Aemmyjah:


You and the pantheist are pitiable

If the universe is God, where does intelligence comes from?
Would you say the universe gave us something it does not have?
Shame
You claim to be atheist but you claim to don't dispute the existence of God and you are listening to a pantheist

After all the humiliation and frustration they've experienced in those worship centers brother please blame them less because it's not that easy.
In fact they will face God and say all these even if He's going to destroy them but then is it God's fault or theirs?
Who asked them not to make a thorough research before embracing stupidity in the name of ATHEISM all because they're tired of the falsehood in their false religions?

Aemmyjah:



Lol, you're not making sense
Remember that the question was about morals and God's existence
So you should consider how these morals affect us in general and not your silly assumptions of 'ifs'
That's what atheists do, they'll encounter us and began to ask 'what ifs'
Before you ask your questions, consider how the community feels and how the conscience accept them
We're not animals
We're humans

Even those who claim to be religious show hatred, racism, bigotry and egotism
Many have killed and killing in the name of God.
Since you don't want to be decisive, I'll make you keep driving in a roundabout

How the morals affect us says nothing about a God. Let's assume a God exists. Why does this God's definition of right and wrong have to be something that benefits us?

What stops a God from deeming murder right, and kindness wrong? You've been dodging this question.

You're trying to make a case for morality according to human wellbeing. But a God does not need to support human wellbeing for it to be a God.

I'll say it again. Introducing a God into the equation doesn't solve anything

Aemmyjah:


You and the pantheist are pitiable

If the universe is God, where does intelligence comes from?
Would you say the universe gave us something it does not have?
Shame
You claim to be atheist but you claim to don't dispute the existence of God and you are listening to a pantheist

I do not believe the universe is God. And I don't understand what you mean by “listening to a pantheist"

I listen to anyone who claims to have an opinion on the existence of a God of any sort, and critique them accordingly.

Secondly, saying the universe has no “intelligence" as a way to shoot down the pantheistic view, only shows how little you understand about it.

I'm not supporting pantheism. But if you want to critique something, at least try to learn about it so you don't end up looking stupid.

Wilgrea7:


How the morals affect us says nothing about a God. Let's assume a God exists. Why does this God's definition of right and wrong have to be something that benefits us?

What stops a God from deeming murder right, and kindness wrong? You've been dodging this question.

You're trying to make a case for morality according to human wellbeing. But a God does not need to support human wellbeing for it to be a God.

I'll say it again. Introducing a God into the equation doesn't solve anything

Your questions are out of context with the main issue
You're going downtown
Focus in the issue

I was talking about morality
Morality is imprinted in man
Do animals have morals?
Where does morals come from?

We condemn stealing, murder, greed and the rest. These morals are in comparison to whom? To the Creator or man just adopted it

Wilgrea7:


I do not believe the universe is God. And I don't understand what you mean by “listening to a pantheist"

I listen to anyone who claims to have an opinion on the existence of a God of any sort, and critique them accordingly.

Secondly, saying the universe has no “intelligence" as a way to shoot down the pantheistic view, only shows how little you understand about it.

I'm not supporting pantheism. But if you want to critique something, at least try to learn about it so you don't end up looking stupid.

Lol
Why not throw more light in the issue of the universe and intelligence since you know better
Are you no longer an atheist? They say atheist question things
I asked a simple question earlier

The universe cannot be God
If the universe is God, how could it create consciousness and intelligence?!

You're not an atheist
You're not a Theist either
You're not a pantheist

Which one are you? All weather?

Aemmyjah:


Your questions are out of context with the main issue
You're going downtown
Focus in the issue

I was talking about morality

ok

Morality is imprinted in man
Do animals have morals?
Where does morals come from?

I won't exactly go as far as to say that morality is "imprinted" in man.

There seems to be an inseparable link between morality, and consciousness. The more conscious a being seems to be, the more defined their moral capacities are.

You asked about animals having morals. I'll say to a degree, yes. But it also depends on the level of consciousness i talked about, as well as other factors. But some animals have been seen to act "morally"

Here's a research paper that illustrates my point.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6404642/

We condemn stealing, murder, greed and the rest. These morals are in comparison to whom? To the Creator or man just adopted it

I've said it before. Our sense of morality today is highly dependent on our understanding of wellbeing, and not a God. It's the reason why you support a god that promotes love, rather than one who promotes violence and destruction.

And if you look back through history, you'll see that our sense of morality has in a way "evolved", just as our understanding of human well-being has similarly grown.

Aemmyjah:


Lol
Why not throw more light in the issue of the universe and intelligence since you know better

Are you no longer an atheist? They say atheist question things
I asked a simple question earlier

The universe cannot be God
If the universe is God, how could it create consciousness and intelligence?!

I'm not your personal encyclopedia. If you want to know something, the internet is there for you to make use of.

I see no reason why you'd want to put that duty on me. But for the sake of this discussion. I'll oblige.

The pantheistic view, as far as I know, states that the universe is God. That includes humans, since we are also part of the universe. If humans are seen as "intelligent" or "conscious", then those words cannot be excluded when describing the qualities of said universe.

Also, the idea that the universe is not "intelligent" comes from a somewhat human-based understanding of what it means to be such a thing.

As an example, you right now, consider yourself an intelligent and conscious being. You're made up of billions of cells. While none of these cells can be considered "intelligent" in the way you'd refer to yourself, they still come together to make up an intelligent being.

Similarly, it is believed that humans, as well as every other thing in existence, together, make up a sort of "grand intelligence" or "grand consciousness" which is the universe.

Again. I'm just explaining the position to you from the best of my knowledge. This is NOT a representation of my beliefs

You're not an atheist
You're not a Theist either
You're not a pantheist

Which one are you? All weather?

I'm not a fan of labels. As far as a belief in God goes, I lack one. By that definition, I'm considered an atheist.

Once again, I feel like I should point out that lacking a belief in something and saying something doesn't exist are 2 completely different things. Because I've noticed you tend to mix them up on several occasions.

Wilgrea7:


I'm not a fan of labels. As far as a belief in God goes, I lack one. By that definition, I'm considered an atheist.

When it comes to having or lacking a belief in God, I understand the theists perspective when they criticize atheists.
You say you lack a belief in God but this implies that there is an extant entity called God and you just happen to lack belief in it.
The Christian you replied has a belief in God and their perspective is that their God is real and they acknowledge this “fact” by belief or faith. That’s why they say things like “atheists reject god”’or “atheists deny god” and it does seem to be true. To the Christian, it seems you are denying the existence of El or YHVH or whatever idea(s) in the Bible they consider to be their deity.

