Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2016, 09:07 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 08:50 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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

If there was never anything, no consciousness, no life, no being, no anything, then yes your philosophy would need no proof, no explanation.
The fact of the matter is there is something. There is consciousness, there is life, there is being. You cannot explain it and say you need no explanation because it will soon simply go back to non-existence and all will be right with the world. If anyone disagrees and simply points out that life is here ... you say ... prove it will stay here ... prove how it got here, prove we are wrong about it randomly appearing... we don't have to prove that. Why? Because we're right and you're wrong.

You see what happens? After I brought up Einstein immediately a strawman argument appeared about a personal god which I never suggested. I said he was a pantheist, it's well known. That is not atheism and could not be further from atheism.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 09:28 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 08:02 AM)xear Wrote:  
(06-09-2016 07:09 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  This is exactly what I was talking about. Rather than focus on my counter-arguments, you ignored them completely and then posted about who's hurting whose feelings. That is what brings these sarcastic retorts from the "peanut gallery", in this case Banjo.

Sorry, but I could not find a counter argument or question that has not already been addressed. If you don't agree with something I say the first time I assume it is unlikely you will agree any time after that.

Where was my consciousness before I was conceived? Already gone over it... consciousness always is, always was... I can't prove that, likewise no one can disprove it.



.

It's not about proof - it's about evidence. You have none, we have a great deal of it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-09-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
But you are postulating a personal god, in the sense that your version of god intervenes in the natural universe, in order to make it be here and for life to function. Einstein openly scoffed at such an idea. That's why I said you seem to have no idea what a pantheist really is. It's closer to atheism, in the practical sense (as it's being used in this conversation), than it is to even deism, let alone theism.

Science does not have proof of how abiogenesis happened, yet, but there are several experiments which have suggested likely methods, and they're getting closer to a good model (theory) all the time. It is clear to me, from reading the NASA research on the subject, that life is a product of natural forces at work and not of magical intervention.

Despite that, it continues to be true that every function of life we do know about, after its formation, functions by naturally-occurring biochemistry. The only part of it that is "random" is mutation among DNA, and even that is constrained by laws of physics/chemistry and by the process of Natural Selection that essentially kills off the random versions that don't work, or don't work as well as other versions, when they're in competition.

There is no evidence of magical processes happening beyond the biochemistry we observe, no evidence of divine intervention at any level, and no reason to even suspect that there was something other than physics (chemistry) involved in the origin of life.

Beyond the origin of life, we do actually know the origin of consciousness as a product of neurology. If you want to say that there is a magical, additional element involved, then you must demonstrate it is a plausible idea... as I keep pointing out.

I don't know what point you think you're making by saying that "life is here", as if this fact escapes the scientific community, but your idea that our consciousnesses are somehow the product of supernatural forces at work is hogwash, and trying to cloak it in the guise of scientific curiosity or open inquiry is disingenuous... to put it as nicely as I can.

"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
06-09-2016, 09:31 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

Again Xear you are smooshing a whole lot of different things into the mix now..

Abiogenisis.

Cosmology. (As in early universe/reality expending)

Consciousness/mental development.

Yes, some of these things are related and yes..... tenuously all of them are intertwined but you do yourself no service bundling them all up together.

As for your Einstein quote? A previous poster has alrwady pplointed the 'Deism' aspect.

My point was 'So what?' Einstein was a deist, pretty much all the posters/replyers here are 'Non-theists'. Ta-daa.

Throwing Einstein into the mix is not some how going to give your 'Biocetrism woo' any more validity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 10:35 AM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2016 10:45 AM by Deesse23.)
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.

No they arent.

There are two definitions around.

#1 Atheism is the rejection of the claim "a (my) god exists", based on the lack of evidence
#2 (strong) Atheism is the claim "no god(s) exist", which -of course- needs supporting evidence

None of them has to do with abiogenesis of life in general or consciousness or anything.

You should note as well that for many atheists, their atheism is not a basic attitude, but its the result of scepticism, which they consider to be their basic attitude. I am one of them (cant speak for others on this forum, bu ti guess, many are). Our scepticism is the main reason your arguments are criticized. Anothe rreason is your arbitrary 8re) definition of terms, you requivocations and flas analogies. All these are signs that someone has basically nothing to support his ideas and has ot bend reality to his/her ideas (by re-wording everything).
Many of your definitions are a complete miracle to me. Just a few examples: Consciousness, being, nothing.

