Talk to a Christian long enough about why s/he rejects Thor, and sooner or later, the words “immorality” and “backwards” and “uncivilized” are bound to come up. Those, too, are reasons that I reject the Abrahamic God. So, in a word, yes.
And it would be equally accurate to say that the reason non-smokers don’t smoke is that they don’t like the flavor of particular brands of cigarettes. Which is to say, it’s not accurate at all for most atheists, even if the only reason you don’t believe is that you haven’t found a sky-pixie to your taste yet.
I suppose if you’re hell-bent on defending that quip, then I can’t stop you. I think I have made my point about the reason I think it’s both inaccurate and ineffective, so I’m done arguing with you about it.
Okay, please point out where I claimed that “it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God.”
I see. My hypothesis? According to you, what is my hypothesis and where did I state it?
So, it’s a ploy to get the other person to start the argument so that he has the burden of proof. Cute.
How about this: Within the context of a debate on the existence of god, you ask a theist: Do you believe in Santa Claus?
And the the theist responds with: What is the relevance of Santa Claus in a debate on the existence of God?
What would your next comment be?
I see. Are these statements of fact falsfiable?
Your condescension is unbecoming of a rational debater.
I see. So, your statement:
is beyond dispute. Is that what you’re saying?
What if someone trained in theology or the clergy didn’t know all the rebuttals, would you then argue that they weren’t trained in theology or the clergy? What if they said that it was “fairly easy to rebut all the classical proofs of God”? Would that still mean that your statement is true? Who decides what is “fairly easy?”
Spare me. :rolleyes:
I don’t care if it fails miserably. You didn’t claim that all classical proofs of God fail miserably. You claimed that it is “fairly easy to rebut” them, and, you claimed that “*anyone * trained in theology or the clergy already knows *all * the rebuttals.” You have not provided any evidence for your claim.
You could start by being less condescending.
What is the relevance of your snide remark?
I did not I ask “people around here to give [me] a crash course in Philosophy of Religion 101.”
When you erroneously claimed that the atheist had any burden to prove that the beliefs were equal.
I meant “you” in a generic sense and the hypothesis (obviously) is the God hypothesis.
I see you’re really struggling with this logic stuff. No it’s not a ploy, it’s a response to an assertion which has already been made.
It’s an analogy. Analogies are common in rational debates.
Yes.
All I did was answer your question and provide you with information. If you feel cndescended to, that’s your problem. If you don’t want answers, don’t ask questions.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. It’s not breaking news.
Obviously they would not be well-trained, that is correct. The classical proofs are first semester material.
That IS my statement. Is that what you meant to say?
Pretty much anyone who’s ever tried to rebut them. If you had any education in the area, you would know that.
Do you think there’s a difference between those two statements? They all fail miserably BECAUSE they are so easy to rebut.
They do.
What would you accept as evidence for the claim? You’re actually disputing that the classical proofs (along with their rebuttals) are routine part of philosophical and theological curriculums. I got it both in Philosophy 101 and in a 1st year theology class. You are really getting desperate here. Ask a priest, take a class, Crack a textbook.
This is evasive. Do you want to hear the rebuttals to the classical proofs or don’t you? If so, which ones?
Frankly, this isn’t something I should have to educate you about. If you want to be taken seriously, you should already know this stuff. I think you may be in just a wee bit over your head.
Actually, that’s exactly what you did.
I don’t understand your point.
There are any number of things atheists can disagree about among themselves, including politics, sports teams, film interpretation and even religion itself but I thought we were talking about theism and how to respond to arguments used by theists. In the interest of efficiency, I think I’ll concentrate on those disputes rather than go wandering afield.
Could you be so kind as to name the three atheist claims you find most unsupportable? I’ll cheerfully analyze all of them.
He was nitpicking the heck out of your statement; attacking you for sheer wordplay as if you ment exclusion by omission. If a person does this sort of thing it generally means that they don’t have any substantative arguments left to make, and are just arguing because they can’t stand to admit defeat.
