Why Argue About Anything

Given a finite mind and an incomplete set of facts, there is no way for a human to prove anything.

Even things science considers “laws” cannot be shown to be universal across space and time.

Thus there is no burden of proof on anyone and each of us can and must proceed to make life and death decisions based not on that which can be shown to be absolutely right or wrong but on that which either makes, or does not make subjective sense.

IOW, factor in all the factors you like but ultimately it seems best to act on what feels best and do that which makes as many humans as happy as possible.

This also seems to make the idea of an atheist/theist argument antithetical to both parties as neither party can prove their first principles, much less provide a definitive answer to the topic under consideration.

So these debates seem pointless except as one considers the possibility that each side simply enjoys arguing and is happiest when he or she is in contention, or more said perhaps more correctly, is being contentious.

Or does someone want to argue that he has become omnipotent and that there are things he or she knows for absolutely certain?

1 Like

Atheism is simply a lack of belief. It is NOT a claim that a god or gods does not exist.

Some (a few ) atheists do make the claim that a particular (or even all) god or gods do not exist. Then they have to produce sufficient credible evidence to back their claim. .

Why did you post the same thing under two topics? Being wrong once is enough for most people.


@NY_G_PA2, a/theism is about belief, a/gnosticism is about knowledge. A person can be labeled as both agnostic and atheist.

If, as a criminal prosecutor, I say you are guilty of a crime, I am obligated to provide evidence that you committed that crime. If a jury determines that I did not provide enough the evidence, they find you not guilty. That jury, however, is not saying you are innocent. Was the case still worth arguing?

Debate about the existence of god(s) does much more than provide fodder for entertainment. It can provide the catalyst for someone to shake off the chains of a religion that is damaging their very sanity. It can teach. It can bring into the light abuses - monetary, emotional, and physical.

Why argue about anything? Because it can help people.


Firstly the thread title seems oddly incongruous with a debate forum? One wonders why you’d come here of all places to post such a question. I can’t speak for anyone else but debate can be very edifying.

Not as an immutable fact no, but one can establish a weight of objective evidence that supports a fact as irrefutable.

Scientific laws are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena A scientific law is a statement that describes an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true.

Right and wrong are subjective evaluations, and while morality is subjective, objective and irrefutable facts do exist, as not everything is entirely subjective, it is an objective fact that the earth is not flat, or that all living things evolved slowly over time, for example, these are irrefutable and objective facts.

That’s a subjective claim.

Atheism doesn’t have a first principle, it is the lack or absence of belief, beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, and so carry a burden of proof, a lack of belief does not, as it need not involve any claim.

Luckily it is not mandatory. However I don’t see a critical examination of claims or beliefs as ever being pointless. Either for those who hold them or for those who do not, NB It’s noteworthy that you are not defining any deity here, and some concepts of deity are eminently falsifiable, where the concept is unfalsifiable I must of course remain agnostic about them, but I must also withhold belief, as this is the only rational unbiased position, thus I am both an agnostic (where nothing is known or an be known about a belief) and an atheist as I don’t believe any deity or deities exist outside of the human imagination.

Omnipotent is defined as possessing limitless power, I think you mean omniscient, and again one need not know that a claim is false in order to withhold belief, indeed to suggest any claim gains credence because of a lack of contrary evidence is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.



I’ll make a note that you like to argue.


I should have said omniscient.

That is wildly inaccurate.

eta: It is also spam.


Indeed, but you have not addressed your irrational argument that atheism requires evidence of the non existence of a deity? Or the erroneous notion that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, when they demonstrably are not, since agnosticism is a belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature and existence of god, whereas atheism is the lack of belief in any deity or deities.


It’s a debate forum, so what’s noteworthy is anyone being here who does not care to argue.




Non-sequitur… and completely absurd.
Any claim carries with it a burden of proof.
This also reeks of false equivalence. The default position must be to reject claims not answering to the burden of proof. Denying a claim due to the lack of evidence, is not in itself a “claim” other than that it is claiming not to accept the unsupported claim.

Really? I am so glad that scientists and researchers do not take this approach!
If that really is “best”, then just feed everyone cornbread and pat them on the head…

Rhetorical nonsense. Atheists have no first principal. And yes, there is a definitive answer provided which is, no evidence has ever been demonstrated which supports the notion of any or all gods.

I am not aware of anyone here EVER claiming to believe in absolute certainty.

Ok, bye bye then. Best wishes. Have a nice day. Happy trails. “Good night, and good luck”

Edit (To Murrow)


Can you tell us what the “first principle” is for your lack of belief in mermaids please?


Howdy, NY. Welcome to the AR.

As an atheist, I have nothing to prove. I’m not claiming anything one way or the other. I simply do not believe the god claim made by theists. It’s just that simple. A theist tells me, “I believe in and worship a god that is all-knowing and all-powerful and created the entire universe. And if you don’t worship my god he will send you to hell and torture you for eternity.” My response is typically, “Okay, good for you. Whatever makes you happy and helps you cope with life. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you are not harming innocent people because of your belief.”

See? And, truth be known, I would actually prefer to NOT debate that individual, depending on the situation. Quite frankly, as far as I’m concerned, it’s none of my business what another person believes in regards to religion. As long as they keep it to themselves, I couldn’t care less. So, why DO I debate on here and elsewhere? Well, a couple of reasons…

  1. As others have already pointed out, most religions are considerably “poisonous” and often foster a considerable amount of mental “irregularities”. (I can attest to this from personal experience.) The Christian god as described by the bible, for instance, is so incredibly inconsistent and contradicting that a person has to be a mental gymnastics contortionist in order to justify/maintain a belief in it.

Naturally, this can cause a wide variety of harmful psychological side-effects. As such, those out there who are starting to question the whole “religious faith” concept will often have to deal with a great deal of apprehension, and anxiety, and even fear. From my personal experience, having somewhere to go that allows you to discuss such matters can be a HUGE relief. Moreover, it is a major aid in helping to fully break away from the insidious religious indoctrination. And that is one of the reasons why I am here and debating. People need assistance and guidance.

  1. Remember that part I said about, “…as long as their belief does not cause them to harm others,”? There is also the part about, “…as long as they keep it to themselves.” Wellllllll… Christianity and Islam (in particular) do not exactly have a good track record of abiding by those two basic tenets of common courtesy. (I really shouldn’t have to explain that to you. Just sayin’…) Therefore, whenever the opportunity presents itself, I believe I am obligated to point out the destructive nature and the underlying maliciousness of maintaining/promoting such archaic beliefs.

You’re still missing my point.

I only said an atheist cannot prove that there is no god anymore than the theist can prove the existence of his.

I guess it too much to ask that there be a little more humility from both sides.

BTW, having been raised in a fundamentalist doomsday cult (Adventism) for the first 25 years of my life, I don’t need to be lectured on the toxicity of organized religion. (I’m now 68.)

And that is why I’m an atheist. My parents and their fellow Christians failed to provide me evidence for their claim when they “said” their god was real. I can’t just go off of a book written by men or what the pastor says at the altar. Sorry, not sorry.

As some who is identified as atheist, I can say, without doubt, that I absolutely agree. Now do you agree that I don’t have to do so?


I never said you did.

But I get it guys.

As atheists in what some insist is a Christian, or at least theist nation, you’re so accustomed to being on the defensive that the default position is argumentation.

Excuse me while I delete my account.

I find it a bit sad, and yet a bit humorous that you haven’t the interest in further discussing your position. Cut ‘n run, eh?


I think you will find Sheldon argued with your word choice…see the point yet?

No, try to keep up. As I posted in response to your fatuous jibber-jabber…

Aren’t you just about worn to a frazzle shifting that burden around?

Oh, gee, such a shame you can’t stick around for a while. That bit about humility was really rich…and sincere…
Edit (wrinkles are not wisdom)

1 Like