Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
If there are no humans then these questions are irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Koko!! She understands teh maths.

[oneeyejak]

Here you go:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot,
or he can but does not want to,
or he cannot and does not want to,
or lastly he can and wants to.

If he wants to remove evil, and cannot,
he is not omnipotent;
If he can, but does not want to,
he is not benevolent;
If he neither can nor wants to,
he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;

But if God can abolish evil and wants to,
and if evil still exists
Then God must not be God.
God does not exist.

[Lestat]

Intereting... I believe the concept of 1 exists with or without us. The name "1" is man made, but the existence of 1 is not.

Think of the numeral 1 as the sun or a tree. These things would exist with or without man. They just wouldn't be named or placed with any theory.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP:

Debating with theists shouldn't be about winning or losing, and also - 'winning' a debate against theist who knows how to debate is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This obviously isn't true. You might mean that 'winning' is impossible against a debater, or with an audience, that considers blind contradiction a valid tool.

Or unless you wouldn't consider it an atheist 'win' to push the theist's position into an acceptance that he believes in premises that make no material case suitable for intelligent debate.

Both are clearly 'atheist wins' to intelligent observers.

(edit - or unless to win you require undeniable 100% certain proof of position - again not required by intelligent pragmatic observers.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it out at home if you like, imagine yourself as a liberal theist (one who does not interpret theist works literally) and any outcome of the debate is impossible, you don't even have to deny/oppose any of the things an atheist debates against you, the only thing you have to claim is that 'you believe in god' - and you don't even have to prove anyone wrong.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP:

Debating with theists shouldn't be about winning or losing, and also - 'winning' a debate against theist who knows how to debate is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This obviously isn't true. You might mean that 'winning' is impossible against a debater, or with an audience, that considers blind contradiction a valid tool.

Or unless you wouldn't consider it an atheist 'win' to push the theist's position into an acceptance that he believes in premises that make no material case suitable for intelligent debate.

Both are clearly 'atheist wins' to intelligent observers.

(edit - or unless to win you require undeniable 100% certain proof of position - again not required by intelligent pragmatic observers.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it out at home if you like, imagine yourself as a liberal theist (one who does not interpret theist works literally) and any outcome of the debate is impossible, you don't even have to deny/oppose any of the things an atheist debates against you, the only thing you have to claim is that 'you believe in god' - and you don't even have to prove anyone wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like I could crush 99% of the atheists in the world if I were to take the liberal theist position here, in front of a random crowd. Heck, I'd take my chances on a crowd full of young, relatively educated, wealthy Westerners (to stack the deck in the atheists favor). I'd have a hard time even coming up with a single atheist I think could handily defeat me, although there are a few (both on this board and in the real world) that I know of that could probably stalemate me.

It honestly amazes me when guys like Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins go into these types of debate and do not get absolutely slaughtered. Its such a ludicrous format that is hopeless lopsided in favor of the status quo.

[Nichomacheo]

Well, when a debate ensues most theists claim they believe in God for reasons a, b, and c. Most do not say "I believe for no reason" and if they did, it would be impossible to argue with. But, if you can disprove a, b, and c, you take away his reasons for believing, and leave him uttering "I have faith." In my mind, if you can get a theist into this corner, you have been won the argument.

Can someone address this, por favor:

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking back on it, this is what seems to have happened. He starts asking me questions that I do not know the answer to, such as where the universe came from. When I reply "I do not know" it makes my ideas seem incomplete. People listen to him, and his idea's answer that question: "God created the universe." Observers think "Athiest 0, Thiest 1".

What went wrong? I can say, "Who created God?" They can answer "God has always existed." Then what? "What is God?" "God is the creator of the universe." "Oh." "Oh."

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP:

Debating with theists shouldn't be about winning or losing, and also - 'winning' a debate against theist who knows how to debate is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This obviously isn't true. You might mean that 'winning' is impossible against a debater, or with an audience, that considers blind contradiction a valid tool.

Or unless you wouldn't consider it an atheist 'win' to push the theist's position into an acceptance that he believes in premises that make no material case suitable for intelligent debate.

Both are clearly 'atheist wins' to intelligent observers.

(edit - or unless to win you require undeniable 100% certain proof of position - again not required by intelligent pragmatic observers.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it out at home if you like, imagine yourself as a liberal theist (one who does not interpret theist works literally) and any outcome of the debate is impossible, you don't even have to deny/oppose any of the things an atheist debates against you, the only thing you have to claim is that 'you believe in god' - and you don't even have to prove anyone wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like I could crush 99% of the atheists in the world if I were to take the liberal theist position here, in front of a random crowd. Heck, I'd take my chances on a crowd full of young, relatively educated, wealthy Westerners (to stack the deck in the atheists favor). I'd have a hard time even coming up with a single atheist I think could handily defeat me, although there are a few (both on this board and in the real world) that I know of that could probably stalemate me.

It honestly amazes me when guys like Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins go into these types of debate and do not get absolutely slaughtered. Its such a ludicrous format that is hopeless lopsided in favor of the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it is worth Vhawk, I think you could also. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Options:

1. Yes
X. No
2. Maybe

And some fuzzy sidetracked stuff about what god is, and what always is.

But to explain further, my 'hypothetical' was with a theist who is liberal and a skilled debater - it is impossible to win that debate, at best you can stalemate it.

The base premise will boil down the question you asked above, and there really is no way of genuinely falsifying any of the answers (yet). You can go into the whole big bang stuff, but it wouldn't really change anything (since obviously all the theist has to say is god made the big bang happen - or in case of the truly liberal ones that 'if the big bang happened then god was made together with it').

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
math isn't "true" so much as it's consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't consistency the underpinning of truth? What 'truth' is can be debated ad absurdum but it's clear to me that without consistency truth may not exist. We can't say an apple is red if there is no consistency to what red means. Truth is a highly idealized concept that doesn't have a binary test. The best we can do is take a measurement of truth, and that measurement is consistency. The longer a statement goes without being contradicted the greater the likelihood of it being a truth.

The beauty of math is very simple. It is the least ambiguous way to interpret the universe. What is so fascinating to me is that we have evolved to understand these concepts (math, logic) on such a level because it is useful. And only with the help of these faculties are we able to make predictions about the world around us with any consistency.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, when a debate ensues most theists claim they believe in God for reasons a, b, and c. Most do not say "I believe for no reason" and if they did, it would be impossible to argue with. But, if you can disprove a, b, and c, you take away his reasons for believing, and leave him uttering "I have faith." In my mind, if you can get a theist into this corner, you have been won the argument.

Can someone address this, por favor:

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking back on it, this is what seems to have happened. He starts asking me questions that I do not know the answer to, such as where the universe came from. When I reply "I do not know" it makes my ideas seem incomplete. People listen to him, and his idea's answer that question: "God created the universe." Observers think "Athiest 0, Thiest 1".

What went wrong? I can say, "Who created God?" They can answer "God has always existed." Then what? "What is God?" "God is the creator of the universe." "Oh." "Oh."

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd never be able to disprove my reasons a, b and c, or at least it would take you so long, so many words, and so many suppositions, that I would still win the debate.