The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

Can we just start all ready?
If we need to redefine a term we can do so later. It's only one day people of discussions that could last years. Surely such redefintion wouldn't be that catastrophic.
C'mon...I'm was all excited hoping to see arguments, c'mon pretty pleaseee start outlining evidence

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Can we just start all ready?
If we need to redefine a term we can do so later. It's only one day people of discussions that could last years. Surely such redefintion wouldn't be that catastrophic.
C'mon...I'm was all riled up hoping to see arguments, c'mon pretty pleaseee start outlining evidence

Reminds me the term Filibuster

A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal.

philologos

So what do we have?

"Everything that is used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion"
using what is presumed to be true, and what was proven already with evidence.

I'll explain the reason why I have crossed out the second clause, and that is that I'm not sure that in this argument we can use "what was proven already with evidence".

I want to draw the argument out further though. This isn't just going to be a Q and A session for me, I want you to demonstrate your position also.

The three key questions for me if I were to discuss with you, both calmly and reasonably on the subject of God would be.

1. What evidence do you have to suggest that God is not likely at all to exist?
2. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Bible is unreliable or unauthentic?
Edit: 3. What reason does one have for dismissing the idea of a Creator?

Also, I don't want one liners, I want to see a solid defence for your positions on these issues.

Now, the reason why I have done this, isn't to "obstruct" anything, but to make clear what we are discussing, and to make clear what we are talking about first.

There is zero point in discussing evidence if we don't have a clue what on earth we are talking about. This has been the problem in past discussions myself, and Sam have had in particular. He has constantly banted on about my position being illogical and he has constantly claimed that I should "correct" myself, and that I am being intransigent by merely disagreeing with him. If I am going to discuss anything with Sam, it has to be organised and done properly.

Now, Sam let me explain more fully my issue with discussing the case of Sathya Sai Bayba.

This is a verifiable claim, not an unverifiable claim. Therefore all I have to do to assess it is to see him for myself.

Claims of Christianity concerning Jesus and God are unverifiable, and therefore they are more difficult to assess than those of Sathya Sai Bayba.

Carrying on. I know very little about the religious background of Sai Bayba, and I know very little about him full stop.

This is the reason why I suggest another topic.

Think of the potential we have here, we have the possibility of moving the thread along from a J C Questions and Answers session on Young Earth Creationism, to something that more fully deals with Bible, Creationism and Prophesy. The atheist must also be willing to defend their position also however if this is to work, and if we are going to have real dialogue.

Turtwig

He publicly disclosed His divine identity in the 1940s. Tonnes of eye witness testimonies, press reports etc etc.
Christian claims are unverifiable,you believe God is judging me, yet you have no verifiable claims?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

He publicly disclosed His divine identity in the 1940s. Tonnes of eye witness testimonies, press reports etc etc.

Yes, but it's very different. It's verifiable, in the sense that I can meet him, and find out if he can do what he can do. In the case of Jesus, I can see His work here and His work in me, but I cannot see Him in the flesh, nor can I see God in the flesh. As such the situations are entirely different and the criteria are different.

That's why I don't feel it is a good question.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

1. What evidence do you have to suggest that God is not likely at all to exist?

Irrelevant question. Firstly you're trying again to drag the topic back to generic "some kind of creator type arguments" and secondly I said that for the pusposes of this discussion I am assuming that there is a creator or creators

Jakkass wrote: »

2. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Bible is unreliable or unauthentic?

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on everyone else to disprove it. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. I am asking you to provide positive evidence.

Jakkass wrote: »

Now, Sam let me explain more fully my issue with discussing the case of Sathya Sai Bayba.

This is a verifiable claim, not an unverifiable claim. Therefore all I have to do to assess it is to see him for myself.

Claims of Christianity concerning Jesus and God are unverifiable, and therefore they are more difficult to assess than those of Sathya Sai Bayba.

Carrying on. I know very little about the religious background of Sai Bayba, and I know very little about him full stop.

This is the reason why I suggest another topic.

So you're telling me that even though there is a miracle worker (in fact many miracle workers) alive today making verifiable claims that you could go out and verify if you so chose thereby definitively proving to yourself that a god exists, you prefer to take the word of 12 guys from 2000 years ago and try to argue that pathetically weak "evidence" (sorry but it is) such as archaeological evidence of the possible existence of a city is compelling? Please explain

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but it's very different. It's verifiable, in the sense that I can meet him, and find out if he can do what he can do. In the case of Jesus, I can see His work here and His work in me, but I cannot see Him in the flesh, nor can I see God in the flesh. As such the situations are entirely different and the criteria are different.

That's why I don't feel it is a good question.

Yes of course they are different. The former is unimaginably more compelling than the latter to any objective observer. You're telling me that you'd rather take the word of 12 guys from 2000 years ago than both the word of over a million living eye witnesses and the evidence of your own eyes!

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Irrelevant question. Firstly you're trying again to drag the topic back to generic "some kind of creator type arguments" and secondly I said that for the pusposes of this discussion I am assuming that there is a creator or creators

I'm not trying to drag it at all. I want to hear a genuine answer from you instead of pulling the teapot card.

Disagreeing with my position, does not advocate yours. That's why this doesn't cut it for me Russell or no Russell.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on everyone else to disprove it. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. I am asking you to provide positive evidence.

One of the conditions, if we are going to start this is that you should be advocating your views also. If this isn't the case it just becomes a Jakkass Q&A session. I'm not interested in this, and neither should you. It results in laziness on your part.

You might be aware that the charter on this forum was amended a few months ago:

1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.

This section of the charter insists that discussion should not become a Q&A session with the questioning atheist, and the answering Christian. This is also the criteria for if I am going to get into a discussion with you. If you will, positive atheism will be encouraged on my part rather than negative atheism. In the Philosophy of Religion, many arguments are put forward in the favour of atheism such as the Problem of Evil, however, there is an insistence that this shouldn't happen here. I disagree.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're telling me that even though there is a miracle worker (in fact many miracle workers) alive today making verifiable claims that you could go out and verify if you so chose thereby definitively proving to yourself that a god exists, you prefer to take the word of 12 guys from 2000 years ago and try to argue that pathetically weak "evidence" (sorry but it is) such as archaeological evidence of the possible existence of a city is compelling? Please explain

I'm telling you that the claims are different entirely. One is a verifiable claim, that concerns a person who is walking on the face of the earth, a person who is not transcendent, and a person whose claimed miracles are happening in the present. Jesus although a part of God who in my view is still performing miracles happening in the present, is now not visible, and is transcendent.

Of course there is a clear difference.

I disagree that what I have to argue is weak, and if you would step up to the plate and be willing to argue for your non-theism, I'd be willing to discuss some of what I have regarded as evidence.

This is also subject to agreed conditions of etiquette, which are necessary for any discussion I am going to have given how they have gone in the past.

Turtwig

1. What evidence do you have to suggest that God is not likely at all to exist?

Human beings evolved to believe in Gods, other animals it seems share similar characteristics. Are we to believe that the God of the bible would purposefully set up evolution so that multiple Gods would emerge that varied greatly from location to location? I think that's an argument that suggests such a God is playing a twisted version of Sims or something.

2. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Bible is unreliable or unauthentic?

It's a book that people have over the years failed to agree on what it actually means.

Edit: 3. What reason does one have for dismissing the idea of a Creator?

Humans grow up and develop intuition based on patterns they observe in the narrow scale world they see around them. It is only natural that things like relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, complexity, go counter to that intuition. The only reason I see for believing in a creator is that we see things around us in our life time that are created by reproduction (or some other natural means) and we follow through on that intuition. A binary paradigm, if you like, where our minds are locked into thinking that everything need to be created, they mightn't.
The Big Bang and evolution can happen with a creator or without a creator. I don't see any reason to invoke one.

philologos

Malty T:

Also, I don't want one liners, I want to see a solid defence for your positions on these issues.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T:

I was writing that up before you had posted.:p

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not trying to drag it at all. I want to hear a genuine answer from you instead of pulling the teapot card.

Disagreeing with my position, does not advocate yours. That's why this doesn't cut it for me Russell or no Russell.

I have already explained to you my justification for being an atheist in this post (scroll to "but if you want a direct answer") but you never responded. In it I explained that it has little or nothing to do with whether or not the supernatural exists because even if it does exist, each claim must still be shown to be true. And besides that, I said that for the purposes of this discussion I am assuming that there is a creator. And with that assumption I want you to justify Jesus over Sathya Sai Baba

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm telling you that the claims are different entirely. One is a verifiable claim, that concerns a person who is walking on the face of the earth, a person who is not transcendent, and a person whose claimed miracles are happening in the present. Jesus although a part of God who in my view is still performing miracles happening in the present, is now not visible, and is transcendent.

Of course there is a clear difference.

I know there is a difference but what is the difference? Why is an unverifiable claim somehow more compelling than a verifiable one?

To be honest I'd hate to think of you on a jury thinking this way, since apparently you find unverifiable claims more believable than verifiable ones. Or do you only apply such logic (if it can be called that) to your religious beliefs?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...I have been quite rigorous in my maths ... I just don't get involved in the arcane and irrelevant musings of Theoretical Maths!!!!

...stop 'nit picking' and giving theoretical mathematicians a worse name than they already have for 'seizing' on irrelevancies!!!:D

LOL

If you're a qualified mathematician then I'm a monkey's cousin. Oh wait bad example :pac:

Sam Vimes

An interesting little tidbit: The phrase "I'll be a monkey's uncle" apparently originiated with the Scopes trial in 1926, showing that even back then creationists didn't understand evolution :pac:

I of course corrected the phrase to monkey's cousin because the theory of evolution does not say that we are monkey's uncles

philologos

That doesn't answer any of the three questions I have given you Sam. Again, we need to be both as willing to play ball here, otherwise there is no point in me doing it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That doesn't answer any of the three questions I have given you Sam. Again, we need to be both as willing to play ball here, otherwise there is no point in me doing it.

That post is a summary of one of the main reasons why I am an atheist, it is (part of) the logical path that I followed to arrive at my current position. I think the problem is that you like to think of atheists as people who categorically reject the idea of all gods, who "believe there is no god" and you want me to try to justify that position so you can then give all your "some kind of generic creator" type arguments because you think if you can only get me to accept those I'll accept christianity.

But as I said in that post, my atheism is not actually a rejection of god, it's a rejection of religion and it has nothing to do with questions of morality or the origins of the universe or any of the big questions. You think that in order to be an atheist I have to provide answers to those three question but those three questions have little or nothing to do with the reason why I'm an atheist and by asking them you only show that you do not understand my position, your understanding of atheism is a straw man. That post may not appeal to you, I think because you can't use your normal generic creator arguments against it, but that is my position and you need to accept that and realise that you have a misunderstanding of the motivations behind atheism rather than accusing me of not playing ball for not answering questions that have nothing to do with the reason why I'm an atheist


Oh and I'm still waiting for you to explain why unverifiable claims are somehow more compelling than verifiable ones

philologos

It depends on what form of atheism you are describing. There is a difference for me and for many others between positive and negative atheism.

Positive atheism - Putting forward a position for why it is best to reject God, or that God's existence is unlikely. Even Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others pursue this approach to a degree, but it was proposed more in previous decades than it is now with the Philosophical Problem of Evil being one of the biggest attempts with the Logical Problem of Evil (Epicurean), and Evidentialism "noseeum" (Rowe).

Negative atheism - The view that atheism is a non-position, and doesn't need to be advocated.

If you are going to insist on negative atheism, there isn't any way of putting forward your position.

I would regard the opinion that there is not likely to be a God a position not quite in the same way to saying that there is a God, but it certainly isn't the default.

Edit: No need to get into the clicking of fingers business to get me to address points. I've already expressed why there is a difference between this case and that of Jesus Christ.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It depends on what form of atheism you are describing. There is a difference for me and for many others between positive and negative atheism.

Positive atheism - Putting forward a position for why it is best to reject God. Even Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others pursue this approach to a degree, but it was proposed more in previous decades than it is now with the Philosophical Problem of Evil being one of the biggest attempts.

I would call that anti-theism. With that position it doesn't really matter whether god exists or not, they're arguing that you should reject him either way. There could be definitive proof of the existence of the christian god and that position would still be arguable.

Jakkass wrote: »

Negative atheism - The view that atheism is a non-position, and doesn't need to be advocated.

If you are going to insist on negative atheism, there isn't any way of putting forward your position.

Well actually yes there is. The way to put forward that position is to argue against the validity of religions and one of the many ways to do this, the way I have been using in this thread is that there is no way to objectively choose one religion over another. People basically have to pick the one that appeals to them the most which is almost invariably the one they were raised with

If religious people give a big list of their reasons for belief in their specific religion and each one is refuted, their god hasn't been disproven but you have left them in a position where they have no reason to believe in it other than they really really want to. That's how you argue for what you call "negative atheism".

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would call that anti-theism. With that position it doesn't really matter whether god exists or not, they're arguing that you should reject him either way. There could be definitive proof of the existence of the christian god and that position would still be arguable.

It isn't depending on proof. Even presenting reasons for why you feel God's existence is unlikely is positive atheism.

