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:
    27,595
    Likes Received:
    2,120
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    453
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    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
    Mr_Truth, DennisTate and Derideo_Te like this.
  4. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,959
    Likes Received:
    487
    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"..:)
     
    usfan and DennisTate like this.
  5. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    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?
     
    Mr_Truth, MegadethFan and DennisTate like this.
  6. BlackGuy

    BlackGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    2
    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
    usfan and DennisTate like this.
  7. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    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.


     
    Sunsettommy and DennisTate like this.
  8. mirimark1

    mirimark1 Active Member

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

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    usfan and DennisTate like this.
  10. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    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.
     
    Mr_Truth, DennisTate and Derideo_Te like this.
  11. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    usfan and DennisTate like this.
  12. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    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:
    7,135
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    it's just me likes this.
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,716
    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.
     
    Mr_Truth and DennisTate like this.
  16. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,716
    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?
     
    highntight, Mr_Truth and Diablo like this.
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are an atheist who has "proof" that god exists? :eek:

    Please provide this "proof" of yours.

    TYIA
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  18. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes, very strange but flattering nonetheless, lol.
     
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    129,101
    Likes Received:
    28,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you prove a negative.
     
  20. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    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:

     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  21. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hmm,.. who did that?

    Appeal to ignorance and wishful thinking. Your fallacies. You're welcome.

    Me saying I don't believe in supernatural stuff is just me stating my opinion. If that required proof there sure wouldn't be much to read here. And get it straight - I lack belief in any god or gods. I do not "believe in" a lack of god or gods. I've been provided no reason to believe there are any. None of this "proof" you arrogantly claim to have while providing none.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  22. xwsmithx

    xwsmithx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,964
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My proof is 46 pages long. I can provide it to you by e-mail if you wish. Proof that God, at least as we in the West think of God, cannot exist, through rational thought and logical inferences based on the fact that we're here to think about it. I cannot rule out a God that is a vastly powerful but limited and imperfect being, but I would call that an alien and not God.

    My point is that because you have nothing to offer to support your contention that God does not exist other than your pointing to "reason" and "lack of evidence" means that your contention is as much faith-based as the most devout believer in God, because they use the exact same terms to support their contention that God does exist, reason and evidence. What you see as lack of evidence they see as evidence and what you see as irrationality they see as reason, and vice-versa. If you have nothing more to go on than that, you don't really have a case.

    Suppose you're the defense attorney in a murder case. Your client has been accused of murdering someone. Rather than claiming he didn't do it, your case is that the murder victim doesn't exist. How are you going to prove your case? Can you fold your arms and point to reason and lack of evidence? Hardly. Your client will be found guilty in about five minutes. You'll have to prove that the murder victim never existed. Proving a negative is indeed a tough case to prove, but it can be done. You just haven't done it yet. From what I have seen, most anti-theists aren't up to the task, either. (Can you hear me, Seth MacFarlane?)
     
  23. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    47,621
    Likes Received:
    39,716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You really didn't do your own case the slightest bit of good with your ludicrous analogy about being convicted of murder when there was no victim! :eek: What jury, assuming that they are already not biased against the accused for some other spurious prejudice, is going to convict anyone of "murder" when there is no victim, no motive and no way to determine even when or how the missing victim was allegedly killed.

    "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, sitting at the defense table is the accused who is fallaciously alleged to have murdered victim X at some time or other in some undetermined manner at some place that has never been located. The prosecution expects you to find the accused guilty even though there is no actual evidence tying the accused to the crime scene that does not actually exist. You are supposed to ignore the alibi for the accused because this alleged crime might have happened at some time when the accused did not have an alibi even though no one knows when the alleged crime actually happened or even if it actually did happen at all. That the prosecution cannot provide a single shred of evidence as to how the accused committed the alleged crime must be overlooked because the victim disappeared either before or after the time the alleged crime might or might not have occurred. The prosecution can't even provide a motive for a crime that never happened to a victim that does not exist in a place that can't be found and at a time that no one knows!"

    That the prosecution was incompetent enough to even bring this case to trial is ludicrous. That the judge never threw it out for lack of evidence is incredible. That it wasn't dismissed as soon as the prosecution failed to produce any evidence whatsoever would be a miscarriage of justice. If the jury was bribed to find my client guilty, because they could not do so for any other reason given the lack of evidence, it would be overturned on appeal.

    With all of the above it is patently obvious that your intention was to claim that victim X is supposed to be "god".

    However a 1st year law student would be able to tear apart the prosecution's complete and utter lack of any shred of evidence and obtain an acquittal on all charges.

    One does not need a 46 page dissertation to work through the logic and reasoning of a complete lack of any evidence whatsoever. The ONLY issue that needs to be addressed is the agnostic "we don't know either way" plea for the remote possibility that Pascal's Wager might be correct. The problem with that fallacy is that it is a false equivalence and assumes a 50-50 probability. The actually mathematical probablity of a deity existing is so remote that it might as well be zero for all practical purposes.

    To summarize;

    The superstition of an omnipotent creator is a man made invention to explain what was not known at the time.

    An omnipotent creator is a logical paradox!

    The complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for an omnipotent creator is compelling.

    The probability for the existence of an omnipotent creator is effectively zero,

    When all that is known and unknown is pulled together a reasonable person can logically deduce that there is no omnipotent creator.

    Fini!
     
    Mr_Truth and Grumblenuts like this.
  24. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sure, I'd like to read it.

    This is a strawman and the error you insist upon repeating. Once again, I claim only non-belief and speak for myself as an atheist, not proselytizer. Your "contention" is not mine. That is not logically debatable.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  25. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Agree in that believers also tend to think they are being reasonable/rational/evidence based. Only, in my experience anyway, they'll also insist you suspend disbelief, offer "the Bible" or recite passages from one as their "evidence", urge you to simply have "faith", call you "damned" and threaten you with going to hell if you refuse. I don't.
     
    Mr_Truth and Derideo_Te like this.

Share This Page