Re: Point of contention - help please!

[TheJackel]

Ask Him what proof does he have that verifies his existence to him.. It's likely all circular nonsense.. Most Christians think a said GOD created everything and yet we know this to be impossible because one can not create that which oneself requires to exist.. Thus this further diminishes the value of a GOD's existence. So I can post an entire list to show why a GOD is ridiculous to begin with, and why creationism is a self-contradiction...

So ask your Christian friend how can his GOD design and create the following into existence, and why these very things are exactly the same things that make us all possible to exist.

Existence
Intelligence
Information
Knowledge
Energy
Empty Space
Self-awareness
Self-identity
Consciousness
A place for one's self to exist
Mind containment
Color: Black and White, or RGB
Infinity
Wisdom
Time
Sight
Hearing
Smell
Observation
Calculation
Manipulation
Thought
Perception
Reality
Feelings
Emotions
Experience
Experiences
Complexity
Cause and effect
Any Pattern or Patterns
Morality
Cognitive behavior
Inertia
Progress / progression
Mental Processing
Memory
Osculation
Intent
Ability
Positive and Negative
Imagination
Design
Point of View
Behavior
Life
Senses
Mobility
Power
Divinity
Math

[AtheistBrit]

Thanks everyone for the replies so far!

I should have pointed out that he is the one insisting that I'm saying "there is NO god" when I have in fact repeatedly pointed out that I'm simply stating "there is no evidence for god, therefore until there is I will assume he doesn't exist, in the same way that unicorns and fairies can be assumed to not exist until evidence arises that they might". He still insists that the burden of proof lies with me simply because I am arguing from a minority point of view. He used the example of a few people saying the world was round when everyone at the time believed the world to be flat; it was the job of the minority round-earthers to prove to the flat-earthers that the world was round, and NOT the job of the flat-earthers to demonstrate that the world was flat, because most people at the time believed the world to be round. I'm not smart enough to come up with a good reason why this argument is wrong.

[TheJackel]

Your world is flat argument is invalid because the fact the Earth is round has scientifically been established by verifiable observation, and by the fact that we can take orbital satellites and photograph it.. Hell, you can go on youtube and learn how to build your own orbital balloon that will take pictures from the upper far reaches of the atmosphere with your own cellphone.. And never mind the curvature of the Earth that is apparently obvious when you fly in an airplane.. The flat Earther's are equal to the Theists making wild assertions and assumptions without evidence to support their claims.. Hence, they would deny any evidence that proves them wrong for the sake of holding on to their ridiculous fallacies... Your example here show's why numbers don't mean a damn thing, and why you can equally have a few hundred ignorant nutcases as you can have x billion number of ignorant nutcases that will assume truths and then try to enforce them as facts without evidence, validation, or substantiation.

Hence here is the folly of your friends argument for you to show evidence that a GOD doesn't exist.. He knows you can't provide evidence for something that doesn't exist in order to show it doesn't exist.. It's a circular game, and what's worse is that you have the upper hand because the lack of evidence is equally an argument against him and not you.. Hence, he needs to show some evidence since he claims to know of his existence, and if he knows of his existence he ought to be able to provide evidence that can in fact substantiate his claim to which would be irrefutable.

[elliebean]

What your friend is doing is refusing to concede (probably even to himself) that he has in fact already lost the argument. You're well past the point in the conversation at which I would have told him he's too self-deluded to be argued with and walked away. You might want to call his bluff and ask him to cite reliable sources to support his claim that you share the burden of proof.

[AtheistBrit]

Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

Name any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

[Davin]

Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

Name any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Here's the problem with this statement: Might doesn't make right, and appeals to majority are illogical.

Just off the top of my head: Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

They forced the majority and the power to reconsider their abuses of these people by putting themselves in the way to be abused for no good reason. Does your friend support the majority beating and killing people just because they're a minority? If he wants to support this argument then: if the majority thought it was good to kill tall people, your friend will agree with them because hey, it's up to the minority that he'll be killing to prove that killing the minority is wrong.

[Tank]

Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

Name any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Jesus?

[AtheistBrit]

Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

Name any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

[pinkocommie]

Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

Name any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

The first thing that pops into my mind is areas of the US, specifically the Southern US, during the civil rights era.  It was certainly a minority belief in the Southern US that racism was wrong and that segregation should be abolished, yet despite the majority of people's best efforts to somehow prove that racism and segregation was acceptable, it was abolished.

At any rate, it seems like your friend is playing the moving the goalposts game, which is a pointless endeavor in my opinion.  Does it really matter if you provide this current example when it seem like he's just going to respond by asking for another example of something slightly different as if it's the same argument?

[Squid]

Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

Name any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Google it.  Just because a view is a majority view that doesn't mean it's correct.  Also, like I said previously, if they are wanting to play in the realm of evidence-based inquiry then he must supply the evidence to support his alternative hypothesis.

You can also utilize Sagan's Dragon if needed to force him into a position to supply evidence.

[pinkocommie]

"Sagan's Dragon" sounds like the most amazing magic card ever.  =D

[wildfire_emissary]

pinkocommie wrote:
"Sagan's Dragon" sounds like the most amazing magic card ever. =D

Hell yeah! I'd fetch it with Demonic tutor anytime.

[Gawen]

Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

Name any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Jesus?

At least M L K Jr. and Gandhi existed...*chucklin*

[winli]

Negative assertions have just as much possibility of faultiness as positive ones.  




____________________
spam removed by admin

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thanks everyone for the replies so far!

I should have pointed out that he is the one insisting that I'm saying "there is NO god" when I have in fact repeatedly pointed out that I'm simply stating "there is no evidence for god, therefore until there is I will assume he doesn't exist, in the same way that unicorns and fairies can be assumed to not exist until evidence arises that they might". He still insists that the burden of proof lies with me simply because I am arguing from a minority point of view. He used the example of a few people saying the world was round when everyone at the time believed the world to be flat; it was the job of the minority round-earthers to prove to the flat-earthers that the world was round, and NOT the job of the flat-earthers to demonstrate that the world was flat, because most people at the time believed the world to be round. I'm not smart enough to come up with a good reason why this argument is wrong.

Whenever I'm involved in a discussion that reaches this point, I merely point out that it boils down to a matter of faith, and as I have absolutely no faith, if he wishes to change my mind he'd ought to provide evidence.

If they wish to argue that their position isn't based on faith, then they are obliged to bring the evidence I've requested.

If they agree that it is entirely about faith, then I am free to safely disregard any claims I've ascertained are based on this faith.