Atheist vs Theist

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by DennisTate, Mar 22, 2017.

  1. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    15,423
    Likes Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am convinced that an intelligence that could meet the general
    description of "God" has indeed evolved in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy, over something like eternity in the past.

    In chapter 13 of Stephen Hawking's Universe, Dr. Hawking explains The Anthropic Principle and an Atheistic variation on the Cyclic Model of the Universe. From what I have read of String Theory fundamental or nearly fundamental energy exists in primarily two forms, Super Strings and Super Waves.

    The behavior patterns of these Strings and Waves seem to correspond well even with male vs female thought and behavior patterns.

    Stephen Hawking Ph. D. in that chapter, postulates infinite time in the past for whatever types of energy existed before the latest major Big Bang event to move around, expand..... and eventually collapse.

    If Stephen Hawking Ph. D. thinks that fundamental energy existed from something resembling almost infinite time in the past, then why would not the first instance of "I think therefore I AM" perhaps eventually lead to the existence of a Being of Godlike Technological capability who could well design an afterlife, that may resemble hologram technology of the future?
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2017
    modernpaladin likes this.
  2. YourBrainIsGod

    YourBrainIsGod Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    28
    With the chaotic nature of the universe I'm more inclined to believe in something like Azathoth than intelligent design.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  3. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Pretty sure multiple general descriptions of "God" exist, so given an inclination to pick just one, equate it to "an intelligence that could" do whatever, and so forth,... seems to me one should at least begin by clarifying their use of such terms. I come away feeling a profound lack of information needed to evaluate "Atheist vs Theist" as suggested by the title. So.. Questions:

    How do you "generally" define "God"?
    Do you feel this definition is fair and acceptable to Theists and Atheists alike?
    Do you feel this is the definition of "God" most people use?
    Do you wish for "intelligent design" to exist, and if so why?
    Do you wish suggestions of correlation to be convincing evidence of causation?
    Do you wish for "an afterlife", and if so why?

    How is this "Atheist vs Theist"? How about "Steven Hawking is God"? ;)
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
    DennisTate and Derideo_Te like this.
  4. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,959
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Thread title- Atheist vs Theist
    ------------------------------------------

    The debate has been stalemated for centuries, because Atheists say "I can't see God, therefore he doesn't exist",
    but Theists say- "The universe and everything in it is proof he exists"..:)
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  5. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This one doesn't and I've yet to see any actual debate. There would be no debate even if one claiming to see or otherwise experience "God" actually provided some credible, scientific, testable, repeatable evidence for once. Theists only wish there was something to debate and agnostics are simply atheists with no balls.

    She. If you're going to argue appearances, women's looks are superior, no?
     
    MegadethFan and DennisTate like this.
  6. BlackGuy

    BlackGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    6
    You claim that agnostics are "atheist with no balls", but have you considered our argument? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, which is the claim that agnostics are making. The existence of God has not be proven, nor dis-proven. Therefore, it is an unknown. Yes, agnostics do lean towards the non-existence of God, but we recognize that we are making a judgement based on probability, and not absolute fact. This is the most logical position.

    Atheist believe that proving the non-existence of God is not necessary, but are they not making a claim just as the theist? Their claim is that God does not exist. That requires just as much proof as the claim that God does exist. Otherwise, there remains a probability of being wrong.

    The theist position is that God exist unless you show evidence that he doesn't.

    The atheist position is that God doesn't exist unless you show evidence that he does.

    The agnostic position is that it is unknown until there is irrefutable scientific evidence to support existence or non-existence.

    Note: I do not want everyone to be agnostic, because Atheism is necessary to counter-balance Theism. Without Atheism, Theism is unchallenged. Agnosticism is too luke-warm to carry out that function -- which is much needed.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017
    DennisTate likes this.
  7. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Of course. Atheists as well.
    For everyone. Still no debate.
    You are confused. An atheist's only claim is non-belief.
    You are too kind. That would be refreshing. No, the theist makes a claim, thus bears the burden of proof, then simply offers miraculous stories and faith instead.

    Faith: Actual evidence be damned.
    Reason: That's circular (fallacious) reasoning.
    Faith: Reason be damned.
    Reason: Childish much?
    Nah, you probably have some balls but remain nonetheless confused. "Without Atheism, Theism is unchallenged." Correct. Let your balls breathe.


