How to respond in debate with atheist?

[Vonsalza]

The law of large numbers only applies here to the limited idea to show that you can find social value in cultural…

…the 2 second Google search didn’t teach you enough. It’s only usable if you can apply a meaningful numeric value to the possible value set of the hypothesis and thus make a mean possible. Like “There is deity” =1, “There isn’t” =0. The human average estimates in the high 0.80s. Will likely be in the 0.90s if China continues to ease restrictions of religion (more than half of the worlds atheists are estimated to live there). So go back to the page you visited and camp a bit longer.

Appeal to many people believing in magic does not make magic actually exist. That is the textbook definition of argumentum ad populum. Try to work on your Ad hominem’s too. But feel free. Takes a lot to make me cry.

Yeah, that’s not a textbook definition. That’s an example. “When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim” is a textbook definition. And that’s also proof that you can’t literally distinguish between a scientific argument and a logical argument. Not the same.
Your identification of supposed ad hominem and immediate use of another made me giddy, also.

The use of “western atheism” is wrong here…

If you’re arguing that the presentation of societal atheism doesn’t vary ENORMOUSLY by the cultural group proposing it, you’re so wrong that I’m unsure how to continue, so I"ll repeat: My last argument against atheism is that its ideological manifestation in the west 1. has never existed and 2. couldn’t because it can’t solve basic social problems without resorting to the state-enforced “right of might” it wants to avoid. Verily, we’ve seen Russian and East-Asian atheistic societies. We’re still finding the mass graves they created.

As to how to ground your conclusions into an absolute, that’s your problem, not mine. Mine works just fine. I don’t need your world view and never have to live the moral life. Your world view as just as irrelevant as anyone else’s.

I agree! My view is worthless! But in my society, if you act bad and get away with it all your life, the Divine Cop will eventually “bust” you. Thus law and order can exist beyond the view of the local police station.

In your society, it cant! Why be be “good” in an atheistic society when this is the only life you get and your only apparent goal is to maximize your self-perceived benefit, both in duration and degree?

In short, your world view only works because you get to practice it against the backdrop of a generally tolerant, theistic society where most folks believe in a “divine cop” or “karma” or the like.

Trust me, the irony is not lost on me.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll appeal to the fair mindedness of the readers.

Of course, Russell. That is a natural consequence of posting on a forum.
That goes without saying.

Did I say that it was possible for something to come from nothing?

Excellent.

So atheism then has a problem with answering how the universe came to be from nothing,

QED.

 

[NM505StKate]

Of course, Russell. That is a natural consequence of posting on a forum.
That goes without saying.

Excellent.

So atheism then has a problem with answering how the universe came to be from nothing,

QED.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). It has no philosophy on how the universe began nor code of ethics. It is a lack of belief.

 

[PRmerger]

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). It has no philosophy on how the universe began nor code of ethics. It is a lack of belief.

It is a way to view the world.

It is an answer to the question: does God exist?

 

[NM505StKate]

It is a way to view the world.

It is an answer to the question: does God exist?

So not believing in any gods is a view of the world that does what exactly?

 

[fred_conty]

originally posted by Russell_SA
Emotional states are an emergent property of a brain. We have instruments now that allow us to look at brain patterns and see that certain patterns match up with specific emotional states. Do you have examples of emotional states that exist outside of a physical brain? We’ve observed people’s behavior towards one another and labeled those actions as someone being in love. So you can use the idea of the label of love as a brain state that we can observe through scans and/or by observing one’s behavioral actions. That includes them making communication declarations of love. Ideas of love, hate, happy, sad, etc. are all just describers that we’ve labeled for social interactions that people display. All of this is observable in reality and as such, manifests in reality. You know this, the readers know this, stop this tom foolery. You seem to want to argue the idea of the old arguement, do numbers exist? Numbers, as with emotional descriptors like love, are all just ADJECTIVES. They are describers of things that manifest in reality. So no “love” does not exist, the same way that “4” does not exist. Love is an adjective that describe what we as social creatures identify as loving expressions. Same as “4”. 4 describes the quantity of an item. They’re both just ADJECTIVES…so please stop attempting to argue that adjectives are nouns. Can’t believe I have to point this out with a literate audience.

Hate, love, can exist without social interaction. The mind can put together different thoughts/ideas to hate or love. It dosen’t have to be a social interaction or exterior. Love/hate can exist purely in the mind and not reflect anything to do with something going on outside of the person. Which means they exist, and have a unique way of being, but being they do have. So that means they are not just adjectives or descriptors. Catholics read a book called the Gospel of St. John. And St. John says in this book that “God is love”. He doesn’t say God has love like we have love, but that God is love, love itself.

If we desire to see love itself, then we only need to look at his Son Jesus, who gave himself totally for all mankind. That love itself was crucified for you and for me that we might be with him forever… love itself.

 

[PRmerger]

So not believing in any gods is a view of the world that does what exactly?

It provides a platform that needs to be defended.

If no God exists, then what caused the universe to begin?

Magic?

 

[NM505StKate]

It provides a platform that needs to be defended.

If no God exists, then what caused the universe to begin?

Magic?

We do not know. That is not the job of atheism to decide what caused the universe to begin. The big bang set the universe as we know it in motion. Maybe some natural cause not yet found set it off? Maybe it was going to go off no matter what as a natural process? Right now we do not know.

Of course it can be said, “How did god create the world from nothing? Magic?”

 

[PRmerger]

We do not know.

Egg-zactly.

It’s an incoherent position to espouse then.

QED.

 

[NM505StKate]

Egg-zactly.

It’s an incoherent position to espouse then.

QED.

How so? How is saying, “we don’t know” incoherent? It is a valid answer.

 

[PRmerger]

How so? How is saying, “we don’t know” incoherent? It is a valid answer.

It’s an incoherent position because saying, “I don’t know” to how something could come from nothing is illogical.

The coherent position is: you’re right. Something simply cannot come from nothing.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

How so? How is saying, “we don’t know” incoherent? It is a valid answer.

I would agree. It’s reasonable to say i don’t know.

But i see too many atheists trashing theism.(outside CAF)

Seems ridiculous to do so when their position is, we don’t know.

 

[Russell_SA]

So atheism then has a problem with answering how the universe came to be from nothing,

QED.

Perfect example of preferring a conspiracy theory than over no theory at all. Stating “I don’t know.” is a perfectly fine answer. Sorry but we can’t have justified conspiracy theories to live on. By definition, conspiracy theories are not justified. It is more honest to say we don’t know than to make something up or to continue a myth that can not be justified in reality.

 

[Russell_SA]

Hate, love, can exist without social interaction. The mind can put together different thoughts/ideas to hate or love. It dosen’t have to be a social interaction or exterior. Love/hate can exist purely in the mind and not reflect anything to do with something going on outside of the person. Which means they exist, and have a unique way of being, but being they do have. So that means they are not just adjectives or descriptors. Catholics read a book called the Gospel of St. John. And St. John says in this book that “God is love”. He doesn’t say God has love like we have love, but that God is love, love itself.

If we desire to see love itself, then we only need to look at his Son Jesus, who gave himself totally for all mankind. That love itself was crucified for you and for me that we might be with him forever… love itself.

Did you miss my point of “So you can use the idea of the label of love as a brain state that we can observe through scans and/or by observing one’s behavioral actions.”?
Yes we can have these emotions outside of social interactions as well. I included this in my point. You seem to be agreeing with me here, then make a wrong turn on the conclusion. My point that these emotional states are described by the labels of “love”, “hate”, etc. It’s the same as seeing a flower and stating that it is red, blue, green. All adjectives that describe that state of being for reflecting certain wave lengths. Same as being in a specific brain state, Love, Hate, etc describe those brain states. It is not to say that someone is red, where red is noun that exists separately from a red rose. Where the “red” is its own physical entity. This is where we have to part ways in seeing the world. You seem to believe that adjectives can become nouns. I can’t make that connection unless I’m talking metaphorically or poetically.

