Thread: Why do atheists argue so much?

I'm all for debates. But i made it crystal clear on more than one occasion that in that thread, i wanted to discuss my feelings and beliefs with those who were not going to break it down. I wanted to discuss the ideas and beliefs with those who maybe open minded to a lot of things but do not willingly believe in anything without evidence.

I got it locked because it went in the exact opposite direction that i wanted it to go. It was supposed to be a debate about the possibilities of my beliefs that i was hoping to go into, not a break down criticism before i could utter a word.

I did not force my beliefs on anyone and neither did i give a good reason for any of the atheists to start debating in there. I can understand why they did it, but to be honest, i think that if someone wants to talk about something and they are not forcing their beliefs onto anyone and and not calling anything they believe factual, why can they not have the respect of others to be left alone to discuss its possbility with others as a belief, not fact.

I just think that there is some breach of freedom of speech, maybe not extreme, but i find that if you say anything controversial in here, even if you still claim it to be a belief and you state your intentions of the thread to discuss the possibilities of it you will get a ton of atheists and even religious criticizing and breaking it down. Though there is a lot of evidence to disprove things, and as illogical as things may sound if they are controversial, i do not think that it gives people a right to jump on it and push their beliefs down the throat of the thread maker. Especially if the thread maker states that they do not want it to be a debate with an atheists opinion. Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to be prejudice against atheists, i know that any atheists here can hold excellent discussions. But if i want to discuss something that i call a belief as a belief, why won't some of you give me the freedom to do that rather than shoving your views on it on to me. I'm looking for people with similar views so it can be discussed.

What are your thoughts?

I entirely agree with Needcatscan.

they do not want it to be a debate with an atheists opinion.

I just think that there is some breach of freedom of speech

That's exactly what I was thinking. You're the one not letting people talk in your thread and claim that these exact people restrict your freedom of speech? That doesn't make any sense.

I wanted to discuss the ideas and beliefs with those who maybe open minded to a lot of things but do not willingly believe in anything without evidence.

It was supposed to be a debate

neither did i give a good reason for any of the atheists to start debating in there.

discuss its possbility with others as a belief, not fact.

All in all, you make absoultely no sense. And a belief is just that - a belief that something is a fact. You can't separate the true. You can't say "I believe God exists but it's probably not a fact that he exists". It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you believe that God exists, this is your internal view of the state of things outside of you.

Why not just state in your thread that you don't want rational or open discussion and only wish to "debate" with "open minded" people?

Originally Posted by Korittke

All in all, you make absoultely no sense. And a belief is just that - a belief that something is a fact. You can't separate the true. You can't say "I believe God exists but it's probably not a fact that he exists". It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you believe that God exists, this is your internal view of the state of things outside of you.

Why not just state in your thread that you don't want rational or open discussion and only wish to "debate" with "open minded" people?

Right. Korittke. Okay, fair enough, maybe my message once again did not get across entirely well. Okay, when i meant to say was that basically, i am open minded to the concept of a god, i do not accept that there is a god, but i do not reject the idea either. In my thread, i said i am interested in the concept of a god. But i don't believe i directly said that i believed in god. If i did, i did not mean to as it is not my view. My view is to be as open minded as possible until evidence can give a certainty as to the conclusion of the problem or issue.

And Korittke, i don't want any joking or sarcasm, if you want a debate or discussion in private, i'll quite happily have you one. I did notice that there were a few ploys to insult my intelligence by joking and sarcasm. I can sympathize as to why you would do it, but i think i am having some difficulty getting across what my true views are and that is why you are finding it hard to give me some serious responses, especially in that thread.

I don't really know what this thread is about by now.

So I'll take up your first paragraph and say that it's quite obviously not impossible for anything worth calling God to exist. But why would you even consider this an issue when there is no positive evidence? The word God doesn't denote anything that anyone has ever provided solid evidence for so the only reason one would feel it is necessary to consider it "possible" is the mere existence and unfortunate predominance of the word "God" in our language.

The flying pink unicorn is also "possible" but nobody really cares because it's not socially acceptable and seems quite nutty. Flying dude in the skies, however, is socially acceptable and not considered nutty because of the history of religion in our culture. But this is by no means a reason to consider God any more worthwhile to talk about than talking snowballs or ghosts or something.

