I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2015, 05:45 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 09:54 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 07:55 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So how can it be that God exists? Did he always exist, or did he pop into being uncaused out of nothing?
Something had to be eternal...either it was the universe, or God...but we have evidence that the universe ISN'T eternal, so therefore, God is the only game in town at that point.

Good. So you think that something had to be eternal. Could the eternal thing have been the universe in an earlier form, a pre-big-bang-universe that transformed through the process of the big bang into our present universe?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
02-03-2015, 06:00 AM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2015 07:39 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 09:54 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Something had to be eternal...either it was the universe, or God...but we have evidence that the universe ISN'T eternal, so therefore, God is the only game in town at that point.

Wrong again. That's just the only alternative you, with your very limited imagination and even more limited education can come up with. The fact is "eternal" presupposes time already in place. When did your "eternal" Jebus create the reality in which he MUST exist ? Then explain how that is not meaningless. An omnipotent god could have created a race of robot universe makers, and THAT'S the answer. And of course it is YOUR god you're talking about.


Cartilage brain maybe DOES have cartilage for a brain. Gasp

Many cosmologists (including Penrose in Cycles of Time) have suggested "banging and "re-banging". No need for a "beginning" The fact is, we just don't know now. Inserting "oh god done it" is the least plausible alternative.

The other problem with the "there must have been" type of argument, is that the universe has been proven to be "non-intuitive" to the human brain which evolved to deal with the reality it was faced with on the savannahs of Africa. It did not evolve (yet) to deal with Relativity and Uncertainty. Reality at its most fundamental level does not appear to be "logical" to human brains.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(02-03-2015 12:48 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  Interesting fact: Arguments that have fallacies can have true conclusions. It is not necessary for an argument to be free of fallacies to have a correct conclusion.

I can see that being true but once the fallacy is exposed the conclusion couldn't be trusted.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 09:08 AM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2015 09:39 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 09:53 PM)DLJ Wrote:  OK. Serious questions.

Not questions for Call_of_Nature but about him.:

Assuming he's not a Poe...

1. How does this kinda (not 'kind', 'kind of') thinking come about?
1a. Is it from tradition / culture?
1b. Is it about poor education (state/family)?
1c. Is it a geographic phenomena (i.e. a specifically Murikan version of the meme)?
1d. Is it a medical condition?

2. Is there a remedy?
(I'm particularly looking for insight from anyone here who may have previously suffered from the same delusions)
2a. Would KC's 'softly, softly' approach have proved more productive?
2b. The abrasive, fact-chucking approach seems to be making the delusion stronger; reacting like a cornered animal. Should we treat these cases like they have been infected with a virus that morphs (evolves) in order to survive attack from our antibiotics (evidence, reason, logic)?
2c. If there is no cure, what is the best solution to ensure that the infection does not spread to other innocent victims?

I'm honestly curious as to the best way to deal with this level of ignorance.

What does the panel think?


Well as we have long established, it isn't like we are trying to change his mind, because his mind is closed, and a closed mind stops learning, we continue to hammer the facts only for those lurkers who watch. This lets them see how pitiful his arguments are, how baseless his assertions are, how hollow his words are, and that gets people off of the fence faster than a long dissertation breaking down the synoptic gospels for the anonymous works of pseudepigrapha that they are.

However, if from square one, we had used the Boghossian approach, perhaps he may have had a chance to actually learn that it is all a fabricated lie, and started his journey to truth...alas, you can't pour water over a rock and hope it becomes a sponge. Smartass

When the trolls come kicking in the door declaring we are idiots, they aren't exactly wanting to enter philosophical dialogue and exchange ideas and perspectives, they think they have the truth, and we are clueless, and they are here to point this out to us. All the laying out of facts and evidence to the contrary is meaningless...blind faith has a strangle hold on them and nothing we say or do will change that....but again *points to lurkers* it isn't the troll I am trying to impact. This one is about at the end of his usefulness though, since it is apparent he doesn't want to enter debate, doesn't want to learn or exchange ideas, he is simply here to flaunt his epic level of self important, misinformed, uneducated, hubris ignorance. The beating of the dead horse is starting to get repetitive. Tongue


"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
02-03-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
The proof is simple... Thomas Aquinas, one of the "smartest people in the catholic church" established the 5 "proofs" for a god... Unfortunately for Thomas Iguanas, it is these 5 proofs which disprove religion... And I quote...

This post is for triskelion, for your consideration: from


Aquinas' Five Proofs

What real evidence can be supplied for God's existence? St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, sets forth five separate proofs for the existence of God, Unlike St. Anselm's proof, which deals with pure concepts, St. Thomas' proofs rely on the world of our experience-what we can see around us. In these proofs we can easily see the influence of Aristotle and his doctrine of the Four Causes.

l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.

3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.

4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.

5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God.

The proof of motion summed up: nothing can move itself. Things in motion were once moved by something else moving which was once moved by something else moving, etc. Then, finally, we get to "God." First of all, this is just as good a proof for the flying spaghetti monster, or a magical unicorn which fired a lazer that caused the big bang to "set things in motion. The whole thing is valid with newtonian laws, "Objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, etc." But then we get to the diety. How did god move himself? How did he just come into existence? He didn't. He doesn't.

Proof 2: The proof of causes.
This proof states the same thing, except that rather than motion being caused by other motion, events are caused by other events, and the first "causer" is god. Who caused god? He can't just cause himself to exist.

Proof 3: The proof of nothing coming from nothingness. Basically, according to this, once upon a time there was nothing. But now there's something. Why? God, according to theists. But nobody can prove that there was, at one point, nothing. Why would there be? Does nothing exist? I doubt it. It is impossible to conceive nothing. You think of a white space. Is that nothing? No, it's a white space.

Proof 4: The proof of perfection. This one is just straight up redonkulous. Basically it states that stuff is good and bad, so something has to be all good, and that's god. Why does something have to be all good? There's no reason. We only view things as good or bad because they were either helpful or detrimental to our early or even modern soceities. For example, we view kindness as a good thing because it helps with productivity and boosts dopamine, whereas we view murder as a bad thing because it reduces the working capacity and makes you feel grief.

The 5th proof: The proof of design. Things work, so god did that. For example a bird's wing allows it to fly because God made it so. No! Evolution did this! Over millions of years creatures developed the ability to fly and this trait allowed it's owner to survive, thereby allowing it to reproduce and pass on its genetic advantages.

5 SOLID REBUTTALS (haha butt) of the "proofs of god" by one of the greatest minds in the catholic church. Debate concluded. I win.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skiman224's post
02-03-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 09:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Except that I have, as I explained earlier. does not have to happen in real time for me to see that it happened.

It also does not have to happen at all, which, it doesn't

(01-03-2015 09:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Your ignorance of the information, does not stop me from knowing it nor is it an argument.

Laugh out load

(01-03-2015 09:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Actually terminology is very important. When two people are arguing and one person is using clearly recognized language with clear meaning and descriptive power and the other one is pulling random words out of a fucking story book and can't even define the words he is using then it's gonna be hard to come to any kinda cross roads because one is saddled with the need to make fucking sense and the other is free to make up what ever bullshit he needs to win an argument.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes...

Shorter, and shorter...you are almost faded to black Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 09:36 PM)pablo Wrote:  Why are you here then?

To engage with the opposition.

(01-03-2015 09:36 PM)pablo Wrote:  It appears nothing anyone here could say contrary to your beliefs will penetrate your thick skull.

And vice versa.

(01-03-2015 09:36 PM)pablo Wrote:  You stick with what you have and someone will give you a call as soon as possible.
Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

The key to eternal life begins and ends with Jesus Christ, Pablo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 09:57 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  You are still spouting casual and temporal like they are established words that mean something.

You are just spouting the same unmoved mover bull shit non sense that has been debunked by many people for many generations.

Less rhetoric, more substance.

(01-03-2015 09:57 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Prove it! Prove GOD is the only possible conclusion for something that can still exist, even though time and space does not exist. Then, I need you to prove that YOUR god is the only possible god that can exist outside of time and space. THEN you need to prove that god actually exists.

If you really want answers to these questions, hit up my inbox..and lets set up a real-time discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 06:02 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 10:09 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  I'm currently facing the age old dilemma of just watching the train wreck or jumping into the pile up myself.

Decisions, decisions.

Don't get caught in the cross fire....just sit back, watch, and learn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
It's past time to ban this ignoramus. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: