Favourite Atheist arguments

[Orbit]

Do you not believe that the logical arguments for god count as evidence?

"Arguments" are not evidence.

 

[tarasan]

You said a "logical argument". That is a specific type of argument that often does not rely on facts and evidence. You tried to change your claim to a general argument. And the fact remains that logical arguments are almost always terminally flawed. Take the Kalam Cosmological argument. That has to be distorted from its original and God redefined for it to even appear to work to the uneducated. It is a favorite of William Lane Craig's and he is currently a laughing stock because of it. It was refuted a long time ago and he still tries to use it. At best it only shows that the Universe, as we know it, had a beginning. That is not evidence for a God.

Look up at your comment friend I was responding to what u said. Also logical arguments are in line with that definition

You are going to have to make a more general argument as to why merely citing one does not mean the idea of logical arguments are flawed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look up at your comment friend I was responding to what u said. Also logical arguments are in line with that definition

You are going to have to make a more general argument as to why merely citing one does not mean the idea of logical arguments are flawed.

Let me correct you once again, arguments are not evidence. They may rely on them, but the argument itself is not evidence.

And you brought up supposed logical arguments for God. I do not know of any in existence any longer. There is one more thing that you may not realize about arguments. Once refuted they do not exist any longer. One can repeat a failed argument, but that is only self delusion or even lying at that point in time. What supposed logical arguments exist for the existence of God?

 

[Valjean]

Everything exists. Whether actually, imaginatively, extrapolatively, reductively, deductively, or inductively, everything exists.

You're level-mixing. We're discussing from and about waking-state. Bringing up features from other realities confuses everything.

I disagree that the default position is the position "you were born with." More according with science and common usage, the term refers to what the steady state is if you do not change it. That applies to any point in your lifetime.

But that's what a default setting is; the original, 'factory' setting. "Steady state?" This sounds like astronomy or physics.

I agree that it takes a push to go from someone without beliefs to someone with beliefs, but it's a stretch to suggest that that person is an infant.

That's what you took to be my point? I was comparing new-from-the-box operating systems with new-from-the-box organic operating systems.

You were born with beliefs--at very least, the five senses. At best, a belief in "mother" who will nourish you and keep you safe. To suggest that we are born without beliefs is to deny what "belief" means (the conviction of something being true).

These aren't what I mean by "beliefs."

If you want to argue it, then I would propose that the point at which we garner beliefs is the point at which we start investing in things being true.

Huh?

It's not possible to accept/invest in {something being true} without evidence. Otherwise, it's not belief.

Belief often has little to do with evidence. There are evidenced beliefs, and a whole lot of contradictory unevidenced beliefs.

Now, I know words get substituted all the time, and it's not a stretch to substitute 'belief' for trust, extrapolation, expectation, even reasoning, but it's not those things. It's just the acceptance of {something} as true.

As I said. People believe in all sorts of things without evidence. Often the belief comes first, and evidence is compiled later.

 

[tarasan]

Let me correct you once again, arguments are not evidence. They may rely on them, but the argument itself is not evidence.

And you brought up supposed logical arguments for God. I do not know of any in existence any longer. There is one more thing that you may not realize about arguments. Once refuted they do not exist any longer. One can repeat a failed argument, but that is only self delusion or even lying at that point in time. What supposed logical arguments exist for the existence of God?

An argument is a reason for believing in something evidence is information that supports something. How are reasons for believing in something not information that supports some thing? Most thiest arguments use deductive reasoning which means that the conclusion if there statements made in the argument are true, then the conclusion also has to be true, how is that not evidence? They only way a logical argument would be completely invalid is if one of the presuppositions was shown to be demonstrably false.

The same could be said for other forms of evidence if shown to be false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An argument is a reason for believing in something evidence is information that supports something. How are reasons for believing in something not information that supports some thing? Most thiest arguments use deductive reasoning which means that the conclusion if there statements made in the argument are true, then the conclusion also has to be true, how is that not evidence? They only way a logical argument would be completely invalid is if one of the presuppositions was shown to be demonstrably false.

The same could be said for other forms of evidence if shown to be false.

Evidence will support an argument. It is not the argument itself.

And there are various ways to refute logical arguments. It all depends upon the logical arguments. It may have a false premise. It may have a poor inference. It may draw an unjustified conclusion. There are probably other possible failures as well.

 

[tarasan]

Evidence will support an argument. It is not the argument itself.

Evidence do support arguments yes and then those arguments can be used as evidence for other things. We do this all the time.

We have structures of belief with basic views supporting more complex ones. That's how worldviews are made. Presumptions that lead to arguments for certain points of view that then support other points of view. Etc etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence do support arguments yes and then those arguments can be used as evidence for other things. We do this all the time.

We have structures of belief with basic views supporting more complex ones. That's how worldviews are made. Presumptions that lead to arguments for certain points of view that then support other points of view. Etc etc.

The problem is that there do not appear to be any logical arguments for God. Once again, when an argument fails it is no longer an argument. Repeating it at that point is simply an error.

 

[tarasan]

The problem is that there do not appear to be any logical arguments for God. Once again, when an argument fails it is no longer an argument. Repeating it at that point is simply an error.

If you do not find the evidence for god compelling that fine. However alot of arguments for a god have not been outright refute, which one have u seen which have been

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you do not find the evidence for god compelling that fine. However alot of arguments for a god have not been outright refute, which one have u seen which have been

Bring up the best one that you think that there is. Odds are that it has been refuted.

I already mentioned the Kalam Cosmological argument. But you were the one that claimed they exist. It is hard for me to post something that does not exist

 

[tarasan]

Bring up the best one that you think that there is. Odds are that it has been refuted.

