Swap your roles

[Thalas]

Okay, did you ever tried being completely opposite person you are?


In this topic    Atheists will be Theists
                      Theists will be Atheists
                      Agnostics wil be Atheists or Theists

You will argue your opposite standpoints (Not/ existence of god, evolution, morality etc)
I'm sure that Theist can learn something from Atheist and Vice Versa

[killybob]

ok, that sounds like a very good idea. it will be very hard for me as i cannot decide which side to go for (in my real life in general). i'll probably drift on the opposite side of the  comment before me. this section will be interesting as (hopefully) people will be able to see how the other side works and have an open mind. i'll start off by saying that God exists because: how the hell could the universe have just popped up? what set off the big bang?

[Bloodshadow]

I don't think I'm capable of adopting the mindset of a theist. No offense to any religious person, but to me religion is make-believe. I cannot argue for the religious side because I believe that science will eventually be able to counter all of religion's attacks. I feel hopeless if I'm forced to defend religion.

how the hell could the universe have just popped up? what set off the big bang?

Trying to go before the Big Bang is like trying to go to further north of the North Pole.

http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

[OldTrees]

Easy defense of Religion. (Not a defense of Religion X but of Religion in general)
Lack of proof is not proof of lack. Furthermore the null hypothesis is not a reasonable assumption in the case of objective moral codes and/or gods. The reason the null hypothesis is not a reasonable assumption is that there are no means of testing (not to mention reliably testing) the existence of an objective moral code or god.

[Daytripper]

Okay, did you ever tried being completely opposite person you are?


In this topic    Atheists will be Theists (monotheism)
                      Theists will be Atheists
                      Agnostics wil be Atheists or Theists (polytheism, pantheism)

You will argue your opposite standpoints (Not/ existence of god, evolution, morality etc)
I'm sure that Theist can learn something from Atheist and Vice Versa

Funny idea, but it has many problems. You can say there might be a God and that you can't disprove it, but that's as far as it goes. You could argue personal revelation? But that says very little. People see a lot of things.. I couldn't use that anyway. We've seen that all before and all you can say is: ''Well, it is possible in theory.''

The mono theistic issue is another problem. Really I have no idea how to defend it. Why only one God with certain properties?

Evolution has nothing to do with it. I'd need to be brain damaged to argue against it as well.

Morals are also a derivation. Maybe some God wrote a moral book, but what if not? What if God said, ''figure it out.''

I never saw anything in those philosophical syllogisms. That leaves me with ''You can't disprove it, nananananana.'' If you want to debate that go ahead. I see no point.

[Daxx]

God exists because I say he does.

I don't need any other reasoning, because all existence is arbitrary and subjective.

As an aside, this thread isn't really going to work out very well. I could try to argue for the existence of God, but I'd have to intentionally make errors in my reasoning or argumentation to do so, and that's not really a solid basis for discussion.

[Thalas]

The mono theistic issue is another problem. Really I have no idea how to defend it. Why only one God with certain properties?

Evolution has nothing to do with it. I'd need to be brain damaged to argue against it as well.

Morals are also a derivation. Maybe some God wrote a moral book, but what if not? What if God said, ''figure it out.''

If you really want you can be polytheist just be a opposite person

No ones says that you should debate about evolution, debate about something you want.

That's why are you debating "figure it out".

EDIT: I removed the mono poly thing. You can be anything you want

   I believe that science will eventually be able to counter all of religion's attacks.

God exists because I say he does.I don't need any other reasoning, because all existence is arbitrary and subjective.

Religion 1:0 Science

[OldTrees]

As an aside, this thread isn't really going to work out very well. I could try to argue for the existence of God, but I'd have to intentionally make errors in my reasoning or argumentation to do so, and that's not really a solid basis for discussion.

Then you missed the point or are admitting you are unable to complete this exercise. This thread is an exercise in empathy. How well do you understand the other side's viewpoint, arguments and mindset? More importantly do you know the rational version or can you only see the irrational versions?
I respect you Daxx and believe that your empathy is up to the challenge if you make a solid effort.

[Daytripper]

If you really want you can be polytheist just be a opposite person

No ones says that you should debate about evolution, debate about something you want.

That's why are you debating "figure it out".

