Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis.

Author: Mall
Religion
Atheism
faith

Posts

Total: 309
#151
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Stephen
I'll speed up the process and give you the link myself. Mall himself said he doesn't like posting links so he probably would've not given you one and told you to look it up. (He's already done that to me in two debates). His reason is people are more invested if they put in the effort to look something up, but I disagree with it.

Anyway here's the link.


Additionally he's said in his debate against me (link below if you're interested, though its about a significantly different topic) that in his debate against Moozer he has demonstrably debunked every single one of Moozer's presented contradictions. And also, that Moozer conceding to one of the claimed contradictions as being in error is evidence the rest of the contradictions should be dismissed, or something along those lines, his specific words were stuff like "His credibility was shot and inadmissible", "once is too many already" and "go no further until your misjudgment can be rectified". Again, more context in the below debate if you're at all interested. And obviously Mall himself can speak more onto the specifics of his stance to correct any misrepresentations of it I might've done.

#152
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,863
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull

People that believe no unicorns exist due to no evidence known.
Is not a weak basis. 
That's still considered weak non belief in unicorns. A strong atheism would be thinking that there is evidence to support the non existence of unicorns. 
Topic's author
#153
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Hero1000
Nah just answer that question first. Appreciate it comrade.
#154
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@WyIted
I don't think the topic author (or Deb-8 for that matter) is saying "weak" in the way its used to make the distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism.

I think he's instead saying that "duo to no evidence known" is an intellectually lacking basis.
#155
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Mall
Nah just answer that question first. Appreciate it comrade.

*Ahem*

In your own words...
"If you want to avoid answering, just let us all know."

Honestly, what's your reason for refusing the promise? I am still gonna answer the question first after you make the promise. I'll give my answer before you give your answer. So what's your reason for refusing even that?
#156
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@WyIted
Yeah Ya right. 
I get it. 
But.
But. 

I know for a FACT THAT. 
Big footS dont ride unicorns.

Actually, 
NO.    
Its not a fact , 
Would you settle with. 

(  ITS "SAFE"  TO SAY ?  ) 
Its safe to say unicorns don't ecxist. 

Could you have searched for unicorns long and good enough to say. 
" Its safe  to say "  ?

It doesn't really mean shit but hey. 
Its safe to say, 

Or what about .
The chance of unicorns existing are slim. 
So like. 
can you make one side of a argument  ( more favorable ) ? 

It still doesn't mean shit but hey. 

It is atleast.   A basis. 
 


#157
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,242
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Was .
All swans are White a fact ? 

You could never apply this to ( guilty or Not guilty.) 
OJ simpson murdered Nichole can't everrrrrrrr be a " fact " right ? 
Hang on. 
OJ knows if its a fact or not. But no one else knows hey. ?

I don't know where im going with this now. 
Pass. 


Topic's author
#158
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
I don't do links. 

A false contradiction would be a contradiction not true.
Topic's author
#159
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Hero1000
One more time. Just answer that and I will answer your question.
#160
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Mall
One more time. Just answer that and I will answer your question.
Fine. You said you'll answer my question. Ok. No need for the word "promise". I'll just take your word for it. And take it in good faith you put yourself under the same "Yes or no" dichotomy you put me under. And if you don't do that. Then I can just determine that you argue in bad faith and retract my answer and move on with my life.

Does an atheist believe there is the spirit of God?

Yes or no.
No.

Now it's your turn.

Does an agnostic believe there is the spirit of God?

Yes or no.


Topic's author
#161
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Hero1000
To your question. No .

Pulling teeth but finally got you to agree that one of the statements is false.

Atheists believe there is God.(False)
Atheists believe there is no God .


Atheists believe there is God.(False - Does an atheist believe there is the spirit of God? The answer of no is why this statement is false.)


While atheists disbelieve, agnostics actually don't.
#162
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,648
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
A false contradiction would be a contradiction not true.


Well its either a contradiction or it isn't.

Jesus either identified himself the night of his arrest or Judas identified Jesus with a kiss. Which is it?

The women spread the word of the empty tomb or they didn't. Which is it?



#163
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Mall
Atheists believe there is God.(False - Does an atheist believe there is the spirit of God? The answer of no is why this statement is false.)


While atheists disbelieve, agnostics actually don't.
A simple definition of each will resolve your dilemma.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
#164
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Mall
While atheists disbelieve, agnostics actually don't.

No Idea how that was the conclusion you arrived at. It is really funny how blind you are to the irony. You said my answer of "No" eventually leads up, as evidence, to how unreasonable an atheist is, yet you also gave "No" to the exact same question when it referred to your classification of agnostic. So here's your own logic pattern thrown at you using your answer.

*Ahem*

Pulling teeth but finally got you to agree that one of the statements is false.

Agnostics believe there is God.(False)
Agnostics believe there is no God .


Agnostics believe there is God.(False - Does an agnostic believe there is the spirit of God? The answer of no is why this statement is false.)


While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't.

#165
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Hero1000
Pulling teeth but finally got you to agree that one of the statements is false.

Agnostics believe there is God.(False)
Agnostics believe there is no God .