I already mentioned the Kalam Cosmological argument. But you were the one that claimed they exist. It is hard for me to post something that does not exist

Clearly u have belief in the arguments. I mean u just said they were all refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly u have belief in the arguments. I mean u just said they were all refuted.

You can't have "belief" in something that has been refuted. At least one can't if one reasons rationally. I have seen theists claim that such arguments exist but I have never seen one that has not been refuted.

By the way, your reluctance to post any tells us that you probably know that they have been refuted as well. I call this the ostrich defense (and no ostriches do not actually hide their heads in the sand). Pretending that your losses do not exist does not make them go away.

 

[halbhh]

And what's the goal, a happy life? comfort? material prosperity? release from suffering?

Those are widely held goals that many people have in common, yes. And a person can discover if a principle/way to live causes better outcomes over alternative ways on these goals.

access to a better life after death? a better life in the next incarnation?

These 2 goals in contrast are instead faith-based goals, that fewer people have, but some do. Also these 2 are not testable here and now of course.

Some religions don't seem to focus much on earthly happiness or prosperity. Some even encourage toil, suffering...

We know a portion of the population finds satisfaction and happiness from hard work -- 'toil' -- and even more: generally most people report enjoyment of accomplishing something, so...this one can be tricky to gauge.

Science is pretty good at theorem formulation and testing, but what would "working better" mean.

In the instances I referred to, 'working better' than other competing ways to live has to do with commonly valued improvements in states of being that many wish to accomplish, such as:

1) relieving stress

I found that forgiving others that hadn't even apologized relieved a burden I didn't even realize I was still carrying until I did forgive them, and felt the difference of feeling lighter, freer, more energetic. This one may be unsurprising: forgiving others is very widely endorsed in a very wide variety of self-help and wisdom traditions, because it's positive effects are widely known. It should be that good principles of living would show up widely around the world, since they work well.

2) improving energy

3) improving satisfaction/happiness

4) and so on...


I'll put the rest in another post...

 

[halbhh]

You might want to look into Buddhism

Well, Buddhism has blended in, been incorporated into various practices in the modern style, so that if one does quite a few modern techniques -- like some modern styles of meditative yoga even, or modern blends of ideas and meditation classes with talk -- then we are doing in part some key buddhist things. Lemme give example:

Of these 5 Buddhist rules:
The Five Precepts

• Refrain from taking life. Not killing any living being. ...
• Refrain from taking what is not given. Not stealing from anyone.
• Refrain from the misuse of the senses. Not having too much sensual pleasure. ...
• Refrain from wrong speech. Not lying or gossiping about other people.
• Refrain from intoxicants that cloud the mind.

I found that over and over the various modern stuff in Austin was incorporating points 3, 4, and 5. (while of course point 1 was implicit).

So, the boundaries aren't that distinct. Often when trying some new instance of meditation technique somewhere (I must have done a couple dozen just from pure curiosity), I often thought of Buddhism.

Perhaps because pretty often in those classes, a statue like this would be at the front of the class:

So it was hard to miss, kinda.

 

[tarasan]

You can't have "belief" in something that has been refuted. At least one can't if one reasons rationally. I have seen theists claim that such arguments exist but I have never seen one that has not been refuted.

By the way, your reluctance to post any tells us that you probably know that they have been refuted as well. I call this the ostrich defense (and no ostriches do not actually hide their heads in the sand). Pretending that your losses do not exist does not make them go away.

Ohh no my reluctance to do is because your the one made the claim so it's up to you to show the receipts. It's better not to assume the intent of people mate. Especially someone who unhave never met and your entire interaction with them has been in a debate form.

Of course you can believe in something that has been refuted i believe in the concept of dragons but I know their existence has been refuted (people did at one time believe that dragons existed)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ohh no my reluctance to do is because your the one made the claim so it's up to you to show the receipts. It's better not to assume the intent of people mate. Especially someone who unhave never met and your entire interaction with them has been in a debate form.

Of course you can believe in something that has been refuted i believe in the concept of dragons but I know their existence has been refuted (people did at one time believe that dragons existed)

Nope, so backwards. And I gave you an example.

***MOD EDIT***

I said that one cannot have a rational belief in what has been refuted.

 

[tarasan]

Nope, so backwards. ***MOD EDIT***

I'm sorry I'm struggling to understand this why is asking you prove your claim that all religious logical arguments have been refuted incorrect? I mean that's what u said isn't it? And u didn't give one example unsaid it had been but gave no evidence as to how.

Also saying it's backwards doesn't show anyone how it is so receipt please

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry I'm struggling to understand this why is asking you prove your claim that all religious logical arguments have been refuted incorrect? I mean that's what u said isn't it? And u didn't give one example unsaid it had been but gave no evidence as to how.

Also saying it's backwards doesn't show anyone how it is so receipt please

And you continually misrepresent what I said. Naughty, naughty.

Try again.

 

[tarasan]

The problem is that there do not appear to be any logical arguments for God. Once again, when an argument fails it is no longer an argument. Repeating it at that point is simply an error.

I figured I'd reply to this one to give u some context u said there appear to be no logical arguments for god, and that they no longer exists if they are refuted I asked u to give receipts you only have one and did not even say why they it is logically flawed. How am I mirespenting you?

Also please tell me how my example was backwards u have yet to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I figured I'd reply to this one to give u some context u said there appear to be no logical arguments for god, and that they no longer exists if they are refuted I asked u to give receipts you only have one and did not even say why they it is logically flawed. How am I mirespenting you?

Also please tell me how my example was backwards u have yet to do so.

Dude, you were the one that brought up the logical arguments for God nonsense.