 

[Russell_SA]

I would agree. It’s reasonable to say i don’t know.

But i see too many atheists trashing theism.(outside CAF)

Seems ridiculous to do so when their position is, we don’t know.

Is it reasonable to “trash” a group’s beliefs if they can not be backed up in reality? Such as flat earth groups? Evolution deniers? People who believe in hogwarts? etc. If they only kept this to themselves, didn’t indoctrinate children in believing this before they’ve learned to think for themselves, didn’t attempt to legalize these beliefs in an effort to legally convert everyone, etc. then their beliefs would be benign, but they’re not are they?

 

[Russell_SA]

The coherent position is: you’re right. Something simply cannot come from nothing.

We’ve never had an example of “nothing” to study. So how can you be justified in making any logical absolute statements about “nothing”? As I understand it, you can make logical conclusions, but you have to ground them in referencing reality. So if we’ve never had an example of “nothing” in reality yet, then how can you ground your logical conclusion as an absolute? All I see we can do, is make a strong inference to the idea that nothing can come from nothing. But remember, reality is constantly changing our assumptions about logical conclusions about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Perfect example of preferring a conspiracy theory than over no theory at all. Stating “I don’t know.” is a perfectly fine answer. Sorry but we can’t have justified conspiracy theories to live on. By definition, conspiracy theories are not justified. It is more honest to say we don’t know than to make something up or to continue a myth that can not be justified in reality.

Russell, of course “I don’t know” is perfectly acceptable for some questions.

It’s just not acceptable here.

Let’s take a parallel example with another type of fundamentalist.

Let’s say there’s a Christian who you’re in dialogue with.

You say (correctly): God cannot do things which are intrinsically, logically impossible.

The fundamentalist Christian says: Can so!

You: Really? How can God make a 4 sided triangle? Or a married bachelor? Or draw green lines with red ink?

Fundamentalist Christian: I don’t know! But he surely can!

You would (rightly) assert: that “I don’t know” is an incoherent position.

 

[Vonsalza]

Is it reasonable to “trash” a group’s beliefs if they can not be backed up in reality? Such as flat earth groups? Evolution deniers? People who believe in hogwarts? etc. If they only kept this to themselves, didn’t indoctrinate children in believing this before they’ve learned to think for themselves, didn’t attempt to legalize these beliefs in an effort to legally convert everyone, etc. then their beliefs would be benign, but they’re not are they?

I fully agree. Compare an estimated 31 million dead in all the religious wars of history to Atheist China’s 60 million in the 20th century alone. Staggering.

However, I’m sure your brand of atheism will be somehow different if nationally realized.

 

[PRmerger]

We’ve never had an example of “nothing” to study. So how can you be justified in making any logical absolute statements about “nothing”? As I understand it, you can make logical conclusions, but you have to ground them in referencing reality. So if we’ve never had an example of “nothing” in reality yet, then how can you ground your logical conclusion as an absolute? All I see we can do, is make a strong inference to the idea that nothing can come from nothing. But remember, reality is constantly changing our assumptions about logical conclusions about it.

It continues to astonish me what must be embraced in order to remain an atheist.

“Yes! It’s possible for something to come from nothing!”

Imagine that you wake up with a mannequin in the middle of your floor one morning.

No sensible persons says, “Well, since I don’t have any examples in my life of a mannequin ever appearing there before, I cannot rule out the fact that, yes, perhaps it indeed just appeared there from no cause!”

 

[Russell_SA]

It continues to astonish me what must be embraced in order to remain an atheist.

“Yes! It’s possible for something to come from nothing!”

Imagine that you wake up with a mannequin in the middle of your floor one morning.

No sensible persons says, “Well, since I don’t have any examples in my life of a mannequin ever appearing there before, I cannot rule out the fact that, yes, perhaps it indeed just appeared there from no cause!”

Post 59 addressed this. Not surprised it only took this long for someone to make the same mistake.