It’s either that or atheists themselves make up a deity and then claim they don’t believe in it.

When you say you lack belief in God. What do you mean?
What is God and why does it require belief?

KnownUnknown:


When it comes to having or lacking a belief in God, I understand the theists perspective when they criticize atheists.
You say you lack a belief in God but this implies that there is an extant entity called God and you just happen to lack belief in it.
The Christian you replied has a belief in God and their perspective is that their God is real and they acknowledge this “fact” by belief or faith. That’s why they say things like “atheists reject god”’or “atheists deny god” and it does seem to be true. To the Christian, it seems you are denying the existence of El or YHVH or whatever idea(s) in the Bible they consider to be their deity.

It’s either that or atheists themselves make up a deity and then claim they don’t believe in it.

When you say you lack belief in God. What do you mean?
What is God and why does it require belief?

I understand. Perhaps the confusion comes from how I word my responses.

Having engaged with different concepts of "God", I'm not seen any evidence that would make me lean towards any particular position as opposed to another.

For example, I don't believe in the concept of a single creator God, like in Christianity and Islam, any more than I believe in a polytheistic pantheon, or a pantheistic God, or any other concept of God.

When the Christian asks me "Do you believe in God?", I automatically know they're referring to the concept of a single creator deity, like Yahweh, or Allah, for which I have no special inclination towards.

Perhaps saying "I don't believe in your God", or "your concept of God" would be a more accurate way to word my answer. Because the word "God" tends to mean different things for different people.

My lack of belief doesn't come from knowing only one concept of God and rejecting it. It comes from knowing several concepts of God, and not believing in one above the rest, simply because I've not encountered any evidence that proves one above the others.

Wilgrea7:


I understand. Perhaps the confusion comes from how I word my responses.

Having engaged with different concepts of "God", I'm not seen any evidence that would make me lean towards any particular position as opposed to another.

For example, I don't believe in the concept of a single creator God, like in Christianity and Islam, any more than I believe in a polytheistic pantheon, or a pantheistic God, or any other concept of God.

When the Christian asks me "Do you believe in God?", I automatically know they're referring to the concept of a single creator deity, like Yahweh, or Allah, for which I have no special inclination towards.

Perhaps saying "I don't believe in your God", or "your concept of God" would be a more accurate way to word my answer. Because the word "God" tends to mean different things for different people.

My lack of belief doesn't come from knowing only one concept of God and rejecting it. It comes from knowing several concepts of God, and not believing in one above the rest, simply because I've not encountered any evidence that proves one above the others.

When you say you lack belief in God. What do you mean? I’m not talking about your unbelief in other people’s gods but what you mean by god.

What is God and why does it require belief?

Why tell anyone you don’t “believe in” their concept of god. If it’s just a concept, why treat it differently from other fictional things.

I wouldn’t say I don’t believe in someone’s god because it doesn’t make sense. If a child tells you about his imaginary friend you don’t consider the character to be a subject of belief or non belief. You just consider it rightly to be nonsense. Why is it different when it’s an adult and the adult calls the imaginary being “God”?

If it’s a god they got from their religion, then it’s just a mythological character. I mean do you have belief or non belief in Jupiter Pluvius or do you consider it to be fiction?

KnownUnknown:


When you say you lack belief in God. What do you mean? I’m not talking about your unbelief in other people’s gods but what you mean by god.

What is God and why does it require belief?

Like I said earlier, when i say i don't believe in God, it's usually a response to someone, usually a theist. And what i mean by that is I don't believe in their concept of God

The word God is a title, and could mean different things for different people. To me, it's simply a loose title used by people with different ideologies to describe the reason for the universe.

As to why “God" requires belief, i think the people who believe in such a thing would be able to answer. Because I don't think any concept should necessarily require belief.

If a concept is proven, then it is a fact. Belief is unnecessary in the presence of evidence. If the concept is not proven, belief is also unnecessary.

Why tell anyone you don’t “believe in” their concept of god. If it’s just a concept, why treat it differently from other fictional things.

I wouldn’t say I don’t believe in someone’s god because it doesn’t make sense. If a child tells you about his imaginary friend you don’t consider the character to be a subject of belief or non belief. You just consider it rightly to be nonsense. Why is it different when it’s an adult and the adult calls the imaginary being “God”?

Good point. But the thing is, the declaration of non-belief in said God only happens when I'm asked about it.

For example, if a child comes up to me and tells me about Santa, other than the context of the conversation, I wouldn't consider santa to be a thing.

It's only when asked questions relating to santa, or another imaginary friend of theirs, that I would then say "sorry I don't believe in Santa"

If it’s a god they got from their religion, then it’s just a mythological character. I mean do you have belief or non belief in Jupiter Pluvius or do you consider it to be fiction?

Of course. I lack beliefs in these other gods. But i alao don't engage in discussionsns regarding these other gods, mainly because I don't live in a society where everyone talks about them.

Ignoring the threat of death, if i lived in Saudi Arabia, or ancient Egypt, and i were asked about the respective gods, my response would typically be the same.

Wilgrea7:


I think there are a number of steps that would need to be put in place.

For example,

1) Proving that "God" is a single creator deity in general
2) Proving that the bible/Christian God is the same as the "God" who is indeed the creator of the universe
3) Proving the story of the fall, as well as other biblical stories to be true, which would then validate the need for any form of "salvation"
4) Proving that said God indeed came down in the flesh (as you've said)
5) Proving that the death and alleged resurrection does provide the aforementioned "salvation"

Either ways, I'd be more than happy to engage with whatever proofs you have to offer.

My own process is much simpler actually. I've thought about it some more and while, I cannot conclusively prove that God exists, I can certainly demonstrate that Christianity is evidenced strongly enough to be given due consideration and is very likely true. I believe the arguments I give will only need consider:

1.) Is it more probable that God exists than not? (I believe the answer to this is an obvious yes to us all, regardless of whether we deny it).

2.) If God exists what are the chances God is as described in the Bible?

3.) Did God incarnate in Jesus Christ?

Wilgrea7:


I'm quite happy you've understood the point I was trying to make, at least to a large extent. Now it makes it easier to clarify my stance on "God".

It is not to say that I don't believe "God" exists in any form whatsoever. Far from it actually. It's just that I currently lack any evidence to favor one concept of "God" above the other.

Like I said in my previous quoted response, I'm not trying to deny that "God" could be one of these things. I simply don't know enough to say it is A instead of B. I don't know if the creator is a single deity or a pantheon, if it has another creator, if it is the universe itself, or separate from it, and so on.

it's not that I reject all of these. It's just that I lack any sufficient data to prove one above the other, or to disprove them all as you've requested.