EDIT: I removed the mono poly thing. You can be anything you want

That is the problem I have! I can't defend that monotheism or polytheism is any better. I would have to say there is something divine. It can be mono or poly.

This is also a very special debate. It's not like you're making arguments for or against the rail road on the edge of town. Anyone can do that. Both parties have different goals, but they agree there is a railroad. We should see the other side of the party says the rail road does not exist. (Or the other way around)

In other words, if I had anything good for the debate, I wouldn't be an atheist. 

[Daxx]

As an aside, this thread isn't really going to work out very well. I could try to argue for the existence of God, but I'd have to intentionally make errors in my reasoning or argumentation to do so, and that's not really a solid basis for discussion.

Then you missed the point or are admitting you are unable to complete this exercise. This thread is an exercise in empathy. How well do you understand the other side's viewpoint, arguments and mindset? More importantly do you know the rational version or can you only see the irrational versions?
I respect you Daxx and believe that your empathy is up to the challenge if you make a solid effort.

I am very well acquainted with the mindset, viewpoints and arguments of theists. Don't get me wrong, it's not because of a lack of empathy. I just do not see any rational version of a theistic belief because I cannot construct one in my head which does not rely on logical fallacies or an inaccurate understanding of the universe. Put another way, I am aware of no proof of the existence of God which stands up to rational scrutiny.

The above argument (that reality itself is entirely arbitrary or subjective) is the only thing that cannot be reasoned against because it precludes reasoning itself.

[OldTrees]

As an aside, this thread isn't really going to work out very well. I could try to argue for the existence of God, but I'd have to intentionally make errors in my reasoning or argumentation to do so, and that's not really a solid basis for discussion.

Then you missed the point or are admitting you are unable to complete this exercise. This thread is an exercise in empathy. How well do you understand the other side's viewpoint, arguments and mindset? More importantly do you know the rational version or can you only see the irrational versions?
I respect you Daxx and believe that your empathy is up to the challenge if you make a solid effort.

I am very well acquainted with the mindset, viewpoints and arguments of theists. Don't get me wrong, it's not because of a lack of empathy. I just do not see any rational version of a theistic belief because I cannot construct one in my head which does not rely on logical fallacies or an inaccurate understanding of the universe. Put another way, I am aware of no proof of the existence of God which stands up to rational scrutiny.

Being aware of some of the irrational instances of an ideology does not entail that there is no rational instance of the same ideology. Similarly being aware of ignorant instances of an ideology does not entail that there is no knowledgeable instance of the same ideology.
It is unwise to assume that an ideology is only compatible with irrational and or ignorant people unless such can be proven directly from the ideology. If you disagree with a ideology on as important an issue as morality it behooves you to seek the most reasonable instance of that ideology even if you must create it yourself after much contemplation.
In other words this exercise is in imagining a mindset that neither self contradicts nor contradicts the universe. Once this mindset (note not a proof but rather a worldview) is understood you can temporarily adopt it to test your understanding by defending that mindset.
I expect Atheists to have a harder time with this than Theists but the process is valuable.
In fact this process is the first step in forming a convincing argument for all convincing arguments must have their premises borne from the audience's worldview.

[Daxx]

Being aware of some of the irrational instances of an ideology does not entail that there is no rational instance of the same ideology. Similarly being aware of ignorant instances of an ideology does not entail that there is no knowledgeable instance of the same ideology.

Again, I am aware of that (hence wording my last post very carefully).

You must admit however that being unaware of an argument precludes you from making it.

In other words this exercise is in imagining a mindset that neither self contradicts nor contradicts the universe. Once this mindset (note not a proof but rather a worldview) is understood you can temporarily adopt it to test your understanding by defending that mindset.

I understand the mindset of theists very well, but I can assure you that in years of searching and debate I have never come across a theistic mindset that is both self-consistent (and does not contain flaws in logic), and in accordance with established knowledge about the universe.

And if I adopt a mindset which I know to be flawed, then the exercise is futile, since my awareness of the flaws makes it impossible to argue without the whole exercise being nothing more than an intellectually dishonest charade. I know that I am very good at debating and making arguments, but ripping apart someone else's argument with one that I can myself spot the flaws in doesn't lead us anywhere useful other than a self-aggrandising circlejerk and a misleading conclusion.