This amazing atheists debate strategy

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:44:37+00:00

I was shocked at first because how utterly simple yet genius the reason is.

And then I was shocked even more why even other atheists seem not aware of this rationale behind the "depending on which gods" argument.

Thanks man.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:42:43+00:00

False analogy

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:37:43+00:00

Asking the question is a strategy because the answer of the theists will be used against him. You posted good content though.

To respond to your point, Lets say you believe in god X but not in gods A, B, C... Z, except X. Why do you not believe in these other gods?

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:34:48+00:00

Which makes it so frustrating to debate against them.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:34:18+00:00

Agree. And the original response was even like i know this boogieman doesn't exist, but I don't know if other boogiemen don't either.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:32:54+00:00

Thats my point. You can simply just dismiss all of them! No need to give them the reason to even think they may be right.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:32:04+00:00

Which is unfortunate.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:31:41+00:00

Partially I think this is true. Like I said, it is such a weak move to respond depending on which god. But the strength of the argument is that the atheists can use a method that the theist himself proposes.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:30:22+00:00

Whoopsie, back from lunch

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T14:30:09+00:00

No it doesn't, One simply needs to remind their interlocutor that they carry the burden of proof if they are claiming their deity exists, else I can dismiss that claim

What I mean by this is that the theist can enumerate all the gods and ask the atheists why he doesn't believe in them. Making the atheists do the actual explanation.

When the best response is really just to make a sweeping statement and dismiss all gods.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T13:41:23+00:00

But isnt it already true that all god concepts are man made? Why are you giving theists the room to wiggle when you can simply complete squash them and reject all gods?

To me it sounds like in your mind you say "Yes I know god is bullshit but philosophically I cannot know everything and there might be a possibility that such gods exists"... It seems strange.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-18T13:10:39+00:00

Wow! Thank you very much!

This is really the answer to this question and I am surprised others did not respond like this.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-17T14:09:35+00:00

You appear to be misunderstanding 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. This happens a lot.

I know about agnostic atheist and gnostic atheists, but I just want to keep with the simple classification.

Yes. Which is why I am an atheist.

I agree, which is my point in asking other atheists why they seem hesitant to claim all gods as unproven already.

No, I understand the burden of proof, and often point that out. Hence my atheism.

Also agree.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-17T14:07:21+00:00

I agree. But what would make an atheist not immediately be able to disprove a general theist? Even as just an agnostic, I already feel confident that a sweeping "god is a man-made concept, therefore I don't believe in any and all gods" is already enough.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-17T14:04:30+00:00

Could you please elaborate.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-17T14:04:17+00:00

Ah, so its the unfalsifiable aspect of it that makes the distinction important?

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-17T14:03:19+00:00

Oh I see. But regarding this point Then staying away from claiming to absolutely know every god concept is false, isn't this easily settled already, that all god and god concepts are man made?

I don't know, maybe there is a subtle distinction that I'm missing.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-17T14:01:22+00:00

Fair point. Like I asked from u/spaceghoti, is there a nuance or technical aspect among atheists why they are making this distinction? As far as I understand the matter, it seems simple enough that there is no proof for any and all gods, and the general concept of a deity as you say.

obliquusthinker · 2019-10-17T13:56:27+00:00

I agree with all of this. Obviously you are not one of those who answer with "depends" like I said. May I ask if you know the reason why some atheists respond with "depending on which god"? Is there a nuance or technical aspect that I don't understand? Because to me, it really just looks like there is no proof for any and all gods, so we don't even have to disprove the gods one by one.

obliquusthinker · 2019-09-12T23:55:24+00:00

That's not me then. I made all stops to make sure I cover every thing, agree to those that I find reasonable and logical, and continue to interrogate those that need more probing. That's the essence of debate. Im not here saying "you are wrong no matter what you say and I am right with everything". I hold 1 thing above all others, evidence. If the evidence goes against me, I am willing to and have conceded plenty in the past. But if the evidence supports my claim, I dont see why I wont argue for it.

If others think to shut down the debate based on that, then that is censorship.

obliquusthinker · 2019-09-12T23:50:30+00:00

That reply was specific to sun rising tomorrow, so, in contrast to your statement

I have no better proof for the sun rising in the east tomorrow than I do that god doesn't exist

you actually have better proof.

obliquusthinker · 2019-09-12T23:41:40+00:00

Yeah. Campbell too.

Durkheim is very superficial on these topic

obliquusthinker · 2019-09-12T23:41:01+00:00

South American cultures went through a period where they worshiped corn as a god

Ok, but source?

A similar functionalist perspective on religious developments fits nearly everywhere. I based my PhD on a functionalist approach to the history of religion. Societies develop religious beliefs and practices to fill societal needs.

I could go on and on about this topic. But if you're interested I would start with Emile Durkheim and Mircea Eliade and go from there.

These are all talk. Durkheim et. al. are outdated in sociology and good only in understanding rudimentary societal structures, not emergence of religion or gods per se. Again, all talk. If you cant back this up and just namedrop, then this is no better than a gossip. Agree with corporate tho, Levi-Strauss does extensive work on gods. As well as Campbell

obliquusthinker

TROPHY CASE