lol
BrotherDThomas

You need to accept this debate

This a debate whether Atheism is a religion

You choose, for the topic of atheism, I support, I'm looking for non supporters.

Don't necessarily understand this debate's supposed resolution. When you propose an argument over "good" or "bad," do you mean moral or immoral? Effective or ineffective? Practical or impractical? What is it you want to argue? (If it's interesting, I might accept.)