[split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 09:17 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Strange that many here do not understand what a truth claim is and why it needs to be evidenced.

Surely you jest (can I call you Shirley?)

I'm at a loss as to what evidence I could provide you that when I say "I don't believe you have provided good enough argument for the existence of your god for me to accept it as truth", that it is actually true. I make no claim as to whether or not your god is real, I only make a claim that your evidence for such is shoddy and lacking, and that is my opinion.

That is my only truth claim. My evidence is that I just fucking said so. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about this, but you're being rather obtuse about the whole scenario, so I urge you to reread my prior post, slowly, and think about for a day or two before you come back and give another asinine reply such as the one you just gave.

It's really quite simple.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like evenheathen's post
23-03-2014, 09:49 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 09:17 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 08:56 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Atheism is a rejection of that claim, not a claim in and of itself. You're going to need a while to think about that, turn it over in your head a few times. It's a legitimate position whether you want it to be or not. If you have an intellectually honest brain in your body, you will be able to see this. I promise you. If you think about it long enough and still don't get it, then you are hopeless and you need to get off my lawn.

Atheists still make truth claims though. When they do, they need to be ready to back it up. This is a website called "The Thinking Atheist". Strange that many here do not understand what a truth claim is and why it needs to be evidenced.

You keep equating the rejection of a claim with the assertion of an opposing claim... Facepalm

Remember when you asked for evidence of your idiocy? Thanks for providing yet another shining example of it.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 09:41 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  I'm at a loss as to what evidence I could provide you that when I say "I don't believe you have provided good enough argument for the existence of your god for me to accept it as truth", that it is actually true. I make no claim as to whether or not your god is real, I only make a claim that your evidence for such is shoddy and lacking, and that is my opinion.

Then no evidence is required in this situation. You have stated an opinion akin to stating you like cottage cheese or you find a particular pair of pants ugly. In such a case, I would not ask you for evidence to support what you said because it is NOT A TRUTH CLAIM. It is simply a statement of opinion or personal preference.

(23-03-2014 09:41 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  That is my only truth claim. My evidence is that I just fucking said so. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about this, but you're being rather obtuse about the whole scenario, so I urge you to reread my prior post, slowly, and think about for a day or two before you come back and give another asinine reply such as the one you just gave.

It's really quite simple.

Yes it is very simple. Truth claims require evidence. Statements of personal opinion or taste do not. I have never asked anyone here to give evidence for something that I knew was an opinion of theirs.

But, for example, stating that "The Bible is unreliable", or "Churches are not evidence of God's existence" are truth claims.

If one were to say: "I do not believe the Bible is reliable" or "I am of the opinion that churches are not evidence for God's existence" then I would say thank you very much for sharing your opinion with me. I would not ask them for evidence because the statements are not truth claims.

The problem people here are having is that they are making truth claims instead of opinions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 09:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You keep equating the rejection of a claim with the assertion of an opposing claim... Facepalm

Remember when you asked for evidence of your idiocy? Thanks for providing yet another shining example of it.

The rejection of a truth claim is not always the affirmation of another truth claim, but more times than not it is, especially in the case of atheists who desire to be perceived as intellectuals and knowledgeable in science.

For example:

If an atheist rejects the Christian account of the origin of mankind then they are affirming another account of the origin of mankind unless they just admit ignorance, something some people are loathe to do.

If an atheist were to tell me:

"God did not create humans in His Own Image"

I would ask:

Well how did humans come to be?

He might say:

"I do not know." Which would be to admit ignorance.

Or he might say:

"They came to be via the process of evolution by natural selection as a result of evolving from lower forms of life."


This last claim is a truth claim. They are rejecting the Christian claim in favor of a naturalistic claim. As such it needs evidencing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 09:17 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 08:56 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Yabut, an atheist says, "Nah, I don't believe you. Because you lack good argumentation, reason, evidence, and clarity."

That is the true statement. You can try to turn that around on us all you want, but at the end of the day it's still true, and that's all you're doing.

If you desire for me to take that as true, you would have to give me evidence for it if I demanded it. If you were unable to or refused to, then that would be on you.

Just because an atheist says something does not mean I have to take it as "gospel" or "fact".

Most atheists require evidence for truth claims made about God. Like the atheist who demands evidence, I demand evidence from atheists whenever they make truth claims.

(23-03-2014 08:56 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Theism is a claim.

Correct.

(23-03-2014 08:56 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Atheism is a rejection of that claim, not a claim in and of itself. You're going to need a while to think about that, turn it over in your head a few times. It's a legitimate position whether you want it to be or not. If you have an intellectually honest brain in your body, you will be able to see this. I promise you. If you think about it long enough and still don't get it, then you are hopeless and you need to get off my lawn.

Atheists still make truth claims though. When they do, they need to be ready to back it up. This is a website called "The Thinking Atheist". Strange that many here do not understand what a truth claim is and why it needs to be evidenced.

Because you're advancing an argument that has been debunked so many times it's become tiresome to debunk yet again, especially when you present the argument and refuse to respond to objections already raised.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 11:24 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 11:01 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:41 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  I'm at a loss as to what evidence I could provide you that when I say "I don't believe you have provided good enough argument for the existence of your god for me to accept it as truth", that it is actually true. I make no claim as to whether or not your god is real, I only make a claim that your evidence for such is shoddy and lacking, and that is my opinion.

Then no evidence is required in this situation. You have stated an opinion akin to stating you like cottage cheese or you find a particular pair of pants ugly. In such a case, I would not ask you for evidence to support what you said because it is NOT A TRUTH CLAIM. It is simply a statement of opinion or personal preference.

(23-03-2014 09:41 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  That is my only truth claim. My evidence is that I just fucking said so. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about this, but you're being rather obtuse about the whole scenario, so I urge you to reread my prior post, slowly, and think about for a day or two before you come back and give another asinine reply such as the one you just gave.

It's really quite simple.

Yes it is very simple. Truth claims require evidence. Statements of personal opinion or taste do not. I have never asked anyone here to give evidence for something that I knew was an opinion of theirs.

But, for example, stating that "The Bible is unreliable", or "Churches are not evidence of God's existence" are truth claims.

If one were to say: "I do not believe the Bible is reliable" or "I am of the opinion that churches are not evidence for God's existence" then I would say thank you very much for sharing your opinion with me. I would not ask them for evidence because the statements are not truth claims.

The problem people here are having is that they are making truth claims instead of opinions.

You're reversing the burden of proof. "Churches are evidence for God's existence" is a statement of truth in itself, and yet you've advanced it without support. Why do you think the burden of proof falls on us to disprove such a wild assertion?

Buddhist temples are proof Buddha listens to his followers.

Mosques are proof of Allah's existence.

The Vatican is proof that Catholicism is the only true version of Christianity.

You would require support for any of the above claims, why do your claims require special consideration?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
23-03-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
The Bible is most certainly and truthfully not reliable as a source for anything other than some intermittent nicely put philosophy. That is a truth claim you can take to the bank.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 07:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The Kalam Cosmological argument is a two premise philosophical syllogism. It reads thus:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.
I'll debate you.

My first point.
I challenge your assertion that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
This is a scientific statement and thus is empirically falsifiable.
It has already been proven false.
Quantum Fluctuation
Quote:Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.
In order for you to continue with your assertion that "Everything that begins to exist has a case for its existence" you now have the burdon of proving Quantum Fluctuations as false.

My second point
I challenge your assertion that the universe began to exist.
This is a scientific statement and thus provides empirical evidence.
There is empirical evidence for what happened after the big bang, but not for before. It is not known what was around before.
What came before the big bang
Quote:it's not able to answer some of the more challenging questions, including what – if anything – came before it?

You have a couple of burdons here on your shoulders that you must resolve before you are able to draw your conclusion (out of necessity).

Please do so and then we can move forward with this debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 11:24 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 11:01 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Then no evidence is required in this situation. You have stated an opinion akin to stating you like cottage cheese or you find a particular pair of pants ugly. In such a case, I would not ask you for evidence to support what you said because it is NOT A TRUTH CLAIM. It is simply a statement of opinion or personal preference.


Yes it is very simple. Truth claims require evidence. Statements of personal opinion or taste do not. I have never asked anyone here to give evidence for something that I knew was an opinion of theirs.

But, for example, stating that "The Bible is unreliable", or "Churches are not evidence of God's existence" are truth claims.

If one were to say: "I do not believe the Bible is reliable" or "I am of the opinion that churches are not evidence for God's existence" then I would say thank you very much for sharing your opinion with me. I would not ask them for evidence because the statements are not truth claims.

The problem people here are having is that they are making truth claims instead of opinions.

You're reversing the burden of proof. "Churches are evidence for God's existence" is a statement of truth in itself, and yet you've advanced it without support. Why do you think the burden of proof falls on us to disprove such a wild assertion?

Buddhist temples are proof Buddha listens to his followers.

Mosques are proof of Allah's existence.

The Vatican is proof that Catholicism is the only true version of Christianity.

You would require support for any of the above claims, why do your claims require special consideration?

Epic fail. I have never argued that churches are evidence for the existence of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 11:56 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  The Bible is most certainly and truthfully not reliable as a source for anything other than some intermittent nicely put philosophy. That is a truth claim you can take to the bank.

Of course I need you to substantiate that claim.

If you cannot, I will just dismiss it as an opinion which I would happily admit you are entitled to!

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: