God

[Max]

I used your logic and suggestions, however he shot this back at me pretty quickly. His answers are in green.

Talk about an absence of logic. Just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't, and just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it does. You know this as well as I do.

At this point, it seems the only further value to be gained from arguing with this asshatfucker is entertainment. First, throw Occam's Razor in his face, and notify him he's committing an Argument from Ignorance. Then, when he bullshits his way past those, tell him if he's not going to argue in a logical manner, you accept his concession.

First off, my argument was that THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO BE MADE. This is so because there are no feasible means by which to reach a valid conclusion that is acceptable by even the most delusional fools on either side of the spectrum. My point was simply not that there's a valid argument, but that an argument was futile, so I've nothing to concede. Sorry.

But assuming God is as he is described in the Bible, the only time you'll feel his presence is if he wants you to, so just blatantly assuming that, because you do not personally feel his influence, he does not exist, is fairly illogical.

Premise: God is as he is described in the Bible. Conclusion: He exists.

Circular? Yes. Moronic? Yes.

Tell him "feeling influence" individually does not a real entity make. If that were true, then the world would be a much scarier place (consider all the insane people out there). Also, call bullshit on his assumption of "God as he is described". God as he is described in the Bible had no compunction about killing babies of families who didn't believe in him. That's hardly "personally feeling his influence if you only believe in him."

Did you entirely miss the word 'assuming' in my post? I was implying nothing, merely presenting a hypothetical. One that I do not happen to personally agree with. I agree that the circular logic I presented, from an entirely logical standpoint, is, in fact, quite moronic, because there is no proof besides the highly altered written word. Again, I also call bullshit on my own assumption of "God as he is described." However, I did not present this argument for my sake, but for the sake of the counterargument that cannot be argued with anything but rhetoric. The only thing in the last paragraph I feel that I can even address is the last two lines. What I said was that you cannot imply that God has no influence simply because you don't experience it. Are you telling me that if God struck a Dutch man in Holland with lightning that you would be able to detect this as God's influence? If so, you, my friend, are astounding. A Demi-God, I dare say. That is clearly above the capabilities of any human in its currently accepted evolutionary form that did not directly experience this event, either physically or visually. Also, I didn't say you would only feel his influence if you believe in him. I said just because you don't feel his influence doesn't mean he doesn't exist. The difference between the two is extraordinary.

This, you must understand or what I've just said is entirely pointless, is regardless of whether or not he truly exists, because it's solely a hypothetical, and nothing more. I think you're already aware of my personal beliefs concerning God.

In other words, "What I just said is bullshit. Thank you very much; I concede the argument."

No. In other words, "Here is the potential counterargument suggesting that the evidence you use to define the non-existence of God may or may not be accurate. Thank you very much; I've nothing to concede, since it's not my argument that I'm making, and am not compelled to defend it any further."

The interesting thing about this, is this guy claims to be an Atheist. Did I miss something there? Since when do Atheists argue each other about the existance of God?

[Zero]

I've argued with other atheists, when I got bored enough. I actually did quite well in the debate as well. I know my entire argument is bullshit, and I knew it then, but I enjoy debating for the sake of it, at times. What you need to tell him is that his hypothetical argument is useless, because it's always irrational to assume anything but non-existance for something that doesn't do anything in the world. Non-existance is the most rational assumption, until there's evidence otherwise.

[Max]

I've never argued with another atheist before, it's...weird. I can't explain it. I feel kind of thrown in the whole argument because I have no idea how I am supposed to argue with someone that is supposedly in agreement with me?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Your friend sounds less like an atheist and more of an agnostic (or, failing that, a theist in disguise.) Atheism is marked by an absence of belief in a god. His statements over the impossibility of making an argument one way or the other are better suited to the point of view of an agnostic, rather than that of an atheist.

[Surlethe]

I used your logic and suggestions, however he shot this back at me pretty quickly. His answers are in green.