Negative atheism doesn't provide us with a useful argument, it merely results in a Q&A session with Christians. It's very easy to criticise someone else opinion without presenting your own argument.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: No need to get into the clicking of fingers business to get me to address points. I've already expressed why there is a difference between this case and that of Jesus Christ.

No you have stated that there is a difference, you haven't explained why. Please explain why you find unverifiable claims more compelling than verifiable ones and do you think this logic would be acceptable were you on a jury?

philologos

The difference lies in the standard:

If it is verifiable, I would probably deem it fit to assess it based on my experience with the individual (see if it were true), or see what other people have brought from the situation.

If it is unverifiable we have to assess the evidence another way.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't depending on proof. Even presenting reasons for why you feel God's existence is unlikely is positive atheism.

Ok then I'll give another argument I've given many times before: the argument that god is likely to be an invention of the human mind. I've already given a form of it to you here, that we have a compulsion to see purpose in everything whether it has purpose or not and this drives religious beliefs. I am of the opinion that the most compelling evidence "for" atheism in the future will come from studies of the brain. When we can completely explain what causes religious belief and maybe even switch it off and on or manipulate it (eg make a christian believe in Islam) it will be very difficult for theists to make even the few arguments left to them.

Jakkass wrote: »

Negative atheism doesn't provide us with a useful argument, it merely results in a Q&A session with Christians. It's very easy to criticise someone else opinion without presenting your own argument.

Again you show that you don't understand our position. That's what atheism is!

Atheism is not a "belief that there is no god", it is a rejection of the world religions, it is a rejection of the positions of other people so really the only way to argue it is to criticise someone else's opinion. My argument is arguing against your argument. Even the possible future evidence I mentioned above of mapping and controlling religious belief in the brain is a way of arguing against theism. When people compare atheism to non-stamp collecting they're not being facetious, they're trying to get across the point that atheism is defined by a rejection of theism, it's defined by what it's not. Atheism is not about providing reasons to be an atheist, it's about debunking any reasons that are given to be a theist so you become an atheist by default. Atheism is a lack of theism, not the opposite of theism

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The difference lies in the standard:

If it is verifiable, I would probably deem it fit to assess it based on my experience with the individual (see if it were true), or see what other people have brought from the situation.

If it is unverifiable we have to assess the evidence another way.

You just keep stating the difference between the two of them as if the reason why one is more believable than the other is self-evident but I'm afraid it's not. I want you to explain to me why you find unverifiable claims more compelling than verifiable ones. Just stating that you assess them in different ways does not help me in ascertaining this. What different ways? Why do you find the word of 12 guys from 2000 years ago more compelling than the testimony of over a million living witnesses and the evidence of your own eyes?

Morbert

JC wrote:

...I have been quite rigorous in my maths ... I just don't get involved in the arcane and irrelevant musings of Theoretical Maths!!!

Priceless

monosharp

Sorry to butt in lads but if its alright Sam I want to put this one here for Jackass.

As Sam said, lets assume I believe the supernatural exists.

Now tell me what evidence you have for Christianity over Islam or Hindu or even Buddhism.

What makes the bible more true then the Koran or the Vedas or the Eighty-Thousand Tripitaka ?

What evidence can you point out ? What indications can you point out ?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Atheism is not a "belief that there is no god", it is a rejection of the world religions, it is a rejection of the positions of other people so really the only way to argue it is to criticise someone else's opinion. My argument is arguing against your argument. Even the possible future evidence I mentioned above of mapping and controlling religious belief in the brain is a way of arguing against theism. When people compare atheism to non-stamp collecting they're not being facetious, they're trying to get across the point that atheism is defined by a rejection of theism, it's defined by what it's not. Atheism is not about providing reasons to be an atheist, it's about debunking any reasons that are given to be a theist so you become an atheist by default. Atheism is a lack of theism, not the opposite of theism

I don't need a lecture on what atheism is. I'm perfectly aware of what it is.

I'm merely saying the debate would be more balanced if the atheist would start arguing for their position that God's existence is less likely than His existence positively rather than expecting a Q&A session from every Christian they come across so that they can merely pick holes in their arguments. That's easy in comparison to actually coming up with your own.

This is an assertion of negative atheism. In the past and in philosophical debates, atheists have asserted their position positively. Heck, even atheists in the modern age do. This is mere excuse making. Atheists have done this the whole way through history.

All I'm saying is, I want to level the playing field. I've given you 3 questions. If you want to put forward your case, please do. Otherwise don't. That's your decision.

