Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
I usually go with the following.

"I look around my room and find no god, therefore god does not exist." And then I had the question back to the theist for revision. It is up to the theist to tell me where I must look to find a god as well as what that god will look like.

Of course, you could "cheat" and invoke Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law and stop them in their tracks that way. If they can detect God by any means, that removes God from the supernatural and places him squarely into the natural realm. Which in turn makes him part of the Third Law and no longer a god.

Si aliquis non persuadeo, te scribere coerceat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
(19-06-2014 12:46 AM)f stop Wrote:  Has anyone heard the following argument before?

Dozens of times. We have an asshole trolling this very forum right now who has pandered it several times.


Quote: It doesn't sound like original thinking on the theist's part and I'm thinking he got it out of a book or something.

Of course the second paragraph can be immediately dismissed as an ad hominem attack.

It's not original at all.


Quote:You claim: There is no God.


The thing is, we don't *have* to make such a claim. What the person is doing is a) strawmanning the atheist position and b) attempting to shift the burden of proof away from himself and onto you.


Quote: But unless you are God and have infinite knowledge of all things, then your philosophy is self-defeating because it presupposes such knowledge -- that you -- a finite and fallible human being -- have in fact searched the entire universe for Him and have infinitely exhausted all means of finding him. Stated differently: Unless you are something much more than human and are God and have this kind of infinite knowledge, you cannot possibly know God doesn't exist. But on the other hand, if you insist that you personally have such knowledge, then your claim presupposes you possess infinite knowledge of all things in the universe, which would implicitly make YOU the very thing that you deny exists -- in which case your philosophy is self-defeating in nature because it is inherently contradictory! And this, sir, makes it a lie because you, implicitly being God, cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense!.


That's all just the writer's failing attempt at "singing the Bull to sleep".


Quote:Atheism, above all other philosophies,

Atheism is NOT a philosophy.


Quote: is the most absurd of all human philosophies.

....because some drooling idiot on the Internetz says so? The writer is hardly convincing.


Quote: Since you are unable to conclusively prove the negative statement, your only other avenue of hope would be to prove [positively] that you have infinite knowledge of all things in the universe. Then, and only then, would anyone with a half a brain begin to take your philosophy seriously.

Again, the writer is attempting to shift the burden of proof, but has no idea of the predicament he is putting himself into by doing so. He ADMITS that his deity cannot be seen, and the more we discover about the universe, the more significant the absence of this deity becomes. It gets smaller and smaller and further and further away as we expand the boundaries of our knowledge in every arena. He is running out of places to hide it, to claim that it's somewhere that we just haven't looked. And with each step in his evolving story, his deity becomes more and more insignificant.

The "You can't prove it isn't!" argument is an act of pure desperation.


[Image: god-power-vs-time.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
28-06-2014, 01:20 AM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
Use this on him/her.
Atheism does not say, there is no such thing as god. That is up the the individual and their beliefs can be that of Atheism.

Atheism is the denial of all religions. YOU my friend are making the statement that you HAVE indeed searched every inch of the universe and you DO have infinite knowledge to be able to make the claim that your god exists. Yet, you share not any tangible proof that would Not only instantly convert 100% of the entire world instantly and permanently. You do not have a single Iota of proof that could prove any part of your religion or that your god exists to anyone.

It is not our job to prove that God does not exist. It is not our duty to search the universe. Science does NOT do that, never HAS done that, and never WILL do that. To argue this is irrefutable fact is an argument out of Ignorance and Blasphemy which you most certainly will do or are doing in your own mind right now.

The Burden of proof lies with the claim maker. When you make a positive claim. You need to prove it buy giving people their definition of what they view proof as to them. So far, you have offered nothing to the vast majority of us; other than trying to use appealing to Emotion when you mention them being parents, and using sunsets and logical fallacies, thinking that is proof enough to anyone with an I.Q higher than 5.

I am making the claim that until you prove your god or any other god for that matter exists. I do not believe in them and to me, They do not exist. It is as simple as that.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2014, 05:58 AM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
(19-06-2014 12:46 AM)f stop Wrote:  Has anyone heard the following argument before? It doesn't sound like original thinking on the theist's part and I'm thinking he got it out of a book or something.

Of course the second paragraph can be immediately dismissed as an ad hominem attack.

Quote:[…]

Why don't you answer with his same line of reasoning?
Like:
I was just joking. I do believe that God exists. Of course! He MUST exist, since he was created by the ultra-evil HyperDevil himself! What?! You don't believe the ultra-evil HyperDevil, creator of God, exists?! How arrogant of you! Have you searched through all of the Universe with every possible means? No? Then you don't know. Any half-witted idiot would see there is no reason not to believe in the ultra-evil HyperDevil.

(Side note: I find this kind of counterargument more effective than a harmless orbiting teapot or the like. He might just say "We don't know, there might be a teapot, how can you rule that out?" but he won't say that with the archdevil, I guess…)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Plic's post
30-06-2014, 06:22 AM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
Welcome to our little corner of the interwebz, Plic.

I'm liking your ideas already.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 03:18 AM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
In response to the quote in OP:

Whoever wrote that has failed to specify the defining criteria for a God.

For example, if he belives in directed panspermia then he is saying that because an alien being planted the seeds of life on Earth that means they are a 'god' by default. He would be choosing to worship a being simply because he perceives it to be smarter and more advanced than we are, or at least have an ability we do not.