Hmm. Interesting: vicarious arguing...
(note: color changed to purple to make for easy reading)

Talk about an absence of logic. Just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't, and just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it does. You know this as well as I do.

At this point, it seems the only further value to be gained from arguing with this asshatfucker is entertainment. First, throw Occam's Razor in his face, and notify him he's committing an Argument from Ignorance. Then, when he bullshits his way past those, tell him if he's not going to argue in a logical manner, you accept his concession.

First off, my argument was that THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.

Bullshit. There is one very, very good argument to be made: there is no evidence for God.

This is so because there are no feasible means by which to reach a valid conclusion that is acceptable by even the most delusional fools on either side of the spectrum.

Golden mean fallacy. Of course there are no feasible means for convincing "poor deluded fools". The validity of an argument about the existence God does not rely upon its ability to convince people who have deliberately decided not to listen to logic, but rather upon its logical and evidential basis.

My point was simply not that there's a valid argument, but that an argument was futile, so I've nothing to concede. Sorry.

That changes things entirely. I was operating earlier under the false assumption you were a fundie.

But assuming God is as he is described in the Bible, the only time you'll feel his presence is if he wants you to, so just blatantly assuming that, because you do not personally feel his influence, he does not exist, is fairly illogical.

Premise: God is as he is described in the Bible. Conclusion: He exists.

Circular? Yes. Moronic? Yes.

Tell him "feeling influence" individually does not a real entity make. If that were true, then the world would be a much scarier place (consider all the insane people out there). Also, call bullshit on his assumption of "God as he is described". God as he is described in the Bible had no compunction about killing babies of families who didn't believe in him. That's hardly "personally feeling his influence if you only believe in him."

<snip conceding points>
The only thing in the last paragraph I feel that I can even address is the last two lines. What I said was that you cannot imply that God has no influence simply because you don't experience it.

Wrong. What you said was "you can only feel his influence if he wants you to." You attempted to use this as a premise to prove "you cannot infer God has no influence simply because you don't experience it", which is utter bullfuckery. The mere assumption you can only feel God's influence if he wants you to is evidence God cannot be tested, and more hair to shave with Occam's Razor.

<snip seemingly irrelevant analogy>
Also, I didn't say you would only feel his influence if you believe in him. I said just because you don't feel his influence doesn't mean he doesn't exist. The difference between the two is extraordinary.

I misworded my reply. My apologies.

This, you must understand or what I've just said is entirely pointless, is regardless of whether or not he truly exists, because it's solely a hypothetical, and nothing more. I think you're already aware of my personal beliefs concerning God.

In other words, "What I just said is bullshit. Thank you very much; I concede the argument."

No. In other words, "Here is the potential counterargument suggesting that the evidence you use to define the non-existence of God may or may not be accurate. Thank you very much; I've nothing to concede, since it's not my argument that I'm making, and am not compelled to defend it any further."

If you take up an argument, you ought to concede when disproven, even if you're just playing devil's advocate.

The interesting thing about this, is this guy claims to be an Atheist. Did I miss something there? Since when do Atheists argue each other about the existance of God?

I think you guys aren't arguing that, but instead arguing about the futility of arguing with fundies. I was basing my responses upon the assumption of his fundiehood, and not on what it has turned out to be.

[Max]

That's cool, I think you make some pretty good responses, and it's interesting to see what he'll throw back at me. I'm not convinced that he's an atheist though. I also made a point about how no being can exist outside of space/time, and his response was:

[quote=of the year]I can think of several well versed Atheists who'll disagree with you, and even laugh.[/quote]

[General Zod]

That's cool, I think you make some pretty good responses, and it's interesting to see what he'll throw back at me. I'm not convinced that he's an atheist though. I also made a point about how no being can exist outside of space/time, and his response was:

I can think of several well versed Atheists who'll disagree with you, and even laugh.

without some type of actual proof, or something substantial to back it up, that's a meaningless appeal to authority.

[Max]

Can I go OT for a second and just say how much I love this board? SD.net has been a huge help in many of my debates. I just want to thank you guys =)