And as for atheists disagreeing, I (an atheist) have to say that I think that Diogenes was waxing a wee bit hyperbolic when he said that all well-trained religious leaders know the arguments. (And by “hyperbolic” I mean “No True Scotsman”.) This is not to say that him having exaggerated this statement would help Jesticulator’s position, except in a ‘gotcha gotcha nyah nyah nyah’ sort of way; even if the literal truth of Diogenes’s blanket statement is disproven, it was just part of a response to a pointless snark by Jesticulator and has nothing to do with Diogenes’s actual argument anyway.
Well, I could buy that the “big three” pro-God arguments are standard material in theology classes, but I bet there are some especially subtle approaches that are a lot trickier and perhaps only get addressed in advanced classes.
In any case, if any of them were conclusive (“three cups of flour, one tablespoon of baking powder, a cup of milk, two eggs, bake for 35 minutes = GOD!”), they’d be teaching them in science classes.
God sounds tasty. I bet Chocolate Chip God would be even better, though.
I once ran across a list of contradictions in the omni-god (things such as whether an omniscient, omnipotent God is capable of choosing to do something other than what He knows He’s gonna do, and whether an eternal God has free will, that sort of thing), but my google skills aren’t up to snuff right now. Does anyone know where I can find such a list?
Daniel
The relevance of my snide remark is that I am feeling bitchy today. My apologies.
But in response to one of your comments to **Dio ** above, yes, I would say that someone who doesn’t know the classic three arguments for God’s existence, and doesn’t know the classic counterarguments against them, is not well-trained in theology. That’s just fundamental stuff.
Thank you.
But, that’s not what Diogenes said. He said:
All the rebuttals, not just “the classic counterarguments”. And he said “trained” not “well-trained”.
Anyway, take a look at Gödel’s Ontological Argument and tell me whether everyone trained in theology or the clergy knows the rebuttal. (Not whether there is a rebuttal.)
Or, William Lane Craig’s Teleological Argument, which I think is easier to refute. Or his analysis of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I know that there are rebuttals, but I doubt that all theologians and clergy would find them “fairly easy”. And I think that many fundamentalist Christian theologians would say that there are no rebuttals.
My point was simply that Diogenes made an extreme claim and he made no attempt to meet the burden of proof for that claim.
In any case, I addressed Diogenes’ comment because he kept bringing up “Burden of Proof” as if it applied only to claims about god-belief.
And, remember, I have never claimed that God exists.
I’ll assume that the first of the three unsupportable atheist claims I requested will be Dio’s ‘all people trained in theology know the main rebuttals’. I figure this is at most hyperbole, and not even shockingly extreme hyperbole at that.
Got two more?
You said:
It seems that you’ve excluded the possibility that an atheist could be responding to a claim by another atheist about god-belief.
If not, then what did you mean by “only (indeed can only)”?
I can see that you meant to say that, without the claim of theism, atheism could not exist. But that’s not what you said.
For me, it’s especially relevant because so many atheists are arguing with me as if I were a theist, when all I’m doing is disputing some of their claims. And, by “claims”, I don’t mean claims about god-belief. I mean any statement that is presented as fact, and, for purposes of this thread, especially those that I disagree with.
Would you mind telling us what you do claim, then? I’d like to know if we’re just spinning our wheels trying to argue you out of a position you don’t hold in the first place.
No, the first is one that I quoted several times: Chief Pedant’s Argument by Santa Claus.
The second is Czarcasm’s sarcastic response in post #50:
Here’s one more, from post #64:
Go ahead and cheerfully analyze them. 
Which side do you come down on-atheist, agnostic, or religionist? Are you arguing from conviction, or playing devil’s advocate?
That’s not exactly what I meant (or as you said, said), but it’s close enough for me to not care about the difference. I wasn’t trying to be obscure - it’s a discussion about countering theism arguments (unless I’m grossly mistaken) so I figured that was implicit.
This is childish, semantic whining.
Everyone trained in theology knows the Ontological argument and knows the rebuttals. Granted, some training may go no deeper than Anselm but the modal formulation (which has been kicked to death on this forum) is also fairly well known and would be covered by any serious course of study.
[quote]
Or, William Lane Craig’s Teleological Argument, which I think is easier to refute. Or his analysis of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.