Atheism versus Theism

Alright, I want a good, clean fight.  Simply state your side, your argument/counter-argument/comment and whatnot.  I'm not trying to troll this, just wanting a good debate, so let's have one. (Atheist by the way)

Atheism is not believing in (a) theism. it's not rejecting, or trying to disprove any theisms out there it simply just doesn't believe in what a theism believes in. It's a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't have any burden of proof because they don't claim anything. If no one had come up with and idea of a deity we would all be atheistic by default, just as if no one had introduced the concept of deception we would all only be capable of telling the truth. Atheism only arises as an option because theism exists.

Theism is believing in a higher power, be it God, Gods, or nature as a whole as a sentient being (Gaia), that can affect the lives of creatures (humans), inanimate objects (the stars), and environmental occurrences (the weather). Theism makes many claims of how the world works according to either a general set of rules set by said deities or by the will of said deities and is therefore subject to the burden of proof (extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof). Theism generally addresses much criticism of these claims by either citing the will of the deity and purposeful drastic changes of any previous rules (miracles that defy the laws of physics) or by citing observation in a book of theistic dogma written as historical accounts (The Bible). The major claim of a deity itself in any theism is addressed through either citing previous claims and their subsequent evidence (many chalked up to miracles) or faith. the first method being prone to the fallacy of circular logic (God (exists because)> described in theistic scripture (inspired by)> God) the second is based off the method of believing in that which has no evidence as truth.

am i close?

>>41
No, you're just shifting the burden of proof on the theists. Protip: You both have to prove your theory to agnostics.

How to get free stuff from the internet, like Amazon gift certificates and shit:

Step 1: Install Firefox autoreloader: http://tinyurl.com/32wqmn

Step 2: Go to this site: http://tinyurl.com/ynkurk
and sign up. Make sure to uncheck the box that lets them send you email offers and garbage.

Step 3: Go to the search page at that site and input any search. (internet hate machine, etc.)

Step 4: Set Firefox to autoreload the page every 5 seconds.

Step 5: ?????

Step 6: Profit! I won a $5 gift certificate in the first 15 minutes. It might take longer, but if you just set it up and leave it every day, you get tons of free shit. (Make sure to check your "My Prizes" page periodically)

>>42
Bullshit. Any "agnostic" who believes that is soft in the head. See also: unicorn analogy.

The problem is that millenia of religious indoctrination have normalised theist claims to such an extent that most people don't stop to realise just how outrageous they really are. These self-described agnostics are ascribing religious claims a credibility they just don't have.

>>44
I'm an agnostic because, though I have found no compelling evidence for belief in any kind of supernatural, divine being, I believe it to be an open question whether or not some form of great intelligence created the universe or initiated the Big Bang, or whether it occurred without influence. A question that science has not yet answered, and a question (I am open to this possibility) it may never provide a satisfactory answer for.

I know I am vulnerable to the "teapot in orbit round the sun" attack, but I maintain that it is an open question in my mind, since the question and the potential answer is so fundamental. Whether this technically makes me an atheist or an agnostic I don't care, but I call myself agnostic to separate myself from atheists who are determined that NO such being could POSSIBLY have created the universe.

>>45
So basically you're a credulous dipshit who doesn't know how to examine evidence and think critically, same as any christfag. GTFO.

   religin relies on faith not any shred of reality

   you cant prove god with mathamatics or any logic unless you take a series of asumptions about god that may or may not exist

   the human race was mostlikley not made by any higher being unless we were an experiment that went horibly wrong(or there not finished with us/got bored)

   god was made by a figment of some retards imagination who is not able to grasp the fact that they will die and thats it.

   the argument that says "god can exist cause theres no proof that it dosent" works as well as me saying "i am god... prove me wrong"(if you can acualy completly and perfectly prove that i am not god then stfu cause your probaby on drugs)

