Counter-argument to the free will apologetics

[ClareTherese]

This is why we can never win against a stubborn theist like the ones in our examples

We only use our logic with facts that are testable and provable. We are fine with that. We don't make any claims that aren't able to be proven and don't have weight to them, but that is the biggest disconnect. If you can't convince someone that believes in anything supernatural to not claim things that aren't provable and the problem with it you get an argument that is only backed up by facts vs an argument that is backed up by imagination. Facts are limited, but imagination can be limitless. and that is where we will lose almost EVERY argument. If someone has an unlimited supply of an argument against your limited supply of rebuttals, they are going to be convinced they are the winners no matter how invalid their argument or what they think is their evidence is.

No one can win or lose this argument because no one can provide evidence to disprove the other. We can have personal evidence that disproves the other to us but it's not the same. Atheists and Agnostics believe their reasons for being Atheist and Agnostic and I believe my reasons for being a believer in God. So, that's what it comes down to. We can all share our position and we should.

[Shol'va]

No, once again, you do not understand.
As an atheist, if you ask me how do I know there is no god, I don't know that. That is not what atheism is.
I am not yet convinced that your god exists due to the complete lack of evidence.

To put it simply, it's not that I don't believe a god exists, I don't believe YOU.
I have absolutely no burden of proof to prove YOUR assertion, either in the negative or the positive.
YOU are the one saying Yahweh exists. YOU are the one that needs to prove it.

In addition, atheism and agnosticism are two propositions to two different issues.
Atheism is a response to a question of belief: do you believe god(s) exist?
Agnosticism is a response to a question of knowledge: can we know god or gods exist?
Some people believe agnosticism is the middle ground. It isn't.

[PickelledEggs]

No one can win or lose this argument because no one can provide evidence to disprove the other. We can have personal evidence that disproves the other to us but it's not the same. Atheists and Agnostics believe their reasons for being Atheist and Agnostic and I believe my reasons for being a believer in God. So, that's what it comes down to. We can all share our position and we should.

This proves my point about the disconnect. When someone believes something that is completely untestable and unable to be proven to the point that they will teach it to others, they just go and say, "well it's a matter of opinion"or "why can't both views be taught"

We only teach the science that can be proven. The whole point is: Don't teach something as truth, if it can't be proven.
That is where theists have a hard time understanding. Science is not an opinion. It's testable and fact.
It's not an opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. It's testably a fact.

It's not even like we are saying "don't teach the story of christianity". We are just saying "dont teach it as fact". Because when people teach that it's a fact that the hocus pocus things that happens in that book, or the quaran... etc actually happened, THAT is where we have a problem. None of us get offended when people tell the stories in the Iliad, or when people tell stories about norse mythology because they tell it as a story, not like it actually happened.

[ClareTherese]

No, once again, you do not understand.
As an atheist, if you ask me how do I know there is no god, I don't know that. That is not what atheism is.
I am not yet convinced that your god exists due to the complete lack of evidence.

To put it simply, it's not that I don't believe a god exists, I don't believe YOU.
I have absolutely no burden of proof to prove YOUR assertion, either in the negative or the positive.
YOU are the one saying Yahweh exists. YOU are the one that needs to prove it.

In addition, atheism and agnosticism are two propositions to two different issues.
Atheism is a response to a question of belief: do you believe god(s) exist?
Agnosticism is a response to a question of knowledge: can we know god or gods exist?
Some people believe agnosticism is the middle ground. It isn't.

I am not convinced by the evidence provided by so many Atheists to say God doesn't. I've been told many times by people on here who call themselves Atheists and said they don't believe there's a God and I'm basically full of shit. I'm well aware I cannot provide the evidence you want. You know I can't too. So, why ask? It comes down to personal believe. There are believers who believe God exists and Atheists and Agnostics either believe there is no God and have their reasons or believe there's not enough or no evidence at all to prove there is a God so their current stance is there is no God. All belief.

[PickelledEggs]

There is a reason that we don't believe in god and the supernatural. There  isn't evidence. The fact that you're not convinced by the way science is able to explain things and predict things about the world around us isn't an excuse to pass off something with no evidence as the actual explanation or an alternative explanation.

For whatever reason you don't believe something that is testable and provable, let it be lack of education, stubbornness... whatever... doesn't make the provable thing false.
If you don't understand that  A squared plus B squared is C squared and that is how you find the third side of a triangle, does that make it an invalid way to find the third side? No. It's still the correct math. It just means you don't understand it.

[ClareTherese]

There is a reason that we don't believe in god and the supernatural. There  isn't evidence. The fact that you're not convinced by the way science is able to explain things and predict things about the world around us isn't an excuse to pass off something with no evidence as the actual explanation or an alternative explanation.

For whatever reason you don't believe something that is testable and provable, let it be lack of education, stubbornness... whatever... doesn't make the provable thing false.
If you don't understand that  A squared plus B squared is C squared and that is how you find the third side of a triangle, does that make it an invalid way to find the third side? No. It's still the correct math. It just means you don't understand it.

I understand that spirituality cannot be handled in the same way one handles science. But, in coming to know God I came to see how science and God go hand in hand. It all starts for me that I believe God created the human brain and what we've come to prove was thanks to God. I know you and others have your own personal reasons for coming into Atheism or Agnosticism and I respect that. No one has proven or disproved God yet and that's ok. I'm sorry I can't prove God exists to you but it's good you're asking questions. God encourages that in my belief. I am contemplating many of the universal questions about God right along with you and others.

[PickelledEggs]

I understand that spirituality cannot be handled in the same way one handles science. But, in coming to know God I came to see how science and God go hand in hand. It all starts for me that I believe God created the human brain and what we've come to prove was thanks to God. I know you and others have your own personal reasons for coming into Atheism or Agnosticism and I respect that. No one has proven or disproved God yet and that's ok. I'm sorry I can't prove God to you but it's good you're asking questions. God encourages that. I'm sharing many of the universal questions about God right along with you and others.

Look...
If you want to believe that god exists/ god and science go hand in hand, go ahead. But as of now, there is zero evidence for it and increasingly every day, more and more evidence points away from the claim of a god. It would be incorrect to teach that the existence of god, because it's a conclusion that has zero weight behind it.

Another thing is you keep butchering what agnosticism is. Atheists, for the most part ARE agnostic. Agnostic just means "i don't know". in terms of religion, there are 4 categories that can best be explained by this chart.

[PickelledEggs]

Clare. You can go back and forth with us all day, but if you are going to say "I don't except your evidence" even though we supply something of validity, that is where you are going to have some problems on this forum. We've heard it before. It's repetitive and it's still not anything other than circular logic you're throwing at us.

[ClareTherese]

Look...
If you want to believe that god exists/ god and science go hand in hand, go ahead. But as of now, there is zero evidence for it and increasingly every day, more and more evidence points away from the claim of a god. It would be incorrect to teach that the existence of god, because it's a conclusion that has zero weight behind it.

Another thing is you keep butchering what agnosticism is. Atheists, for the most part ARE agnostic. Agnostic just means "i don't know". in terms of religion, there are 4 categories that can best be explained by this chart.

I don't go around and say "God exists no matter what you say!" or whatever. I say "I believe God does" and would never force that belief on anyone personally. If for the most part Atheists are Agnostic I would appreciate the specification from each individual I've talked to on here, on other websites and in person. Just like I would specify what kind of Christian I am. For the most part I've been told on here in particular that he/she is an Atheist and simply does not believe in God and are not even open to the possibility. So, clarification on where one stands is important. I don't know how I've butchered the beliefs of Atheism or Agnosticism since arriving on this thread.

[Shol'va]

I am not convinced by the evidence provided by so many Atheists to say God doesn't.

The second an atheist even plays that game with you, they have failed at logic, and so have you.

I'm well aware I cannot provide the evidence

That is to say, you cannot give us any good reason to believe in your God.

So, why ask?

