Thoughts??
Hopefully there will be more.
I am an Atheist
Hopefully there will be more.
I am an Atheist
Quote: (05-13-2017 03:19 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:
Agnostics are the ones who leave the option of open, atheism claim with certainty that there is no God, no force, no meaning of life etc. Thus it becomes a belief.
Quote: (05-13-2017 03:19 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:
Getting into a fight whether God exists or not is not going anywhere since neither of you can prove it.
Quote: (05-13-2017 05:12 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:
Don't try to mix the crazy with legitimate perceptions
Even now I see in your reasonings the usual jump to leftist-marxist argumentations of Easter Bunnies and irrational thinking.
Quote: (05-13-2017 03:19 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:
That is now how you debate with Muslims.
Muslim is right with claiming that atheism is a belief system as well - the belief that there is nothing. Agnostics are the ones who leave the option of open, atheism claim with certainty that there is no God, no force, no meaning of life etc. Thus it becomes a belief.
Next time debate him rather on certain points and logical or ethical errors in Islam - there are a ton of those.
Getting into a fight whether God exists or not is not going anywhere since neither of you can prove it. You may be able to attack the ethical basis of Allah who says that you should slay all unbelievers unless they pay the Jizya with submission. That would be an argument as to what kind of "God" that is.
Quote: (05-12-2017 07:23 AM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:
I've seen this place before, I think. A video I saw a couple years ago of an elderly Christian man surrounded and harassed by muslims, I'm pretty sure it was in the same area. The muslim in this debate seems a much different kind of fellow. Your debate instilled in me some respect for Ali, though I detest Islam.
I want to be able to compliment you in some way, but sadly I cannot give you that. I'm going to be critical here. And in so doing, I welcome from you all the criticism towards me that you can give. I hope you take this constructively.
There's something remarkable that you had reiterated throughout the debate, but said most explicitly at the 4-minute mark. You said "I'm a product of the universe. I am here right now; I don't ask the question of what happened before it all existed.". You said that you don't concern yourself with what is beyond nominal experience because it is not immediate to you. This is also something you said in a discussion you had with me. It isn't an argument. It is a lack of curiosity and a lack of conviction. If you have no interest in the topic, how are you qualified to be an atheist?
At the 8-minute mark, Ali points out that you are "jumping" to another topic. This is something you did with me as well. When we were talking about naturalism, you kept trying to argue against God rather than naturalism. I hope you take this constructively. If we can stay on topic in future discussions, that would be a boon.
At 9:30 you said quantum events happen from nothing. This is Lawrence Krauss's theory. If quantum mechanics is needed for something to come from "nothing", then the aforementioned "nothing" is actually something. Krauss only showed that matter can emerge from quantum processes, and that quantum energy fields would have to preexist. Quantum energy fields are a something, not a nothing.
For the rest of the debate afaik, you were fairly well behaved. Ali demonstrated a major theological flaw, where he alleges that Christians believe that Jesus required material sustenance before creating the universe. Christians do not believe this. Allah has misinformed muslims terribly with regard to Christian belief. If Allah was all-knowing, he would not have made such a damning mistake. So Ali may have unwittingly refuted Islam.
If you intend to confront Ali again, I have a couple tips for you. Firstly, converse in good faith with him. Secondly, go and study the talking points of the youtube channel Acts17Apologetics. They, and especially David Wood, are good at arguing against Islam. Also, if you go down this route, have some intellectual integrity, curiosity, and conviction. Truth is more important than preconceived notions. You were thoroughly defeated in this debate. If you have intellectual integrity, what you will do is develop objections to the points he made and counter-arguments of your own, then go talk to him again. And whatever your endeavors, may God be with you in them, my dude.
Quote: (05-13-2017 05:50 PM)kavi Wrote:
For me, the difference between Agnosticm and Atheism (or atleast my kind of Atheism) is that Agnostics consider the notion of God valid and worthy of discussion, whereas Atheists dont. An Agnostic may engage in a debate with you about the existence of a Unicorm on Mars, whereas I would not waste my time.
Quote: (05-13-2017 05:31 PM)BrewDog Wrote:
The onus isn't on me to prove a negative. Someone may claim there's a toaster in orbit around Uranus, but the burden of proof is on them to prove it, not me to disprove.
There's a God? Prove it. I don't have to prove there isn't one.
Quote: (05-14-2017 03:28 AM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:
Quote: (05-13-2017 05:31 PM)BrewDog Wrote:
The onus isn't on me to prove a negative. Someone may claim there's a toaster in orbit around Uranus, but the burden of proof is on them to prove it, not me to disprove.
There's a God? Prove it. I don't have to prove there isn't one.
With Dr. Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument, we are equipped with the knowledge that, on an ontological level, the possibility of God's existence necessitates that God exists. So in order to argue that God does not exist, you have to argue that it is ontologically impossible that God should exist. Arguing for the impossibility of something is an affirmative undertaking, not a negative. So yes, the onus is on you.
Quote: (05-14-2017 04:38 AM)thebassist Wrote:
Atheism is in my opinion a rather childish worldview, nothing more than a rebellion against increasingly declining religious stricture.
It is no coincidence to me that the most hardcore atheists that I have known were raised in very religious families.
Quote: (05-14-2017 02:05 PM)BrewDog Wrote:
Here's something the religious never wish to discuss because there is no rational argument to support it.
Quote: (05-14-2017 08:31 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:
Pardon the interjection, RatInTheWoods, but thebassist stated earlier that he thinks the religions which exist today are false. When you say "Your religion...", you are referring to a non-thing. Bassist is not defending a particular religion, but only the notion that a God exists. You ought to hurl this kind of verbal abuse at me rather than at him, because I do defend a particular religion.
Quote: (05-14-2017 09:00 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:
Quote: (05-14-2017 08:31 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:
Pardon the interjection, RatInTheWoods, but thebassist stated earlier that he thinks the religions which exist today are false. When you say "Your religion...", you are referring to a non-thing. Bassist is not defending a particular religion, but only the notion that a God exists. You ought to hurl this kind of verbal abuse at me rather than at him, because I do defend a particular religion.
I wish I understood what you were saying half the time Gooz :-)
Contingent notional non things and all.
Holding a notion that a god (or many) exists is a religion. His belief in the supernatural, whatever shape that takes, is his religion.
We all think a large number of gods/religions are false. (surely you don't subscribe to the spaghetti monster?)
Atheists just go one god more.
Quote: (05-14-2017 08:20 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:
Quote: (05-14-2017 02:05 PM)BrewDog Wrote:
Here's something the religious never wish to discuss because there is no rational argument to support it.
This is a knee-slapper. I've gone and discussed this very thing too many times. Your argument hinges upon the notion that the creator is itself contingent. But for the creator to qualify as the ultimate creator, it must be necessary, not contingent, and therefore by definition uncaused and without beginning. Your objection holds no water, and for this reason no serious academic entertains it anymore. Please try harder. Kavi is doing an excellent job in the other thread, forming challenging counterarguments against mine. Be like Kavi. Low-hanging fruit is no fun for me.
Quote: (05-12-2017 05:30 AM)kavi Wrote:
Thoughts??
Hopefully there will be more.
I am an Atheist
Quote: (05-14-2017 10:30 PM)BrewDog Wrote:I don't even speak or write in high-brow language. What's the issue?
Do you have your thesaurus open while typing this? You seem as if you want everyone to think you're very bright. Yet when one tries really hard to sound smart, it's evident.