Theists don't ask questions

[Blastcat]

Hi

I ask a lot of questions.. and SOMETIMES ( but not always ) get answers.

One of the reasons that I do ask a lot of questions, is that I don't actually learn anything new by proselytizing atheism. I do that a bit, of course, I think it's important that people get to know an atheist and what he thinks about the "big questions" and so on, but I am ALSO here to learn what OTHER people think.

So, the questions.

It just occurred to me that I RARELY get any questions from the theists.
Isn't that odd?

____________

Question for debate:

• 
  
  Why is it that theists don't seem very curious as to what outsiders to their beliefs think?
  
  

____________

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 80 by Willum]

That it true. To my eternal shame I can not disprove unicorns

But the argument

If it existed then we'd know.

makes no sense since we don't know everything and if we did we would not NEED to prove or disprove unicorns

So as you said.... to this comment I could say "well that is the claim, but it's not exactly true is it?"

Touche :p

Fact of the matter is that we DON'T know, and not knowing means that we also don't know if God, unicorns, aliens, ghosts or the magical switch which turned on the Big Bang exist or not.

To claim that we'd know if it existed, is to claim that we know all that exist. And we both KNOW that isn't true

That would be like arguing that you know we can not land on mars, for if we could we would have done so.

Then all that exist is in our own little head....most places they would call that delusion

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

OK, so obviously, you are not interested in following standard formatting procedures, don't care about emotions, how others may receive your posts, don't want to stop and think before you write. That is your privilege, and your comments on this issue explain a great deal about the quality level of your posts.

[Zzyzx]

.

Can you be convinced about something without claiming it's position is stronger or better than another?

Not likely in my case, but I do not pretend to speak for anyone else.

Theism is BELIEVING in God, so why should that have any more burden of proof than NOT believing?

Let me try this again: BELIEVING or NOT BELIEVING in God incur NO burden of proof. Both are personal opinions and/or statement of personal theistic position. Neither requires evidence or 'proof'.

Neither 'I believe in fairies' or 'I do not believe in fairies' requires proof.

HOWEVER, if one goes beyond that to state that gods or fairies do (or do not) exist, THEN they DO incur the burden of proving their statement / claim to be true and accurate. Likewise, if one states that fairies (or gods) flooded the Earth or created the universe (or whatever), they have incurred the burden of substantiationg / proving the claim they make.

If what you say is true, then neither theists or atheist has burden of proof for neither is claiming there is a certain truth, but where then is the argument between the two?

Neither has a burden of proof UNTIL / UNLESS they make a claim or statement that gods do (or do not) exist -- or make claims to know what gods do or want or expect, etc.

You can't prove or disprove opinions and since beliefs are not truths, the argument is really about the blind leading the blind.

Exactly. Opinions are NOT a matter for debate. Everyone is entitled to whatever opinions they choose – with no obligation to prove they have that opinion or that the opinion is correct.

What the point of the debate if neither theists or atheist knows or have any evidence to convince the other by?[/quote]
I speak only for myself in saying that my objective in debate is to challenge claims and statements made and to ask for verifiable evidence that they are true and accurate.

If a person makes NO claims or statements (but, say, expresses opinions), I do not challenge (but may point out that opinions are meaningless in debate).

An example of what typically happens is that an Apologist states that the Earth was flooded 'to the tops of mountains' as claimed in Genesis. Since I have a strong background in Earth science, geology, hydrology, I have access to a lot of information that contradicts that tale.

If we agree by the dictionary definition that a claim is to state or assert something without proof, then stating "there is no God" would be a claim and require burden of proof.

Yes. Some people make that statement. Reading of my signature clearly indicates that I am not one who says 'there is no god'. Perhaps one of the thousands of proposed 'gods' IS real and perhaps someday someone will present actual evidence (not just unverifiable tales, testimonials and opinions).

If we are just going at beliefs and something without conviction, or not a claim officially until the stating or assertion is done outside our own mind. Then the fools with the burden of proof is only the people who claim there is a God they can not prove, or isn't a God they can not prove.

Exactly (without calling people fools).

Then the theist/atheist argument is at a ETERNAL STALEMATE!

As education and information are increasingly available in advanced nations, the percentage of Religionists is declining. In another generation or two there should be few Theists promoting their views on gods and religions.

For once the truth is know, there is no belief, and so no atheist or theist, but when the truth is NOT known, neither has burden of proof to prove or disprove whatever nonsense they believe or disbelieve...while those who claim to know have lost the argument by default the moment they utter those words.

There would be no debate if Theists did not claim to know about gods.

Well I sincerely hope you are right, for that makes the argument very simple in the future and strengthens my argument while weakening both the position of the theists and atheist, who then neither have a leg to stand on in argumentation

If your position is Agnostic (basically 'I don't know' or 'I don't take a position'), I agree that it is a stronger or more rational position than those which claim that gods exist or those which claim gods do not exist.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 76 by Hector Barbosa]

What an odd position to be in!

I couldn't tolerate pretending to not know my own mind like that.
I believe something, or I don't.

I DO know my own mind, but you asked about what I believe or am convinced by.
If you can not tolerate not being convinced by something then you are no scientist

I am not a scientist.
I am a skeptic.

You don't seem to understand that when I say that I can't tolerate not knowing my own mind ( or pretending to not know my own mind ) I am NOT saying that I can't tolerate not being convinced.


Not knowing my own mind ≠ not tolerating being unconvinced

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 66 by Hector Barbosa]




[center]
A position on the existence of God is unreliable if skepticism is not employed[/center]

When searching for truth does one form a conclusion first then look for conforming evidence, OR does one look at the evidence FIRST and base a conclusion on a thorough examination of all evidence available?

Obviously you look for the evidence first and draw the conclusion later, unless of cause you are a theist or atheist

That's one of the best methods that I know how to evaluate a claim for it's truth value. Evidence.

Skepticism demands evidence.

You make a joke implying that atheism or theism DEMANDS a lack of skepticism.

It's a cute joke, but it's also very wrong.


Atheism does not demand a lack of skepticism.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 77 by hoghead1]




[center]What gives me the right to state my very own beliefs?[/center]

" I was brought up to think the idea of a god was VITAL... turns out not to be the case. I have no need for that hypothesis."

So where is your evidence to support you claim here?

My evidence for the lack of a need of the God hypothesis is my utterly personal lack of a need for the hypothesis. I seem to do very well without it.

How does it turn out not to be the case?

The God hypothesis doesn't help me to understand the universe that I live in at all. And I have not found any evidence that it is true.

Belief is a very personal matter that does NOT need to be demonstrated.
The TRUTH of a belief, however needs to be demonstrated.

Saying you don't need God and then just walking away, as you just did, is just as arrogant and irrational as saying that there is a God and just walking away.

I also don't need poison in my life.
Is that another instance of arrogance?

How is your position any more rational than that found among unreflective theists?

You will have to decide that for yourself.

You can actually ask me specific questions if you want to find out. I'm not intending on going away any time soon. In fact, I actively SEEK difficult questions.

I've spelled out one of the methods already.
But I think it bears repeating at this time:

________________

Why would I not believe in something:

If I don't have sufficient evidence for a claimed phenomenon, I refuse to believe that it's actually happening.
________________

Remember, this is debate forum, not a pulpit to proselytize unreflective atheism.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

What qualifies you to be such an expert that you can make such definitive pronouncements on God?

I am the ONLY one qualified to say what my beliefs really are on ANY subject.

[William]

Q: What qualifies you to be such an expert that you can make such definitive pronouncements on God?

A: I am the ONLY one qualified to say what my beliefs really are on ANY subject.



Comment of observation: And beliefs are not relevant as definitive pronouncements on God. They are opinions.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 87 by William]




[center]
Beliefs cannot be debated. You either have them or you don't.
If the beliefs are TRUE or not is an entirely different matter.[/center]

I am the ONLY one qualified to say what my beliefs really are on ANY subject.

Comment of observation: And beliefs are not relevant as definitive pronouncements on God. They are opinions.

Who is talking about a "Definitive pronouncement"? I'm not making any "definitive" pronouncement at all. Those were your words, not mine.


I'm talking about my beliefs.
I DEFINITELY know what those are.

________________

Why don't you criticize a belief of mine?

Maybe it would help you if I told you something that I believe is true.. you can grill me on it.

I believe, for example that reality is really out there.
So, when it comes to the question "Does reality exist?" , I say "YES".

________________

[William]

[Replying to post 88 by Blastcat]

[center]Self Qualification on Personal Belief Systems.
'Whoop-De-Doo'
?

[linky below]

William's Random Ramblings [/center]

[Willum]

[Replying to post 81 by Hector Barbosa]

HectorB, you are applying an academic standard of "you can't prove a negative," to reality.
Of course you can prove a negative, you just can't do it academically.

There are no unicorns, nor are there one winged dragons, or four legged people. The characteristics of their existence can be used to prove they don't exist.

In the same way we can disprove God.
What do you know about God?
Look for that.
If you can't find it, it don't exist.

Here:
God is perfect.
Even something perfect is not perfect from all perspectives, therefore God doesn't exist.
God is love.
Love is an emotion found in humanity. God is not inside people, therefore God don't exist.
God is all powerful.
If anything was all powerful, it must be able to do anything, therefore have infinite power. That means it must be more powerful than the Sun, for instance. We can see the Sun, we can't see God, therefore...

You get the idea.