     
    DennisTate likes this.
  8. mirimark1

    mirimark1 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2017
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    28
  9. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I'm an atheist, former theist, and I have convinced myself that God does not exist. However, I agree with blackguy here, I've never yet seen an atheist present any proof that God does not exist, never mind convincing proof. Saying that believers bear the burden of proof is begging the question. Note that in logic, not A implies B is the same as A implies not B, so saying disbeliever in God is the same as saying believer in no God. Atheists are believers just as much as theists are unless they have evidence, proof. Theists at least have evidence, proof, sufficient to convince them. That it doesn't convince you is neither here nor there.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  10. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Okay, there's an Easter Bunny. No, there really is. Seriously. And a Tooth Fairy. Because you have presented no evidence supporting your claim not to believe in either. Right. Got it.
     
    DennisTate and Derideo_Te like this.
  11. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Why do anti-theists, and that's what you are, insist on comparing God to the tooth fairy? We can show the tooth fairy isn't real by showing that it's your parents who substituted the quarter for the tooth. Now show that God isn't real by showing that random chance produced the first living cell, complete with DNA.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  12. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why call people names? This seems a thoughtful description:

    Note, however, that this is premised in another's "beliefs" that "will likely" lead to acts. It demands only that thought police read our minds. Like that notion? Being a thought crime detector? I obviously didn't care whether the comparison was to the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. And, sorry, no you can't

    My parents are long dead and didn't do that crap anyway. The tooth fairy is a fantasy figure of early childhood. Just as "Gods" have been for me. That's how long I've been an atheist. Since early childhood. Stories of supernatural forces and beings don't appeal to me other than in art presenting itself as nothing more.

    Why so bossy? Do I make you angry? Your demand is not my problem. I don't believe in "God" or Gods to begin with, so what difference would it make? Far as DNA goes, you seem to have fallen behind on your talking points:

     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I will make this point for the Atheists god may exist or not exist, or deities plural might exist or might not exist however its the divine who must prove they exist to us and then explain what they want and what they will do for us in return for doing what they want. If they sit out there and do nothing then why should we as humans bother with them at all and they might as well not exist, so why not act with the same indifference they seem to give us.

    So the Atheist position stands if you want us to believe we need serious evidence and proof that such beings exist, that will make use reconsider things. I don't see any evidence.
     
  14. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    43
    You make me angry because you dismiss other people's claims with false equivalencies and strawman arguments. You take your beliefs as the standard by which to measure other people, but refuse to allow other people to do the same. I call you the name that fits, which by your own admission isn't wrong. But I will repeat one more time, I'm an atheist myself, but I have proof. You have none. You are a believer in no god, with zero evidence, zero support, zero rational argument, just a condescending, infuriating attitude toward those who believe in a god or gods. Well, let me enlighten you: You aren't any smarter, wiser, or better than those who believe. Not in the slightest.
     
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,414
    Likes Received:
    11,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Atheists do not all have a single position. Some, as you allege above, do state categorically that god does not exist but that is by no means the one and only position. Others take the approach that there is no evidence for any "creator" therefore logically and rationally none exists. Then there are some, like myself, who are what are called "spiritual atheists". Logically and rationally there is no god but there is evidence for our spirituality since it can be measured as a deep meditative state of mind. This same mental state exists in other mammals so it is not unique to mankind at all. It is some kind of trait that theists have nefariously co-opted but it is not "evidence" of the existence of a deity of any sort. Instead it is something that science will eventually understand and explain.

    When agnostics claim that atheists "believe" that there is no god just as theists "believe" that there is god that is an utterly false equivalence. The position of theists is one based entirely upon their faith whereas the position of atheists is based upon logically evaluating the complete and utter lack of evidence of any deity and reaching a rational conclusion. Those positions are NOT even remotely similar.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  16. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,414
    Likes Received:
    11,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again you are relying upon an absence of evidence as evidence for your imaginary deity.

    The scientific answer to the origin of life is "we don't know" and not "goddidit".

    Science is getting a whole lot closer to the answer having created proteins and RNA in the laboratory already.

    http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

    In essence Science is almost there so just give them a little more time, m'kay?
     
    Diablo likes this.
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,414
    Likes Received:
    11,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are an atheist who has "proof" that god exists? :eek:

    Please provide this "proof" of yours.

    TYIA
     
  18. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes, very strange but flattering nonetheless, lol.
     
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    66,255
    Likes Received:
    1,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you prove a negative.
     
  20. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Negatives can be proven in some circumstances. For example, Joe says there are more green than blue gumballs in a machine. Jane claims there are not. All that's required for Jane to prove her negative assertion is for them to count equal or fewer green balls. Notice this logic could only apply where countable physical evidence were clear and present. In other words, it requires having something tangible for comparison to a claimed lack of something. Not at all the situation at hand.

    His other self seems to have this to say about that:

     

Share This Page