• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheists commit the worst sin. They deny discussion.

Which is the more compelling case?

  • Unprovable ontological models can have utility, validity, coherency, and can be self-consistent.

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Unprovable ontological models are useless.

    Votes: 8 57.1%

  • Undecided.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    14
reefedjib

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
That's it isn't it. Atheists rely on scientific evidence to measure the utility of a statement. That religious statements are unprovable due to lack of evidence makes them conflate their utility with statements demonstrably false. These are two completely different categories of statements. If religious statements are unprovable, they are un-dis-provable as well. This makes such statements entirely possible and those with religious beliefs are well within rights to hold such opinions.

Atheists do the contemptible - they accuse the religious of heresy to science. By denying the truthfulness of religious thought, they do even worse - they ban religious thought as untruth and having no utility. They ban thought. ASSHOLES.
 
Painting with a little too broad of a brush there, Reef.
 
I am obviously not talking about atheists who hold private opinion. I am talking about atheists which use ridicule to sway public opinion against those who hold religious opinion.
 
reefedjib said:
That's it isn't it. Atheists rely on scientific evidence to measure the utility of a statement. That religious statements are unprovable due to lack of evidence makes them conflate their utility with statements demonstrably false. These are two completely different categories of statements. If religious statements are unprovable, they are un-dis-provable as well. This makes such statements entirely possible and those with religious beliefs are well within rights to hold such opinions.

Atheists do the contemptible - they accuse the religious of heresy to science. By denying the truthfulness of religious thought, they do even worse - they ban religious thought as untruth and having no utility. They ban thought. ASSHOLES.
Click to expand...

You can't prove a negative.
 
reefedjib said:
Did I attempt to do so? Or are you saying atheists attempt this?
Click to expand...

No, it seems you are arguing that since atheists can't prove that god doesn't exist, they shouldn't ask for the religious to prove he does.
 
reefedjib said:
I am obviously not talking about atheists who hold private opinion. I am talking about atheists which use ridicule to sway public opinion against those who hold religious opinion.
Click to expand...

Unlike the religious who do the same thing against atheists, of course. :roll:
 
Thorgasm said:
No, it seems you are arguing that since atheists can't prove that god doesn't exist, they shouldn't ask for the religious to prove he does.
Click to expand...

It is given, mostly, that the religious cannot prove this. I am saying there is a difference between proving something and holding opinion that is unprovable yet legitimate.
 
reefedjib said:
It is given, mostly, that the religious cannot prove this. I am saying there is a difference between proving something and holding opinion that is unprovable yet legitimate.
Click to expand...

How is it legitimate if it is unproven?
 
X Factor said:
"There is no such thing as God" is a positive assertion.
Click to expand...

Yet I rarely ever see anyone say that. I see them say "there is no evidence for the existence of a god" all the time though.
 
Thorgasm said:
How is it legitimate if it is unproven?
Click to expand...

Provability is not the only measure of legitimacy. It is a good one, no doubt. However, self-consistent oncologies have their own legitimacy.

All scientific hypothesis start this way. Granted they become theories when evidence supports them and in this case, evidence may not be found. Still detracts nothing from the theological hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
That's it isn't it. Atheists rely on scientific evidence to measure the utility of a statement.
Click to expand...
As does everyone else in the entire world. If someone were to tell you that they can fly you wouldn't just believe them right off the bat. You'd ask for proof or you wouldn't believe them. That, apparently, makes you an asshole by your definition.
reefedjib said:
That religious statements are unprovable due to lack of evidence makes them conflate their utility with statements demonstrably false. These are two completely different categories of statements. If religious statements are unprovable, they are un-dis-provable as well. This makes such statements entirely possible and those with religious beliefs are well within rights to hold such opinions.

Atheists do the contemptible - they accuse the religious of heresy to science. By denying the truthfulness of religious thought, they do even worse - they ban religious thought as untruth and having no utility. They ban thought. ASSHOLES.
Click to expand...
I've never met an atheist that wants to ban people from believing in religion. What I have seen is atheists that believe that if you want your religion held up as law or taught in public schools then I think that you should have to provide evidence proving the validity of your beliefs.

