• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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.

Atheist's Disrespectful Attitude towards not only Religion but the Religious


No my application of the fallacy is on target. As usual in these discussions, atheists misrepresent theists positions in order to straw man and attack... while never actually addressing the theist position. If you state definitively that God does not exist, the burden of proof is now on YOU. If you base this claim on indicating that there is no evidence that God DOES exist, you have committed the fallacy, clearly and completely. If you choose to debate this topic, it would probably be better if you chose your words more carefully, so you and others don't constantly commit this logical fallacy. I don't mind pointing it out, but doing so in every thread is a bit redundant.
 
Dogger807 said:
Seriously, first you misuse the argument from ignorance falacy now your throwing out strawman falsely.
Click to expand...

Seriously. First you err on the argument from ignorance fallacy and then you, seemingly can't pick up with someone is strawmanning.
 
Compare with I'm happy if you want a claimant to define their terms. I'm equally happy if you want a claimant to have their terms defined for them. What I'm not so keen on is when you demand both at once. Pick one, and we can continue - I'm not going to do all the defining while you sit back and look for semantic holes to shoot.

I'm asking you to define 'the universe', so that we can discuss how God can lie without it. You're asking me to define 'God', so that we can talk about... something you haven't let me in on yet. Either hold up your own end, or don't expect me to hold up mine. Pick one, and we can continue

I have argued before that there is adequete justification for taking the negative position based on what we KNOW from science, psychology, culture, history, and humans frailities.
Click to expand...
You believe that there is evidence of the non-existence of God? What would that be?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Those assumptions being? The Cosmological Principle? That physical laws are universal?

Gravity is mere speculation, eh mac?
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. More importantly, there is no explanation for the Bang...only from that point on. Listen, I'm not saying that it didn't happen the way the theory suggests, I'm saying it may not have happened and that if it did, it doesn't necessarily rule out God's existence. :shrug:

More importantly, until something is ruled out...it must be possible.
 
Last edited:

This still is not a strawman. No position is being proposed and torn down.

Also the double negative used to shift the burden of proof is disengeniuous.

I can say god does not exist at the same level I say fairies do not exist. Absolute disproof is not possible, but that does not increase the probability of the existence of either.

Your entire paragraph illustrates the difference between how an atheist must be as close to the truth as possible where as a theist can just make stuff up.
 
mac said:
More importantly, until something is ruled out...it must be possible.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. There can be things that you can imagine to be true that are impossible. Just because you (the general 'you') are ignorant of its impossibility doesn't make it possible. It just makes you wrong.
 
scourge99 said:
Incorrect. There can be things that you can imagine to be true that are impossible. Just because you (the general 'you') are ignorant of its impossibility doesn't make it possible. It just makes you wrong.
Click to expand...

What's the impossibility of the existence of God?
 
mac said:
Yeah, exactly. More importantly, there is no explanation for the Bang...only from that point on.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Because all measurable data thus far has pointed to the Big Bang, but no measurable has yet been observed which would have explained previous to it.
 
mac said:
What's the impossibility of the existence of God?
Click to expand...

High. Magic is most likely the least likely correct answer. For things that we do not know, it is well more probable that events were caused by natural phenomenon and not magic.
 
mac said:
What's the impossibility of the existence of God?
Click to expand...
Depends on which god(s) you are referring to. Its currently unknown whether most gods are impossible or possible.
 
Ikari said:
High. Magic is most likely the least likely correct answer. For things that we do not know, it is well more probable that events were caused by natural phenomenon and not magic.
Click to expand...
And considering how many things in the universe have a cause, it's more probable that the universe had a cause than not. It's funny how probable changes depending on what you're looking at.
 
theplaydrive said:
And considering how many things in the universe have a cause, it's more probable that the universe had a cause than not. It's funny how probable changes depending on what you're looking at.
Click to expand...

Likely, yes. What's your point? We don't know the cause yet, you want me to believe it was magic? Or should I sit back and wait to see if we figure it out first?
 
Ikari said:
High. Magic is most likely the least likely correct answer. For things that we do not know, it is well more probable that events were caused by natural phenomenon and not magic.
Click to expand...