I cannot disprove the idea of a God who is one with the universe, any more than I can disprove the idea of a God who is separate from it, or one with another creator, or a situation with multiple creators, and so on. it becomes a case of "Russel's teapot".

In case you're not familiar with it, it's a thought experiment, where someone is asked to disprove that there's an invisible/very tiny floating cup somewhere between earth and mars.

I'm sure you've already spotted the problem here. Russel's teapot experiment, makes a claim that's essentially untestable, and unfalsifiable. Similar to disproving one concept of "God" above the other, especially with our current knowledge. Which is why I've been eager to see proofs from people who claim "God" is one way, instead of the other.

My lack of belief is not from actively rejecting all concepts of God. It's simply saying "I don't know which is/could be right".

I hope this clears things up. If not, I'd be more than happy to answer more questions.

The attitude above is one of utter ignorance and is in stark opposition to your stance on why you debate religion. What you are saying is that you do not know or believe anything about god. By doing so, you hope to shirk having to defend atheism. Could it be that you sense its indefensibility? You know that it cannot withstand the scrutiny it subjects more stable philosophies to, so you abandon ship and become Wilgrea7, the confused theist at best or the reluctant agnostic at worst.

I will not allow you or any other atheists the luxury of not having to defend your own beliefs any longer. Now that I recognize this pattern, I will resist it by harassing atheists with questions about godlessness that they cannot hope to answer. I'm done playing away matches.

To set the stage for this, I'll address the principle behind the Russell's teapot abstraction. It touches at the heart of all atheist arrogance; the very substance that permits the boastful ignorance and stupidity all religious people have no doubt had to endure: proper basicity. This is the quality of all obvious or self-evident ideas. It is the attribute common to the set of all undefended and universally believed truths (for example, that I exist, or that people distinct from me exist, that I am conscious, that all that goes up on earth comes down (gravity exists), that Pythagoras theorem is correct etc.).

The problem here is that the assumption has been made by all atheists and unfortunately, most of us theists, that atheism is correct. This is the reason Christians have been amassing a 2,000 year old "Stack Overflow-like" theological library to defend the faith. Luckily, most of that effort is directed toward other Christians. The little that is intended for atheists is an attempt to swim in the irrational. We already know that a god exists. We have always known this, just as we have always known that we exist and that we die and that we are distinct from one another and that we are conscious. God's existence is self evidenced to the human race, hence the preponderance of religious belief of some sort throughout our 200,000 years of existence and the constant atheist nitpicking on the aspects of religious practice that do not suit certain moral tastes (the binding of Isaac and slaughter of the Amalekites to name a few), rather than on attacking the concept and existence of god. Morality itself cannot exist without god and yet we stubbornly hold on to it; it is built into our very consciences and yet it is irrational if we jettison the idea that a god exists.

The reason I have asked that you clarify your stance on God's existence it to trap you into doing what you should have been doing all along: proving it. You have no doubt noticed that atheists are routinely accused of hating a god they claim not to believe in. You have certainly been accused of being religious in your own sense since becoming an atheist. While these claims are made simply, they have become clichés for a reason which is that they bely the truth. Atheists do hate god, because they already believe in him. It is the human condition to know (and doubt) god's existence. As with everything else that being human entails, our intrinsic nature manifests in whatever condition we find ourselves, hence the popular saying that we are incurably religious and the countless gods and god-concepts you often write about.

Like our need for sex and social cohesion, competitiveness, jealousy and desire for our young to be safe and prosperous inevitably birth marriage in some form in every society, the human machine's acknowledgement of god must find fulfillment in religion. Attempts at repressing this need lead to the religious fervor of the modern atheist. You have written about your need to challenge religion yourself in a form of proselytizing hardly dissimilar to our evangelism. Anybody but the atheist in denial easily recognizes the smell of religion emanating from the angry, "small-g", snarky fumes he suffocates himself in.

Finally, to circle back to the teapot in space, it is not self-evident that such a thing exists and so the one claiming it does must prove it. He must bear the burden of proof. However, isn't god entirely unlike the teapot and more like space itself; more like the three-dimensional than a misplaced culinary artifact? It would be absurd that you ask me to prove space exists to you as we exist in it. We have never doubted its existence because it is self-evident to us. Likewise we do not doubt our own existences, even as we cannot "prove" them in any sense. The burden of proof therefore lies on the one making the unpopular and absurd claim (this is why solipsism is a philosophy and not its opposite; we do not need philosophy to know we exist). The burden of truth lies on the atheist's shoulders to prove that god does not exist, just as it would if we were discussing the existence of space.

Like all absurd positions atheism fails spectacularly at proving anything, which is why, when asked to defend it you uncharacteristically announce that you have been an agnostic theist all along and have just been waiting for the right moment to bring it up (see quoted post).

Greetings again sir. It seems you still don't quite clearly understand my stance. But for your sake, I'll go over it again

Endtimer:


The attitude above is one of utter ignorance and is in stark opposition to your stance on why you debate religion. What you are saying is that you do not know or believe anything about god.

Correct. To put it more simply, I do not have any inclination towards any particular concept of God. I gave several examples (pantheist, panentheist, theist, and polytheist).

I'm very much aware of these concepts, but like I said earlier, I've seen to evidence that proves one above the other, hence my stance.

By doing so, you hope to shirk having to defend atheism. Could it be that you sense its indefensibility?

What exactly do you mean by “defend atheism"? As far as I'm aware, atheism simply entails lack of beliefs in a "God". And I've given my personal reasons for that above.

How else would i need to "defend" it? You defend your stance on something. But I've taken no stance in this situation. So what would i even be defending?

You know that it cannot withstand the scrutiny it subjects more stable philosophies to, so you abandon ship and become Wilgrea7, the confused theist at best or the reluctant agnostic at worst.

There is no ship being abandoned. The position I presented is the one I've always held, at least in recent years.

I feel like you're once again confusing the lack of belief in a God, with the idea that a God does not exist. I've tried to point out that these are 2 very different things.

I will not allow you or any other atheists the luxury of not having to defend your own beliefs any longer. Now that I recognize this pattern, I will resist it by harassing atheists with questions about godlessness that they cannot hope to answer. I'm done playing away matches.

There are no beliefs to defend, and that's the point I've been trying to make ever since. I've made no claims. All I've been asking, is for the person making claims to prove them.

I feel as though this disagreement is coming from contrasting ideas on what it means to be an “atheist".

So please if I may ask, what would you define atheism as?

To set the stage for this, I'll address the principle behind the Russell's teapot abstraction. It touches at the heart of all atheist arrogance; the very substance that permits the boastful ignorance and stupidity all religious people have no doubt had to endure: proper basicity. This is the quality of all obvious or self-evident ideas. It is the attribute common to the set of all undefended and universally believed truths (for example, that I exist, or that people distinct from me exist, that I am conscious, that all that goes up on earth comes down (gravity exists), that Pythagoras theorem is correct etc.).

The problem here is that the assumption has been made by all atheists and unfortunately, most of us theists, that atheism is correct.

I think this statement is something that needs to be addressed. What exactly do you mean by “atheism is correct"

The phrase doesn't seem to make sense to me, and I think this is the first time I'm hearing such a thing. How can a lack of belief in something be correct, or wrong? I'm really confused.

This is the reason Christians have been amassing a 2,000 year old "Stack Overflow-like" theological library to defend the faith. Luckily, most of that effort is directed toward other Christians. The little that is intended for atheists is an attempt to swim in the irrational. We already know that a god exists. We have always known this, just as we have always known that we exist and that we die and that we are distinct from one another and that we are conscious. God's existence is self evidenced to the human race, hence the preponderance of religious belief of some sort throughout our 200,000 years of existence and the constant atheist nitpicking on the aspects of religious practice that do not suit certain moral tastes (the binding of Isaac and slaughter of the Amalekites to name a few), rather than on attacking the concept and existence of god.

I don't think the idea that religious belief has existed for 200,000 years somehow validates the claim that a God, especially in the sense you describe, exists.

As our knowledge grows, so does our understanding of the world. And for that reason, ideas we might have held before, may need to be revised. That's part of the human developmental process.

So the idea that beliefs in a sort of God somehow validate some claim made by said beliefs, is something I just don't see. If anything, it seems to be a circular argument.

Also, the idea that we've always had this belief in a “God" for 200,000 years is one i disagree with. Because when you look back in history, you begin to see how different our beliefs are.

Buddhism is a religion today that doesn't acknowledge any sort of supreme deity. We also have several cultures, like the native Americans that are believed to have practiced animism.

The idea that a sort of "God deity" has always been at the center of our beliefs in history, is simply not true. Beliefs vary wildly. Even the mere act of defining what the word "God" means proves this further.

Permit me to break this response into 2 parts, as it's getting rather lengthy.

Endtimer:


The reason I have asked that you clarify your stance on God's existence it to trap you into doing what you should have been doing all along: proving it. You have no doubt noticed that atheists are routinely accused of hating a god they claim not to believe in. You have certainly been accused of being religious in your own sense since becoming an atheist. While these claims are made simply, they have become clichés for a reason which is that they bely the truth. Atheists do hate god, because they already believe in him. It is the human condition to know (and doubt) god's existence. As with everything else that being human entails, our intrinsic nature manifests in whatever condition we find ourselves, hence the popular saying that we are incurably religious and the countless gods and god-concepts you often write about.

The accusation that atheists hate “God" or that atheists are religious, is one that comes up when theists ask atheists why they spend their time debating about a God they don't believe in.

Each atheist have their reasons for choosing to debate religion. I'm aware of a good number of atheists that couldn't care less about religious debates. But some do, and I think that's fine too.

I've even previously created a thread to clearly address this issue, and also gave my personal reasons for engaging in debates like this. And i assure you, none of those reasons involve hatred for a character I don't believe.

Finally, to circle back to the teapot in space, it is not self-evident that such a thing exists and so the one claiming it does must prove it. He must bear the burden of proof.

Exactly. This is exactly what I've been saying. The idea of a God, as presented in religion, is not in any way self evident.

Claims that a God is singular, eternal, uncreated, or the universe itself is not in any way self-evident. Which is why we've been asking the respective theist to prove their claims. And till now, we've seen nothing.

However, isn't god entirely unlike the teapot and more like space itself; more like the three-dimensional than a misplaced culinary artifact? It would be absurd that you ask me to prove space exists to you as we exist in it. We have never doubted its existence because it is self-evident to us.

I agree with you on one thing. "God" is very unlike the teapot. Because we know what a teapot is. What it's meant to looks like, as well as it's properties. Emphasis on know, not believe.

Coming to "God". We don't know what it is. We don't know what it is supposed to be. We have several beliefs about what it means to be "God". All very contradictory. As far as knowledge on a God, we have none.

What you consider to be a God is very different from what a panentheist, or polytheist considers. This was discussed in our first discussions, when we talked about the idea of something being immaterial, spaceless and timeless.

Something that is not clearly well defined, cannot be seen as self-evident.

Likewise we do not doubt our own existences, even as we cannot "prove" them in any sense. The burden of proof therefore lies on the one making the unpopular and absurd claim (this is why solipsism is a philosophy and not its opposite; we do not need philosophy to know we exist). The burden of truth lies on the atheist's shoulders to prove that god does not exist, just as it would if we were discussing the existence of space.

There are several things i would have loved to say in response to the idea that our existence is self-evident, but i think that's another discussion entirely.

Like all absurd positions atheism fails spectacularly at proving anything, which is why, when asked to defend it you uncharacteristically announce that you have been an agnostic theist all along and have just been waiting for the right moment to bring it up (see quoted post).

Atheism doesn't claim anything, so saying that it fails to prove something just doesn't add up. We've made no claims about this "God" you speak of. We're only asking you, the ones making the claim to prove your claims.

Once again. I feel like this disagreement stems mainly from our contrasting ideas on what it means to be an atheist.

Maybe some clarification from your end would help establish an agreeable common ground

Endtimer:


My own process is much simpler actually. I've thought about it some more and while, I cannot conclusively prove that God exists, I can certainly demonstrate that Christianity is evidenced strongly enough to be given due consideration and is very likely true.

I would like to see this demonstrated.

I believe the arguments I give will only need consider:

1.) Is it more probable that God exists than not? (I believe the answer to this is an obvious yes to us all, regardless of whether we deny it).

Which god? The Abrahamic god? No, there is no chance it exists as described by the Bible or by Christians themselves.

2.) If God exists what are the chances God is as described in the Bible?

None. A god may exist but the Bible and Christian conception has failed to produce any definitive evidence.

3.) Did God incarnate in Jesus Christ?

Jesus is long dead and reports of any miraculous deeds cannot be authenticated so how are we supposed to know this?

