Debating Atheism With Arcoon Effox

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Well, Arcoon; you have been challenged, and you sent me away with zero cogent response. So I'll repeat the challenge again:

Provide your case which supports Atheism or Adeism, starting with all of your empirical, material evidence (you know: deduction of a material, universal law or truth followed by the material test for falsification/non-falsification, with multiple tests showing non-falsification, open data, peer reviewed and published in respected journals - standard for generation of objective knowledge), OR provide disciplined Aristotelian deduction with grounded, true premises, valid form, and passing Reductio Ad Absurdum - i.e., standard logic 101.

When you have done so, then we will have something with actual content to discuss. However, if you persist in claiming that Atheism has no intellectual content since it is merely "absence of belief", then there is nothing left to discuss, is there. Of course not.

Since you admitted that you do have the belief that the evidence does not satisfy you, and you have not yet responded as to the details of that, then you might also want to discuss the evidence which you have found wanting and have rejected. Surely there will be intellectual content there.

Over to you.

[Faustine Liem]

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Well, well. Not the invited person, not addressing the challenge, and not the subject of the thread. And not even rational. Infinite regressions exist only in arguments that have no chance of success; they are a fallacy. There is nothing in this video which is grounded in any first principle, unless I missed it somehow. I don't think so. It's all rehashed and failed arguments by Atheists who have no alternative theories to show. That lack of alternatives is part of the Atheist VOID. Atheists have nothing to offer, not material evidence and not disciplined logic.

How do any of these objections to ecclesiasticism apply to the creating agent of the universe, mass/energy, the laws of physics, the four forces of physics, and time? Even Hawking and Krauss admit that they presuppose both the pre-existence of "something else" and the necessity of time, which Hawking said was created at the Big Bang.

So kindly forgo the cartoons and get to the meat: what can you prove about physical existence that makes Atheism the necessary and sufficient conclusion? What can you deduce which is valid, grounded and true, that makes Atheism the necessary and sufficient conclusion?

If you don't produce those pieces to the puzzle (physical evidence and/or true reasoning) regarding the necessity and/or sufficiency of Atheism, then don't bother with the other crap.

One last thing about explanations. No material existence can explain material existence by grounding the argument in material existence. Aristotle proved that first, and Godel derived the undeniable math which validates it. And it is also simple set theory as Bertrand Russell found: a subset cannot define the set. The set is defined by its superset. Simple math. And it does not prove the validity of infinite regressions, either, because at some point a superset is merely defined, and thus it exists as absolute grounding for all subsets.

Have a good day...

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

It's been a day, now, and no Arcoon. I wonder why he hasn't shown up? Anybody know where he is?

Arcoon, c'mon in and show us your stuff.

[Arcoon Effox]

Stan just Stan

Well, Arcoon; you have been challenged, and you sent me away with zero cogent response.

...you have not yet responded as to the details of that

Are you referring to some showboating I didn't see because you did it on a blog that I don't follow, or your recent display in this thread, where what you were saying was completely off-topic?

If you meant the latter, further discussion there would have derailed the thread even more than it already had been, which if you recall was why I suggested you make this thread. As such, why would I have talked with you any further about it there...?

For someone who presents himself as this amazing intellectual or whatever, that doesn't seem like it should have been that difficult to figure out.

Stan just Stan

I'll repeat the challenge again

That behooves you, considering that this is an entirely new thread, and that there would be zero context unless you did...

Stan just Stan

Provide your case which supports Atheism

So, are you looking for a debate or an interrogation? Because what you've said to (and at) me so far feels a lot more like the latter.

In a debate, both parties understand the subject material going in, present individual cases either for or against it, and then rebut the points that the other has made. You have not done that. Furthermore, despite not having heard my argument yet or having any other significant interaction with me, you've made several accusations about my alleged cowardice in the matter according to SARL0. Pray tell, what exactly were you basing those assessments on?

This may be how you do things over in Stan-Land, but in a real debate you don't just go up to someone and demand that they present some kind of defense for a random concept. That's reminiscent of a certain belligerent Christian YouTuber known as ShockOfGod (which is probably why your fangirl seems to think you're the second coming of anti-atheist Jesus). Come to think of it, your ill-formed demand is actually quite similar to Shock's oft-refuted trademark question, "what proof or evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct", in that it suggests a fair amount of ignorance on your part about what atheism actually is.

In and of itself, atheism does not contain a rejection of any theistic ideas, but a state of disbelief in them for one reason or another. How can you reject the existence of something which you don't even think exists in the first place? Granted, there are a minority among nonbelievers who do reject theism in absolute terms (ie "God does not exist"), but that has to do with their gnostic stance on the matter, not their atheistic one. I don't know whether you're ignorant of this or are simply ignoring these distinctions in order to further your agenda, but the fact of the matter is that you're conflating several ideas in order to strawman the whole of atheism.

Non-belief is not a religion, nor does it have any kind of teachings (no matter how much you and Evangelical Christianity like to claim to the contrary); as such, what you've asked me to provide is evidence of is my personal disbelief in god/s... which is its own evidence. I am an atheist, so I've just proven my atheism.

Furthermore, your demand for empirical evidence to support my disbelief in something is asking me to prove a negative. This alone would be reason enough not to humor your request, but it's also not even my warrant in the first place. You claim on the banner of your much-hyped blog that "atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting theist theories", but there are several things wrong with that idea. For starters, you claim that atheists must somehow defend their nonexistent beliefs, but what you're really doing is just shifting your own burden of proof. In an epistemological dispute, the burden of proof lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who has heard the claim and doesn't believe it. In practice, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with those on the side of theism, not with those on the side of atheism.

If this wasn't what you were looking for, perhaps you should have actually said something, because then I'd have had something to respond to. I mean, strictly speaking, I won't really even know if I disagree with anything you claim until I actually know what that is. Beyond inferring that your schtick revolves around rewording tired-a** Christian arguments to sound all sciencey and logical, I know next to nothing about you or where you're even coming from.

However, I do know that, statistically speaking, you're probably some form of Christian, and that means that your theological views are most likely something like 99% in line with those of a gnostic atheist's. In fact, members of all the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths make positive claims about the non-existence of other gods than YHWH/Allah, meaning that they only believe in one more deity than your average atheist.

Come to think of it, that raises a few interesting questions. Do you demand the same kinds of evidence from people who don't believe in Thor, Amaterasu, Vishnu, Apollo, and/or any of the other hundreds of other gods? If you don't demand it of them, why not? Why do you speak out against people who don't believe in YHWH, but are seemingly OK with people not believing in all those other gods?

Stan just Stan

[Show me] all of your empirical, material evidence

emotion_eyebrow I thought you were supposed to be all about logic or whatever, but you seriously just asked me to provide empirical proof for a negative, didn't you...?

Stan just Stan

...OR provide disciplined Aristotelian deduction with grounded, true premises, valid form, and passing Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Tell you what; I'll give you mine after you show me yours.

Stan just Stan

When you have done so, then we will have something with actual content to discuss.

You're the one who started this thread, dude, so why is it my responsibility to provide it with content? I mean, I understand that one of the staples of your method is to pass your philosophical obligations onto others, but c'mon...

Stan just Stan

If you persist in claiming that Atheism has no intellectual content since it is merely "absence of belief", then there is nothing left to discuss, is there?

I can't recall ever saying that "atheism has no intellectual content", let alone that I've persisted in saying it. Either indicate where I did so in the form of a link, or keep your disingenuous words out of my mouth.

Stan just Stan

Since you admitted that you do have the belief that the evidence does not satisfy you...

Another interesting choice of words. Why, it's almost as though you're basing everything you say on nothing but presuppositions, or something...

Anyway, I've "admitted" no "beliefs" about the so-called evidence being unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory to me; no belief is required.

Stan just Stan

You might also want to discuss the evidence which you have found wanting and have rejected.

I might, but at this point there's no reason to. You're the one making the positive claim, here, not me; I'm just unconvinced by your "proof". Why should I have to justify my disbelief in your lousy argument?

From what I've seen here and in that other thread, your entire argument is predicated on the idea that atheism is some kind of religion, and that all atheists are of the "hard" variety (aka gnostic atheism). Both of these assumptions are fundamentally wrong, and I've already said what I can about them.

Tell you what; instead of just trying to pass the buck again, how about you make your own argument clear? Then I'll respond to that, and we'll see if this goes anywhere. Frankly, I've heard all of the arguments I've seen you make before, so it's not like you're bringing anything new to the table, but hey; I'm game if you are. If you're anything like the person who manipulated you into coming here, I'm at least looking forward to seeing how you're going to misrepresent what I've said, and which points you're going to throw red herrings at or make into straw men.

Stan just Stan

It's been a day, now, and no Arcoon. I wonder why he hasn't shown up?

Because some peoples' lives don't revolve around the internet, Stan. Some of us have jobs, hobbies and wives. I happen to have all three of those things, and they're all more important to me than talking with some pretentious, hostile stranger about what atheism is. (Particularly that last thing.)

Stan just Stan

C'mon in and show us your stuff.

...We are set up with a new topic.

neutral I'm sorry; was there more than one of you this whole time...?


EDIT: A few other things you've said caught my eye.

Stan just Stan

Faustine Liem

Not the invited person...

You realize that this is a public forum, don't you...?

Anyway, if you're going to respond to somebody, click the 'quote' button. When you do, the person you're quoting will get a notification that you've said something to them.

Stan just Stan

Most of us gave up the stupid insults at the point when we left 8th grade.