I don't know if you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning but this entire post reads to me like someone is arguing against something that they don't understand in the slightest.
 
reefedjib said:
Provability is not the only measure of legitimacy. It is a good one, no doubt. However, self-consistent oncologies have their own legitimacy.

All scientific hypothesis start this way. Granted they become theories when evidence supports them and in this case, evidence may not be found. Still detracts nothing from the theological hypothesis.
Click to expand...

All you have is a appeal to popularity. People like fish stories.
 
Cephus said:
Yet I rarely ever see anyone say that.
Click to expand...

Thorgasm kinda stepped on your point, huh?

Thorgasm said:
No, it's the default position.
Click to expand...

Really? Seems to me the default position would be "I don't know if there's a God." If you're saying there is no god, you are making the claim that there, well, is no god. Be like if I said, "there is no such thing as atheists."
 
Last edited:
Thorgasm said:
No, it seems you are arguing that since atheists can't prove that god doesn't exist, they shouldn't ask for the religious to prove he does.
Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is that they are two different epistemologies so empiricists should stop acting like faith can never have utility for anyone, when clearly it does.
 
X Factor said:
Thorgasm kinda stepped on your point, huh?
Click to expand...

I did say rarely, did I not?

Really? Seems to me the default position would be "I don't know if there's a God." If you're saying there is no god, you are making the claim that there, well, is no god. Be like if I said, "there is no such thing as atheists."
Click to expand...

It depends on what you're trying to convey. Thorgasm is entirely right, assuming one is looking for a falsifiable position, which is a requirement for scientific thought. If one says "there are no gods", then to falsify the position, one just has to be presented with a single instance of a god. If one says "there are god(s)", then to falsify that, one would have to search out every corner of the universe and find no gods. Only one is reasonably falsifiable and thus, rational.

You have to determine if the claim is faith-based or rationally-based. "I have faith there are no gods" vs. "I see no evidence for the existence of gods, thus I am not believing in gods until you can demonstrate they actually exist".
 
Temporal said:
I think what he's saying is that they are two different epistemologies so empiricists should stop acting like faith can never have utility for anyone, when clearly it does.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking and delusion are certainly beneficial to the person who has them, that doesn't mean either of them demonstrate anything factually true, which is the whole point. I'm sure the guy who thinks he's Napoleon gets great benefit from the belief, he's still wrong.
 
X Factor said:
Really? Seems to me the default position would be "I don't know if there's a God." If you're saying there is no god, you are making the claim that there, well, is no god. Be like if I said, "there is no such thing as atheists."
Click to expand...

I've thought about this one quite a lot. The default position is "There is no god". Just like the default position is on the existence of a Clargothrongolite is "There is no Clargothrongolite".

Until such time as actual evidence is present which indicates that a concept is real, the default is that the concept is not real.

This is the default because in the utter absence of any outside influence, this is the state which exists.

Once another person comes in and says "Let me tell you about this concept of God (or Clargothrongolite) some very weak evidence exists which points to the slight possibility that god (or Clargothrongolite) exists.

At this point, you switch from the default state to the more agnostic state: "I don't know if God (or Clargothrongolite) exists". I have a small piece of evidence which points to the hypothetical possibility of God (or Clargothrongolite) existing, but it is very weak and not particularly logical.

But the default state of one's personal belief remains the same throughout: The state of lacking belief in God's (or Clargothrongolite's) existence
 
X Factor said:
Thorgasm kinda stepped on your point, huh?
Click to expand...

I didn't start this thread. Until we know something exists, it doesn't exist.

X Factor said:
Really? Seems to me the default position would be "I don't know if there's a God." If you're saying there is no god, you are making the claim that there, well, is no god. Be like if I said, "there is no such thing as atheists."
Click to expand...

Trust me, I exist.

Are you agnostic about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy?
 
Temporal said:
I think what he's saying is that they are two different epistemologies so empiricists should stop acting like faith can never have utility for anyone, when clearly it does.
Click to expand...

Sure, faith has lots of utilities for people, some good, some bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom