@sacerd0tus my offer of a debate on your assertion that empiricism may be used to prove the absence of the supernatural. Then we can start!
— HastonianBarbarian (@StevieBryant) May 12, 2013
@sacerd0tus what fear? I will debate you on Skype or blog and conclusively disprove your version of god, given just one simple condition.
— HastonianBarbarian (@StevieBryant) May 12, 2013
Rules:
- Both sides should provide coherent reasons supported by evidence.
- No ad hominem, vulgarity and the like.
- Arguments should be stable and not wander around.
- If an argument is not clear or too complicated, questions can be posted within two asterisk (*) symbols. ie **What did you mean by....**
- The winner will be the one who has provided the strongest argument.
- No one other than Stevie Bryant and Sacerdotus will be allowed to comment.
Format:
Opening Speech - Opponent
Opening Speech - Sacerdotus
First Rebuttal - Opponent
First Rebuttal - Sacerdotus
Second Rebuttal - Opponent
Second Rebuttal - Sacerdotus
Closing Statement - Opponent
Closing Statement - Sacerdotus
Please also place a screenshot of your tweets relating to my first screenshot (seen above), for the purposes of context. When this is done we can start.
ReplyDeleteI will ask once more and then I will declare you unprepared for debate and claim victory. Put up a picture - just as you done with my tweets - showing your tweets that relate to my challenge. This is not an unreasonable request and it's one you can do very easily; just as you have with my tweets.
ReplyDeleteI want no ambiguity and I want everyone who views this debate to see the context, your claim and the subsequent reason for my challenge.
I have waited four days. I am prepared to wait another 48 hours and then I will consider you unprepared and claim victory.
Stevie, if you do not post your opening you will be declared to loser just like Rosa. I am not posting no photos up of anything because the tweets are already EMBEDDED. All viewers have to do is click the date on the top right and it will take them to a series of other tweets linked to that one.
DeleteWell then you scrap this page and open another with tweets from BOTH sides showing context. Then we debate. It's that simple - this is something you really should have done in the first instance. It shows very poor preparation and and a hint of dishonesty.
DeleteI guess you forfeit then... You are wasting time.
DeleteI have not forfeited I have asked you to begin the debate with the proper, considered preparation. You have failed to do this. Time is not an issue - there is nothing in your rules that stipulates a time frame.
ReplyDeleteI am saying start another page with everything EXACTLY as it is with the addition of an embedded picture of YOUR relevant tweets, for context and to avoid ambiguity. Then we will debate. If you don't see this as reasonable, then you are quite simply, not reasonable.
I am sure you will declare victory and shout about it on Twitter; when you do, please do me the courtesy of not editing or deleting any of these posts, so at least people can make up their own minds as to who was being reasonable, who was being unreasonable and who was truly running from debate.
All the above very simply avoided - open a new page and put all contextual tweets up.
I am waiting for you to post your opening. Where is it? There is in my rules a format which must be adhered to.
DeleteYou have entirely ignored repeated requests to provide full context to the debate. My request is not unreasonable and I have even offered a solution by way of a new page. Again, this has been entirely ignored. I think it's probably safe to assume that you are employing avoidance tactics.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless,because I am confident you won't be able to meet my challenge I will still post my opening statement - considering your inherent dishonesty and blatant avoidance tactics you should consider this my way of forgiving you. There is no need to thank me.
You have asserted that empiricism is a tool that may be used to prove the absence of the supernatural. Your exact words have been:
“There is no empirical evidence that indicates the absence of god.”
There are many branches of empiricism, but as you have applied it to evidence we can conclude that the branch you are referring to is firmly based within the scientific method; it relies on observation and experimentation. Falsifying, verifying and/or adjusting a hypothesis based on observation and experimentation is all empirical in the sense you have asserted. Now, I could talk about proving negatives as a logical fallacy; Locke’s argumentum ad ignorantiam; Sagan’s “impatience with ambiguity” and other fallacies and trains of philosophical thought, but I do not need to; let’s keep this to the point of scientific empiricism:
1. What set of experiments have you conducted personally, witnessed or read about that have been designed specifically to prove the absence of god? Where can I find evidence of these experiments and their null findings? This is vital to your axiom absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for obvious reasons.
2. Once you have shown (1) with supporting evidence, please tell me how empirical data has been used, or can be used to prove the presence of God, with supporting evidence. As we are using the scientific method to demonstrate absence, we can and must use the same parameters to show presence. This again, is central to your “absence of evidence” implication.
3. Once you have demonstrated (1) and (2) to my satisfaction, I will begin an experiment using your exact parameters to show the absence of your particular god.
