Calling out Theists: Debate an Atheist

[TheVeganAtheist]

To all theists on the forum, I am calling you out (in a friendly manner) to debate me or any other atheist here on the following proposition:
Is it reasonable to believe in a god.

If you would like to participate, state so in your opening comments. This "debate" will not be a traditional format debate, but one were we have an open dialogue in which we ask questions and give answers.

Rules:

1) state your position on the above question (i.e. YES it is reasonable/ NO it is not reasonable yet i still believe / NO its not reasonable and I do not believe)
2) state which religious tradition you follow (if theist)
3) state why you believe (evidence or faith)
4) state what are your arguments for your belief (if evidence)
5) ask questions.
NEW 6) state WHO you want to debate (choose 1)

* one caveat to this "debate", if you are willing to ask questions, then you are willing to answer questions as well. I do not want questions dodged or unanswered.

Let the fun begin:

[TheVeganAtheist]

Here is my opening comments:

1) NO its not reasonable and I do not believe)
2) Atheist - none
3) I do not believe
4) lack of evidence to warrant belief
5) questions to follow

[Neptual]

1) No it isn't reasonable and I don't believe
2) None
3) Evidence
4) Personal experiences cannot be counted as evidence. A book claiming to be reliable because it says it is(?).
5) Why would you reject evidence when it's presented to you?

[thebestofenergy]

1) No, it's not reasonable and I don't believe
2) Atheist (none)
3) I don't believe
4) There's no scientific evidence/verifiable proof for the existance of a God, so there's no justification to accept the claim as true (theists have the burden of proof)
5) No questions for now

[Free From Religion]

I don't know how many theists are on this forum, but if one were to respond, who gets to debate him/her? It seems unfair if all us atheists gang up on the theist who decides to respond to this thread. I want to debate someone just as many others do, but it should be one on one so it doesn't get confusing.

At any rate...

1) No it is not reasonable and I do not believe.
2) I am an atheist and an anti-theist
3) There is no good reason to believe in anything supernatual. Period.
4) Everything we have ever observed supports what I hold to be true.
5) How could god exist before matter? Is god not made of matter? If so, where is the evidence for this?

[TheVeganAtheist]

I don't know how many theists are on this forum, but if one were to respond, who gets to debate him/her? It seems unfair if all us atheists gang up on the theist who decides to respond to this thread. I want to debate someone just as many others do, but it should be one on one so it doesn't get confusing.

good point. The theist can choose who they want to debate, and will state as such at the beginning of their initial post.

[cufflink]

Before engaging in such a debate, I think it would be useful to define terms. What exactly is meant by "God" or "a god"? Are we talking about the omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God of Popular Theism, or is it Einstein's god? Or something else? Einstein bristled at being labeled an atheist, but at the same time denied over and over that he believed in a personal god. I don't really understand what his concept of god was--apparently it was pantheistic, akin to Spinoza's god. But it had virtually nothing in common with the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim concept. My point is simply that people in a debate can use the same term and yet mean very different things by it, so it's necessary to be clear on what's being debated.

[brimstoneSalad]

Before engaging in such a debate, I think it would be useful to define terms. What exactly is meant by "God" or "a god"? Are we talking about the omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God of Popular Theism, or is it Einstein's god? Or something else? Einstein bristled at being labeled an atheist, but at the same time denied over and over that he believed in a personal god. I don't really understand what his concept of god was--apparently it was pantheistic, akin to Spinoza's god. But it had virtually nothing in common with the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim concept. My point is simply that people in a debate can use the same term and yet mean very different things by it, so it's necessary to be clear on what's being debated.

Definitely.

I usually try to get out of the way the linguistically descriptivist meaning- that is, what the vast majority of people take 'god' to mean.
Even many Christians (particularly the apologists), can agree that 'god' as most people misunderstand it, doesn't exist- then it can lead into a fruitful discussion about how their definition of god (whatever their prescription for it is) differs.

Once you free the discussion from the common definition of god, we are all forced to basically become "agnostic", because they could define god as Obama for all we know. Although, any non-standard definitions are certainly suspect if used in public, since as a society of shared language users, we rely on the assumption that other people mean generally the same sort of thing when they use words.

[cufflink]

Once you free the discussion from the common definition of god, we are all forced to basically become "agnostic", because they could define god as Obama for all we know. Although, any non-standard definitions are certainly suspect if used in public, since as a society of shared language users, we rely on the assumption that other people mean generally the same sort of thing when they use words.

Exactly. If it's the Triple-Omni god, which as you say is the common definition, I'm an atheist. If it's some vague notion of an intelligence that got everything going, that might be good or evil or neither, that may not even exist any longer, but that in any event does not intervene in human affairs, I'm an agnostic. Paul Tillich, whom Wikipedia describes as one of the most influential Christian theologians of the 20th century, defined God as "the Ground of All Being." How do you agree or disagree with that?

[brimstoneSalad]

Paul Tillich, whom Wikipedia describes as one of the most influential Christian theologians of the 20th century, defined God as "the Ground of All Being." How do you agree or disagree with that?

Modern science (particularly relativity, and quantum mechanics) show us such a thing does not exist. There is no "ground" to being- there are no special reference frames. Everything is ungrounded, in an absolute sense.

So, I am a strong atheist to that definition of a god. It's rubbish science, and rubbish philosophy (begging the question; it's just an assertion of something from nothing).

That's how I disagree with it


Maybe you can start a thread on that definition, and we can try to get some discussion going over it? It's definitely harder to attack than the more obvious logical problems of the conventional omni-everything deity.