Because we demand evidence for assertions. We are trying to make you also see your own shortcomings in your faith.

Atheism is a belief the same way OFF is a TV channel, or non-golfer is a sport.

[ClareTherese]

Clare. You can go back and forth with us all day, but if you are going to say "I don't except your evidence" even though we supply something of validity, that is where you are going to have some problems on this forum. We've heard it before. It's repetitive and it's still not anything other than circular logic you're throwing at us.

Neither of us can prove validity and I've heard nothing new from non-believers. That's why I'm saying it all comes down to belief. I'm trying to go beyond the ping pong game of "Prove it, no you prove it". That is a debate no one can win. There's so many things I'd rather talk about with Atheists and Agnostics as long as their respectful and civil back.

[PickelledEggs]

Neither of us can prove validity and I've heard nothing new from non-believers. That's why I'm saying it all comes down to belief. I'm trying to go beyond the ping pong game of "Prove it, no you prove it". That is a debate no one can win. There's so many things I'd rather talk about with Atheists and Agnostics as long as their respectful and civil back.

...
If you are going to try and use the "respectful and civil escape" just because I put a meme that perfectly expresses how you are using stubborn circular logic, I can come to the conclusion there won't be any getting through to you.

"It's not prove it/no you prove it". It's "I say god exists/OK I understand that you believe god exists. where is your proof?"

Seeing that you cannot and will not understand the difference between those lets me know that you are incapable of holding a constructive conversation...  and also leads me to this:
Good day. I hope you have a good time annoying the rest of the forum.

[Jesus]

Then it's settled. I understand the basis of your argument and am placated. From your mind's eye the world flows perfectly when God and science are paired hand in hand like a pair of die. That's great, and judging from what I've read in these last 10 posts you seem to be a rather decent theist. You don't force your way into the forum stating: "Shun the non-believers!" and I can absolutely respect that. There's no way for me to convince you as your mind interprets religion and science as a coexisting force in a logical manner, and there's no way for you to convince us without presenting tangible evidence.

In the end the atheistic argument falls upon the fact that religion uses circular reasoning and non-sequitur to justify the existence of God. The argument also pulls from the infinitely increasing pool of hypocrisy of many Christians and their extremities (such as violent homophobes when the Bible clearly states that 'loving thy neighbor' is a fundamental principal for Christianity); my own personal belief is that since religion is formed on the basis of faith, and many of us atheists refuse to follow the idea of blindly following without proof, there must be hard physical evidence (as in God popping up and handing me a basket of cookies when I demand) to validate the existence of God.

I'm rather hoping you'd stay on the forums ... it'd be nice to have a theist in here that could actually coexist with us. (I'm just a bit wishful that we could have a proper discourse without entering a debate over the flaws of religion or the necessity of the manifestation of Jesus Christ in the atheists).

[ClareTherese]

...
If you are going to try and use the "respectful and civil escape" just because I put a meme that perfectly expresses how you are using stubborn circular logic, I can come to the conclusion there won't be any getting through to you.

"It's not prove it/no you prove it". It's "I say god exists/OK I understand that you believe god exists. where is your proof?"

Seeing that you cannot and will not understand the difference between those lets me know that you are incapable of holding a constructive conversation...  and also leads me to this:
Good day. I hope you have a good time annoying the rest of the forum.

There's a big enough floor where if someone says there is enough evidence to proof God's non-existence (which I've been told) so that means they share the burden of proof too. I personally can't prove God's existence in the way many would deem concrete. Neither side of the discussion can provide proof at this point in time. I don't see how accepting that and saying "There's so many other things to talk about with Atheists and Agnostics as long as their respectful and civil back." is an escape. So, yes, have a good day to. I'm always open to hearing anything you have to say.

[Shol'va]

Neither of us can prove validity

You're right, I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I don't have to. YOU are the one saying "God" exists!
If you were to ask me if I believe God exists, I would first ask you "what do you mean by God? Define God" and then "which God"?
This principle is how courts of law operate. We don't prove innocence. The questions is "guilty" or "not guilty".