Endtimer:


My own process is much simpler actually. I've thought about it some more and while, I cannot conclusively prove that God exists, I can certainly demonstrate that Christianity is evidenced strongly enough to be given due consideration and is very likely true. I believe the arguments I give will only need consider:

1.) Is it more probable that God exists than not? (I believe the answer to this is an obvious yes to us all, regardless of whether we deny it).

2.) If God exists what are the chances God is as described in the Bible?

3.) Did God incarnate in Jesus Christ?

Several things.

There seems to be a lot of probability here. I personally don't think that's a good way to prove something. But if we want to go by probability, i think it's best to start from the top. Here's what I mean

Is it more probable that my definition, or concept of the word "God" is more correct, as opposed to other concepts?

To put it simply, is it more probable that a single uncreated creator deity exists, rather than multiple creators, or a God who is the universe, or one who is created, and so on.

The idea that God either exists, or doesn't seems to be a false dichotomy. Because, there are so many other factors to consider when simply talking about the word "God".

It is only after this step is completed, that you can go forward to try to merge the most probable concept of God, with the one in the bible

Wilgrea7:


Several things.

There seems to be a lot of probability here. I personally don't think that's a good way to prove something. But if we want to go by probability, i think it's best to start from the top. Here's what I mean

Is it more probable that my definition, or concept of the word "God" is more correct, as opposed to other concepts?

To put it simply, is it more probable that a single uncreated creator deity exists, rather than multiple creators, or a God who is the universe, or one who is created, and so on.

The idea that God either exists, or doesn't seems to be a false dichotomy. Plus, there are so many other factors to consider when simply talking about the word "God".

It is only after this step is completed, that you can go forward to try to merge the most probable concept of God, with the one in the bible

Don't speak too many grammar and confuse yourself
God is the supreme being and credited for the existence of life and the universe
To question whether God exists or not is to prove that the universe came from someone or came from nothing

Simple as XYZ

Aemmyjah:


Don't speak too many grammar and confuse yourself
God is the supreme being and credited for the existence of life and the universe
To question whether God exists or not is to prove that the universe came from someone or came from nothing

Simple as XYZ

If you failed to comprehend my post above, then that's on you.

But to come in here and phrase it all as "many grammar" just speaks to how little you're willing to engage with conflicting or alternative ideas.

I don't know how to help you from here

Wilgrea7:


If you failed to comprehend my post above, then that's on you.

But to come in here and phrase it all as "many grammar" just speaks to how little you're willing to engage with conflicting or alternative ideas.

I don't know how to help you from here

Lol
Confused confusionist

Wilgrea7:

Beliefs vary wildly. Even the mere act of defining what the word "God" means proves this further.

Frankly, this is getting to be fun again. My argument is essentially that the existence of "god" in some sense is true, as well as self-evident and that atheism, which you purport to be the "lack of belief in god", but is commonly defined as the belief that god does not exist, is actually the latter definition regardless of which of the two we pick. It follows that if the existence of "god" is properly basic and you are making a truth claim -"god does not exist"- based on the latter definition of atheism, then you do have a "stance"; as well as the responsibility to defend your position.

---

I'd like to start by offering a few defeaters for your preferred definition of atheism. The statement that you (being an atheist) lack a belief in god is as absurd as it is untrue. Below is an admission that you do in fact believe (emphasis mine):

It is not to say that I don't believe "God" exists in any form whatsoever. Far from it actually. It's just that I currently lack any evidence to favor one concept of "God" above the other.

Your contention lies in our finetuning of the definition of "god", rather than the existence of god. What I struggle to understand is how someone who is unclear of the nature of something can be said to "lack a belief" in it. Could it be that you are using the phrase in some special (and wrong) way?

Take for example, the concept of life. Life exists in many forms: in plants, in cold and warm-blooded animals, as well as animals inhabiting various aquatic and terrestrial habitats and capable of varying levels of mobility. Assume with me the elimination of all forms of terrestrial life. In such a situation, if asked whether or not you believe in the existence of life on Mars, and you were simply unsure of the nature of life there, would you reply: "Oh, I lack a belief in life". That would be irrational. What you are trying to say is either that:

1.) You believe in the validity of the concept of life but not in the actual existence of a specific form of it due to lack of evidence supporting such a claim: "It is not to say that I don't believe "life" exists in any form whatsoever. It's just that no evidence has been given to support the existence of plant life on Mars". Unless you have your own belief in a member of the set constituting what forms life may take, your view is actually (2.) below. If you do in fact have a belief in a member of the set "god", then welcome to our side. It would be senseless to call you an atheist.

2.) You believe in the validity of the concept of life but not in the actual existence of any form of it due to lack of evidence supporting such claims. This, I believe is your view if we agree that the concepts of life and god are all-encompassing terms used to describe the many ways an entity could exist (this is the "set" described in (1.), above be it infinite or finite). In this sense, it could be said that "life" or "god" simply do not exist on your view, therefore rendering your special definition of atheism the same as the old one. This abstraction deals with the claim that you do not have an inclination toward belief in any definition of god and exposes that it is the same as plainly saying you do not believe in god.

---

Second, I will reiterate the proper basicity of my belief. As I've already said god exists. This level of information is available to us as a result of our perception of the world and is self-evident. Every human being will therefore know, comprehend or at least suspect it, just by virtue of existing. The quote below misses my point but is close to what I am getting at:

I don't think the idea that religious belief has existed for 200,000 years somehow validates the claim that a God, especially in the sense you describe, exists. So the idea that beliefs in a sort of God somehow validate some claim made by said beliefs, is something I just don't see. If anything, it seems to be a circular argument.

Unfortunately, my friend, you seem to have gotten the causal chain backward. I am not saying that the ubiquity of religion is proof of the existence of some sort of god. I am saying that the self-evident reality that god exists in some sense is the reason religion is universal. I am saying that God exists and that we know this, just as we can individually know that we are not one another, as both are properly basic. However, we may not understand it, leading to the various misinterpretations and the need for a set of possibilities enumerating the concept of god, one of which may cohere with the reality that is God.

When my point is understood you will be accusing me of simply stating that my point is true and absolving myself of the responsibility to prove it. Until that becomes obvious to you, you have not understood me. However, I will add that while properly basic beliefs may be impossible or difficult to prove (for instance prove that either one of us exists to me), some evidence can be given to support the common sense they bely. For this reason, all our previous discussions aid in demonstrating the probability that what appears evident to us (the existence of god) is true.

---

Combining both points above, I am arguing that you are definitionally no different than the average atheist and that your point of view contradicts common sense and self-evident truth. The former means you are making a truth claim -"god does not exist"- and the latter means you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that this is in fact reality.