>>45

>>41 here

i think the biggest mistake you make is that you think that atheists somehow actively deny the existence of a deity, when in fact they simply do not believe in the notion. It's not that god CAN'T exist, it's that one doesn't. It's almost an assumption, instead of a direct claim. Atheists assume there's no god because there's nothing that would show there is one, not that there CAN'T be a god. Imagine a time before the notion of god. if you went up to anyone, and asked them if they believe in god, they'd give you a puzzled look and ask "what is a god?". it's somewhat the same thing now, but because we live in a world where you'd never get that response because god is such a prevalent notion, the answer has become "no, i don't." But the idea is the same. if you asked that man long ago "why don't you believe in god?" after explaining the notion of a deity to him, he would end up asking "what reason would i have TO believe in one?". With this there's no logical reason why that man would have any burden of proof on him because he doesn't claim anything. The ONLY reason theists think atheists have any sort of burden of proof is because we live in a time where the notion of god is everywhere, so to say there isn't one is suddenly a claim. Just as if you lived in a world where the notion of the Great Green Arkleseizure made the universe, saying you don't believe in it is then also suddenly a claim, while on any other world the notion would have never come up. So, even though the environment in which the question is asked is different than that man long ago, the burden of proof still lies on the person making the claim about a deity.

>>45 here


>>46
I've examined the evidence, and determined that there is no reason to believe an intelligent initial creator exists, and no reason to specifically believe one didn't. Hence, I leave it as an open question.

>>48
But there probably are some atheists who believe God can't possibly exist, and it's those ones that I'd want to distance myself from. I understand perfectly that the onus of proof is on theists, not atheists, and that belief in some initial creator is about as indeterminate as believing that a piece of turd exists in the middle of a galaxy millions of light-years away. But my point is this: I don't think we should dismiss the fundamental question of whether an initial stimulus was provided to the universe or not, rather, it is something we should be having open in our minds and striving towards solving.

Take an example, let's say a mathematician is working on solving a problem, a potential solution of which may have drastic implications on the whole of science. The mathematician does not see that there is no evidence of a solution existing (which, let's say, there isn't) and simply assume there isn't and forget about it. His first and foremost task is to try and find that solution, or at least prove that one exists.

>>49
Faulty analogy as math actually exists.

Going over the 3 positions about the existence of gods...

Given that most religions are mutually exclusive, I don't see how one can be a theist.

The fact one has to pick a religion that most likely rejects all others is a huge hurdle in my eyes. You ask people how they did it and it's their childhood or "they found Jesus" etc. Maybe it was Allah they found?

The second problem is how all religions give the same testament to the power of their gods (books, miracles, heroes). How is one to choose?

I do not believe deism is a better position, there is no need for deities that exist outside of the universe, except for Man's head to feel better. I'll expand on that if needed to.

So I am left with atheism, the "reactive" position as >>48 describes. But really mostly, outside of debates I don't give a damn about deities, therefore "I am not an atheist, I just don't believe in gods". This is a non-sense but the meaning of the word has slipped to mean "anti-religious" rather than "atheist".  They ought to come up with a new word.

>>49

the question isn't whether or not the universe is a result of an initial stimulus, because it most likely was (the big bag), the question is whether or not that initial stimulus was a sentient omnipotent being (god).

in response to your example, first, look at the second sentence again because you used a double negative and i'm not sure if you ended up where you wanted to be. second, the analogy doesn't really work because with math you work with concrete finite numbers, for the most part, than can be critiqued and shown as a proof and so on. the biggest problem with god is that it's the biggest open ended thing to work with, EVER. any logic or method you try to put to it can easily be slapped down using an excuse like miracles or the idea that god doesn't need to follow his own rules of the universe. you might as well say there's an immortal time traveling magician that goes around doing stuff to the universe that shouldn't happen. if you try to prove he doesn't exist because the things he does doesn't fit the laws of observable nature, then you chalk it up to his magic wand and leave it at that. it becomes a childish game of "well, god can't exist because of /this/. we've tested it and everything and it comes out wrong, so god can't possibly work if this is wrong." to which the response is "yeah, well, it's god we're talking about. he can do ANYTHING. so try try again. neener neener neener". How can you even begin to prove god DOESN'T exist when you're dealing with a being that can be anywhere, knows everything, and has the capability of making 2+2=fish?

>>51
"They ought to come up with a new word."

better yet, people need to stop thinking of 'atheist' as 'anti-religious'. no need to find a new word to appease the people who misunderstand it.>>49

>>52
Sorry, yes the pseudo double negative is confusing. Rephrasing the sentence;

"The mathematician sees that there is no evidence of any solution existing, but does not simply assume there are none and forget about it."