As you have stated on many occasions that you are able to prove god scientifically I am hoping this will be a short debate that sees me as the loser and you picking up a Nobel Prize. There should be no need for verbosity; simply provide the necessary evidence.
Well remember those many tweets asking you to email me? Well now you see why. An email would have been easier for me to copy and paste here instead of looking for tweets among thousands... For a soldier you sure are not well disciplined. Just saying. :)
DeleteIs that your response to my opening statement?!
ReplyDelete"There is in my rules a format which must be adhered to."
Just saying.
No. Post the opening statement on a separate comment thread and label it OPENING STATEMENT.
DeleteAgain, you haven't prepared very well or mentioned separate threads or labelling OPENING STATEMENT's.
ReplyDeleteMy opening statement is above; it is obvious; respond at your leisure to the three very specific items.
Here is my challenge for debate, once again. I think you may have missed it the first time round with all your avoidance tactics.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am as much a soldier as you are a reasoned atheist.
OPENING STATEMENT
You have asserted that empiricism is a tool that may be used to prove the absence of the supernatural. Your exact words have been:
“There is no empirical evidence that indicates the absence of god.”
There are many branches of empiricism, but as you have applied it to evidence we can conclude that the branch you are referring to is firmly based within the scientific method; it relies on observation and experimentation. Falsifying, verifying and/or adjusting a hypothesis based on observation and experimentation is all empirical in the sense you have asserted. Now, I could talk about proving negatives as a logical fallacy; Locke’s argumentum ad ignorantiam; Sagan’s “impatience with ambiguity” and other fallacies and trains of philosophical thought, but I do not need to; let’s keep this to the point of scientific empiricism:
1. What set of experiments have you conducted personally, witnessed or read about that have been designed specifically to prove the absence of god? Where can I find evidence of these experiments and their null findings? This is vital to your axiom absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for obvious reasons.
2. Once you have shown (1) with supporting evidence, please tell me how empirical data has been used, or can be used to prove the presence of God, with supporting evidence. As we are using the scientific method to demonstrate absence, we can and must use the same parameters to show presence. This again, is central to your “absence of evidence” implication.
3. Once you have demonstrated (1) and (2) to my satisfaction, I will begin an experiment using your exact parameters to show the absence of your particular god.
As you have stated on many occasions that you are able to prove god scientifically I am hoping this will be a short debate that sees me as the loser and you picking up a Nobel Prize. There should be no need for verbosity; simply provide the necessary evidence.
Many atheists like Stevie often read in my tweets what is not there. Nevertheless, I will try to address the points Stevie brings up.
ReplyDeleteOpening Statement.
"There is no empirical evidence that indicates the absence of God." These are my words from a tweet I sent out months ago. The purpose of the tweet was to get followers to think and realize that atheism really does not have any support upon which to make claims of the non-existence of God. Atheists often demand empirical evidence FOR God, but back away from defending atheism itself using empirical means. Most resort to the shifting of burden game and childish behavior in order to distract.
In science, a hypothesis must exist. In statistical analysis, the null hypothesis is often presented.
The theist hypothesis would read:
но:° There is a God
The atheist hypothesis would read:
но:¹ There is no God
The critical value must then be set at the appropriate test and the data must be analyzed to see if the но:¹ can be approved or rejected.
To date, no atheist has provided evidence that supports the но:¹. This can be done by simple calculations using data from a particular study dedicated to this hypothesis. Some studies can be:
1). The effect of God in the lives of people
2). The frequency of "miracles" attributed to God and any correlations to natural consequences.
Unfortunately, no atheist has taken the time nor effort to conduct such a task and instead expect anyone to adopt atheism just because they state that "there is no God." This is intellectually dishonest.
Stevie should be able to provide a study with data in which the но:¹ is supported. His opening attempts to shift the burden on me by asking for supporting evidence that can be used to prove the presence of God. This is not my job in this instance because my tweet is directed at atheists who confidently state that God does not exist without presenting evidence that supports this claim.
I have already given examples as to how atheists can do this. Let us see if Stevie is up to the challenge and disprove my tweet and prove the но:¹.
First Rebuttal
ReplyDelete“...atheism really does not have any support upon which to make claims of the non-existence of God.”
Atheism – by any definition – does not claim the non-existence of a god. From Greek origins, it literally translates as “without god/s”. It is a life led without belief or a lack of belief in any and all supernatural deities. There are scales of atheism and for clarity I refer you to the Dawkins’ Scale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formulation
Even the strongest of atheists would only ever claim to be a (6). The reason for this is obvious: to claim (7)is to take a leap of faith entirely incompatible with atheism and rational, reasoned thought. You will not find an atheist (7) although you will find many theist (1).
Correcting you on your deliberate misuse of the term “atheism” leads to your next error:
“Atheists often demand empirical evidence FOR God, but back away from defending atheism itself using empirical means.”
Atheists are not required to prove a lack of belief (note how your misuse of “atheism” makes this an entirely different prospect?). How can we test empirically for a lack of belief? As this is your assertion, I expect a response to this very specific point.
“Most resort to the shifting of burden game and childish behaviour in order to distract.”
In any means of philosophical or legal burden of proof, or in the scientific burden of evidence, the burden lays with the positive claimant. Atheists hold a lack of belief and do not posit the non-existence of a god, so have no claim to prove. However, as the theist you claim with certainty that there is a god it and it is intellectually dishonest for you to assume that you have no burden in this regard.
OK, now we have defined atheism, let’s correct your theist/atheist hypothesis, using the proper terminology:
The theist hypothesis would read:
но:° There is a God (a positive claim)
The atheist hypothesis would read:
но:¹ I lack belief in a god because he or any one of his followers have failed to provide falsifiable, verifiable evidence for his existence. Until I am shown the aforementioned, I shall continue to live my life based on the assumption that no supernatural deity exists.
Now that the hypothesis is accurately defined it becomes clear – yet again – that the burden of proof is on the theist. In your own words: “There is a God.”
“To date, no atheist has provided evidence that supports the но:¹…”
This statement is redundant and unrelated due to your deliberately incorrect definition of atheism, as shown above.
“Unfortunately, no atheist has taken the time nor effort to conduct such a task and instead expect anyone to adopt atheism just because they state that "there is no God”…”
This is redundant for the same reasons stated above. Atheists do not state “there is no god”.
“Stevie should be able to provide a study…. I have already given examples as to how atheists can do this. Let us see if Stevie is up to the challenge and disprove my tweet and prove the но:¹.”
Do I need to say it again? I suppose I should – redundant and self-defeating.
In summary, you have incorrectly defined atheism to fit with a much-used and often debunked template attempting to shift the burden of proof. By correcting your misuse and placing the correct definition in its place, I have placed you in the position of needing to:
1. Demonstrate empirically how atheists or prove a lack of belief in god.
2. Prove your lack of belief in Islamic Jinns. You can say you lack belief in them all day long – but just try and PROVE it.
3. Provide evidence for your claim that god exists.
As a final note, you will agree that I have highlighted and dealt very specifically with individual aspects of your incorrect and flawed opening statement. I remind you that there are two very specific challenges I have set for you that you are still to directly address. It was, after all, you who invited the challenge.
First rebuttal
DeleteAtheists give all kinds of definitions on atheism. They do not seem to understand what atheism really means. In order to understand what the word means, we must look at its root. Its origins stem from ancient Greece. Despite the popularity of folk religions in Greece, not all subscribed to them. Those who rejected the gods of Greece were called "a-theos" or without gods. It is a word used to describe those who do not subscribe to the notion of gods and reject them. Contrary to popular suggestion from atheists, it has nothing to do with a rejection of beliefs or lack of belief.
I would not put much attention to Dawkin's formulations because he is pretty much an agnostic. A few times he clearly stated that he does not know for a fact whether or not there is a God. This is not what atheism is. Atheism is a complete statement of rejection in regards to God.
My opponent, like a typical atheist, is confused on what atheism is.
In regards to evidence, whether the claim is belief or lack of beliefs, one must provide evidence in order to be taken seriously. Stating, "I do not believe in God" and then confidently stating that God does not exist will naturally bring about the question, "how do you know?" No serious person would take the one who makes such a claim at his/her word.
If someone tells me, "I do not believe he is a crook." I will naturally ask, "how do you know he is not a crook?" Similarly, if someone tells me "I do not believe in God." I and most people will ask, "why?"
This "why" must be fulfilled with evidence from the one who does not believe.
My opponent does not understand how to formulate a hypothesis that is testable. The one he provided answers the first one. This is not how science works.
This is the proper way:
The theist hypothesis would read:
но:° There is a God
The atheist hypothesis would read:
но:¹ There is no God
The critical value must then be set at the appropriate test and the data must be analyzed to see if the но:¹ can be approved or rejected.
Data would be gathered, analyzed and measured against the critical point that was set by the researcher. The critical point will decide whether or not to reject the hypothesis.
I repeat, no atheist has done this. The only evidence they provide, is the mere statement, "I do not believe." This is not enough to convince anyone that God does not exist. Theists can provide all kinds of evidence and this is why religion is popular and successful.
What Stevie is describing with his constant mentioning that "atheists do not state there is no god" is really agnosticism. Atheism is clear on the matter: there is NO God. This is what the word means.