---

Now to deal with some other issues you raised:

Claims that a God is singular, eternal, uncreated, or the universe itself is not in any way self-evident. Which is why we've been asking the respective theist to prove their claims. And till now, we've seen nothing.

You are correct that the specific details of the existence of a god are not self-evident, just as the conditions surrounding our own existence cannot be said to be self evident either. This is why "Man, know thyself" is probably Socrates' most popular saying. Just as we know that we exist and that god exists, we come to know more details about both. Some of these details are themselves quite obvious and others are more probable than others. Worse still, some are irrational and cannot be true.

Also, the idea that we've always had this belief in a “God" for 200,000 years is one i disagree with. Because when you look back in history, you begin to see how different our beliefs are.

Buddhism is a religion today that doesn't acknowledge any sort of supreme deity. We also have several cultures, like the native Americans that are believed to have practiced animism.

Animism does not preclude theism or deism and when it does it is improbable, given our knowledge of the big bang and the necessity of a first cause. Buddhism adds irrationality to unlikeliness, by claiming that a form of causality is the ultimate cause.

Coming to "God". We don't know what it is. We don't know what it is supposed to be. We have several beliefs about what it means to be "God". All very contradictory. As far as knowledge on a God, we have none.

The last sentence is a blatant statement that you support the second option I gave in my comparison of the abstractions of life and god, confirming that your atheism is of the usual strain. I would say we have an idea of both things and the forms in which they may exist in reality. These forms are represented as members of the sets "life" and "god".

Atheism doesn't claim anything, so saying that it fails to prove something just doesn't add up. We've made no claims about this "God" you speak of. We're only asking you, the ones making the claim to prove your claims.

As I've demonstrated, atheism is a truth claim (against common sense) that god does not exist in some form. Your insistence that it doesn't make any claims is due to a faulty assumption that it is just the natural state of things and that we (non-atheists) consequently bear the burden of proof. While, that is precisely the opposite of reality, I am charitable enough to provide claims to support common sense, as long as you are able to prove that "god" does not exist (Terms and conditions apply).

---

Alright, that felt nice to type. I apologize for its length, though. I believe our disagreement will be reduced to rather small matters after this. Good night.

Wilgrea7, after rereading my last post, I noticed that it is not only too long, but could also be confusing on several points. Consider this a TL;DR version.

My basic argument was that the existence of god is self-evident. Atheism as a philosophy is a truth claim against this properly basic truth and must be supported by positive proofs to be believable. I also explained how your definition of atheism as a lack of belief in god is the same thing as the belief that god does not exist. I continued to use "god" as a term encompassing every possible concept of deity; basically a set with members from different world religions and beyond. As for your contention that religion being ubiquitous does not prove the existence of god, I pointed out that this is a reversal of my view. I believe that the existence of god (being self-evident to humans) is the reason why religion is ubiquitous and not the other way around. I argued that self-evident truths are often paradoxical and difficult to prove, but that we have logical reason to favor them over alternatives.

Endtimer:
Wilgrea7, after rereading my last post, I noticed that it is not only too long, but could also be confusing on several points. Consider this a TL;DR version.

My basic argument was that the existence of god is self-evident. Atheism as a philosophy is a truth claim against this properly basic truth and must be supported by positive proofs to be believable. I also explained how your definition of atheism as a lack of belief in god is the same thing as the belief that god does not exist. I continued to use "god" as a term encompassing every possible concept of deity; basically a set with members from different world religions and beyond. As for your contention that religion being ubiquitous does not prove the existence of god, I pointed out that this is a reversal of my view. I believe that the existence of god (being self-evident to humans) is the reason why religion is ubiquitous and not the other way around. I argued that self-evident truths are often paradoxical and difficult to prove, but that we have logical reason to favor them over alternatives.

@Wilgrea7
This is what I pointed out to you in a previous post or thread. Any observant theist would use this argument because the atheist is implying that the god exists and he just lacks belief in it and this because the theist’s argument is that the god exists and all that is required is belief. So your unbelief is merely a denial of existence of the god while their belief is an affirmation of existence of the god. But according to both positions, the god exists.

Apologies for the late response sir. To say I've been busy recently would be an understatement.

But I'm more than happy to discuss this again. And i must admit. This is/has been one of my most interesting discussions about the existence of God in recent years

Endtimer:


Frankly, this is getting to be fun again. My argument is essentially that the existence of "god" in some sense is true, as well as self-evident and that atheism, which you purport to be the "lack of belief in god", but is commonly defined as the belief that god does not exist, is actually the latter definition regardless of which of the two we pick. It follows that if the existence of "god" is properly basic and you are making a truth claim -"god does not exist"- based on the latter definition of atheism, then you do have a "stance"; as well as the responsibility to defend your position.

---

I'm really happy we're finally getting a better picture of what it means to be an atheist from both sides of the discussion.

You presented the idea that "god" is somehow self-evident, and by virtue of this, an atheist who claims to not believe in God, is claiming not to believe in a self-evident thing, which thereby implies a clear denial of the existence of God, A.K.A "God does not exist"

In my opinion, I do not see the existence of God as something which is self-evident. And I'll do my best to try to explain why I think so.

I'd like to start by offering a few defeaters for your preferred definition of atheism. The statement that you (being an atheist) lack a belief in god is as absurd as it is untrue. Below is an admission that you do in fact believe (emphasis mine):

Yes. That statement pretty accurately sums up my position. For me to say that God doesn't exist in any form whatsoever, I would be making a truth claim, for which, like the theist, I have no evidence to back up.

But I think this statement only works in favor of theism when the existence of God, again, is seen as self-evident (which i plan to tackle later on in the "life" analogy).

Your contention lies in our finetuning of the definition of "god", rather than the existence of god.

But this is the very thing that does bother me. How do we imply the existence of something which we've not even clearly defined, as self-evident?

Unlike the definition of life, which i will get to later on, I think several problems arise when trying to define the word "God".

To me, it more or less feels like a blanket term for "cause of the universe". And the deeper i try to look into it, the more confusing it seems to get. And i hope to show you a little bit of that today

What I struggle to understand is how someone who is unclear of the nature of something can be said to "lack a belief" in it. Could it be that you are using the phrase in some special (and wrong) way?

I think that's pretty much the default stance when it comes to how we judge things as true or real.

For example, let's say I told you there was a blue thing that moved somewhere in the galaxy

If I asked you. Do you believe in the blue moving thing? I'm sure your response would be something like "what??"

