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.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
What an amusing topic. Fool

What an amusing topic. Fool tries to start a debate regardless of losing every one he's yet participated in. It is pointed out to said fool, who whines like a bitch and says nothing of use or value, but changes nothing. Atheism 999,000,000 ; theism 2.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

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

uh-huh.  so it's all about pride and self-consciousness.

look, i've been ganged up on many times, even in this forum.  people have often lambasted me on the subject of marxism, and i've often been swamped by posters who take an oversimplified demonizing view of a particular religion when i've tried to point out their oversimplification (i am no lover of religions, but i also hate hyperbole and historical inaccuracy).  often these posts become long and repetitive and i end up answering the same questions over and over.

so, for the sake of my time and stress level, i just stop.  period.  it makes no difference to me if some thickheaded jackass takes advantage of my silence to proclaim "victory."  i say let him have it.  some people need their petty successes; to take that to heart would be equally as petty.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:If

Presuppositionalist wrote:

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.

 

The problem with that is they are all just as bad. None of them are strong.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mohammed

mohammed wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

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.

 

The problem with that is they are all just as bad. None of them are strong.

Precisely.

You will get just what you would expect and deserve when you attempt to justify anything as devoid of evidence or logic as 'the existence of God.' 

The traditional arguments are all hopelessly inadequate, based ultimately on obsolete assumptions and intuitions about cause and effect, 'necessary' beings, conflation between descriptions of patterns and order in the universe and the features of observed reality which inspire those descriptions (as I just demonstrated with fortunate_son and TAG).

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


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:anything as

BobSpence1 wrote:
anything as devoid of evidence or logic as 'the existence of God'

 

The existence of God is a personal issue. What do you believe? It is no better or worse than anything science can provide. If you want to believe in God, fine. It's OK. What is not OK, however, is to demand that other people should feel the same way. That's where the religious tyranny begins. There is no right and wrong in this question; as it isn't even really a "question" per se, it is a personal and emotional issue, where you are likely to even accept political tyranny just because it satiates your personal perversity's needs for validation..

The exisence of God may or may not be connected to physics (the most noble of all sciences) - where that matter is considered irrelevant - but it is certainly a field reality in the study of anthropology and psychology: As long as religious issues are influencing human behaviour, they have a reality -even if only second hand.

"Logic" may not allow for the existence of "God" - but logic is in and of itself no better or worse than any other arbitrary belief system when it comes to the accuracy of their descriptive talents. This is all very anthropocentric.

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

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:BobSpence1

Marquis wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
anything as devoid of evidence or logic as 'the existence of God'

 

The existence of God is a personal issue. What do you believe? It is no better or worse than anything science can provide. If you want to believe in God, fine. It's OK. What is not OK, however, is to demand that other people should feel the same way. That's where the religious tyranny begins. There is no right and wrong in this question; as it isn't even really a "question" per se, it is a personal and emotional issue, where you are likely to even accept political tyranny just because it satiates your personal perversity's needs for validation..

The exisence of God may or may not be connected to physics (the most noble of all sciences) - where that matter is considered irrelevant - but it is certainly a field reality in the study of anthropology and psychology: As long as religious issues are influencing human behaviour, they have a reality -even if only second hand.

"Logic" may not allow for the existence of "God" - but logic is in and of itself no better or worse than any other arbitrary belief system when it comes to the accuracy of their descriptive talents. This is all very anthropocentric.

Science and Logic are vastly more justifiable and useful than God belief, and are certainly not remotely "arbitrary belief systems".

Of course all religious belief systems need to be studied as part of understanding human behaviour and culture, that has nothing to do with the reality or otherwise of "god" itself.

Physics is necessary but not remotely sufficient to understand reality - eg, the study of living systems (biology) has whole levels of discourse which physics has nothing to to with apart from explaining the low-level properties of the component parts (atoms and basic molecules). The study of the interactions of complex systems such as biological entities is a discipline in itself.

You, Marquis, are spouting a load of utter crap.

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
Vastet wrote:What an amusing

Vastet wrote:
What an amusing topic. Fool tries to start a debate regardless of losing every one he's yet participated in. It is pointed out to said fool, who whines like a bitch and says nothing of use or value, but changes nothing. Atheism 999,000,000 ; theism 2.

I proved that God exists and you still do not believe in God. 

How remarkable is that?!

Bob Spence can't even account for his own logical reasoning.  He says that it is based on "fundamental" negative properties of reality, which are fundamental by virtue of the fact that we have yet to invent an alternative, which, given the possibility of an alternative, would mean that they are not really fundamental, are they?

But these properties do not even matter.  Evolution determines the way we think.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: You,

BobSpence1 wrote:

You, Marquis, are spouting a load of utter crap.

 

Yep. I am. So are you. And the rest of us. The point, however, is to be aware of this.

I am never really cock-sure about "information" - only about my personal feelings (but I TRY to leave those at home).

Again: Science and logic are arbitrary, anthropocentric systems. But they work. I'm not fighting them.

At the end of the day, we are the animal that we is... and that's what we've got to live with.

 

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

http://www.kinkspace.com


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Vastet

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Vastet wrote:
What an amusing topic. Fool tries to start a debate regardless of losing every one he's yet participated in. It is pointed out to said fool, who whines like a bitch and says nothing of use or value, but changes nothing. Atheism 999,000,000 ; theism 2.

I proved that God exists and you still do not believe in God. 

How remarkable is that?!

Bob Spence can't even account for his own logical reasoning.  He says that it is based on "fundamental" negative properties of reality, which are fundamental by virtue of the fact that we have yet to invent an alternative, which, given the possibility of an alternative, would mean that they are not really fundamental, are they?

But these properties do not even matter.  Evolution determines the way we think.

No you haven't you haven't even addressed most of the holes in your arguments, and even when people pointed it out, you said we agree to disagree more or less. That's not proving anything, you haven't even the slightest of evidence that god exists, more specifically YOUR god.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I proved that God

"I proved that God exists"

No, you didn't. Quite the opposite, since you need evidence for proof and you have none.

"and you still do not believe in God."

No, you didn't. If anyone proved I still don't believe in fairy tales, it was me, not you.

"Bob Spence can't even account for his own logical reasoning."

No, you just don't understand.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


atheist6in6a6foxhole
atheist6in6a6foxhole's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-10-17
User is offlineOffline
i'm pretty sure the only

i'm pretty sure the only reason you came to this site was to start shit. i have yet to see you present any arguments at all. you are more than welcome to fuck off.

and don't ever say that atheists pick on theists. if you really think that we have that much control, then you obviously aren't aware that texas is still teaching creation in their schools. your religion is a joke.

oh, and calling everyone "chickenshit" is a pretty christ-like thing to say. he would be proud. 

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -George Bush, Sr.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Vastet

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Vastet wrote:
What an amusing topic. Fool tries to start a debate regardless of losing every one he's yet participated in. It is pointed out to said fool, who whines like a bitch and says nothing of use or value, but changes nothing. Atheism 999,000,000 ; theism 2.

I proved that God exists and you still do not believe in God. 

How remarkable is that?!

Bob Spence can't even account for his own logical reasoning.  He says that it is based on "fundamental" negative properties of reality, which are fundamental by virtue of the fact that we have yet to invent an alternative, which, given the possibility of an alternative, would mean that they are not really fundamental, are they?

But these properties do not even matter.  Evolution determines the way we think.

You merely proved you have no true insight into what logic is.

It is based on fundamental properties, that we can identify and distinguish entities when we observe reality. Nothing 'negative' there...

They are fundamental because that process is about as basic as it gets.

It isn't perfect and absolutely provable, but it has infinitely more going for it than the first stupid idea people pulled out of their rear end, namely 'God', which can't even be nailed down as a concept, let alone be shown to have any plausibility.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I like how he sets up rules

I like how he sets up rules for his own benefit.

That would be like Newton challenging a debate about alchemy(which he DID believe in) and setting up the rules so that his challenger couldn't say, "HOW can you demonstrate that this can be turned into that?"

Son doesn't understand that his arguments don't work because the initial claim he wants to plug into his arguments has not been established.

Snarfwidget=1+1=2=therefore snarfwidgits exist

Then he gets pissed that I wont play this game of letting him try to work backwards AFTER the naked assertion has been made. He gets mad because I insist on starting from the beginning before moving on.

 

"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