If you criticise Christianity, this doesn't mean automatically that atheism is the case either. If you want people to come to the case of the latter, arguments in favour of atheism must be made.

Let me put it this way. If one discredits Christianity, there is still no better case for atheism than Judaism. This is where positive atheism needs to come in to make a case, otherwise all one is doing is discrediting Christianity, rather than promoting atheism. Ever thought about that?

Russell or no Russell, this is what I expect. Not only is it what I expect, it's what the charter of this forum expects.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't need a lecture on what atheism is. I'm perfectly aware of what it is.

I'm merely saying the debate would be more balanced if the atheist would start arguing for their position that God's existence is less likely than His existence positively rather than expecting a Q&A session from every Christian they come across so that they can merely pick holes in their arguments. That's easy in comparison to actually coming up with your own.

So what you're saying is that you're aware of what atheism is but you'd prefer if atheism stopped being what it is and atheists started arguing positions that you feel you can argue against. Atheism is about arguing against theism. If you don't like that then stop debating atheists.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you criticise Christianity, this doesn't mean automatically that atheism is the case either. If you want people to come to the case of the latter, arguments in favour of atheism must be made.

Yes it absolutely does, you just don't understand what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of theism so if I criticise theism, atheism wins by default. My position is simply that I do not accept your position. You are making a claim and I am arguing against that claim. I have no opposing claim and demanding that I put one forward just shows that you don't understand my position

Jakkass wrote: »

Russell or no Russell, this is what I expect. Not only is it what I expect, it's what the charter of this forum expects.

Then the charter of the forum doesn't understand what atheism is

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me put it this way. If one discredits Christianity, there is still no better case for atheism than Judaism. This is where positive atheism needs to come in to make a case, otherwise all one is doing is discrediting Christianity, rather than promoting atheism. Ever thought about that?

The argument I am putting forward is that there is no way to pick one religion over another. That applies to all religions equally

Jakkass wrote: »

All I'm saying is, I want to level the playing field. I've given you 3 questions. If you want to put forward your case, please do. Otherwise don't. That's your decision.

Those questions have nothing to do with my position. I might as well ask you why you think it's unlikely that Ireland will win the next world cup. I'll tell you waht, I'll answer them and you'll see my point:

1. What evidence do you have to suggest that God is not likely at all to exist?
I have none but nor do I have evidence that any one specific god is more likely to exist than any other. I just don't know which god if any to pick

2. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Bible is unreliable or unauthentic?
I have none but nor do I have evidence that it's reliable, ie that the supernatural claims in it are true. The bible does not get to be accepted just because it can't be disproven. I don't have evidence that any other religion is unreliable or unauthentic either so I still don't know which god if any to pick

3. What reason does one have for dismissing the idea of a Creator?
I don't dismiss the idea of a creator but nor do I accept it. Human beings are compelled to find purpose in everything whether there actually is purpose or not so an assumption that there is a purpose is not enough. You have to show that there is a purpose


Each of those questions is asking me to prove a negative or at least argue for a negative. But that is not my position and that is all but impossible to do! That is the theist straw man of atheism. The only way to argue for a negative position is to argue against the opposing positive position. If I leave it so you have no reason to accept the claims of any one religion over another, you will have arrived at my current position

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely saying the debate would be more balanced if the atheist would start arguing for their position that God's existence is less likely than His existence positively rather than expecting a Q&A session from every Christian they come across so that they can merely pick holes in their arguments. That's easy in comparison to actually coming up with your own.

Possibly, but that doesn't imply (as you seem to be trying to) that this "negative atheism" is a bad thing.

It is in fact a very healthy thing.

A big part of atheism and agnostism is the idea that theists have not demonstrated their case, that the arguments for theism fail basic standards of epistemology. Basically that you guys cannot support the claims you make about the nature world.

And lets not forget that if the claims can't stand then the theory collapses, independently of any competing theory.

This is something I find a lot of theists forget or ignore. The argument is always along the lines of "Well demonstrate to me a 'better' theory and I will consider it", this prove me wrong type of arguing.

There is that of course, myself and Soul Winner have a thread going discussing the naturalistic theories behind religion, but that is only part of it.

Another, possibly much more important part, is just looking at the claims of theism itself and seeing do they stand up to standards. If they don't them people need to ask themselves why do they believe them, independently of the question well what would I believe if I didn't.

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me put it this way. If one discredits Christianity, there is still no better case for atheism than Judaism.

It depends on how you discredit Christianity. Again you seem to be looking at the issue as a question of competing theories.