There is no middle grown.
If atheists provide evidence that will force the rejection of the но:° then it will be more credible and may bring down religious belief in a big way. To date, this has not happen. All theists receive is diatribe, not evidence.
In summary, Stevie does not understand atheism. What he thinks atheism is, in reality is agnosticism. Islam and other religions are irrelevant to this matter because we are dealing with God, not religious dogmas. God is a universal concept held since man first became conscious of himself.
“Atheism….is a word used to describe those who do not subscribe to the notion of gods and reject them. Contrary to popular suggestion from atheists, it has nothing to do with a rejection of beliefs or lack of belief.”
ReplyDeleteI loved this statement! Atheists reject the notion of a god…but wait, it then has NOTHING to do with a rejection of a belief in god! Haha! Beautifully stupid!
You have paraphrased my earlier definition and made my point for me. Atheists do reject the notion of a god, we just don’t conclude non-existence. There is a distinction you fail to recognise through lack of education and reliance on projection, wilful ignorance and rhetoric.
“I would not put much attention to Dawkin's formulations because he is pretty much an agnostic. A few times he clearly stated that he does not know for a fact whether or not there is a God.”
Agnostic – without knowledge.
We are all agnostic, the difference being that atheists recognise a lack of necessity in applying a belief system and reject the notion of a god. Theists don’t know but decide through indoctrination, fear, wilful ignorance and cognitive dissonance that a deity must be true. I repeat – we are ALL agnostic.
“My opponent, like a typical atheist, is confused on what atheism is.”
Laughable.
“In regards to evidence, whether the claim is belief or lack of beliefs, one must provide evidence in order to be taken seriously. Stating, "I do not believe in God" and then confidently stating that God does not exist will naturally bring about the question, "how do you know?" No serious person would take the one who makes such a claim at his/her word.”
Wasted paragraph that deliberately ignores the correct definition of atheism, as prescribed by those who understand it – atheists. I can find 1000s of examples of theists claiming “there is a god” and then confidently stating god does exist (Carl Yeung, for one). You find me one verifiable example of your assertion. Just one.
“What Stevie is describing with his constant mentioning that "atheists do not state there is no god" is really agnosticism.”
We are all agnostics in Huxley’s definition of his own word, you included. Atheism is the notion that as there is literally no empirical (remember this term? It’s the one you were going to use to discredit my argument) evidence for a god and so we live our lives based on the assumption he doesn’t exist.
“God is a universal concept held since man first became conscious of himself.”
Read “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes” by Daniel Everett – Wonderful evidence that god is certainly not a universal concept.
Yet again you have failed to directly address any of my challenges or provide a shred of evidence for your positive claims. This is something I look forward to highlighting, once I have read your entirely predictable, circular and often debunked response to this portion.
Remember my original challenges? Those – and the subsequent ones in my First Rebuttal – are all still to be directly addressed. Your attempts to avoid and distract are juvenile and laughable. I will remind you of every one in my Closing Statement.
Apparently my original response never showed up here. Here it is:
DeleteYour arguing in circles. You state that atheists reject god but that this does not mean they conclude non-existence. However, atheists reject God in regards to existence. It is obvious that you do not understand atheism. An atheism rejects God and all things pertaining to God, including existence.
Not everyone is an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who believes that nothing is known or can be knowable. This does not apply to atheism nor theism. Your claim that theists do not know is special pleading. You have no evidence or authority to make such a statement. Obviously, Christ was born who is God. He walked among the people, taught them, healed them, and founded the Catholic Church. This is knowable. This is recorded in history. To say that theists do not know God truly exists is unfounded.
Atheists often do not apply the term atheism correctly. Dawkins is an example and has often fallen into blunder for mixing up agnosticism with atheism. I am assuming that you are referring to Carl Jung and not Yeung. In regards to this, philosophers often bring up blanket questions in order to formulate their thesis. For example, Nietzsche with his "Parable of the Madman" states that "God is dead." Atheists assume that he is attacking God, but this is not so. He is telling a parable of how society has become immoral and "forgotten" God, so to speak.
I am not an agnostic nor have ever been one. As a student of the sciences and philosophy, it is my responsibility to acknowledge that things are knowable. You are falling into a straw man as usual.
Everett's account is questionable. In his own writings he tells of a spirit being on a beach that the natives see but he and I believe his daughter cannot. Moreover, he writes of a deity in the clouds. God is obviously being described here for no such natural creature lives on clouds. Each culture has attempted to define God in different ways. They may not use the traditional Judeo-Christian attributes to describe God, but do acknowledge another being that exists beyond the physical world.
I did not avoid or distract from your points and have answered each. Perhaps you should take another look at my responses.