...says the guy who refers to people he's never even spoken to as "mental midgets" and "chickenshits".

[Xiam]

Arcoon Effox

Stan just Stan

Provide your case which supports Atheism

So, are you looking for a debate or an interrogation? Because what you've said to (and at) me so far feels a lot more like the latter.

In a debate, both parties understand the subject material going in, present individual cases either for or against it, and then rebut the points that the other has made. You have not done that.

I think this is actually what bothers me the most about "debates" around here, actually... both side keeps trying to shirk the responsibility of evidence and demand it from the other.

I don't expect it'd really even be that difficult to refuse a lot of theists' claims, you just have to come armed and let them set up the targets for you. Like, what do they want you to refute? Creationism? Oh wait - God? Now that's a tricky one. You could claim non-falsifiability, but let's go for it.

See, from the very beginning, a problem arises, because these arguments always begin without the most important aspect: What is God?

Basically, for OP to have any leverage, he needs to define for you exactly what he means by a god, or the definitive article, the God. For instance:

-Is it visible or invisible? If visible, what does it look like? If invisible, how can you tell when it is around?
-Where does it live?
-Is it mortal or immortal?
-Is it finite or infinite?
-Is it moral or just? If yes, please explain. If no, disregard this question because I'm aware that many gods are bastards, and if the Greeks were fine with it, we can move the ******** on.
-What are its powers? What is it a god of, exactly? Patronage, etc.
-Where can we find the attestations/accounts of this deity and/or its works? (i.e. who are the deity's worshipers, and what are their writings?)
-To what extent is its relationship with the forces of nature and physics, and to what extent is its power over them, and their power over it? Does it require to work within their means for miracles?
-Can it think? What are its thoughts?
-Can it feel? What are its emotions?
-What separates it from ordinary humans? How is it similar to ordinary humans?
-What separates it from other gods? How is it similar to other gods?
-What's the god's name? ("God" is not a name, it is a title, or perhaps even a species if you wish to be so fantasy-driven with it.)

Uh... that's all I can think of without getting too snarky and just outright harassing the OP with "But how do you know?" Since the point is that they need something for you to rebut.

The point is, before you can refute something, you must first define it, then dispute the definition, and refine. For instance, if a deity is perceived as moral, but does not act in a moral manner, or requests immoral actions from its followers, we can only draw the conclusion that this is a lie, and must be removed from the definition. And so on. Eventually, you can take what you're left with, and work from there.

[Faustine Liem]

Stan just Stan

Well, well. Not the invited person, not addressing the challenge, and not the subject of the thread.

Should I even CARE what you say when you obviously don't give two shits about what others say so long as it doesn't agree with you personally? Arcoon compared you to shockofgod, personally you sound more like Brett King to myself. Which means as soon as it behooves you, you'll betray those that follow you and lap your spittle.

But that's not what matters. Why say things myself when others say exactly what I would say? In informative, and entertaining ways. Count your stars lucky I don't do logicked, or The Amazing Atheist. Maybe even Thunderf00t if I get bored.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Arcoon Effox

Stan just Stan

[Show me] all of your empirical, material evidence

emotion_eyebrow I thought you were supposed to be all about logic or whatever, but you seriously just asked me to provide empirical proof for a negative, didn't you...?

It's almost like that's empirical evidence that he's not all about logic...
- razz

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

OK, so far we have nothing in defense of Atheism, except that it is a negative, a negation, not a positive idea or worldview. At least that's all that I gather. But it seems to convey, this negation, a sense of arrogant entitlement, as if there is some special knowledge which the Atheist has that theists have none of.

But no, according to the above there is no content to Atheism, nothing there to discuss. Not the reason for the negation, the VOID of content, the absence of any intellectual meaning which might be discussed.

From my experience though, Atheists claim mightily that they are the possessors of the facilities of "logic" and "evidence" - and yet they produce nothing of the sort. Claiming no intellectual content for Atheism certainly refutes the claim to have logic and evidence in support of their belief (the belief being that they can claim both possession of logic/evidence AND zero intellectual content, all at the same time).

So it is demonstrated that in valid logic space either Atheists have one or the other, but not both. By claiming zero intellectual content to Atheism, then, the contrary claim of having either logic or evidence is falsified, much less both, is falsified.

And of course, it is not possible to discuss a subject which is characterized as an intellectual void. And that obviously is the point of the VOID claim, isn't it?

But there is another falsifier, which is the actual observable actions of this Atheist. By aggressively attacking theists with his own positions that he declares correct and true by virtue of his demeanor of intellectual supremacy and self-righteousness, he displays that which he denies that he even has: beliefs concerning the validity of theism, and by logical extension, deism. So it is not the case that he has no beliefs, and that Atheism is the intellectual VOID he claims above.

So, by this point it is clear that there are at least two failures in the Atheist position being taken here.

Further, his objection to providing coherent and disciplined deduction or even standard empirical evidence demonstrates that his non-non-beliefs must not be based on either, since he objects to the concept of providing such in support of his non-non-beliefs.

But it is encouraging that he did, at least, show up. And by the way, I did present my position first, which is that the Atheist should defend his own position.

Back to you Arcoon. I apologize for the second person tense above, I was trying to be objective, but probably failed in that. After all, the conversation is specifically with you, as designated in the title.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Well, I did forget the purpose of all this: Arcoon, is there a creating deity? Yes or no.

[Faustine Liem]

1aphy

The Amazing Atheist is a fat, degenerate, sellout loser. On top of that, his arguments all suck. He's not very smart.

As opposed to 'god exists cause the bible and the bible exists cause god exists' logic?

[Xiam]

Lucky~9~Lives

Arcoon Effox

Stan just Stan

[Show me] all of your empirical, material evidence

emotion_eyebrow I thought you were supposed to be all about logic or whatever, but you seriously just asked me to provide empirical proof for a negative, didn't you...?

It's almost like that's empirical evidence that he's not all about logic...
- razz

Oh. Uh... I can't believe I missed this. Hang on, gonna just... snip and requote this...

Arcoon Effox

emotion_eyebrow I thought you were supposed to be all about logic or whatever, but you seriously just asked me to provide empirical proof for a negative, didn't you...?

You can prove a negative though. Empirically. Like... if someone says to you, "I have X thing in my hands," you can prove them wrong by pointing to their empty hands and saying, "Look, you lying b*****d, you're not holding anything."

The problem comes less from "proving a negative" than requiring material evidence for or against something immaterial. Or uhhh, what's the word they use? "Non-falsifiable." This goes back to my other post, but if you can't set up a test which can determine a "yes or no" outcome, you're doing something wrong.

And yes, much of the blame is on the theists. They make so many logical leaps and move the goalposts so readily that just about _any_ evidence contrary to their claims is met with either denial or excuses. For instance, if the Bible says something wrong, they insist it's not wrong, you're just interpreting it wrong.

1aphy

Faustine Liem

Count your stars lucky I don't do logicked, or The Amazing Atheist.

The Amazing Atheist is a fat, degenerate, sellout loser. On top of that, his arguments all suck. He's not very smart.

Well then, even better that he wasn't used.

(Also, that's a weird saying, isn't it? "Count your lucky stars." In what sense are stars even lucky? Sounds awfully astrological and scientifically unsound, that does.)

1aphy

Faustine Liem

As opposed to 'god exists cause the bible and the bible exists cause god exists' logic?

That's just a narrow-minded interpretation of God. Atheists like to think that because they can disprove retarded fundamentalist Christians, that they've disproved God in all his forms. There's still ideas such as First Cause, Cosmic Order, Causality etc. that can all be considered 'God-like'. Atheism and Theism are both equally true/untrue. It's a personal choice to look at the universe and say there is or isn't some kind of divine purpose or order. Both are equally grand claims. Both require grand evidence. It's not constructive to argue it in either direction. Saying people who believe in God are moronic idiots (like TAA does) is just arrogant, granted, some religious people are idiots. However, belief soley in God (excluding religion entirely) isn't inherently stupid as many fedora wearers would believe. Even if chaos were the nature of the universe, then chaos would be the agency of the universe, and I'd consider it god-like. If someone looks at the universe and sees God in all it's complexity, it's no different than someone who looks at it and sees meaninglessness, or an absence of God. A lack of belief in God (as many atheists here would describe themselves), means nothing. It's just a personal choice.

Oh. Hm. I don't suppose I have anything to add to this, not sure why I quoted it.

May have been with the use of "God" altogether to describe... uhhh... Thing. I forget exactly what I said in my previous rant, but I don't think I'm comfortable with the modern definition of "God," since it tends to overreach the meaning of what a god is, and it wholly limits exactly what they're trying to discuss.

I know I've said before, though, that in many circles theists and atheists seem to be talking about the same things. Just not at the same times. Really just boils to an argument over sentience. And semantics.

But yeah, there's a weird tendency for strawmen and oversimplification, and assumption that specific religions represent all religion. Like when people rail against "religion," but they really only mean Christianity, or specific sects of Christianity. "Religion is evil!" or whatever. No it's ******** not. Humans are bastards no matter what, and some religions can be affected by that, or facilitate the bastardry, but it's like saying some form of music is evil. You only believe it's evil when you don't understand it. Or when some dickhead gets in good with the crowd and stats saying you should kill people, and some dumbass goes and does it.

And the same could also be said of politics, film and TV, science (*cough*eugenics*cough*), or any number of things that facilitate loudmouthed assholes and gullible followers.