THE GREAT DEBATE (atheism refuted)

Euthymius
Theist
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
THE GREAT DEBATE (atheism refuted)

 

This is known as "The Great Debate" that occured between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein in 1985 (I believe this is the correct date).

 

I doubt any atheist here has heard it. Don't listen to any critical review of the debate. Listen to it yourself.

 I ask that Brian and Kelly listen to it with great attention.

 

It requires that you have some level of intelligence.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
well i'm convinced yo,

well i'm convinced

yo, mods

gonna need a theist tag over here

<-------- 

that twenty year old debate changed my mind for sure

farewell freethinkers anonymous forum

we had some good times but alas i am no long freethinking enough to post there 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Heard it... you do realize

Heard it... you do realize it is a 15 year old debate right? I am pretty sure many here have heard it.

 I have an idea for you, visit a children's cancer ward, that refutes your 'god' pretty easily. "All loving" does not allow children to feel such pain. Oh, yes, please tell me about how it is his "will" and we cannot understand such things or how it is because of original sin which the all knowing deity couldn't see coming a mere 24 hours earlier.

 Try looking at your religious text critically and understand that it was writtin in caves and huts by men who hardly understood the world. It was re-interpreted and re-translated by various men who commisioned the work so the text could fit their agenda. It is still being interpreted daily by religious leaders across the globe to maintain control of the flock and hinder true progress.

Open your eyes, the true intelligence comes when you look at such things critically and without blinders to keep you worrying about your 'eternal soul'.

Magic and illusion is what religion is selling to those who fear the concept of thinking for oneself. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
How can one think Greg

How can one think Greg Bahnsen would do a good job on any debate without first accounting for logic and reason?  And how could one account for logic and reason without invoking the flying spaghetti monster as it's creator?

Bahnsen has the reasoning power of a dumb 7 year old. 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Euthymius wrote:  Don't

Euthymius wrote:
 Don't listen to any critical review of the debate.

You know, I think a lot of the time the "if gods exist" discussion is a bit of a red herring that masks a bigger systemic problem of people just believing what's spoonfed to them.  "Hey look, here's something from 1985, but don't pay attention to any criticism of it."  This sounds familiar, where have I heard this one before...

How about: "Hey look, check out this really crazy book from 300 CE, it's probably true so don't listen to any critical reviews of it. Make sure to live your live by it." 

 Or hmm..  "Phlogiston theories work for me, don't pay attention to any revisions of it."

Is it just me, or if you want to make a case on critical thinking, you might want to use some when it comes to counter-arguments, follow-up debates and theory revisions?

Euthymius wrote:
There are no atheists in fox holes

Only 6 posts into your stay, do you have to be wrong about so much, so fast?  http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/ 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Greeting Recluse of

Greeting Recluse of Palestine,

Just a word of warning, the forum rules require that you add content when pasting someone else's work.  Your arrogant addenda are insufficient for this requirement.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Euthymius wrote: There are

Euthymius wrote:

There are no atheists on death row.

Fixed. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: How can one

Sapient wrote:

How can one think Greg Bahnsen would do a good job on any debate without first accounting for logic and reason?  And how could one account for logic and reason without invoking the flying spaghetti monster as it's creator?

Bahnsen has the reasoning power of a dumb 7 year old. 

That is an insult to dumb 7 year olds everywhere. 

"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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The Great Debate? Who the

The Great Debate? Who the hell gave this debate that name? Please stop lying theist, you dishonest turd.

I encourage all atheists to listen to it and pick out every absurd argument.

The debate was on the question "does god exit?" right? But then (in part 1 at 7:10) Bahnsen opens by stating the need to define terms, but he seems to have missed 'god'. He says, "I shall make it clear by what I mean by the term 'god'". But he cleverly and completely avoids defining 'god' and defines 'christian theism' instead; then he pleads intellectual bankruptcy with the transcendental argument for the existence of a god (TAG).


Gordon Stein then defines (why did he do this? Bahnsen has the burden of definition) 'god' as "a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world" which Bertrand Russell and a priest agreed on in their debate. And this definition tells no one anything.


An example of the futility of formal timed debate is when Stein asked Bahnsen if god was material or immaterial. Bahnsen said god was immaterial. Then Stein ask Bahnsen to give an example of something that was immaterial. Bahnsen equivocated that logic was immaterial meaning logic was irrelevant. The audience (the majority of whom must have been christians) went wild. They weren't there to learn anything. They were there to cheer for their team. The christians were/are trapped in the sociopsychological phenomenon known as collective hysteria.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
I listened to about half of

I listened to about half of the debate, and I really liked it.  But look - no one will ever be convinced of anything through the debate format.  It's just a platform to show off what you know and how well you can argue it. 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
What would be MORE

What would be MORE interesting than coming in here and laying down a 23 year old TAG debate might be to pick some more recent interpretations of it and give us some new spins or poke holes in newer refutations.

Maybe have a look at Michael Martin's papers on it, like this one: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

 Or even Matt Slick's response, who seems to be the current TAG torch-holder.  http://www.carm.org/atheism/trans_refuted.htm

That guy thumps TAG Christianity on his show almost every episode, and couldn't keep himself calm enough to prevent Brian and Kelly from feeding him his own balls this year. 

To me, it comes down to never having the link.  Asserting logic comes from god and proving it comes from god are different things.  Also, I would like to see how under the condition that Christianity is false, how logic would no longer function.  If the Christian god is required, it would seem to me that there would be a case where logic would unravel without it.  Even if it turns out a DIFFERENT god is true (FSM, for example), what proof do we have that we still could not make use of logical tools?

I suppose one could view laws of logic as universal and worship THEM as god, but what's the point? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The quickest way to make a

The quickest way to make a sale has nothing to do with honesty. The quickest way to sell something is to appeal to emotion, and that is why religion works so well in marketing.

"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


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Euthymius wrote: This is

Euthymius wrote:
This is known as "The Great Debate"

Hahahaha.......you serious?

Euthymius wrote:
I doubt any atheist here has heard it.

That's because we're a bunch of ignoramuses with our heads stuck up our butts. Am I right?

Euthymius wrote:
Don't listen to any critical review of the debate. Listen to it yourself.

He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him - Proverbs 18:17 (RSV)

Quote:
It requires that you have some level of intelligence.

I guess that rules us out. We're just stupid atheist, right?

I have no bones with saying that Christians have won debates. William Craig Lane is a fantastic debater. But, I've yet to hear a debate that has persuaded me. If there is a truly cogent argument for Christianity, then it should be written down. That way I can check all the references myself. Only a fool completely trusts a smooth talker.

So, a question to consider: Why do so many Christian apologist equate "So-and-so won this debate." with "So-and-so's position is true."?


RationalDeist
Theist
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Jesus was a great

Jesus was a great debater.  He could have owned ya'll. 

So when you are debating Christians, there is one thing you should ask... what would Jesus do? 


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

RationalDeist wrote:

Jesus was a great debater. He could have owned ya'll.

So when you are debating Christians, there is one thing you should ask... what would Jesus do?

 Jesus wouldn't even bother to exist.  The nerve! 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   stuntgibbon  "Jesus

   stuntgibbon  "Jesus wouldn't even bother to exist.  The nerve! "  

??? please explain, me jesus ....

 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist wrote: Jesus

RationalDeist wrote:

Jesus was a great debater. He could have owned ya'll.

He would have got kicked off of many forums for preaching. 

RationalDeist wrote:
So when you are debating Christians, there is one thing you should ask... what would Jesus do?

Call all modern xians, especially those in the US, wrong.

Honestly, I think Jesus would see all these new guys as a bunch of lieing, whiny, power-hungry, warmongers. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist wrote: Jesus

RationalDeist wrote:

Jesus was a great debater. He could have owned ya'll.

So when you are debating Christians, there is one thing you should ask... what would Jesus do?

Well, let's see... if the Jesus of the bible existed he was clearly insane, either he was born that way or he fried his brain.

"What would Jesus do?"

Probably way too many 'shrooms.

 


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist wrote: So

RationalDeist wrote:

So when you are debating Christians, there is one thing you should ask... what would Jesus do?

You mean if he ever existed?

He'd get nailed to a piece of wood. Then he'd die. Then he'd rot. 


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
It requires that you have

Euthymius wrote:                                           It requires that you have some level of intelligence.

As opposed to a belief in a sky daddy?  By the way, I was an athiest in a foxhole, not once did I think about an invisible friend or a non-existent prophet as I was getting shot at or even after.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist wrote: Jesus

RationalDeist wrote:
Jesus was a great debater. He could have owned ya'll.

he obviously wasn't that good at it, he got his dumb ass nailed up

seriously though, what makes you say that

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Check this out, mister

Check this out, mister original poster man.  Clearly you are a man of some intellect, since you fully grasp the argument presented in The Great Debate of 1794, or 1985, or whatever.  Why don't you clearly articulate the argument for us, and then refute any counter-arguments we come up with?

If more of you silly little sheep would actually learn some logic of your own, we wouldn't have to deal with your hit and run posts. 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Depending on the month, that

Depending on the month, that debate could be older than I am.


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

Hambydammit wrote:

Check this out, mister original poster man. Clearly you are a man of some intellect, since you fully grasp the argument presented in The Great Debate of 1794, or 1985, or whatever. Why don't you clearly articulate the argument for us, and then refute any counter-arguments we come up with?

If more of you silly little sheep would actually learn some logic of your own, we wouldn't have to deal with your hit and run posts.

Hey now, that would presume "some level of intelligence."  

If he can prove god exists, we can focus our attention on learning how to kill it.  Because if the bible god is true *shiver*, we DO need to kill it.