So if I demonstrate my theory that Jesus died on the cross and was thrown in a pit with dogs then it would be correct to say that this only discredits Christianity.

But a far more important question is not why don't you believe this alternative historical explanation for what happened to Jesus over the Bible's one, but why do you believe the Bible's one in the first place.

There is an underlying fallacy of epistemology going on here with theism and other supernatural concepts (such as astrology), where people are accepting versions of events that introduce supernatural events that cannot be verified

Jakkass wrote: »

This is where positive atheism needs to come in to make a case, otherwise all one is doing is discrediting Christianity, rather than promoting atheism. Ever thought about that?

I don't think many are that interested in promoting atheism, what they (including myself) are interested in is promote a more rigiours form of critical thinking and analysis. Not specifically in relation to Christianity or even theism, but in general.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

This is something I find a lot of theists forget or ignore. The argument is always along the lines of "Well demonstrate to me a 'better' theory and I will consider it", this prove me wrong type of arguing.

It's basically one big "you can't prove god doesn't exist" argument and the assumption is almost invariably made that if there is a god it must be their god and no other

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you're aware of what atheism is but you'd prefer if atheism stopped being what it is and atheists started arguing positions that you feel you can argue against. Atheism is about arguing against theism. If you don't like that then stop debating atheists.

It isn't stopping you being an atheist by suggesting that you should put forward your position rather than merely attempting to discredit mine. Many atheists have done this in the past.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes it absolutely does, you just don't understand what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of theism so if I criticise theism, atheism wins by default. My position is simply that I do not accept your position. You are making a claim and I am arguing against that claim. I have no opposing claim and demanding that I put one forward just shows that you don't understand my position

Well, I've called nonsense on this now, because other atheists have put forward arguments supporting their position.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then the charter of the forum doesn't understand what atheism is

The charter merely supports balanced discussion. If you aren't willing to do then I don't see how we can really continue.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The argument I am putting forward is that there is no way to pick one religion over another. That applies to all religions equally

This brings me no closer to atheism. Just because you can criticise someone's position doesn't mean that I necessarily have to drop any religion. This is exactly why I am suggesting that you should demonstrate your case.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Those questions have nothing to do with my position. I might as well ask you why you think it's unlikely that Ireland will win the next world cup. I'll tell you what, I'll answer them and you'll see my point:

They have a lot to do with your position, and other atheist philosophers and writers have attempted these. I don't see why you can't. It's more a case of not wanting to, and if you don't that's fine, but don't expect me to get into a huge Q&A session.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. What evidence do you have to suggest that God is not likely at all to exist?
I have none but nor do I have evidence that any one specific god is more likely to exist than any other. I just don't know which god if any to pick

Right, I guess I'll have to respond to this by asking different questions due to you taking the negative atheism route rather than the positive atheism route.

Why isn't the Judeo-Christian God compelling and / or appealing to you?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

2. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Bible is unreliable or unauthentic?
I have none but nor do I have evidence that it's reliable, ie that the supernatural claims in it are true. The bible does not get to be accepted just because it can't be disproven. I don't have evidence that any other religion is unreliable or unauthentic either so I still don't know which god if any to pick

I call nonsense on this. There must be some issue you have with the Bible if you have not become a Christian. I may as well alter the question slightly.

Why isn't the Bible compelling and / or appealing to you?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

3. What reason does one have for dismissing the idea of a Creator?
I don't dismiss the idea of a creator but nor do I accept it. Human beings are compelled to find purpose in everything whether there actually is purpose or not so an assumption that there is a purpose is not enough. You have to show that there is a purpose

Right. Again, it seems that you're being particular about the question.

Why isn't the idea of a Creator, compelling and / or appealing to you?

And please give answers of some substance, I've patiently waded through your questions in the past. If we truly are to believe in the Golden Rule, it's about time that you considered mine

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Each of those questions is asking me to prove a negative or at least argue for a negative. But that is not my position and that is all but impossible to do! That is the theist straw man of atheism. The only way to argue for a negative position is to argue against the opposing positive position. If I leave it so you have no reason to accept the claims of any one religion over another, you will have arrived at my current position

I've changed the questions. That's nonsense because it isn't arguing for atheism at all. It's no more arguing for Judaism, or Islam. Why should I become an atheist after hearing your attempt to discredit it?

I've called nonsense on the whole "I'm an atheist so I can't put forward arguments" idea. Have a thought about this video:

Wrong video hang on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1gEXYhfIM