Agnostics believe there is God.(False - Does an agnostic believe there is the spirit of God? The answer of no is why this statement is false.)


While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't.
A simple definition of each will resolve your dilemma.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

#166
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Shila
Before I properly respond, which argument are you arguing for? That Agnostic and Atheist are mutually exclusive characteristics? Or that they aren't?

Also unfortunately to us, Mall does not really partake in definitions, at least from my experience in debates with him, so that's why I opted not to take this approach.
#167
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Hero1000
--> @<<<Shila>>>
Before I properly respond, which argument are you arguing for? That Agnostic and Atheist are mutually exclusive characteristics? Or that they aren't?

Also unfortunately to us, Mall does not really partake in definitions, at least from my experience in debates with him, so that's why I opted not to take this approach.
Your statement “While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't.” is wrong

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

#168
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Shila
Your statement “While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't.” is wrong
I know, but you seem to be completely missing the point. I am demonstrating to Mall the internal inconsistency of his logic.
#169
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Hero1000
Your statement “While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't.” is wrong
I know, but you seem to be completely missing the point. I am demonstrating to Mall the internal inconsistency of his logic.
A simple definition of each will resolve his dilemma.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

#170
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,177
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What's a suburb Deb.

Don't think we have them in Mid Wales.
#171
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
Hence you believe no God of such exists.
I believe no god of the sorts that I mentioned exist, because they can't exist. That is very different from proclaiming to know that we live in a godless universe.
Topic's author
#172
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
Yes not a true contradiction.
I'm sorry but if you can't understand that Jesus was in the old testament, you hardly going to get the rest of the books .

Jesus said himself his in the volume of the book .

So no wonder these conflicts appear true to you.


#173
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Mall
Yes not a true contradiction.
I'm sorry but if you can't understand that Jesus was in the old testament, you hardly going to get the rest of the books .

Jesus said himself his in the volume of the book .

So no wonder these conflicts appear true to you.
Jesus as the coming messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament but Jesus was not born yet. The presence of Jesus is mentioned in the New Testament by the Gospel writers.
Topic's author
#174
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Shila
Ain't no dilemma. I laid it out nice and clear and agnosticism is the most rational position or most logical position to take by the way .
Topic's author
#175
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Shila
The person said Jesus was not mentioned in the old testament. Jesus said he was. 
So the person is calling Jesus a liar or missed those scriptures.
Topic's author
#176
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Hero1000
That's right, agnostics are more rational based not swaying to either side of a belief.
#177
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Mall
The person said Jesus was not mentioned in the old testament. Jesus said he was.
So the person is calling Jesus a liar or missed those scriptures.

Jesus Himself confirmed the fact that He is in the Old Testament. In John 5:46 He explained to some religious leaders who had challenged Him that the Old Testament was talking about Him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” According to Jesus, God’s work with man since time began all pointed to Him. Another time when Jesus showed that He is in the Old Testament was on the day of His resurrection. Jesus was walking with two of His disciples, and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Earlier, before His crucifixion, Jesus had pointed to Isaiah 53:12 and said, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

By some counts, more than 300 Old Testament prophecies point to Jesus Christ and were fulfilled by Him in His life on earth. These include prophecies about His unique birth (Isaiah 7:14), His earthly ministry (Isaiah 61:1), and even the way He would die (Psalm 22). Jesus shocked the religious establishment when He stood up in the synagogue of Nazareth and read from Isaiah 61, concluding with this commentary: “This scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing today” (Luke 4:18–21).

Another way that Jesus is in the Old Testament is in the form of Christophanies—pre-incarnate appearances of the Son of God. The Old Testament uses the term angel of the Lord interchangeably with the Lord in reference to these visitations. One Christophany is found in Genesis 18:1–33 when the Lord appeared to Abram in human form. Such tangible encounters with deity are scattered throughout the Old Testament (Genesis 16:7–14; 22:11–18; Judges 5:23; 2 Kings 19:35; Daniel 3:25).

Topic's author
#178
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
That is right.
Topic's author
#179
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Shila
That's right. This individual comes along with such a fallacious statement "oh Jesus not even in the Bible until new testament".

No no no . We can go to Isaiah, Zechariah and Psalm. Not to mention I believe Deuteronomy, he will raise up a prophet .
#180
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
There are plenty of god concepts I will tell you don't exist, like an all powerful all loving god who created a place of torment and torture for us to spend all eternity if we disobey him, as just one example. I could sit here all day giving more examples, but that is utterly pointless since you will probably just tell me they aren't the god you pray to.

The reason I can't tell you no god exists is because there is no possible way for me to rule out every possibility, I just don't have the kind of access I would need to make that assessment.

So at the end of the day what makes me an atheist is that I believe in critical thinking, which when used properly doesn't permit faith as a basis for anything. Critical thinking however, is not as religion.
It appears Jesus too used critical thinking but came to a different conclusion than you.

Did Jesus use critical thinking?
The Gospels present many examples of how Jesus used his critical thinking skills, often through story, to inspire and teach his listeners. He was a true intellect! His teaching, problem solving and mentoring skills consistently demonstrated outside-the-box, fascinating and forward-thinking strategies.