Originally Posted by Korittke

I don't really know what this thread is about by now.

So I'll take up your first paragraph and say that it's quite obviously not impossible for anything worth calling God to exist. But why would you even consider this an issue when there is no positive evidence? The word God doesn't denote anything that anyone has ever provided solid evidence for so the only reason one would feel it is necessary to consider it "possible" is the mere existence and unfortunate predominance of the word "God" in our language.

The flying pink unicorn is also "possible" but nobody really cares because it's not socially acceptable and seems quite nutty. Flying dude in the skies, however, is socially acceptable and not considered nutty because of the history of religion in our culture. But this is by no means a reason to consider God any more worthwhile to talk about than talking snowballs or ghosts or something.

Haha, just the example i thought you would use. But just because there is no evidence, does not mean that it doesn't exist. You see, the only reason that is a good example is because it not socially acceptable as you said. But in the past there have been bigger absurdities that have had no evidence to back them up, but later on they found sufficient evidence to back it up. If you want an example i will give you one.

As for this, just because its currently not socially acceptable, it does not mean that its absolutely impossible for such a thing to exist. Many things that have had no evidence in the past and were not socially acceptable but were eventually proven with evidence and became socially acceptable.

Would it not seem, as you say to me "ignorant" to completely rule out the possibility. Even if logic says so, because logical thinking changes over time. Back a few hundred years ago it would probably be though to be logical to think the world is flat, but it took people with different ideas to go beyond the boundaries and prove that the world is indeed round. What we define as logical thinking changes with time.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

Haha, just the example i thought you would use. But just because there is no evidence, does not mean that it doesn't exist. You see, the only reason that is a good example is because it not socially acceptable as you said. But in the past there have been bigger absurdities that have had no evidence to back them up, but later on they found sufficient evidence to back it up. If you want an example i will give you one.

As for this, just because its currently not socially acceptable, it does not mean that its absolutely impossible for such a thing to exist. Many things that have had no evidence in the past and were not socially acceptable but were eventually proven with evidence and became socially acceptable.

Would it not seem, as you say to me "ignorant" to completely rule out the possibility. Even if logic says so, because logical thinking changes over time. Back a few hundred years ago it would probably be though to be logical to think the world is flat, but it took people with different ideas to go beyond the boundaries and prove that the world is indeed round. What we define as logical thinking changes with time.

Amen!

Back a few hundred years ago it would probably be though to be logical to think the world is flat

Sorry, but that is a myth. You should really google it.

What we define as logical thinking changes with time

No it doesn't. Again your argument is flawed, again try to google it before you use something for a argument. So your not easily disproven.

The Myth of the Flat Earth or Flat Earth mythology refers to the modern belief that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. Today it is widely recognized among professional medievalists and historians of science that the "medieval flat Earth" is a misconception, and that the few verifiable "flat Earthers" of the period were the exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

But just because there is no evidence, does not mean that it doesn't exist

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

But just because there is no evidence, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

It's not an argument, just a statement.
It's fair to assume that something doesn't exist when you've never experienced it in any way whatsoever. It is impossible for you to even refer to this thing with words because the words don't carry any meaning. You can always add an item to the inventory of existing things once somebody provides solid evidence.

As for this, just because its currently not socially acceptable, it does not mean that its absolutely impossible for such a thing to exist.

Would it not seem, as you say to me "ignorant" to completely rule out the possibility.

Originally Posted by Me

it's quite obviously not impossible for anything worth calling God to exist.

The flying pink unicorn is also "possible"

1234567890

Originally Posted by wendylove

Sorry, but that is a myth. You should really google it.

Do you mean that they thought the world was round?

No it doesn't. Again your argument is flawed, again try to google it before you use something for a argument. So your not easily disproven.

How does one google "logic" anyway? Are you saying my logic is your logic is a cavemans logic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology


Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

I agree. Can you provide us with some of yours?

Originally Posted by Korittke

1234567890

I was directing that at your unicorn argument, i'm quite aware of what you said before that. But still, i made a valid point either way


Wendy - No offense, but i just cannot take you seriously after all the stuff you have posted in the past.

EDIT - Oh go on then.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

Maybe so, but it doesn't rule out their possibility does it.

Do you mean that they thought the world was round?

Yes they did, they never believed in a flat earth.

How does one google "logic" anyway? Are you saying my logic is your logic is a cavemans logic?

I'm trying to say this. If you try and use a argument that

Even if logic says so, because logical thinking changes over time. Back a few hundred years ago it would probably be though to be logical to think the world is flat,

See nobody thought the world is flat, so his argument is flawed. See if you deduce something that is false then you initial assumption is wrong, it called proof by contradiction.

Even then logic has nothing to do with science, mostly to do with mathematics. And mathematics does not change.

Maybe so, but it doesn't rule out their possibility does it.

And that logically adds what?

Wittgenstein said what we cannot say we have to let it pass in silence. I think you should take Wittgenstein advice. Since your so into logic, you should have read Wittgenstein by now.

Wendy - No offense, but i just cannot take you seriously after all the stuff you have posted in the past.

Ad hom. Seriously, do you know anything about logic.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Yes they did, they never believed in a flat earth.

I don't suppose you could provide some extraordinary proof of that?

I'm trying to say this. If you try and use a argument that

See nobody thought the world is flat, so his argument is flawed. See if you deduce something that is false then you initial assumption is wrong, it called proof by contradiction.

I'm sorry, but you haven't proved to me that people way back when thought the earth was round.

Even then logic has nothing to do with science, mostly to do with mathematics. And mathematics does not change.

Logic has everything to do with science. Something is scientific if it fits with the scientists logical view of the universe. Maths is an integral part of science.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

I was directing that at your unicorn argument, i'm quite aware of what you said before that. But still, i made a valid point either way

To me it seems you just repeated what I said. What was your "valid point"?

Of course it's possible that "God" exists, but why would you even go any further than that? Why consider it any more possible than a flying pink unicorn? Why waste your time dwelling about how possible it is? Possibility doesn't mean jack shit. It just means that you actually have no idea. So until there's evidence, put it to the side and ignore it. I don't understand why someone would want to call themselves agnostic when they're also naturalists. The scientific world view already implies the possibility of God. It contains the possibility of virtually anything, once you provide evidence. God isn't specifically more likely than time starting to run backwards and humanity being ruled by talking golf balls in the Middle Ages. Both are equally unknown concepts, so it's just a waste of time and words to assign a label to yourself to denote your position on the golf-ball-thingy, or God for that matter.

How do you know that their isn't a IPU?

Okay, lets start this off.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

The belief was strongly held up until the 4th and 5th centuries

Yes, its known as a belief now, but it was accepted by many back then and it would probably be seen as something normal. Back then, it was probably the best explanation they had and was probably even seen as the truth. Looking back now you can see how stupid it looks to think that way. But it took those who worked outside the box to figure out the world was round.

Logical Thinking

The definition off logical thinking will never change, but when applying it to situations and arguments. Our understanding of things are changing all the time, and like i mentioned in my flat earth example, one point in time one thing may be seen as acceptable and logical, whilst many hundreds of year later when it has been proven different the new explanation will be seen as logical and the old explanation as illogical.

Flat Earth in 4th and 5th century - Logical due to its social acceptance

Flat Earth Today - Illogical, new evidence disproves and replaces.

I don't suppose you could provide some extraordinary proof of that?

"there never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology

Gould, S.J. (1996). "The late birth of a flat earth". Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Crown: 38-52.

I can also get you the link to QI tv series, which basically says the same thing.

I'm sorry, but you haven't proved to me that people way back when thought the earth was round.

Again, its a myth. Read wikipedia article and if you really want to read the work by Stephen J Gould.

Logic has everything to do with science. Something is scientific if it fits with the scientists logical view of the universe. Maths is an integral part of science.

No it doesn't. Science is a method to get the truth. It is done by making prediction and doing experiments, it has nothing to do with logic. Mathematics is the langauge of science, it is based on logic and separate to science.

Also, Scientists are objective and have no views of the universe. They certainly don't fit things into their view of the universe.

Originally Posted by Keeper

How do you know that their isn't a IPU?

Holy Sh... I mean: Did you even read what I wrote? I said multiple times that a flying pink unicorn is possible. I also said that in science anything is possible. All you have to do is present evidence. It's simple, yet religion fails to deliver.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Holy Sh... I mean: Did you even read what I wrote? I said multiple times that a flying pink unicorn is possible. I also said that in science anything is possible. All you have to do is present evidence. It's simple, yet religion fails to deliver.

But what evidence is there to disprove it. I'm not religious myself, but i think that if your really that bothered about religious people and their beliefs in god, why don't you disprove it. To be honest, theres a flaw in both sides. One side can't prove it whilst the other cannot disprove it. I realize that there maybe a time when it can be disproved. But as of yet, there is no point saying that because there are flaws on your end also.

Wendy - Its one of histories dumb moments lets say. But it does however remain an example that is valid. The myth is that everyone before the age of exploration thought the world was flat. But at one point in time people did believe that like it states in the Wiki article. 4th and 5th century.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

But what evidence is there to disprove it. I'm not religious myself, but i think that if your really that bothered about religious people and their beliefs in god, why don't you disprove it. To be honest, theres a flaw in both sides. One side can't prove it whilst the other cannot disprove it. I realize that there maybe a time when it can be disproved. But as of yet, there is no point saying that because there are flaws on your end also.

No. I'm not claiming anything. All I do is collect evidence. Science doesn't "prove" things, mostly.

Also, it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of something while it is entirely possible to provide evidence for a claim made.

The reason God hasn't been proven isn't because it would be inherently impossible to provide evidence for his existence, but because there is none.

So the burden is on the theist to provide evidence. Simple.

That's the whole problem with the dialog here: It is assumed that, since I'm a so called 'atheist', I know that God doesn't exist. Since I cannot provide evidence for this "claim" of mine, the conclusion would be that my claim and the claim of the theist are equivalent in value and probability.
However, the contrary is the case. I'm not claiming anything, unlike the theist. I'm an atheist in that I do not believe in the existence of something which I can only call by name but do not have an accurate mental representation of, because there is no evidence. I'm an atheist mainly in that I don't have anything at all to do with God - as if I had never heard the word. The terminology here is already a great barrier for getting the point across.

Originally Posted by Korittke

No. I'm not claiming anything. All I do is collect evidence. Science doesn't "prove" things, mostly.

Also, it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of something while it is entirely possible to provide evidence for a claim made.

The reason God hasn't been proven isn't because it would be inherently impossible to provide evidence for his existence, but because there is none.

So the burden is on the theist to provide evidence. Simple.

I'll give you that. Agreed.

Does it bother you LS that all of these beliefs you speak of that were eventually proven wrong... were beliefs held by the CHURCH and spread to the people from them? That should automatically make you extremely suspicious of any idea they vomit up, including one of god.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Does it bother you LS that all of these beliefs you speak of that were eventually proven wrong... were beliefs held by the CHURCH and spread to the people from them? That should automatically make you extremely suspicious of any idea they vomit up, including one of god.

Yeah, religion is pretty bad. Merely examples though in the argument.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

But what evidence is there to disprove it. I'm not religious myself, but i think that if your really that bothered about religious people and their beliefs in god, why don't you disprove it. To be honest, theres a flaw in both sides. One side can't prove it whilst the other cannot disprove it. I realize that there maybe a time when it can be disproved. But as of yet, there is no point saying that because there are flaws on your end also.

Are you stupid, or are you just clinging onto an argument with Korittke?

Anything is possile.

Basic thing:

Science -- Anything is possible, but not accepted or even mentioned really until evidence is composed.

Religion -- Correct until proven wrong.

That is the main clash. The next part of the clash is that you cannot disprove the existence of something, and religion has never once supposed evidence.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

But what evidence is there to disprove it. I'm not religious myself, but i think that if your really that bothered about religious people and their beliefs in god, why don't you disprove it. To be honest, theres a flaw in both sides. One side can't prove it whilst the other cannot disprove it. I realize that there maybe a time when it can be disproved. But as of yet, there is no point saying that because there are flaws on your end also.

The biggest problem is, as Seis pointed out, one automatically assumes its correct without any kind of basis for that assumption other than "because I hope it is", while the other assumes everything is possible, but doesn't accept it as possible until proven. Ok, so I just basically quoted Seis, but I like the way he said it.

Anyway, if people are going to use the defense of "well, you can't DIS-prove it.", well, I can name a dozen seemingly impossible things, that most religious people would say is impossible, and challenge them to disprove it as well. If they can't, does that make possible?