The Case for Theism

[SGOS]

I'm absolutely convinced that Drew does not understand logical fallacies.  I don't think even knows what they are.

[Mr.Obvious]

Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

I realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

Ciao

Management can be pretty harsh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cye-1RP5jso

But so is the truth.

Don't let the virtual door hit you on the way out.

[Nam]

I presume Drew is still here because he is following the forum rules.

Drew, I see you've added Argument from Incredulity to Affirming the Consequent to your Case for Theism. The fact that theists can't construct an argument for God that isn't based on a logical fallacy or absurd premises is one of the reasons I believe the Case for God fails. When someone like yourself comes along, I'm always rooting for you. If there is a God, I want to know. You might want to study up on objections to arguments for God before you bring your next argument, I'd really like to see something new.

Just like every movie or book has been done before so has arguments for the existence of a god or gods.

-Nam

[Nam]

Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

What evidence have you presented? Opinions are not evidence. Your philosophy that isn't a philosophy is not evidence. Your analogy is not evidence. Where is your evidence?

I realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

You're an idiot. Realize it, and move on.

-Nam

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

I realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

Ciao

Arrogant to the end. You have presented nothing but fallacious arguments, as has been pointed out numerous times. Nothing you have said has ever been, nor will ever be accepted by the standards of scientific debate. We do not reject your "evidence" as atheists, but as scientific thinkers. It does not matter what unqualified, "undecided" individuals think of your arguments.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson once said: “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

[DunkleSeele]

Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

I realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

Ciao

*mod hat on*
AAwwww, a theotard playing martyr. What a surprise...
We've given you too many chances, enough is enough

[Hakurei Reimu]

Thanks, DunkleSeele! (For some reason I always read it as "DrunkleSeelie.")

Bring on the next chew toy!

[DunkleSeele]

Thanks, DunkleSeele! (For some reason I always read it as "DrunkleSeelie.")

Bring on the next chew toy!

DrunkleSeelie? LOL that sounds funny! No, my screen name it's just the German for "dark soul".

The next chew toy is in the political section, by the way... ;)

[Moralnihilist]

*mod hat on*
AAwwww, a theotard playing martyr. What a surprise...
We've given you too many chances, enough is enough

You forgot the:


part

[Shol'va]

The problem with using the existence of the universe, life and sentience as evidence(???) for possible existence of a deity or deities is that these 3 can equally count as evidence AGAINST deities.
One would have to know what traits or properties the proposed deity or deities have. Putting aside the issue of knowing these properties to begin with, if a deity is proposed to be the maximal existence of perfection as well as benevolence, then this universe, life and sentience would NOT exist and they would be evidence AGAINST such a deity. One cannot be the absolute benevolence and at the same time create an existence that is inherently both flawed and full of suffering. It is a violation of the property itself. Such deity would at best be a kid with a magnifying glass playing with an ant farm.

[stromboli]

You forgot the:


part

Every time I see this meme I wonder where the hammer winds up.

[stromboli]

Every theist comes on here to educate us in one way or another. They come on with the attitude of moral superiority and are talking down to us from the beginning. I like these people less every time they come on here, and frankly I'm losing any desire to be polite to them.

[Shol'va]

Here's how I typically am tempted to treat deism/theism. Okay, I accept that it's possible a god or gods exist. Cool, can I go back to eating my sandwich now?
That is exactly how much value that proposal has. None. Atheism isn't about proclaiming that no gods exist. Atheism is at the point where, you know, theists/deists present evidence that gods DO exist and that we're supposed to do something with that notion. I guess I am writing this just in case he is still reading the thread.

[Krisyork2008]

I kind of skipped a few pages here, so sorry if this has been addressed already, but hold on;

You're claiming that based on your observations of our universe and life on our planet, you find it most likely that a deity of some sort created it all? You're extremely vague in your explanations of your belief, so I find it logical that you are a deist as apposed to a typical theist, probably not adhering to a religion like Christianity or Islam.

You make it clear that you believe some sort of deity created everything, but your beliefs appear to stop there, which make your argument short sighted and at the same time hard to argue with. For all we know, your "deity" might be the universe itself, which obviously as previously stated would make it silly to call it god in the first place.

Back to my point... you find it most likely that the universe was created by something we've never seen, leaves no evidence behind on our world, by definition has no value in the reality we exist in, and falls into the category of thousands of other "creatures" we know for a fact were made up by ancient people who didn't understand the world?

Ever heard of a zebra? It's a medical term for when you diagnosis an extremely uncommon disease when the symptoms are most likely that of a much more common one. "When you hear hoof beats, you think horse, not zebra."

As an atheist, I do not actively believe that god does not exist; that would be ridiculous. In turn that would qualify titles for entire groups of people that believe unicorns, elves, dragons, and leprechauns don't exist. Why is it offensive for me to compare those things? I do not actively believe in an form of god, so why do I need a title for that?

We don't need an alternative answer. Some day maybe we will get there, and as a whole the scientific community is moving towards that answer. For now, it's fine to say "I don't know." To actively believe in a being that we know for a fact our ancestors created; made up; fictionized; drew upon, is just idiocy. If you find it most likely that a god creature created everything, you have to show to us how that is a better answer than "I don't know."

[TheGamingAtheist]

Dafuq?  Ohhhhhh so this is what y'all were talking about on his other post.