P.S.: I dont understand your argument about consciousness, at.all. You claim that before everyone is born their consciousnes already exists? Then please tell me about your prenatal experiences you must have had, if you were conscious.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
06-09-2016, 12:05 PM
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.

Atheists make such claim only in your imagination. Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods it speaks not about origin of universe.


Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  I'm saying life, consciousness, being, whatever you want to call it, is permanent... it always is.

We see organisms develop and begin to show signs of consciousness during that development. We see the consciousness, the awareness, become more and more evident during the process. With injury, illness, or aging we often see consciousness being affected. Eventually, we see organisms die and lose all signs of consciousness. This is all evidence for it being the product of the physical brain. I see no evidence at all that ife, consciousness, awareness, whatever you want to call exists apart from the organisms that exhibit it. You can say that it does all you want but until you offer evidence for that idea it is not worth anything.

Quote:You are saying that is wrong and you will get out of consciousness when you die. You have no evidence of anyone who has ever got out of consciousness and come back or that it is even possible.

Since I never claimed that anybody or anything "got out of consciousness and come back" you are off on another strawman argument.

Quote:I have no evidence of anyone who stayed in it when they died. Neither of us could ever provide evidence for this.

An idea for which there is no evidence is not one that can be believed if you are rational.

Quote:It is up to each person to decide which makes more sense to them. You seem to be happy with the prospect of a future of oblivion. I'm glad for you. But don't think you have somehow proven that is a sure thing.

It is up to rational people to decide what the evidence supports. I never said I was happy that life and consciousness will end for me. That is another strawman. All I claim is that that is what I believe because that's what the evidence supports.

(06-09-2016 08:02 AM)xear Wrote:  Where was my consciousness before I was conceived? Already gone over it... consciousness always is, always was...

That doesn't answer the question. Where was it? Where will it go? How can you test for it to verify the conjecture that it did not dissipate on death? You are making a very general claim with no support for it at all. That is why it is rejected. Your apparent continued insistence that the claim itself is enough is why you get ridiculed.

Quote:I can't prove that, likewise no one can disprove it..

That's not how the burden of proof works. You are making a claim that lies outside the available evidence. You need to offer evidence that supports it. I can't disprove that we aren't an experiment in artificial intelligence in some alien laboratory but that doesn't make it a reasonable belief even though you can't disprove that.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
06-09-2016, 12:15 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 09:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-09-2016 08:02 AM)xear Wrote:  Sorry, but I could not find a counter argument or question that has not already been addressed. If you don't agree with something I say the first time I assume it is unlikely you will agree any time after that.

Where was my consciousness before I was conceived? Already gone over it... consciousness always is, always was... I can't prove that, likewise no one can disprove it.



.

It's not about proof - it's about evidence. You have none, we have a great deal of it.


This thread is but another empty shrine to the futile art of demonstrating the supremacy of evidence for the basis if factually accurate beliefs to someone who does not at all value evidence or being factually accurate.

If the dumb cunt would rather hold on to a wrong belief that nonetheless makes him feel like a special little snowflake, then fuck him.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 12:25 PM
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."

You're right. Usually (at least in my experience) it is theists who make wild claims and "support" it by crying that we can't disprove their sky daddy.

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.

Lack of proof from theist is best proof.

Also reading "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger wouldn't hurt you.

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.

So?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 12:34 PM
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.

I do not claim to know how life began. I am a musician. So that knowledge is beyond my field of experience.

However having read scientific works as well as ancient works, evolution being a science etc, I see no reason to believe in what does not show itself in any form.

A theist claims a god exists and asks us to prove he or she wrong. No. They must provide positive evidence.

I, for example, have no interest in disproving gods. To me, having become extremely well read in both modern. and ancient literature, see the gods as characters in stories. Usually created to help uneducated primitives get through troubles which they did not understand.

Talk about tectonic plates to a primitive would be like ordering a cat to walk through a hoop.

You, my friend, are an unevolved primitive.

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
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: