Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2012, 12:51 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
First off, sure these arguments attempt at proving the existence of a higher power, but even so, there is no way to prove a specific higher power, such as the Christian God. Even if you made a 100% sure-fire argument for an existence of a higher power... it doesn't really help anyone much. Now, if you could prove that Allah or Zeus existed... alright, now this matters.

Second, is this thread limited to existential arguments, or is it open to all religious arguments? Is it open to anti-religious arguments as well?
I have quite a few arguments I formulated myself (anti-religious) and I would like to "test the waters" on them a bit more. I started a couple threads a while back, but I haven't visited much lately.

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned" - Anonymous
I am glad to live where there is no God, for I am moral, and mortal; I do not wish to worship He who crafts an immoral immortality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nsguy1350's post
22-06-2012, 06:13 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-06-2012 12:51 AM)nsguy1350 Wrote:  First off, sure these arguments attempt at proving the existence of a higher power, but even so, there is no way to prove a specific higher power, such as the Christian God. Even if you made a 100% sure-fire argument for an existence of a higher power... it doesn't really help anyone much. Now, if you could prove that Allah or Zeus existed... alright, now this matters.

Second, is this thread limited to existential arguments, or is it open to all religious arguments? Is it open to anti-religious arguments as well?
I have quite a few arguments I formulated myself (anti-religious) and I would like to "test the waters" on them a bit more. I started a couple threads a while back, but I haven't visited much lately.
Try them out. I am very interested in your arguments.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Darn you people for actually posting replies to my thread! Actually making me respond... Let me reply to a few.

(11-06-2012 01:29 AM)Science Believer Wrote:  Several days of research? I just tell Theists they are idiots and drop the subject.

If that's how you choose to respond to a situation, that's your right. Personally, I believe that being informed and knowledgeable about the facts and arguments not only helps yourself, but also helps the image of the community that you represent as a whole. We're stereotyped into the role of angry, militant, or rebellious. I'd rather people view atheists as intelligent individuals who are skeptical of the evidence provided to them by the religious.

(12-06-2012 03:16 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  I think you would very much enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA...ature=plcp
He talks about his deconversion, and addresses many arguments, some mentioned, some not.

This is a great series that I really enjoyed. What I liked most was how the series was created around the concept of graceful degradation. In other words, there was not one argument that turned him away from Christianity, but multiple ones that each "attacked" a different belief (Logical Arguments, Bible, Creation, Prayer, etc...).

(22-06-2012 12:51 AM)nsguy1350 Wrote:  ...is this thread limited to existential arguments, or is it open to all religious arguments? Is it open to anti-religious arguments as well?
I have quite a few arguments I formulated myself (anti-religious) and I would like to "test the waters" on them a bit more. I started a couple threads a while back, but I haven't visited much lately.

I started this thread with the intent to share knowledge about arguments used by both theists and atheists when trying to prove their side correct. So yes, please do post your own arguments, religious and anti-religious!

"The most valuable possession you can own is an open heart. The most powerful weapon you can be is an instrument of peace." -- Carlos Santana
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zephony's post
23-06-2012, 11:18 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
I think one of my favorite (most absurd) arguments from a young-earth creationist was that according to evolution, dogs could've descended from rocks. I was pretty confused there for a while if he was serious or not

because nobody can be THAT wrong....... right?

I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2012, 05:53 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Hmm, I'm actually glad I recently got into a discussion with a Theist that was actually trying to look at the Bible in a critical viewpoint, unlike the many other deluded Theists that always bring up the Watchmaker argument, or an Appeal to Nature, and when that doesn't work out they simply pull a fast ad hominem or a red herring to distract you from the fact that they still haven't come up with an actual response.
I'm one of the regulars on this vid forum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaOVPaYf780
You'll see how some of these will simply remove themselves from the debate when their arguments are put into place, and when they come back it's always the same arguments from scratch, as if nothing happened.
Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2012, 04:07 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(12-06-2012 03:16 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  I think you would very much enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA...ature=plcp
He talks about his deconversion, and addresses many arguments, some mentioned, some not.

I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for posting this. Most of all I would like to thank the maker of these series. Creator thank you!!! (pun intended) Unfortunately my journey of discovery entailed many years of desperately trying to escape reality through various forms of addiction, as opposed to your focused journey of discovery. Sadcryface

I honestly feel that through your series I have found a way to show my family in a respectful way why I cannot accept their points of view. I will have to see how it turns out however. Before I found this, I was afraid and refused to explain my point of view, because I keep falling into the pitfalls of disrespect and ridicule as so many atheist do. Expressing my true feelings is hard. They have already accepted my point of view, but I believe this may help them to actually understand. Thumbsup

Carlo, EX LDS
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2012, 05:43 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Always ask them to define god.

Most of the time their definition is really a substitute for something that exists in reality.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 06:45 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2012, 06:50 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Where did Zephony disappear to? I kinda miss the little fucker.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 05:36 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
To add to the "Argument for Contingency" section, William Lane Craig used it last year at a lecture given to members of the Christian Union at Imperial College, London. He listed it as number one on his seven evidences/arguments for god. Which were really six because his seventh one was personal experience which he admitted was not an actual argument.

1) Everything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2) The universe exists

3) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is an external, transcendent, personal cause.

4) Therefore, the explanation of the
existence of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal
cause.

By something that exists as a necessity of its own nature he means things like numbers, sets, other abstract objects.

Flaw 1) He never actually says why the universe isn't something that exists necessarily by it's own nature, he just assumes it has an external cause.
Flaw 2) He never shows that the options in premise 1 are the only two options for explaining somethings existence.
Flaw 3) The leap from external to transcendent. It is transcendent, he argues, because the external cause must be greater than the universe, and therefore beyond space/time and so not physical and timeless. But that makes the assumption that the universe contains all space and time, which cannot be backed up unless we observe the outside of our universe someday, even assuming there is one.
Flaw 4) The next leap to "personal." He creates a false dichotomy for what the cause could be - either an abstract object or an intelligent mind, an unembodied consciousness, and since abstract objects cannot cause anything, it must be the latter, which he says is traditionally what is meant by god.
Flaw 5) The idea that because the previous two attempts at an argument seem "plausible" to him, that they therefore are based on solid ground. Just because an idea is plausible, does not mean you don't require evidence to back it up.
Flaw 6) The assumption that this unembodied mind is something that exists necessarily by it's own nature, as opposed to having it's own external cause. This is possibly the biggest flaw, because by doing so he is essentially saying that God is an abstract object (as this is the only type of thing he defined as something that can exist this way) and he has already said abstract objects can't cause anything. Nor does he say why god is uncaused as opposed to having an external cause.

Have I missed anything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: