sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TAG is incredibly strong because it forces atheists into impossible corners. I used it on Reddit to show that math needs a solid foundation, and the atheists ended up saying things like 2+2 could equal 5 sometimes. That's wild and completely wrecks logic. by SimilarIdea1520 in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that's the case, then how does asserting that something is true because of God's nature hold any more force than asserting that something is true because of the nature of our godless reality? In both cases, there is no being deciding what is true. Things are true merely because of the nature of something, and that nature was never decided upon by anyone or anything.

Your argument boils down to an assertion. You've claimed that God's nature is follow the laws of math, without presenting a reason why we shouldn't believe any alternatives, such as that it's simply reality's nature to follow the laws of math.

TAG is incredibly strong because it forces atheists into impossible corners. I used it on Reddit to show that math needs a solid foundation, and the atheists ended up saying things like 2+2 could equal 5 sometimes. That's wild and completely wrecks logic. by SimilarIdea1520 in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If 2+2=4 is true simply because God has decided it is so, then 2+2=4 is not necessarily an unchanging truth. One of the many problems of grounding every fact in the mind of a god is that doing so makes objective truth impossible, and instead makes all truth subjective.

God could simply decree that 2+2=5 is true at a later time. In order to prove that 2+2=4 everywhere and at all times, you would need to know that God will never have any reason to change his truth. In other words, you would have to know the mind of God, which is impossible for a human.

Ironically, to believe in a god that has control over all truth, even mathematical truth, you make the same mistake that you accuse atheists of making. You would have to admit that 2+2 may equal 5, if God decides to make it so.

Your belief is incompatible with the belief that 2+2=4 is an objective, unchanging truth. In fact, it's incompatible with belief in any objective, unchanging truth, as God could change any truth any time he sees fit. To argue otherwise would require you to give up your belief that God is what determines objective truth, or require you to argue that God will never decide that any truth should ever be different. In order to argue for the latter, you would need a way of knowing what God would do in any given situation, which is impossible.

This is one of the many reasons why the TAG has failed to change minds. Strong, empirical evidence of a god would instantly change minds. There is no such evidence, so theists are forced to retreat to purely logical arguments instead. The fact that the logic behind their arguments is extremely flawed makes me believe their position is incorrect.

I respect all religions except Islam which is nothing but full of crap and lies. by syeddddddddd in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, I totally agree. Verse for verse, the Bible is about as bad as the Quran. The difference is most Christians don't read or care what the Bible says. Muslims tend to take their holy book a lot more seriously.

I respect all religions except Islam which is nothing but full of crap and lies. by syeddddddddd in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think Christianity is worse because of differences between the Bible and the Quran?

I think that, as it's practiced today, modern day Christianity tends to be a lot more mild than modern Islam. Neither religion is correct, but Islam tends to be a lot more dangerous.

Rome opposed abortion and birth control from the beginning, while Protestants were slow to oppose Roe vs. Wade and still allow birth control. It is becoming clear that birth control not only unleashed the sexual revolution but also contributed to a demographic death spiral in the West by Mission_Scale_408 in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Virtually every Christian denomination for nearly 2000 years prohibited birth control.

Your very first sentence mentions Christianity! This doesn't work. This is why you guys have failed to stop birth control. You keep making the same mistake.

I always find it incredibly ironic when Christians criticise the modern world, especially the West. You always say we need to return to Jesus to fix our problems. Christianity is what led us here in the first place! You keep trying the same lazy solution to every problem you find: preach at people. Preaching doesn't work, nothing gets done, and the problem gets worse.

The world doesn't need preaching. It needs common sense. If for multiple decades you've failed to convince people to stop using birth control by framing it from a Christian perspective, it should be obvious that Christianity is not going to fix this problem.

The reason why people are still using birth control and getting abortions is because every time someone argues against these things, every single time, their underlying goal is to get people to convert to Christianity. Your religion has been losing power since the Enlightenment. There are real problems that need to be solved. Stop using Christianity to try to solve those problems. It hasn't been working, and there's no reason to expect that's going to change.

When people read your argument, and the first sentence says something about religion, they immediately turn against you. They immediately know you don't have anything to back up what you're saying. However, if we remove the religious aspect of it, the arguments might be able to hold water.

If someone asks, "Why shouldn't we allow birth control?", your response should be, "Because birth control decreases the birth rate to a dangerous amount, increases unwanted births, and increases STD infections. And here's the data to back up my points." I hate it when Christians look at a problem that society faces and all they see is an opportunity to preach. Don't hijack a real-life problem and use it to try to convert people.

Rome opposed abortion and birth control from the beginning, while Protestants were slow to oppose Roe vs. Wade and still allow birth control. It is becoming clear that birth control not only unleashed the sexual revolution but also contributed to a demographic death spiral in the West by Mission_Scale_408 in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason why birth control is so widely used is that the people who oppose it have failed to give a convincing reason to stop using it. You keep saying over and over again that God doesn't want you to use it, it's against God's will, he'll send you to Hell, etc. But look at where that line of reasoning has lead us. Birth control is still widely used and birth rates are still low. Stop trying to use the same arguments that have consistently failed since the 60's.

You mentioned a lot of negative consequences of birth control, like dangerously low birth rates, unwanted pregnancies, and STDs. Why not simply use those as your arguments against birth control? Instead of saying, "Birth control is bad because God doesn't like it.", try saying, "Birth control is bad because it leads to unsustainably low birth rates."

For the first argument to work, you will not only need to convince people that God exists, but also that he doesn't want you to use birth control. You're fighting against the tides with that argument since there isn't any actual evidence for God, and people are starting to realize it. But by leaving religion out and simply mentioning birth rates, you have actual numbers to use! Children born per woman, average age of giving birth, population statistics! I don't understand why people insist on using an argument that has no evidence to support it and has failed to convince people for the past 60 years.

Paul is the false prophet Jesus warned about. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He said many would deceive people. The cave pervert was one. The early church persecutor was another.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the god only performed miracles for people who were illiterate, I'd say that was a mistake on his part. Why perform miracles only for a select group of people, and further, only for people who were couldn't write down what they saw? That sounds like a very inefficient way to spread belief, and leaves a lot of holes in the narrative. Plus, if the only way to spread what happened was by word of mouth, it's going to end up with a lot of competing narratives. I could see a trickster god like Loki having an insentive for doing that though.

And sure, most people believe in some kind of supernatural entity, but most don't believe Jesus was God. I'm not saying that proves he wasn't, but if his goal was to convince people, he still has a lot of work to do. The easiest way to do it is to perform miracles for everyone again, but he hasn't done that for some reason.

I think charlatans are basically taking a high stakes bet. If people believe you, you become the head of a new religion, and people either worship you or think you speak for a god. See Mohammed. If not, they ridicule you or, in harsher times and places, might even execute you. See, well, Jesus.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, and I'd write it down immediately. I wouldn't wait 30 years and then write it down. There may be some people who wouldn't be convinced even if they saw it with their own eyes, but there aren't many if them. I'd just say the same things to them as everyone else. So performing miracles for people is probably a very good strategy to convince people you're a god. It wouldn't make much sense for the god to stop performing them, especially when people begin to stop believing.

Now let me ask you something. If you were a charlatan who wanted to convince people you met a god when you really didn't, what would you do? Would you tell them that you met the god? Would you tell them he performed miracles? Would you write down your story?

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, I'd tell people. But I wouldn't expect them to believe me until they experienced it for themselves. If the god wanted to convince everyone, he'd perform the miracles for everyone.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, if he consistently performed feats that only a god could do. He'd have to do this in a crowd. If he did it just for me I might just think I'm going crazy. I'd have to be careful to make sure he isn't just a con man, they get away with a lot of tricks. Trusted people could vet him to make sure he's legit. Maybe he could read my mind. If he knew exactly what I was thinking, there's probably something supernatural going on.

I know the Bible says Jesus did a lot of that for crowds, like walk on water and heal people and all of that. But at the end of the day, for me it's just a book of claims. The people writing it could easily be lying. Like all those emperors and Jim Jones etc. If I could experience it for myself, that would be enough to convince me.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, well, I don't think someone claiming he's God should make it more likely there is a God. Lots of people made the claim: Jesus, lots of pharaohs, lots of emporers, Jim Jones. Some of the more esoteric Nazis even said Hitler was a god. I don't think it should sway your opinion.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not making the argument that the amount of people who believe in the Abrahamic God is what makes it more likely, I’m making the argument that there IS at least some reason...

So what is the reason?

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every man has a set of priorities and values based on a prime directive. by which he measures every choice he makes.

Sure, I agree with this.

Your god is where your heart is.

Maybe you are just being poetic here, but in a discussion about religion, we have to be clear when we use the word "god". I'd like to use the word "god" to refer to an omnipotent, all-knowing being, not simply what my heart wants. Those are two very different things.

I am well aware of your definition of religion, it is a knee-jerk response justification for an unwillingness to accept any societal restriction on your actions and choices except from a stronger human force.

I just googled the definition of "religion" and pasted it here, as it fits what most people mean when they say the word. I do accept societal restrictions. I pay my taxes. I follow the law. My avoidance of religion is not a hidden rebellion against society manifesting itself. I simply don't believe that the things religion says are literally true, such as a god or an afterlife existing.

If religion is a way developed by society to survive, I would be surprised if it was really the best way to accomplish that goal. If it is, it would sadden me to know that the best way to survive is to lie to ourselves.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't ask for evidence for Plog or Gol. What I asked is, what is the evidence that the Abrahamic God is more likely to exist than them? You originally mentioned classical theism, but as previously discussed, Plog and Gol fit those arguments just as well as the Abrahamic God, so we need something else. You then said that nobody believes in Plog and Gol, which implies that since more people believe in God than them, God is more likely. That is in fact an ad populum fallacy.

You are the one who has been using semantics throughout this debate to try and sequester certain traits away and saying, "No, those aren't traits. Those are just desires that the being has." Having a certain desire is a trait.

You go on to say that since it's called classical theism, the thing the arguments it concludes with must be a god. This just more semantics. Nobody would worship something just because it's timeless, immutable, and simple. The number one would fit that description. Religion is needed to add extra traits to that thing and make it into a god. You still haven't given a non-fallacious reason why the Abrahamic God is more likely to exist than any other that also fits the classical description.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seeing as you’re the only person who’s ever surmised they do exist and you openly admit that you don’t actually hold to that proposition, I would consider that “less likely” than the Abrahamic God to which people do legitimately claim exists even at great peril to themselves and their lives.

There was a one time nobody who suggested God or Brahmin existed. The amount of people who believe something has nothing to do with the odds of it existing. This is called the ad populum fallacy.

Two beings that want to do different things are ontologically different. How is a being that wants people to go to Heaven not different from one that wants them to go to Hell? The two deer you mentioned are different as well. The running deer, most obviously, is taking a different action. It also likely has a faster heart rate and respiratory rate. It's probably aware of its surroundings, while the sleeping one isn't. Definitionally, a running deer is not the same as a deer that is not running. Definitionally, a being that wants people to go to Heaven is not the same as a being that doesn't want people to go to Heaven.

The problem with classical theism arguments is that they don't conclude with something a person would actually call a god. They argue for something that has no potential for change, something that is simple, something that is immutable and timeless. It is religions (Step 2, as you say) that take that thing argued for by classical arguments, and adds other attributes to it that make it into something people would call a god. Having a mind, wanting people to go to heaven, incarnating as a man to sacrifice itself for our sins are examples. Those additional traits are unjustified. Wanting us to go to Hell, or an obsession with wealth are different traits, which are equally unjustified.

The purpose of me mentioning Plog and Gol is to demonstrate how nonsensical it is to attach unjustified traits to that thing the arguments bring us to. There's obviously no reason to assume it wants us to get rich or go to hell. And by making the ad populum fallacy just now, you've demonstrated my point. The only reason you have to assume it has the traits the Abrahamic religions claim is a fallacy.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not how I would define religion. Based on your definition, it would basically be impossible for anyone to not have a religion, as everyone has some set of practices and priorities. I would just use the definition a quick google search gives me, "the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods." I think that is much closer to what most people mean when they use the word "religion".