It seems more difficult to form a belief on something that lacks a clear definition. If further pressed on the issue in the absence of evidence, i think most people would just simply say they don't believe in the blue thing.

Now, this is where i think it gets interesting. If you take away the claim of self-evidence, lack of belief in something no longer equates to the claim that said thing doesn't exist. (Or at least that's how I see it)

If someone said they didn't believe in the blue moving thing, I wouldn't take it as them saying this thing doesn't exist.

But i also don't think it rules out the possibility that said undefined thing, if clearly defined, could exist.

I think most people when they hear someone say they don't believe in God, automatically equate that to mean "I don't believe God can exist"

That's not a position I've held in respect to any of the definitions of God. I actually do accept that these things could exist as people attempt to define them.

But to me, there seems to be a huge gap between probability of existence and existence itself.

Without any sort of evidence, probability of something just remains probability. And while we can acknowledge its feasibility, I don't think that serves as grounds for taking it as true, or real.

I predict this will be a lot. So as usual, I'll break it down into several parts

Endtimer:
Wilgrea7, after rereading my last post, I noticed that it is not only too long, but could also be confusing on several points.

I certainly don't mind the length. If anything, I appreciate it even more, as it gives me more to think about.

Consider this a TL;DR version.

My basic argument was that the existence of god is self-evident. Atheism as a philosophy is a truth claim against this properly basic truth and must be supported by positive proofs to be believable. I also explained how your definition of atheism as a lack of belief in god is the same thing as the belief that god does not exist. I continued to use "god" as a term encompassing every possible concept of deity; basically a set with members from different world religions and beyond. As for your contention that religion being ubiquitous does not prove the existence of god, I pointed out that this is a reversal of my view. I believe that the existence of god (being self-evident to humans) is the reason why religion is ubiquitous and not the other way around. I argued that self-evident truths are often paradoxical and difficult to prove, but that we have logical reason to favor them over alternatives.

I was writing a response to the part of your post about "life" when I realized.. you do have a point. But also, we might have been saying pretty much similar things, although arriving at different conclusions.

I think this is in regards to the word "God". It seems as though we define the word in different ways.

For example, if for you, the word "God", in the general sense, is just another term for a "higher" power or cause (not necessarily a conscious or centralized one), then we're pretty much on the same page.

In my post titled "Questions I have about the existence of a creator God", as well as in several other occasions, I've mentioned that the idea of something like that is one i can agree with.

If that's what you mean by self-evident, then yeah. We totally agree.

Although when it comes to that blanket term for this "greater cause", I'm not quick to call it "God", because like i said earlier, the word means different things to different people.

KnownUnknown asked me a similar question earlier about this "God". Below was my response

Wilgrea7:


I understand. Perhaps the confusion comes from how I word my responses.

Having engaged with different concepts of "God", I'm not seen any evidence that would make me lean towards any particular position as opposed to another.

For example, I don't believe in the concept of a single creator God, like in Christianity and Islam, any more than I believe in a polytheistic pantheon, or a pantheistic God, or any other concept of God.

When the Christian asks me "Do you believe in God?", I automatically know they're referring to the concept of a single creator deity, like Yahweh, or Allah, for which I have no special inclination towards.

Perhaps saying "I don't believe in your God", or "your concept of God" would be a more accurate way to word my answer. Because the word "God" tends to mean different things for different people.

It appears I defined my atheism as lack of belief in a specific concept, or inclination towards a specific concept of "God", while you defined it as rejection of the general concept, of "God" or what i would call a "higher cause"

As always, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

KnownUnknown:


@Wilgrea7
This is what I pointed out to you in a previous post or thread. Any observant theist would use this argument because the atheist is implying that the god exists and he just lacks belief in it and this because the theist’s argument is that the god exists and all that is required is belief. So your unbelief is merely a denial of existence of the god while their belief is an affirmation of existence of the god. But according to both positions, the god exists.

I am simply trying to get him to provide positive proof for the inexistence of deity. Assuming we start from the position of agnosticism and both have to prove our points (as it would be in any rational debate), the scales would swing massively in favor of theism. This is largely because the assumption in these arguments is usually that god does not exist and that the theist is making an outlandish claim that he needs to prove. The atheist simply sits and judges the performance, often shooting down the theist's proofs and imagining that he is demonstrating that god does not exist. It simply does not occur to him that he needs to provide evidence confirming his own position, rather than just tearing down other's. Like I've said before, this is because the starting assumption is that atheism is the natural state of things and the believer wants to disrupt the natural order, but must have just cause - in the form of proof - to do so.

Wilgrea7:

It appears I defined my atheism as lack of belief in a specific concept, or inclination towards a specific concept of "God", while you defined it as rejection of the general concept, of "God" or what i would call a "higher cause"

No, I defined your atheism as the same thing you define it as above. I wrote that if you believe in the general concept of god, but not in the actual existence of any form of deity, then your atheism is the same as saying: "I don't believe in the existence of god" or "god does not exist". I use the term "god" here as the name of a set of every possible concept of deity including God, Allah, Vishnu etc. If you agree that the concept of deity is sensible but do not believe in any of the aforementioned, as well as the actual existence of any form of deity then you do not believe god exists.

Imagine yourself a disembodied consciousness touring the remains of our galaxy following some catastrophe that has led to the extinction of all life. You may accept that the concept is logical and could exist, but if you do not believe it actually does exist in some form then you would be saying: "life does not exist". Likewise your lack of belief in any and all specific forms of god.

For example, if for you, the word "God", in the general sense, is just another term for a "higher" power or cause (not necessarily a conscious or centralized one), then we're pretty much on the same page.

In my post titled "Questions I have about the existence of a creator God", as well as in several other occasions, I've mentioned that the idea of something like that is one i can agree with.

If that's what you mean by self-evident, then yeah. We totally agree.

In that case you are changing the definition of atheism in order fit yourself in. The above would conventionally be described as agnostic theism/deism: you believe in god, but are unsure of his nature. If you agree, we can stop calling you an atheist and simply move on to discussing the traditional concept of god and leaps of faith.

Wilgrea7:

I think this is in regards to the word "God". It seems as though we define the word in different ways.

I'd also like to clarify that I used the term "god" differently from how I've used "God" in the past. As I have explained, "god" is the name of a set (in the mathematical sense) that houses every concept of deity. It is can be infinite or finite. It refers to the concept of divinity itself and different forms it may exist in. It is very much like the term "life".

