Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 08:21 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(06-09-2016 08:15 AM)xear Wrote:  When it is pointed out atheists have no proof either usually the argument is some form of "we don't need proof, you do."

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. In other words, you. Do you have any? If not, STFU.


Atheists are making the claim that something [life] came from nothing. Simply prove that, it's all I ask.





.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 08:35 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 08:30 AM)xear Wrote:  
(06-09-2016 08:21 AM)Banjo Wrote:  The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. In other words, you. Do you have any? If not, STFU.


Atheists are making the claim that something [life] came from nothing. Simply prove that, it's all I ask.


We make no claim. We ask for proof.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
As for the idea of "nothing". There is an entire universe out there. I'd hardly call it nothing.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 08:15 AM)xear Wrote:  You are kind of making it sound like, "of course we are frustrated since we are right and theists are making wild crazy claims they can't prove, not us."

When it is pointed out atheists have no proof either usually the argument is some form of "we don't need proof, you do."

You may note that Albert Einstein, someone not generally thought to be a complete idiot not only believed in god but was a pantheist, the polar opposite of atheism.

Nope. That's not what I'm making it "sound like" at all. That's how you're reading it in order to confirm your biases.

As has been pointed out to you, you completely fail to understand the concept of the burden of proof. We have met our burden of proof for the claim that we are making. You are making an additional claim, and trying to say both might be true (you're not arguing with our proposition, in other words; you're saying that there's also something else). We are simply stating that this additional element is not demonstrated, despite all the mythologies that make claims to this effect.

100% of the evidence so far is that the thing we call consciousness is a product of the neural network we call a brain. Period, full stop, end of sentence. We don't need to demonstrate this because it is already well-established by a massive volume of evidence.

If you are going to forward an additional postulate, namely that there is some extraneous other thing to our consciousness (which you label a "soul", or whatever), then the burden is upon you to demonstrate that such is even possible, let alone probable, as I stated before.

Finally, while Einstein was indeed a pantheist, I don't think you quite grasp what that means. It's not the same thing as a deist, and it certainly doesn't mean that he believed in the supernatural in the sense that you're employing it.

[Image: albert-einstein-368179.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
06-09-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

(06-09-2016 08:15 AM)xear Wrote:  You are kind of making it sound like, "of course we are frustrated since we are right and theists are making wild crazy claims they can't prove, not us."

But you are the one making and posting the wild, outlandish claims. The site you've linked too even throws 'Quantum mechanics' into the mix of 'Woo' it's peddling/promoting.

You say you only have 'Beliefs' then try and paint the other side with the same brush. This after it being pointed out that such a tactic is.... poor/wrong.

Quote:When it is pointed out atheists have no proof either usually the argument is some form of "we don't need proof, you do."

And this is correct. See above and previous posters for the 'Whys and wherefores' about such.

Quote: You may note that Albert Einstein, someone not generally thought to be a complete idiot not only believed in god but was a pantheist, the polar opposite of atheism.

No, really? So what? A Physicist talking about philosophy is as valid as some blue collar worker as myself talking about orbital mechanics.

As in none at all.

You keep making your claims as if life can some how be able to push clouds around...... or just 'Make things happen' simply by being alive.

I mean, really, if life creates reality..... who or what are all the bright sparks that keep setting off the volcanoes and earth quakes?

You make the claims, you back them up against the criticism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
06-09-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
[Image: 508d5395f6f6dd119bf3649e153fdddf.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 08:47 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
I guess Voltaire never visited the Middle East. Undecided

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
06-09-2016, 08:48 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 08:47 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I guess Voltaire never visited the Middle East. Undecided

Islam was fine until the Mongol invasions.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 08:50 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

(06-09-2016 08:30 AM)xear Wrote:  Atheists are making the claim that something [life] came from nothing. Simply prove that, it's all I ask.

No my dear Xear,

We Non-theists are not making such a claim.

The point of view of most non religious folks is there is a lack of proof/evidence about those claims made by the deity followers.

Upon matters of biology and life sciences and about Abiogenesis I hope Mathilda will be along shortly to give you a better idea on the state of play in that field.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 08:59 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
You know, I consider myself to be religious (only) in the same sense as Einstein, in that quote, above, though I wouldn't call myself a pantheist as I don't think the universe has anything even resembling a consciousness or a will. But I love the way he put it... it escapes most people what he's actually saying there.

I love that he said "unbounded", and not "boundless", which would have almost meant the same thing. The difference is more than a subtle one, to a physicist or mathematician.

"Unbounded" is a mathematical term meaning "from negative infinity to positive infinity", a function that ranges across all real numbers. To say that his admiration was unbounded is to say it is infinite, in mathematical terms, and not only infinite but consisting of all the numbers on the scale from infinity to infinity.

I consider that answer to be so poetic as to move me deeply. In that sense, and that sense alone, I am deeply, deeply religious, with an awe and love of the entirety of the universe.

I find it so ironic that people with pet mythologies (of myriad variation) try to insist that scientists won't even consider their ideas. To a scientist, the notion of adding a new finding, a new force, a new substance, or a new fact to our understanding of the universe is the most important thing we can do. So when a new idea is proposed, and it is rejected by science, it's much worse than sour grapes to say that scientists have rejected it because of their biases; it's slander against the entire field of science, including the hundreds of thousands of scientists who are believers in the various religions.

To say to us, as atheists, that we should consider an idea without evidence and without even the slightest demonstration that these claims are real, and that if we do not then we are just biased against your pet idea, is the same sort of slander.

And yet they have the balls to take umbrage when we express our outrage at such slander.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: