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

Author: Mall

Posts

Total: 309
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Mall
That's right, agnostics are more rational based not swaying to either side of a belief.
Now given what we've said, and both of us answering no to the same question, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Let me repeat what can be argued using your own logic process so far.

*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.


Are you going to actually respond to this?
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.


Are you going to actually respond to this?
agnostic vs. atheist
There is a key distinction between these terms. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrineAgnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
The word agnostic was coined by biologist T.H. Huxley and comes from the Greek ágnōstos, which means “unknown or unknowable.” The doctrine is known as agnosticism.
Both atheist and agnostic can also be used as adjectives. The adjective atheistic is also used. And the word agnostic can also be used in a more general way outside the context of religion to describe stances that do not adhere to either side of an opinion, argument, etc.
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Shila
Tell you what? I'll help you out. You can see in more detail what think about Agnosticism (and Atheism) under https://www.debateart.com/debates/5789-atheists-that-believe-no-god-exists-due-to-no-evidence-known-is-a-weak-basis at Agnostic vs Atheist (And to some extent the nearby ones Types of Atheists and Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite)

I already went through the definitional argument with Mall, at length. Now, right now, right this moment, I am using his own logic against him so as to challenge the very premise of his false dichotomy. The logic he uses to arrive at "While atheists disbelieve, agnostics actually don't." can also be used to arrive at "While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't." which contradicts his usage of Agnostic and Atheist as exclusive terms. Yeah, I can use other arguments, but right now I am electing to focus on this.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Hero1000
Tell you what? I'll help you out. You can see in more detail what think about Agnosticism (and Atheism) under https://www.debateart.com/debates/5789-atheists-that-believe-no-god-exists-due-to-no-evidence-known-is-a-weak-basis at Agnostic vs Atheist (And to some extent the nearby ones Types of Atheists and Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite)

I already went through the definitional argument with Mall, at length. Now, right now, right this moment, I am using his own logic against him so as to challenge the very premise of his false dichotomy. The logic he uses to arrive at "While atheists disbelieve, agnostics actually don't." can also be used to arrive at "While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't." which contradicts his usage of Agnostic and Atheist as exclusive terms. Yeah, I can use other arguments, but right now I am electing to focus on this.
You are caught in a circular reasoning with Mall. Both your positions defy the definition of Atheist and Agnostic. There are Atheists and Agnostics coexisting.
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Shila
Clearly you haven't read the debate I linked, in there I also argue that Atheist and Agnostic are coexisting terms.

I think you're making a misunderstanding here. Just because I am using Mall's own logic against him during this particular exchange doesn't mean that I myself am adopting it.

Edit: I get that the debate is long and there's a lot to read, but that's why I provided bullet point titles. For example with Agnostic vs Atheist you can just ctrl+f Agnostic vs Atheist to skip right to the area of the debate I am referencing.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@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 .

Well you appear to have completely lost track of your own thread.  I am not questioning you about Jesus and the OT. 

I have been challenging you on your confusing statement concerning   "false biblical contradictions that are not true", so let us stick with those.


A false contradiction would be a contradiction not true.
So wrap your head around  these two questions for us if you can.

Are these biblical comments true or false? 

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?


Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
That is right.
Do you disagree?
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Hero1000
Agnostics are not swaying to either side of a belief as they move on evidence only. The more evidence oriented, the more logic as the two spring from one another. That's how you get that conclusion.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
With what?
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,938
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
I don't know.
Hero1000
Hero1000's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 46
0
1
4
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
0
1
4
-->
@Mall
Agnostics are not swaying to either side of a belief as they move on evidence only. The more evidence oriented, the more logic as the two spring from one another. That's how you get that conclusion.
Does this classification of agnostic not contradict how your (false) dichotomy classifies the atheist as someone with a swayed position though? You used:

Atheists believe there is God.(False)
Atheists believe there is no God.
In order to argue that, as a result of my "No" answer. "Atheists believe there is no God." must be true, and therefor as a consequence atheists have a belief system. They 'believe' that there is no God.

However, in response to your same "No" answer, I can use the same argument:

Agnostics believe there is God.(False)
Agnostics believe there is no God.
In order to argue that, "Agnostics believe there is no God." must be a true statement, and therefor agnostics have a belief system. They 'believe' that there is no God. Not in a "not swaying to either side of a belief" position.

As things stand currently, to what I am aware of, you'd have to either stick to your original dichotomy and concede that "Agnostics believe there is no God." is a true statement, thus contradicting your classification of agnostic. Or, you'd have to create a third statement/option for the agnostics (for example: "Agnostics neither believe there is God, nor believe there is no God."), but thus undermining your dichotomy and allowing me to give the same response for the atheist based on our exchanges thus far.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
Are these biblical comments true or false? 

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?

I don't know.

They are all  biblical statements that contradict  one another.


Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
So wrap your head around  these two questions for us if you can.

Are these biblical comments true or false? 

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?
Matthew 26:48-54 
Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him. Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

Mark 16:8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Took a few seconds to find the verses.



Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
That is right.
Do you disagree?
With what?
With the post you responded to...

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.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,061
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
No empirical evidence for a creator of eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe/God. All else is fantasy land belief or faith.  

More than 5 regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra cannot ever exist anywhere anywhen.

God = finite, occupied space Universe.   Simple not that complex to grasp by logical, common sense critical thinking humans

However, if we want to also include the two other catagories of Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline, then we put the word God in italics because of Meta-space.

God = 1 } the eternally existent, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego--- ex humans who conceptually place their conceptual self outside of conceptually finite Universe as if they exist are a conceptual God looking back in a that finite Universe, held in its conceptual his/her/their hands,

2} the eternally existent, macro-infinite truly non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,

3} the eternally dynamic { in motion } --aka the only perpetual motion machine---  finite, occupied space Universe, and then begins its three primary subcatagories 
....Gravity (  )....reality ^v^v....Dark Energy )( ergo a gross generalization as > ..........space.............( ^v^v)(^v^v)..........space....... simplistic concept

Some might say its is 3's all way the down { subcatagories } --instead of turtles--- and that is certainly true with the following fermionic matte subcatagory of observed   -reality-  time;

3 particle 3 anti-particle --electron family aka symmetry of physics

3 particle and 3 anti-particle --- neutrino family aka symmetry of phyics

6 quarks and 6 anti-quarks ---"  The six quark types are named "up," "down," "charm," "strange," "top," and "bottom. " aka symmetry of physics

And that above is a set of three of in-of-itself also.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ etc
Then there are the bosoninc force particles;

Weak interaction force is W-, W+ and Z naught { 0 } and their three anti-particles total 6

Gluons { bosonic strong force } that binds quark together are mathematically potentially nine { 3 - 3 - 3 and 3 - 3 - 3  anti-particle }  and for some reason beyond my grasp, only 8 gluons are manifest.  And of course the 8 anti-particle gluons.

Mesonic force is weird as it is are two matter quarks being exchanged between the three quark heavy particles like proton and neutron

This leaves us with the odd-ball out of the above set of three --tho Mesons are odd-ball out also-- the Electro-magnetic { photons bosons } is a two-some not a trinary three-some. Photons considered non-charged particles and are their own anti-particle and primarily interact with electrons and 2ndarily with any charged particle.

I would love to find a third property of the photon so as it fits into a trinary subcatagory. Perhaps none exist.

However, I believe the electron is associated with 3 great circles/tori of the 4-fold octahedron and the photon the 10 great circles/tori of the 5-fold icosahedron LINK

The primary interaction of the 3 of the photons 10 tore { fields } possible  with the electron { 3  perpendiculars  tori { fields } }

These tori as fields I believe I have discovered the fundamental static ---ergo abstract--- patterns of these dynamic fields, interacting with each other in specific geometry based toriodal patterns. In following it is important to remember that we do not quantise nor quantify the outer surface, ultra-micro, Gravity events, nor the inner surface, ultra-micro, Dark Energy events ergo basically directly invisible to us, ergo these two exist on indirect evidence ergo somewhat similar to religious God as a creator of finite Universe. No direct empirical evidence.

..1.........5p...7p..........11p..13p........17p................outer surface of ultra-micro set of Gravitational events
-
0................6...................12...................18 etc......inside the body of tube as fields of Observed-reality-Time { OT }
........3p...............9......................15.......................inside the body of tube as fields of Observed-reality-Time { OT }
-
.....2p...4...........8...10..............14..16.....................inner surface of ultra-micro set of Dark Energy events
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@ebuc
No empirical evidence for a creator of eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe/God. All else is fantasy land belief or faith.   

More than 5 regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra cannot ever exist anywhere anywhen.

God = finite, occupied space Universe.   Simple not that complex to grasp by logical, common sense critical thinking humans

However, if we want to also include the two other catagories of Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline, then we put the word God in italics because of Meta-space.

God = 1 } the eternally existent, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego--- ex humans who conceptually place their conceptual self outside of conceptually finite Universe as if they exist are a conceptual God looking back in a that finite Universe, held in its conceptual his/her/their hands

2} the eternally existent, macro-infinite truly non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,

3} the eternally dynamic { in motion } --aka the only perpetual motion machine---  finite, occupied spaceUniverse, and then begins its three primary subcatagories 
....Gravity (  )....reality ^v^v....Dark Energy )( ergo a gross generalization as > ..........space.............( ^v^v)(^v^v)..........space....... simplistic concept

Some might say its is 3's all way the down { subcatagories } --instead of turtles--- and that is certainly true with the following fermionic matte subcatagory of observed   -reality-  time;

3 particle 3 anti-particle --electron family aka symmetry of physics

3 particle and 3 anti-particle --- neutrino family aka symmetry of phyics

6 quarks and 6 anti-quarks ---"  The six quark types are named "up," "down," "charm," "strange," "top," and "bottom. " aka symmetry of physics

Mathematical  logic to prove the existence of God. Take a look at these 12 steps made up of a set of axioms (Ax), theorems (Th) and definitions (Df).

Ах. 1. ((с) л 0Vх(ч(x)→(x)))→ P(4)
Ax. 2. P(-) # -P(p)
Th. 1. P(v) → D 3x4(x)
Df. 1. G(x) # Vp(P(p) → 4(x))
Ax. 3. P(G)
Th. 2. 7x G(x)
Df. 2. C ess X # (X)1VY(Y(x)→DVy(Y(y)→ 4(y)))
Ax. 4. P(Ф) → OP(p)
Th. 3. G(x) → G ess x
Df. 3.
E(x) # Vo(p ess x → D Zyy(y))
Ax. 5. P(E)
Th. 4. D3x G(x)



FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,783
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW

God cannot exist in a negative environment according to the video you posted. So God has to be a positive property. But the argument presented does not define positive property. So we are in a circular logic. But the outcome is positive because God is antithetical to a negative environment 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,783
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Hmmm, let me see who I believe in?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Hmmm, let me see who I believe in?
You are an atheist.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,783
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

Hello, I'm Lucifer Morningstar!
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Hello, I'm Lucifer Morningstar!
Are you still in retirement?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,783
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

No, I work in a male strip club now.  B.K, zedvictor4 and ebuc work there too.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
No, I work in a male strip club now.  B.K, zedvictor4 and ebuc work there too.
You three must compare more than religion?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,783
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

Tru-dat!
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Tru-dat!
How do you rank them along with yourself?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,783
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

Hey, this isn't a porn site!
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,783
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
@Best.Korea

I just changed my pfp to the four of us on stage.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,017
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Yes!
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,903
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
No, I work in a male strip club now.  B.K, zedvictor4 and ebuc work there too.

Hey, this isn't a porn site!
Then why are you posing seminude and advertising you are a stripper along with 2 other members..