As for the "god" thing... to be fair, I'm hardly even talking about god. Certainly not the god of any religion. I'm not talking about a god that can excuse things using miracles, or can defy any law at will, thus rendering science inept. I'm talking about whether or not the initial stimulus to the universe was a sentient being. The Big Bang in itself is not a satisfactory answer, and I'm not satisfied in blindly believing that science will provide an ultimate answer at some point. It is an open question in my head. The universe may or may not have been stimulated by a sentient being. It is simply arrogance and speculation to state that you are certain that it wasn't, given the (lack of) evidence available.


In fact, there is a philosophical idea that we may be significantly more likely to exist in a virtual universe (that is, one created by outside sentient beings) than in a "real" one. This would come from the speculation that if a civilisation reaches a certain peak in technical capabilities, it may desire and implement the creation of a virtual universe, in which the exact same thing happens, and so on. This might be limited by the quantization of fundamental forces/particles, I'm not entirely sure. But if it is possible, that outside sentience is pretty much omnipotent, and fits a lot of the criteria for being a "god" to this universe.

>>53
well if we're talking about origin theories, namely the big bang vs. a sentient stimulus, then the discussion becomes which is more plausible given available evidence: a theory with tons of observable and testable evidence already in our possession or one for which there is no evidence or method of testing?

"It is simply arrogance and speculation to state that you are certain that it wasn't, given the (lack of) evidence available."

I'm not so sure it's arrogance that we reject that which has no evidence, or else we'd have to give consideration to ANYTHING that came across our plate. At some point you have to realize that yes almost anything can be possible, but unless it's backed up by actual testable, repeatable evidence, you're going to have to put it waaay back on the back burner until your theory overpowers what we already have. Current theories of intelligent design are miles away from being taken seriously, and usually end up warping current science to make it seem like they have a valid point to make.

and as for your example of a cycle of virtual realities building virtual realities, you still come across the problem of, going back far enough, what was the initial stimulus?

Faith requires belief. Belief that all the experience in your life and everything your life is about is true.  I'm not calling your traditions false, but I've met many Christians who don't forgive like the Lord tells you to.  So many who -don't- turn the other cheek, and instead look for an eye for an eye.  The anointed one said "Judge not, lest ye be judged". How is that wrong today? Science isn't a tool for discovering God.  It's not supposed to prove or disprove God.  What you should be wondering is:  why are you being ordered to hate learning?

IT'S OK GUYS, I FOUND GOD, HE WAS BEHIND THE COUCH.

>>54

I told you, the Big Bang isn't a satisfactory solution on its own, since it doesn't say -how- it actually occurred, only what happened during it. I'm perfectly happy with the theory being the most plausible, given the evidence (H/He proportions etc..). I'm talking about whether a sentient being caused it to occur or not. The problem at this point being, we're not certain if anything testable is even possible. MY problem at this point being, atheists will not even consider the possibility that it was a sentient being at all. In my mind, it is as possible a solution as any mathematical construct like branes you can concoct (untestably, and currently without evidence) to sort-of explain why the Big Bang might have occurred. People have high-profile, well-paid jobs researching into these (untestable, no evidence) solutions, but no one has ever considered generating testable predictions based on it being a sentient stimulus.

MY problem at this point being, atheists will not even consider the possibility that it was a sentient being at all.
MY problem is that you won't consider that it was a rabbit.
Seriously, you're a closed-minded bigot.

I supposer I'll finally pipe into my thread. (Still Atheist)

1. Adding the suffix -fag or -tard does nothing for you. It neither makes you right, nor makes you look intelligent. You simply look like a kid who just figured out the meaning of the word fag.

2. The only real way to resolve this argument is to go back to our old friend, Occam's Razor.  If there is no proof for something, or it relies on circular argument for its proof, then it may not be disproved. Both arguments do this on occasion, but Theism does this on more occasions than Atheism.  In this case, you must simply go to the razor, and say that, seeing as Theism assumes more, it must know less, else it would have no need to assume.

3. When I say Theism, by no means do I mean Christianity.  I mean anything from Judaism to Paganism to old Norse mythology.

4. Insults such as: fucking retard, nigger, or fuck head are not valid insults by any means.

5. Anyone who uses a holy book as proof of the existence of gods, or the existence of gods as proof of a holy book...you surely have some disorder, and I would suggest you see a local doctor as soon as possible.

>>59
-tard is an accurate suffix when dealing with theists, IMO. They really are mentally retarded, in the sense that they're stuck in an infantile mindset.

>>60
This may be so, but seeing as if one is intelligent enough to recognize they are retarded, they are most likely not retarded, it serves no purpose to point this out to them.  You may simply hold your wisdom, saving it until the perfect time, at which point you shall zerg them with a wave of truthiness.  This, then, will bring a small golden age to all within 100 miles, allowing science, mathematics, and philosophy to flourish, triggering more waves of truthiness; a chain reaction which will wipe away all Theism in one lovely, merciful genocide.

i labled god/religis belifs unimportant in my head
(i neither agree or disagree withi them i just do not care about them)
so i cant really se why you are areguing about a thing that is irrelevent(no you are not proving which side is right you just end up lookin idiotic)
even if you win what will you achive anyways?
(corection: what will it achive for me? i dont care about you)

Wut A GODS?  U maek noSPENCE!

so i cant really se why you are areguing about a thing that is irrelevent
It would be irrelevant if it didn't oppress billions of people. Religion actively holds back human civilisation and causes more individual unhappiness than any other thing in the world.
This is why this sort of discussion is important (or would be, if it wasn't just one agnostic wanking about atheists and atheists replying to him, instead of actual religitards laying their arguments for the existence of god on the table).

Anyway, piss off, the grown-ups are talking.

And yet the religitards have delivered up ZERO evidence for this deity-thing-whatever.  MAJORLY EPIC FAIL.  There are NO pink invisible weightless flying dragons tiptoeing through your yard!  All those who say pink invisible weightless flying dragons exist have to SUBMIT EVIDENCE FOR THEM!

six times nine = 42

>>66
Correct, because it says so in a book (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

>>67
Correct, they did it on Mythbusters.

WUT a GODS?

Seriously, what is a god?

>>66

Base 13?

>>71

Yeah, I'd worked that out ages ago, but whenever I try to explain it to someone they either have no mathematical knowledge and can't understand, or have some mathematical knowledge and don't even care.

Jessus is chrsitian but i bet he had sex tho. bibel is like wrong cuz sum fuckin old guys made it up to saey sex is wtong.... so realy sex is cool its just those fuckin old guys who didntget any pusy telin us wat we can and cant' do!!!

 lol fuckin jewse talkin shit aboutu Jessus all the time.

God shoots up heroin everyday.  He's lost all control of himself.  He needs our help!  He needs...  an intervention.

I ask you this, why is it that all cultures around the world concieved a God or Spirits?

>>75
"God or spirits", as if the majority of the various religions people have come up with over the millenia aren't mutually exclusive?
The development of religion is pretty well understood and quite uncontroversial, and it doesn't have anything to do with actual existence of the supernatural. Read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, if you want a detailed explanation.

Hello again....going to just post periodically until this dies out. (Atheist still)

>>73
I'm really hoping you either have some learning deficiency, are five years old, or have a typing problem....there's no other excuse.
 >>75
Religion is what happens when science fails.  Back in the time of the Mayans and such, for instance, they didn't have the technology to determine what caused things such as: day and night, disease, differing harvests, or natural disasters.  In this manner, they simple credited it to some unknown spirit, and so made sacrifices to appease these gods.  This has happened in many cultures.  Native Americans thought, for instance, that Earth was on a turtle's back being carried around a light source because they hadn't the technology to determine what was actually happening.  So, in short, religion is the 'easy way out'. "I don't get this, so it must be divine." As science advances, less and less ritual is put into religion, as more is explained.  In America, a relatively small amount of ritual is placed into religion.  By contrast, in India, there is more ritual because less is known to the populace about the actual happenings. And, as 76 said above, me, the development of religion is quite understood, haven't several known causes, including but not limited to: the belief that an amazing occurrence is divine, the closeness of a society which results in its separation from the beliefs of another, or a way for a governing body or simply a single autocrat to control the populace. Do it right or you'll burn forever is an effective way to make people obey, after all.

This has been Krieger, your guide to all things obvious.

>>77
If Indians don't know much of what is happening about the world, the how come they know so damn much about what's happening in my computer?

doesn't something have to exist for you to argue that it doesn't exist?

>>79

that makes no sense at all to me. it's like saying you can't say 'billy isn't in this room' unless billy is actually in the room. actual existence isn't a prerequisite for an argument against that things existence. i would think the just very idea something existed (invisible pink unicorn, for instance) and the lack of evidence then for that thing would be grounds enough to pose the question.