On the other hand, God, I believe, is the actual existence of deity. A transcendent disembodied mind, infinitely qualitatively different from us. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent, necessary, existing in three persons and incarnate 2,000 years ago in the man, Jesus Christ who died that we may inherit everlasting life. I have avoided using "God" of late so my arguments work as general theistic principles.

Please pay no heed to this post other than as a clarification of how I've used my terms. It is irrelevant otherwise.

First of all, my view is that atheists leave room for theist objection when they say they lack belief in god not that the theist’s position is strengthened in any way, shape, or form.

Endtimer:


I am simply trying to get him to provide positive proof for the inexistence of deity.

That is disingenuous and he should ask you:
What is deity?
Can you show what a deity is?

Endtimer:

Assuming we start from the position of agnosticism and both have to prove our points (as it would be in any rational debate), the scales would swing massively in favor of theism.

Assuming you start from the position of agnosticism, he should ask what you mean by agnosticism?
Why agnosticism and not Gnosticism?
There are multiple definition of the gnostic/agnostic afterall e.g.
Gnosticism: Knowledge that “scriptures” are allegorical
Agnosticism: Lack of knowledge about the allegorical nature of scripture.

To your point, beginning from a position of agnosticism (as you define it) means there is some presumption which implies there is proof. If he argues based on those presumptions, he would just be wasting his time.

Endtimer:

This is largely because the assumption in these arguments is usually that god does not exist and that the theist is making an outlandish claim that he needs to prove.

No, that’s been disingenuous. The only assumption in these arguments is that “god” exists, which is a claim that the theist needs to prove. The other party does not have to prove anything, especially if they don’t presume that they know what you mean by “god”.
IHe should ask you, what is “god”?

Endtimer:

The atheist simply sits and judges the performance, often shooting down the theist's proofs and imagining that he is demonstrating that god does not exist.

The atheist is still right about that despite his presumptions. Shooting down proofs does not demonstrate that “god” does it exist, it just a means the theist’s position is baseless and without support.

Endtimer:

It simply does not occur to him that he needs to provide evidence confirming his own position, rather than just tearing down other's.

He does not need to do anything but question. He does not have to prove anything unless you ask him:
What is this god that you lack belief in?

Endtimer:

Like I've said before, this is because the starting assumption is that atheism is the natural state of things and the believer wants to disrupt the natural order, but must have just cause - in the form of proof - to do so.

Atheism is not a natural state of things.
Theism is not a natural state of things.
The natural state of things is “What the Bleep is a god?”

KnownUnknown:

That is disingenuous and he should ask you:
What is deity?
Can you show what a deity is?

This new ignorance schtick is already old. Other than distracting from more important points, what do you aim to accomplish by asking me to serve as a dictionary. The basic assumption that I and Wilgrea7 are operating on is that everyone involved in this debate has basic knowledge of the English language. If I use a term in some special way, I will let you know. Until then rely on Oxford's or Merriam-Webster's.

Assuming you start from the position of agnosticism, he should ask what you mean by agnosticism?

While this is just more willful ignorance, I will clarify that agnosticism as I used it is related to theism and atheism, rather than Gnosticism. This is a simple contextual inference. It is simply a relatively neutral starting point for us to discuss our beliefs without solely appealing to proper basicity. We assume that we know nothing about the existence of god (or whether there is a god) and propose and oppose the motion with our own points. This is different from the usual sport where the theist uses points and the atheist counters them like a penalty shootout. This is a complete match, with both teams trying to win by scoring goals and defending against others.

He does not have to prove anything unless you ask him:
What is this god that you lack belief in?

Why is that exactly?

No, that’s been disingenuous. The only assumption in these arguments is that “god” exists, which is a claim that the theist needs to prove.

While this point is irrelevant to the larger theme of your post, I couldn't resist referencing it. According to you, the assumption here is that "god exists" and yet this is something "the theist needs to prove". Maybe you cannot see how that doesn't make any sense.

While you are yet to point out your view on the matter in a complete and logical sense, I already suspect that you are committing the fallacy of appealing to ignorance because of the same proper basicity (or self-evidence) I've recently discussed on this same thread. When you do make your own points I will try to address them.

Endtimer:


This new ignorance schtick is already old. Other than distracting from more important points, what do you aim to accomplish by asking me to serve as a dictionary. The basic assumption that I and Wilgrea7 are operating on is that everyone involved in this debate has basic knowledge of the English language. If I use a term in some special way, I will let you know. Until then rely on Oxford's or Merriam-Webster's.

The schtick is that you argue based on your assumptions that you would rather remain unchallenged. It’s a valid question because a deity is not something you can point to and have it understood universally.
I wouldn’t ask you what water is because it’s universal and apparent.
I don’t know what deity is but I won’t take it against you if you can’t explain it.

Endtimer:

While this is just more willful ignorance, I will clarify that agnosticism as I used it is related to theism and atheism, rather than Gnosticism. This is a simple contextual inference. It is simply a relatively neutral starting point for us to discuss our beliefs without solely appealing to proper basicity. We assume that we know nothing about the existence of god (or whether there is a god) and propose and oppose the motion with our own points.

Like I said, you are already assuming things so what’s the point of the debate? I mean you already assume that whatever god is, it must be singular.

Endtimer:

This is different from the usual sport where the theist uses points and the atheist counters them like a penalty shootout. This is a complete match, with both teams trying to win by scoring goals and defending against others.

There is no match and the atheist would be wasting time arguing against a theist whose only position is making outlandish claims and arguments from ignorance. I mean you claim the atheist is wrong because they haven’t refuted a proposition that can’t be refuted. How does one argue against the nonexistence of god?
Why is god subject to argument in the first place?

Endtimer:

Why is that exactly?

To understand what they mean by it.

Endtimer:


While this point is irrelevant to the larger theme of your post, I couldn't resist referencing it. According to you, the assumption here is that "god exists" and yet this is something "the theist needs to prove". Maybe you cannot see how that doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense because it was the response to your claim that the assumption in this arguments is that “god does not exist”. The assumption is obviously the theist’s position that god(s) exists and you are being disingenuous by saying it’s the atheists position. The atheist wouldn’t have to counter the assumption of the theist assume in the fist place.

Endtimer:

While you are yet to point out your view on the matter in a complete and logical sense, I already suspect that you are committing the fallacy of appealing to ignorance because of the same proper basicity (or self-evidence) I've recently discussed on this same thread. When you do make your own points I will try to address them.

How am I appealing to ignorance? I haven’t even said anything about your proposition being true or false because you haven’t clarified your position. This has been about the arguments between theists and atheists.
So, what is a deity?