• 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!

Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists (1 Viewer)

rahl said:
We know atheism isn’t, by definition. Just like we know not playing baseball isn’t a sport.
Click to expand...
Not playing baseball is not predicated in playing another sport. Not believing in gods is predicated on believing in science as the measure of all things.
 
Quag said:
Why makes you believe I rejected the definition that proved me correct?
Click to expand...
Because the definition I provided did not say that morality was subjective in any way, and you had to add stuff to make it mean what you wanted.
 
Quag said:
WTF when did anyone claim science has anything to do with deciding who can or cannot aprpeciate poetry?
Very pathetic that you are making up BS in order to deflect from the fact you cant defend your false claims
Click to expand...
I claimed it, several times. Try to keep up. It's not a false claim because you guys keep insisting that religion must be supported by scientific evidence, and I've already indicated the affiliations of religion with poetry. Search "Bataille" on the thread if you want that confirmed.
 
Ouroboros said:
Nonsense question. I wasn't alive even a 100 years ago and I suspect neither were you.
Click to expand...
A quite relevant question, perhaps you're just too young to have seen any change but that doesn't excuse you from learning from the historical records of human societies.
 
Ouroboros said:
Define how factual knowledge becomes factual in the view of atheists.
Click to expand...
When something hypothetically/theoretically believed to exist or function can repetitively be shown to exist or function as previously believed.
 
Ouroboros said:
Except that "he" can't be evidence because atheists won't accept "him" under any circumstances, though their concept of evidence is as ineffable as any deity.
Click to expand...
There can be no evidence of a belief founded upon a belief, simply a belief.
 
Master Debator said:
It can be interpreted as an ad hominem. I just did. Your philosophical position being about a whole group of people instead of one person doesn't change that. Also I have no problem telling you that the atheist must of hurt you wasnt an argument but a jest. Like for like if you will. You're the one trying to pass off your jests as intellectual arguments.

Of course they are. The driver is situated in the objective world isn't he? His feelings of thrill and excitement over hitting me with his car are as objectively real as the my feelings of fear about being hit.

It's not a lie. You did mention the supernatural, I'll quote again and again for you if it makes you feel better. And my argument wasn't a strawman, it was actually a question about who you go to when you have a medical issue. Do you go to psychics? Do you trust Google and call it a day?

Right, you repeatedly try to make my arguments for me. I don't need to reject the supernatural, it's enough for me to make the distinction that the supernatural are things that can't be explained by science.

What reasons? Is there some reason you couldn't state them again for clarity?

Isn't that a limitation of all knowledge? If we could explain the things taken as supernatural then they would just fall under the category of stuff that can be explained with science and they wouldn't be supernatural anymore.
Click to expand...
(1) "Materialist drivel" cannot be an ad hominem because materialism is still not a person. I don't call your contradictions of my objective/subjective criteria ad hominems. It app;lies only such when you make remarks about me, a person, as you did. (Saying that it was "a jest" does not change that.) (2) My hyperbole was intended to provoke atheists into saying dumb things, and some of them have obliged me, thus providing me with amusement. (3) The driver is allowing his subjective state to override any claim to prudent action. This is the subjectivity that materialists rashly attribute to all internal feeling. (4) You're still deflecting from your inadequate definition, because science is not predictive across the board. Medicine, for instance, might have some limited claims to prediction of future outcomes, but anthropology is as much a part of "science," and it's confined to analyzing the past, not the future. That's why a better definition is desirable. (5) No, I represented your "science first" argument accurately, and you repeated it once more in the quote above. (6) Why should I repeat myself just because you please to do so. I've already specified that pure subjectivity only applies in the absence of objective input. (7) See my post 4972 on Dirac for an example of a scientist whose scientific inquiries did not support an atheist conclusion. But since he did not, the reaction of one atheist was to call him a "religionist" to render him illegitimate. That's a real limitation, but of that speaker's purely personal knowledge.
 
Individual said:
There can be no evidence of a belief founded upon a belief, simply a belief.
Click to expand...
I was speaking of your scenario in which some evidence was supposedly produced, and making the assertion that most atheists would not accept the evidence because of their commitment to materialistic beliefs.
 
Individual said:
When something hypothetically/theoretically believed to exist or function can repetitively be shown to exist or function as previously believed.
Click to expand...
And what are the criteria used to make repetitive demonstrations of existence/functionality?
 
Ouroboros said:
I was speaking of your scenario in which some evidence was supposedly produced, and making the assertion that most atheists would not accept the evidence because of their commitment to materialistic beliefs.
Click to expand...
Put up some evidence of a god, any god.
 
Ouroboros said:
And what are the criteria used to make repetitive demonstrations of existence/functionality?
Click to expand...
That's for the one making the claim to figure out what or how they could demonstrate their claim to be factual in an undeniable way.
That which doesn't exist is impossible to prove one way or the other, leaving it only for those who want, to believe while still others find reality to be where useful knowledge exists.
 
Ouroboros said:
Not playing baseball is not predicated in playing another sport.
Click to expand...
I know.
Ouroboros said:
Not believing in gods is predicated on believing in science as the measure of all things.
Click to expand...
Not believing in a god is by definition, not a belief. Just like not playing baseball isn’t a sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom