Many theists still debate atheists as if there is something to debate. They make a claim, don't back it up, and wonder why atheists believe what they do. In a debate there is a winner and a loser, and the debate is over whether or not A (God) exists. In order for a theist to win a debate, they must prove that A exists, and THEN prove that A is responsible for B (the universe). Theists believe they can effectively debate atheists by using the "well how did it all get here" argument. This argument fails because it does nothing to prove that God exists, but does prove that humans don't know how energy began (if it even had a beginning). Theists will argue that the burden of proof is on the atheists to disprove their claim. But are atheists actually making a claim outside of being intellectually opposed to the claim of theists? No. Atheists can only prove their position by pointing to the FACT that theists cannot prove their's (atheism does not/cannot go outside of this).
Theist: "God exists!"
Atheist: "Prove it!"
Theist: "Prove God doesn't exist."
Atheist: "What's your favorite flavor of lead paint?"
Thiest: "I win!"
Theist: "God exists!"
Atheist: "Prove it!"
Theist: "Prove God doesn't exist."
Atheist: "What's your favorite flavor of lead paint?"
Thiest: "I win!"
Um, no, in a debate, whoever argues the best is the winner. The audience picks on whoever they felt was more convincing.
ReplyDeleteSo in the public debate, what do the numbers say who's winning? Do they say atheists are winning? Or do they say that theists are winning?
You used the word "debate" when you mean "empirical scientific fact".
A debate is messy and depends upon human brains to determine a winner. It has NOTHING (NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!) to do with the facts of reality.
And even then you can't be sure we aren't in a simulation designed to look like things evolved.
We really just do not know, and THAT is the correct answer to this whole question.
You're a smug and deluded if you think you have an answer to this question. But ultimately, it is NOT a "debate".
Not at all. The point of this post was to show that a theist cannot win a debate because their claims cannot be backed up. A theist cannot win, so by default the atheist wins. It's like me arguing that there are invisible unicorns on the sun, and debating a nonbeliever about this. The only way for me to win this debate is to some how prove that there are invisible unicorns on the sun (duh?). A theist cannot win a debate against an atheist because their claims are baseless. Circular arguments (i.e. stall tactics) and pseudoscience are the only tools a theist has in their arsenal to debate an atheist. There are no valid arguments for the existence of a nonexistent being.
ReplyDelete'You're a smug and deluded if you think you have an answer to this question. But ultimately, it is NOT a "debate"."
If believing such a thing helps you sleep at night, go for it. Just so you know, the feeling is mutual :)
'A debate is messy and depends upon human brains to determine a winner. It has NOTHING (NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!) to do with the facts of reality."
ReplyDeleteI bet you love the taste of lead paint :)
First commenter has never picked up a book on argumentation, philosophy, or logic. What a retard. The article was meant to be in the context or a real debate, not a trailer park squabble about the meth. Read a book stupid.
ReplyDelete