An open challenge

Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
An open challenge

Any atheists here want to debate me on the existence of God?  I would be presenting my version of the TAG, cosmological, and moral arguments

The only rules would be to keep posts under 500 words and to stay on topic.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
sure, why not?  

sure, why not?

 

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Interesting.

 

 

 

        Your god does not exist,  no  god exists. Religions do exist, they were invented by humans in order to control other humans. They were also useful when trying to explain what their limited ancient knowledge could not explain, i.e. thunderstorms, floods, earthquakes etc.  Thanks to our modern educational system any  third grader can now explain  what  wise ancients used to require gods for.  We no longer need your gods.

 

 

          How could you prove your god is real to me?  That is simple;  any god could wave it's omnipotent finger and make me religious;  now isn't that simple.  And you don't need 500 words.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Fire away, Fortunate Son.

 

Are you going to present these arguments one at a time or all at one?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Your god does

Jeffrick wrote:
Your god does not exist,  no  god exists. Religions do exist, they were invented by humans in order to control other humans. They were also useful when trying to explain what their limited ancient knowledge could not explain, i.e. thunderstorms, floods, earthquakes etc.  Thanks to our modern educational system any  third grader can now explain  what  wise ancients used to require gods for.  We no longer need your gods.

So we invented them to control each other, AND we invented them to explain things?

Next time, get your story straight before you post.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:So

Presuppositionalist wrote:

So we invented them to control each other, AND we invented them to explain things?

 

Those goals are not incompatible.   People satisfied by the substandard explanations of the world provided by various religious might be less likely to think or research answers themselves, and are more easily controlled by these organizations.  Keep your subjects dumb, then act in a manner where they think you have all the answers.  (oh, and throw in some promise of menacing punishment to keep dissent and behavior in check)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Religion serves both

Religion serves both purposes, to different members of society.

To quote Seneca, 1st century Roman philosopher:

Quote:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:Those

stuntgibbon wrote:

Those goals are not incompatible.   People satisfied by the substandard explanations of the world provided by various religious might be less likely to think or research answers themselves, and are more easily controlled by these organizations.  Keeping the subjects dumb, then act in a manner where they think you have all the answers.  (oh, and throw in some promise of menacing punishment to keep dissent and behavior in check)

Done stitching? It's an ugly quilt, but at least you got all the pieces together.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Done stitching? It's an ugly quilt, but at least you got all the pieces together.

 

Huh?

 


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:Huh?It

stuntgibbon wrote:

Huh?

It seems you are out of stunts, gibbon.

Goodbye.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

stuntgibbon wrote:

Huh?

It seems you are out of stunts, gibbon.

Goodbye.

 

Good argument, you'll win over everyone.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3400
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

stuntgibbon wrote:

Those goals are not incompatible.   People satisfied by the substandard explanations of the world provided by various religious might be less likely to think or research answers themselves, and are more easily controlled by these organizations.  Keeping the subjects dumb, then act in a manner where they think you have all the answers.  (oh, and throw in some promise of menacing punishment to keep dissent and behavior in check)

Done stitching? It's an ugly quilt, but at least you got all the pieces together.

yeah, kinda like the bible.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Where is your independently

Where is your independently replicated and falsified peer reviewed evidence that a non-material brain with no brain with magical super powers floats around the cosmos everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

I am sure you have as much evidence for your super hero as the Ancient Egyptians had when claiming the sun was a thinking being.

Goose eggs may impress you, but I like my evidence with a little meat on them.  "Poof" via magic as claim of evidence, then backing it up with a comic book, is like eating a vacuum(emptiness) for dinner.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Give Presup time Brian. He

Give Presup time Brian. He needs more fiber before he can get his information from his anal sphincter...I mean, source.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Just to clarify the real

Just to clarify the real issues that need to be addressed by these arguments, IMHO:

1. The typical formulation of the cosmological argument fails to prove that everything within our Universe has a distinct and identifiable cause, and then fails to show that any assumed 'first cause' has any of the distinctive attributes of the Christian God, since Science does not require that any ultimate initial 'cause' be anything more significant than an infinitesimal Quantum scale 'twitch'. 

So the main issue any serious attempt to use this argument needs to address is: "What is the logical justification for attributing to any 'first cause' the attributes of sentience and the omni- stuff?"

2. TAG needs to show why Logic, which is a formalised description of the minimal assumptions for coherent discourse, needs anything more than the existence of the minimal structure of reality that would allow separate objects to be identifiable - thus justifying the laws of identity (A = A), and non-contradiction, ie (A ~= ~A), from which the rest of basic logic follow. IOW , what do the attributes of the Christian God add to this minimal requirement?

3. The moral argument needs to resolve the dilemma that if our moral rules are simply commandments from God, how do we determine that God is Good? Or if we were to prove God is Good, that would require a separate objective standard of 'Goodness'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Just to

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just to clarify the real issues that need to be addressed by these arguments, IMHO:

1. The typical formulation of the cosmological argument fails to prove that everything within our Universe has a distinct and identifiable cause, and then fails to show that any assumed 'first cause' has any of the distinctive attributes of the Christian God, since Science does not require that any ultimate initial 'cause' be anything more significant than an infinitesimal Quantum scale 'twitch'. 

So the main issue any serious attempt to use this argument needs to address is: "What is the logical justification for attributing to any 'first cause' the attributes of sentience and the omni- stuff?"

2. TAG needs to show why Logic, which is a formalised description of the minimal assumptions for coherent discourse, needs anything more than the existence of the minimal structure of reality that would allow separate objects to be identifiable - thus justifying the laws of identity (A = A), and non-contradiction, ie (A ~= ~A), from which the rest of basic logic follow. IOW , what do the attributes of the Christian God add to this minimal requirement?

3. The moral argument needs to resolve the dilemma that if our moral rules are simply commandments from God, how do we determine that God is Good? Or if we were to prove God is Good, that would require a separate objective standard of 'Goodness'.

 

 

So would you be interested in debating me?  Tell you what-- I'll just stick to the TAG argument, because that one is my favorite.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:So would

Fortunate_Son wrote:

So would you be interested in debating me?  Tell you what-- I'll just stick to the TAG argument, because that one is my favorite.

It's also your weakest argument.  In fact had you not included it, I would've been your first response.  Unfortunately with the knowledge that you give TAG some credence I must assume that you would be incapable of understanding anything I say, including these statements.  TAG is the worst of all theistic arguments, it's worthless, and not worth responding to.  If you must... 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Fortunate_Son

Sapient wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

So would you be interested in debating me?  Tell you what-- I'll just stick to the TAG argument, because that one is my favorite.

It's also your weakest argument.  In fact had you not included it, I would've been your first response.  Unfortunately with the knowledge that you give TAG some credence I must assume that you would be incapable of understanding anything I say, including these statements.  TAG is the worst of all theistic arguments, it's worthless, and not worth responding to.  If you must... 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

 

I've read the article.

But let's debate it.  Me and you on the debate forum. 

What do you say?


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Okay.  I guess all of the

Okay.  I guess all of the atheists here (including the site owner) are pieces of chickenshit.

They do a lot of talking but refuse to back what they say in a formalized setting where they cannot rely on their friends to gang up on their opponent.

Ciao.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:I've

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I've read the article.

But let's debate it.  Me and you on the debate forum. 

What do you say?

I assumed correctly, you didn't understand me.  And you still wont.  I'm trying to turn a new leaf and not tell you what you are as you'll figure I'm name-calling.  But I'll state one more time nicely, purely for the audience.

 

AUDIENCE:

TAG is a horrible argument.  TAG is the worst of all theistic arguments.  Anyone who thinks TAG is a good argument is someone you should never waste time talking to, as you are merely talking to yourself.  The person who accepts TAG is not capable of understanding what you are saying, they don't think on the same level as you. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I assumed

Sapient wrote:

I assumed correctly, you didn't understand me.  And you still wont.  I'm trying to turn a new leaf and not tell you what you are as you'll figure I'm name-calling.  But I'll state one more time nicely, purely for the audience.

AUDIENCE:

TAG is a horrible argument.  TAG is the worst of all theistic arguments.  Anyone who thinks TAG is a good argument is someone you should never waste time talking to, as you are merely talking to yourself.  The person who accepts TAG is not capable of understanding what you are saying, they don't think on the same level as you. 

AUDIENCE:

TAG is a great argument.  TAG is the best of all theistic arguments.  Anyone who thinks TAG is a bad argument is someone who cannot respond to it.  The person who does not accept TAG is not capable of accounting for logic.

 

There, I said it.  I do not need to back it up.  I'll just say it over and over again.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Audience... case in

Audience... case in point...

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Okay.  I guess all of the atheists here (including the site owner) are pieces of chickenshit.

In less than an hour or so our TAG'r has logically deduced that since I responded in the manner I did, that all atheists here are chickenshits.  As you can see, our TAG'r is not very bright, or capable of logical thought. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:In less than

Sapient wrote:

In less than an hour or so our TAG'r has logically deduced that since I responded in the manner I did, that all atheists here are chickenshits.  As you can see, our TAG'r is not very bright, or capable of logical thought. 

LOL

"I'm a piece of chickenshit, but not everyone here is."

 

By the way, how much money did this site lose in 2009?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:There, I

Fortunate_Son wrote:

There, I said it.  I do not need to back it up.  I'll just say it over and over again.

Looking in the mirror?  

You said you read this and want to debate it?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

All you have to do is make a post in that thread to explain what problems you have with it.  Someone will respond.  Or are you too chickenshit?  Or are you incapable of backing up your claims?  

I've made TAG'rs the laughing stock of RRS on many occasions in the past, I rest on my previous arguments.  If you haven't seen or heard those arguments, search harder.  Assuming I haven't backed it up, is another logical thought blunder.

All of this is for the benefit of the audience, not you.  I don't expect you to get any of it.  I was hoping Presup would join in, he's even dimmer than you.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Fortunate_Son

Sapient wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

There, I said it.  I do not need to back it up.  I'll just say it over and over again.

Looking in the mirror?  

You said you read this and want to debate it?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

All you have to do is make a post in that thread to explain what problems you have with it.  Someone will respond.  Or are you too chickenshit?  Or are you incapable of backing up your claims?  

I've made TAG'rs the laughing stock of RRS on many occasions in the past, I rest on my previous arguments.  If you haven't seen or heard those arguments, search harder.  Assuming I haven't backed it up, is another logical thought blunder.

All of this is for the benefit of the audience, not you.  I don't expect you to get any of it.  I was hoping Presup would join in, he's even dimmer than you.

 

"Sleepy" gave a good response to it.  Todangst doesn't even properly represent the argument.

By the way, there is a TAG thread on the philosophy forum and you did not even give a response.  Link me to the thread where you've made a fool out of someone.

I will present the argument.  I'm asking you if you would like to debate it and you are backing down. 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Wiki says: Criticisms of

Wiki says:

 

Criticisms of the TAG

Several criticisms of the TAG have emerged. One says that TAG is not a distinctive form of argument: this objection claims that the form of the TAG (indirect, transcendental) is really just a reworking of the standard deductive and inductive forms of reasoning; it claims that there is really not much difference between Thomas Aquinas and Cornelius Van Til. John Frame, a student of Van Til, has endorsed this objection.[citation needed]

Another objection of the TAG is that it does not fulfill the necessary prerequisites for an Argument of Proof - that is, to have already proved the foundational premises before the conclusion is made. Any premise that has not been proved, by its very nature, is an assumption. An assumption, by definition, might be wrong. Therefore, an Argument of Proof cannot be based on foundational premises that are assumptions. Every premise must be proven prior to the conclusion being made. TAG is dependant on the foundational premise that "something not conceptual must be physical" yet this notion has not been proved. Therefore, that premise is an assumption. Thus TAG cannot be offered as proof.

Another objection is that the TAG does not provide a uniqueness proof: even if the TAG can prove God's existence, it doesn't prove that of the Christian god—any sufficiently similar god, such as Allah, would do. John Warwick Montgomery presented this objection in the article Once upon an A Priori ..., presented in Van Til's festschrift, Jerusalem and Athens.

Another objection claims that the TAG moves from conceptual necessity to necessary existence. This criticism argues that proving the conceptual necessity of a worldview doesn't establish its ontological reality. In other words: one may need to think about the world in a certain way in order to make sense of one's experience and knowledge, but that doesn't prove that the world actually is that way. David P. Hoover has raised this objection in his article For the Sake of Argument.

Another objection claims that the TAG uses circular reasoning: the TAG assumes, from the beginning, what it intends to establish by its conclusion (namely, the existence of God).

Others suggest that TAG is a variation of the Ontological argument[citation needed], which was originally employed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11th century, which abandons standard evidential requirements in favor of employing logic itself to suggest that for something intangible to be recognized, it must exist in some form.

 

There are your objections.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Any

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Any atheists here want to debate me on the existence of God?

 

No. That "debate" serves no constructive purpose. There are no applicable rational parameters for discourse.

The existence of God is by and large an irrelevant matter. But you are free to believe what you like.

What we should debate is how much space your sexual hysteria should be allowed to occupy in the public realm.