Highly improbable =/= impossible. And what you are calling magic could just as easily be described as unexplained phenomena. Further, I think if the existence of God is ever proven we'll find that he is completely natural.
 
mac said:
Highly improbable =/= impossible. And what you are calling magic could just as easily be described as unexplained phenomena. Further, I think if the existence of God is ever proven we'll find that he is completely natural.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I know the words I was using. I wasn't saying "impossible", I'm saying highly improbable. Given the choice of nature vs. magic, I will likely side with nature less there is sufficient measurement to prove magic.
 
Ikari said:
Exactly, I know the words I was using. I wasn't saying "impossible", I'm saying highly improbable. Given the choice of nature vs. magic, I will likely side with nature less there is sufficient measurement to prove magic.
Click to expand...

Lightening was once magic. Fire was once magic. You obviously have a contemptuous view of religion, so you are unable to see it as anything other than magic. It may indeed be proven that God is a completely natural, and sentient, phenomena with incredible abilities in comparison to man.

God may be a sentient race far more advanced than us that created the bang with some sort of device we can't imagine...and then later, created us by genetically altering chimpanzees....Of course, there is a fair bit of imagination thrown in there, but much of science was discovered because someone had the imagination to consider other possibilities.
 

So why pray to that? I don't request lower life (insects, birds, etc.) pray and adore me, why must "god" be cherished?

Also, if "god" is, simply, a superior race then how can superior race establish an afterlife?

Using that old thing "Ockam's Razor" one could establish:

- there is a universe
- there is a universe and "god" is the origin of said universe

Now, the second answer is not wrong, per se, but it is wrong to adopt the second.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
So why pray to that? I don't request lower life (insects, birds, etc.) pray and adore me, why must "god" be cherished?
Click to expand...

Does anyone think lightening is a God trying to scare us anymore?

Also, if "god" is, simply, a superior race then how can superior race establish an afterlife?
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't. But then, what does the bible actually say about the "afterlife"?

Using that old thing "Ockam's Razor" one could establish:

- there is a universe
Click to expand...

something we had to discover...

- there is a universe and "god" is the origin of said universe
Click to expand...

possible...

Now, the second answer is not wrong, per se, but it is wrong to adopt the second.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitor, at least in terms of Occam's Razor. You must assume that current theories are correct and that there was no instigation of the big bang in order to make that work. Assumption, no matter how plausible, is not necessarily truth.
 
Last edited:

Lightening and Fire are measurable. While once thought to be magic, they were later studied, measured, quantified, and added to the human knowledge database. Gods are defined to be immeasurable. Thus they are a magical answer. It's not a contemptuous view of religion, it's just reality.
 

They are now, at one point they were not. The big bang (itself) is not measurable now, are you saying it's likely that it never will be? In which case, is the big bang...God?
 
mac said:
They are now, at one point they were not. The big bang (itself) is not measurable now, are you saying it's likely that it never will be? In which case, is the big bang...God?
Click to expand...

Errr, the big bang is AKA white noise. Go to your tv and find a station with the white fuzzy noise that buzzes. 1% of that is the universe being created .
 
Jryan said:
Errr, the big bang is AKA white noise. Go to your tv and find a station with the white fuzzy noise that buzzes. 1% of that is the universe being created .
Click to expand...

That means nothing. No-one is disputing that it happened.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
They are now, at one point they were not. The big bang (itself) is not measurable now, are you saying it's likely that it never will be? In which case, is the big bang...God?
Click to expand...

No, fire and lightening ALWAYS belonged to the measurable world. We merely needed the experience and proper tools to measure them. The Big Bang theory exists in the measurable world as well, as it is the theory which explains the observables. Thus it has predictions which can be measured. Gods are DEFINED to be immeasurable. Fire was defined as fire. We didn't know what it was, we thought it had mystical powers. Humans studied, humans learned, humans conquered. Done, figured out what it was. But humans have DEFINED their gods to be immeasurable. You cannot measure them, they exist outside the measurable world. Hence it is the magic answer. I'm not a particularly strong believer in magic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…