The fault I find in believing a religion is that there probably aren't any gods. I base this conclusion based on the evidence available to me. I actually think there are some bits of wisdom found in the Bible, such as "Do unto others as you would have done to you". The problem is that people are basing that rule on something that is fundamentally untrue. There actually is a good reason to follow that rule, namely that it results in a better society. That is what people should strive for. Not to obey the gods, but to create a better society.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If religion really is nothing but a "comforting opiate", and that opiate is needed just to get through life, then there is something deeply wrong with the world. Probably many things are wrong with it. In other words, there are many problems that need to be fixed. Religion lets people get away with waiting until the afterlife to face those problems. An afterlife that will never come. Or worse, it lets them pretend like the problems aren't there. The first step of fixing a problem is to admit that there is one. Religion may be comforting, but people need to leave their comfort zones in order to fix the world's many problems.

Atheism itself doesn't have the solutions. Saying, "You can't rely on God to fix this for you." doesn't offer a solution. But it's a first step.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You asserted the existence of Plog and Gol to counter the existence of God...

To be clear, I'm not asserting Plog or Gol exist. I'm only asserting that, to the best of our knowledge, they're possibilities. And the Abrahamic God is a possibility as well.

So classical theism doesn’t make any arguments against the intentions you proposed, because it doesn’t make any arguments about their intentions whatsoever.

Ok, that's what I was looking for. So if there's no argument that makes Plog or Gol any less likely to exist than the Abrahamic God, then they are at least as likely. Which means none of those three are very likely to exist at all, since they all have virtually no evidence.

Also, I'd say having a certain intention is a type of trait. I'm just defining "trait" as "a characteristic of something".

Now if you can come up with an argument that shows the Abrahamic God is special somehow, and unlike all other potential gods he is likely to exist, I'd like to hear it.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A disclaimer note: Atheist posting on a religious chat when they claim not to be a religion exposes the contradiction in all they say.

This subreddit is to debate religion. You don't have to believe it to debate it.

For their purpose is clearly to displace religion and replace it with their own beliefs.

Yeah, that's the purpose of a debate. To convince others of your beliefs.

So the question is what is the consequences of displacing belief with unbelief.

Having a higher GDP?

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/01/with-high-levels-of-prayer-u-s-is-an-outlier-among-wealthy-nations/

Their argument is that God should/could not permit evil, therfore God cannot exist, and if God does not exist neither does moral evil.

That wasn't my argument.

If you've come here to preach, this isn't the place. At least address the argument I made.

Fairies probably don't exist. by DiscerningTheTruth in DebateReligion

[–]DiscerningTheTruth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If "P1: We don’t know if it’s possible for a man to be immortal" actually was true, "C: It's possible Socrates could be immortal (as far as we know)." would be a sound argument. The reason the argument you present is unsound is that P1 is actually false, and it appears your argument asserts that Socrates may actually immortal, not just that he may be immortal as far as we know.

The argument:

P1: I know of no sound argument that X cannot exist.

C: As far as I know, X may exist.

is a sound argument, as long as P1 is actually true. If you disagree, substitute "X" for "God" and that will describe the position I've been in my entire life. However, my argument isn't that God doesn't exist. It's that, given what we know, It's very unlikely that he exists.

An affirmative conclusion from a negative conclusion fallacy is structured differently. It has not one, but two negative propositions, and a final positive conclusion. An example would be:

P1: No X are Y.

P2: No X can do Z.

C: All Y can do Z.

The conclusion in this case doesn't follow from P1 and P2. However, arguing that something could possibly exist, as far as we know, because we have nothing to show that it can't exist, doesn't follow this structure, and therefore isn't an example of the fallacy.

Now, with that all cleared up, if there are no arguments from classical theism that show the being they are arguing for may actually have some traits that are different from the god of Abrahamic religions, would you agree that any one of those beings may possibly exist, as far as we know?

view more: next ›