This is hardly a matter that concerns anyone but yourself and those of a similar mindset. Please remove your mental perversions from the public space; where they are offensive to the sensibility of better people than you, and where they are also likely to cause emotional damage to the underaged. It is a shameful thing to "believe in God". Much like defecating in public with no regard for how this affects other people.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I do believe I was the first

I do believe I was the first to accept his challenge and was waiting for him/her to present his/her arguments

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I do

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I do believe I was the first to accept his challenge and was waiting for him/her to present his/her arguments

It appears his initial stated intent was not his actual intent.  Lack of intellectual honesty is commonplace for TAGers.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
TAG reduces to something

TAG reduces to something like the cosmological argument - reality has coherence, therefore that requires 'something' to 'give it' that coherent structure. IOW it tries to to use the structure and order of 'reality' as what has to be explained, rather than just 'reality' itself.

But what makes that first principle a sentient, all-powerful being? Surely a coherent reality would be a pre-requisite for such an entity itself to exist?

IOW, as with the cosmological argument, it assumes the only explanation for something is the existence of some thing or principle which already be contingent on that thing or principle, which is greater in some sense than the original thing or principle you are trying to justify, thus leading to an infinite regression.

This is a problem if you assume that the pre-existing entity is 'greater' in some sense than what you are trying to explain.

Whereas if we assume that any form of 'higher' existence or complexity or structure emerges from a lesser existence, from a less ordered, structured, state of existence, we get a convergent regression, in which the totality of an infinite sequence of events does not require infinite extent or duration. Just as the sum of the infinite sequence

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/(2^n) + ... where n -> infinity is equal to 2.0

Every time we see a tree growing from a tiny seed, a person growing from a single fertilized cell, an avalanche started by loud noise, etc, we see that effects may be far greater, more powerful, more complex, or more sentient than what they start from, so there can no logical objection to emergence.

We still may have a problem of what 'started' the sequence, or why is there basic 'order' in the first place, or where did 'existence' itself 'come from', or did it just always exist? 

Whatever your proposed solution to this, something merely adequate to generate a tiny twitch sufficient to trigger something like a Big Bang event seems by any argument less problematic to start from than an infinite sentient being...

So the cosmological arg. goes from the assumption that 'everything needs a cause' to explain existence by proposing something which violates that rule.

TAG tries to use the existence of order and coherence to assert that some entity which itself has an even higher level of order and coherence preceded it.

Just because we don't know the ultimate reason why an ordered reality exists does not mean that any argument, no matter how deeply flawed, which claims to explain it has to be accepted, in the absence of a something better. Even the various incomplete proposals of String Theory are vastly more coherent and justified than either of these 'just so' stories.

Feel free to provide some sort of counter argument...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:LOL"I'm

Fortunate_Son wrote:

LOL

"I'm a piece of chickenshit, but not everyone here is."

This made me laugh.

Btw, don't expect any decent replies. The purpose of this site is not rational discourse, it is ganging up on theists. They even put little bullseyes on us.

So why am I here?

To preach to a brick wall, on the off-chance it has ears.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

LOL

"I'm a piece of chickenshit, but not everyone here is."

This made me laugh.

Btw, don't expect any decent replies. The purpose of this site is not rational discourse, it is ganging up on theists. They even put little bullseyes on us.

So why am I here?

To preach to a brick wall, on the off-chance it has ears.

There's your problem, you came here to preach, rather than argue your position - you are actually getting more polite and considered responses than you deserve.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Bob replied very

Bob replied very rationally.  Feel free to engage him. 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I do

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I do believe I was the first to accept his challenge and was waiting for him/her to present his/her arguments

 

Okay.  Let's start a new thread in the debate forum.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

LOL

"I'm a piece of chickenshit, but not everyone here is."

This made me laugh.

Btw, don't expect any decent replies. The purpose of this site is not rational discourse, it is ganging up on theists. They even put little bullseyes on us.

So why am I here?

To preach to a brick wall, on the off-chance it has ears.

That's why I'm asking for a debate.  Just one-on-one, no chance of being ganged up on.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:I will

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I will present the argument.  I'm asking you if you would like to debate it and you are backing down. 

That's what I would like to ask you.  Are you backing down?  Maybe you just have some sort of selective reading disorder, because you completely ignored the first post were Cpt_pineapple accepts your challenge.  I am not even the first person to point this out to you.  


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:I will

edit double post


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Fortunate_Son

RatDog wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I will present the argument.  I'm asking you if you would like to debate it and you are backing down. 

That's what I would like to ask you.  Are you backing down?  Maybe you just have some sort of selective reading disorder, because you completely ignored the first post were Cpt_pineapple accepts your challenge.  I am not even the first person to point this out to you.  


No disrespect to Cpt, but I wanted to see if Bob Spence or Brian Sapient would. 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:RatDog

Fortunate_Son wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I will present the argument.  I'm asking you if you would like to debate it and you are backing down. 

That's what I would like to ask you.  Are you backing down?  Maybe you just have some sort of selective reading disorder, because you completely ignored the first post were Cpt_pineapple accepts your challenge.  I am not even the first person to point this out to you.  


No disrespect to Cpt, but I wanted to see if Bob Spence or Brian Sapient would. 

Then why didn't you say that at the beginning.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 Quote:That's why I'm

 

Quote:

That's why I'm asking for a debate.  Just one-on-one, no chance of being ganged up on.

Fascinating. You don't actually have to read or respond to other posters, do you really find other responses that distracting?

I've never felt any problem with other posters, but I guess that's your prerogative, since we do have provision for one-on-one.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Fortunate_Son

RatDog wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I will present the argument.  I'm asking you if you would like to debate it and you are backing down. 

That's what I would like to ask you.  Are you backing down?  Maybe you just have some sort of selective reading disorder, because you completely ignored the first post were Cpt_pineapple accepts your challenge.  I am not even the first person to point this out to you.  


No disrespect to Cpt, but I wanted to see if Bob Spence or Brian Sapient would. 

Then why didn't you say that at the beginning.

I don't know.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
For Fuck's Sake Guys

 

Stop talking about how keen your are to argue and just debate already. If you want to debate one person just ignore everyone else.

BTW, Presup, did some one steal your toffee apple?

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3400
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Quote:

That's why I'm asking for a debate.  Just one-on-one, no chance of being ganged up on.

Fascinating. You don't actually have to read or respond to other posters, do you really find other responses that distracting?

I've never felt any problem with other posters, but I guess that's your prerogative, since we do have provision for one-on-one.

yeah, i never understood this bullshit about being "ganged up on" either.  it's very easy to ignore a post.  it's not like real life where one can be shouted down or catcalled or lambasted.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:yeah, i never

iwbiek wrote:

yeah, i never understood this bullshit about being "ganged up on" either.  it's very easy to ignore a post.  it's not like real life where one can be shouted down or catcalled or lambasted.

Not to mention it's a forum for unbelievers, who the fuck would he think would show up to talk to him?


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:yeah, i never

iwbiek wrote:

yeah, i never understood this bullshit about being "ganged up on" either.  it's very easy to ignore a post.  it's not like real life where one can be shouted down or catcalled or lambasted.

I'll explain.

Any argument or post in favor of theism gets 2000 responses, many of them long. You can't very well respond to 2000 posts in a short period of time. So the alternative becomes

(1) Ignore posts and look like you cannot answer them.

or

(2) Quit your job and make your life revolve around answering atheists.

and that alternative sucks.

Also the atheists reinforce each others' opinions and confidence. I admit it's kind of intimidating to have 20 people agree that you're wrong.

If you really want to see what it's like, try this. Post the best argument for God that you know of, and try to defend it.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 I admit it's kind of intimidating to have 20 people agree that you're wrong.

 

Maybe, that should be a hint.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 Jeez, I've put up a couple

 Jeez, I've put up a couple of posts already putting objections to the arguments, now can't someone just try a response and see how it works without setting up another thread.

I've already tried to short-circuit the more obvious failings, so we can concentrate on how they get around the real problems with the arguments, which is how they get from a possible need for a origin of of matter/energy or order to the Christian God.

The moral argument doesn't fly at all.

The longest thread currently on the board has been going for over two and a half years and is just over 1200 posts altogether. I don't think we're likely to get too many to cope with here.

It's not as if there really is much to argue about ... 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This sounds a bit like a church I used to attend, Presup.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

I admit it's kind of intimidating to have 20 people agree that you're wrong.

 

But if it makes you feel any better, while we may not agree with you at least we don't think you're the immoral spawn of satan and will soon be roasting in a bathtub of aviation fuel while we celebrate on streets paved with gold. 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:Maybe,

stuntgibbon wrote:

Maybe, that should be a hint.

Not really, bc the same thing would probably happen to you on a theistic forum.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

stuntgibbon wrote:

Maybe, that should be a hint.

Not really, bc the same thing would probably happen to you on a theistic forum.

Nah, likely we'd be banned upon posting

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

stuntgibbon wrote:

Maybe, that should be a hint.

Not really, bc the same thing would probably happen to you on a theistic forum.

 

Expect the 20 people would be wrong and I'd know better.  Smiling