Therefore by criteria such as those, there are NBA players who are gods and scientists too are gods. Clearly the whole thing is prepesterous because I've never heard a theist, who is stretching this much, lay out the conditions that must fit in order for a being to be considered a 'god'.

If i can juggle and he cannot then I am his god. Hmm....

The point with God and the reason we, as atheists, argue this point is because we are specifically addressing the Gods of earthly religious texts such as the Bible. If he wants to say that life was started on Earth by an intelligent being or group of beings then that may be so but why then does that make them the God of the Bible? Or a god at all.

We went to the moon and if the conditions were right for life up there we could return and throw some 'building blocks' down there and who knows - in a few billion years perhaps life will emerge. Would that make us Gods? Should they worship us? And if they have a text similar to the Bible up there then surely our status as gods would be in contrast with the God they've been following from that book.

The Bible says we should not worship any other god but him, so all we need to do is refute the existence of Jehovah and not the (entriely plausible) theory of directed panspermia.

If there is a theist reading this by any chance please do us the favour of defining what determines whether something is a god or not? We need the criteria.

Smile

** Jingo Planet **
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 06:04 AM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
(01-07-2014 03:18 AM)barcelonic Wrote:  If there is a theist reading this by any chance please do us the favour of defining what determines whether something is a god or not? We need the criteria.
I'd expect you'd get a response that was something like, the god of the Bible says it's a god, and the Bible is right because God says it is, therefore the god of the Bible is God.
Wink

[Image: ae1n9c.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
01-07-2014, 07:43 AM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
(19-06-2014 12:46 AM)f stop Wrote:  Has anyone heard the following argument before? It doesn't sound like original thinking on the theist's part and I'm thinking he got it out of a book or something.

Of course the second paragraph can be immediately dismissed as an ad hominem attack.

Quote:You claim: There is no God. But unless you are God and have infinite knowledge of all things, then your philosophy is self-defeating because it presupposes such knowledge -- that you -- a finite and fallible human being -- have in fact searched the entire universe for Him and have infinitely exhausted all means of finding him. Stated differently: Unless you are something much more than human and are God and have this kind of infinite knowledge, you cannot possibly know God doesn't exist. But on the other hand, if you insist that you personally have such knowledge, then your claim presupposes you possess infinite knowledge of all things in the universe, which would implicitly make YOU the very thing that you deny exists -- in which case your philosophy is self-defeating in nature because it is inherently contradictory! And this, sir, makes it a lie because you, implicitly being God, cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense!.

Atheism, above all other philosophies, is the most absurd of all human philosophies. Since you are unable to conclusively prove the negative statement, your only other avenue of hope would be to prove [positively] that you have infinite knowledge of all things in the universe. Then, and only then, would anyone with a half a brain begin to take your philosophy seriously.

Sounds desperate. If I was the person talking with this tool I would probably reply like this...

You cannot prove god exists, and I cannot prove god doesnt exist. (which god by the way? there are so many made up gods....)I also cannot prove bigfoot, or the loch ness monster, or purple unicorns, or fairies don't exist either, but that doesn't mean they do. Here let me give it to yoou from another perspective..

I posit Venus is hollow and full of little blue men with three legs. These little blue men control the weather on earth by sprinkling fairy dust into the Great Sky Cauldron and they ride purple unicorns around in a clockwise circle while chanting "Bunny bunny ho ho, bunny bunny ho!" Do you also believe in the little blue Venusians? If you can't prove they don't exist that means they must. You can search the whole universe trying to disprove my little blue venusians to no avail. Get the false logic? Here let me help you understand...

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion - A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

Faith IS the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god".

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This can not point one to the path of truth. Here are five points believers/non believers should be able to agree upon.

1) There are different faith traditions.
2) Different faith traditions make different truth claims.
3) The truth claims of some faith traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions. For example, Muslims believe muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after muhammad was a prophet.
4) It cannot both be the case that muhammad was the last prophet, and someone who lived after him was also a prophet.
5) Therefore: At LEAST one of these claims must be false....perhaps both....

it is impossible to figure out which of these claims is incorrect if the tool one uses is faith. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way.

Now I know you clutch faith like a 4 yo to a teddy bear, but realize that if it had evidence to support it, it wouldn't require faith, because it would just be fact. We can sit around and make up all sorts of BS fairy tales, then declare them the word, the will and the way, but without evidence, they are just delusional fairy tales...like yours..

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 09:31 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2014 09:38 AM by RogueWarrior.)
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
2 THINGS:

1.
(28-06-2014 01:20 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Atheism is the denial of all religions.

NO NO NO NO OH FUCK NO
You can't say that. There are atheistic religions FFS.
Atheism and religion are completely separate things. Please don't confuse the theists any more than they already are.


Atheism is a response to a specific claim made by all theists:

Theists all claim: There is a god!
Atheism's response: I don't believe you.

Some atheists will go further and say there are no gods, but that claim is on them to prove. (please note the distinction)

2.
(28-06-2014 01:20 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I am making the claim that until you prove your god or any other god for that matter exists. I do not believe in them and to me, They do not exist. It is as simple as that.
Non-belief is not making a claim at all. Non-belief is the null position versus any claim ever made in the history of mankind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RogueWarrior's post
01-07-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Another "How do you refute this argument?" question.
(30-06-2014 06:22 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Welcome to our little corner of the interwebz, Plic.

I'm liking your ideas already.

Thumbsup

Ha ha thanks DLJ!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: