I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 02:30 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Um... forgive me if I'm wrong....but I thought 'Evidence' was NOT subjective....Hence, the reason it is called 'Evidence'.

Or have I missed something?

Much cheers to all.

One person may require different types of evidence than others...and different amounts of evidence than others.

At work.

I note you've dropped the term 'subjective' and are now pointing out the 'amount' of evidence.

Or have I misunderstood your reply?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 02:30 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Um... forgive me if I'm wrong....but I thought 'Evidence' was NOT subjective....Hence, the reason it is called 'Evidence'.

Or have I missed something?

Much cheers to all.

One person may require different types of evidence than others...and different amounts of evidence than others.


No shit? Apparently the bar you set for evidence is preposterously low.

[Image: HowLowCanYouGo.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
10-02-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Horse shit to you because you can't (and won't) understand the explanations given to you and dismiss if off hand because you like your creationist ideas better. For example, it was earlier explained how "inanimate" matter coming to life is meaningless because matter is not defined as living or not.

I hate when people tell me what was "explained" to me as if the person that they just HAPPENS to share similar thoughts with answers has more virtue than mines Laugh out load

Laughable. It is just a foolish objection. Same example I used earlier...murder someone and tell the jury "I did not murder the man, because the man was never living" Laugh out load

See how much that foolish response will help you.

(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  You clearly haven't responded or seen it as shown by you repeating your tired argument from incredulity again.

So let me just flat out ask you sense you have the nerve to cosign that ridiculous notion that "matter is not living"...

Are you alive right now? Yes or no?

(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  By the way, you do know the 'universes coming from nothing' ridicule is actually attacking your creationist idea that gawd created something from nothing?

I can conceive of God creating from nothing just like I can conceive a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat...what I can't conceive is natural law being used to explain how a universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. The reason is because absurdities cannot be conceived.

(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And that the Big Bang theory doesn't state it came from 'nothing', it only explains the process of which our universe expanded from something highly compressed.

So where did this highly compressed reality come from?

(09-02-2015 02:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Oh so he PROMISES to send you to the hell that he created for an eternity if you don't obey him! What a loving god you have! Rolleyes

You don't follow man's law, you go to prison...you don't follow God's law, you go to hell. Same shit..one is just less desirable than the other....but the concept is the same Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:44 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Actually, my argument is based on how I can demonstrably prove that the universe began to exist, and the impossibility of its beginning being the product of natural law.

No, you have made assertions on subjects that you are not qualified to dismiss.

Quote:So it isn't based on what I don't know, it is based on what I DO know...

not know, assume

Quote:and so far, you haven't been able to say anything of substance that can prove otherwise.

and you still fail to grasp that I am not claiming anything about how the universe came into existence and am not trying to prove anything. I am simply saying that there is no evidence that actually demonstrates that god is a reasonable hypotheses, let alone conclusive. Your statement that you don't think natural explanations work is worthless because you don't have the background or credentials to evaluate those explanations. Your claim that it must be god because "from god" and "from nothing" are the only two options is worthless because your lack of imagination isn't proof of anything.

You were amusing for a while. Now you are just tiresome.

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
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
10-02-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
@Call of the Wild.

You asked for debate yet all we're getting is discussion. Poor quality discussion at that, because all you seem to be doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof.

There is a place for debate The Boxing Ring.

Pick your opponent and agree the rules.

Put your money where your mouth is?

How 'bout it?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
10-02-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:57 AM)DLJ Wrote:  @Call of the Wild.

You asked for debate yet all we're getting is discussion. Poor quality discussion at that, because all you seem to be doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof.

There is a place for debate The Boxing Ring.

Pick your opponent and agree the rules.

Put your money where your mouth is?

How 'bout it?


But DLJ!

That severely limits his ability to back-pedal, make blind assertions, and obfuscate! Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-02-2015, 11:21 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 11:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 10:57 AM)DLJ Wrote:  @Call of the Wild.

You asked for debate yet all we're getting is discussion. Poor quality discussion at that, because all you seem to be doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof.

There is a place for debate The Boxing Ring.

Pick your opponent and agree the rules.

Put your money where your mouth is?

How 'bout it?


But DLJ!

That severely limits his ability to back-pedal, make blind assertions, and obfuscate! Rolleyes

I've seen boxers do the physical equivalent of that.

They hope their avoidances will eventually tire out their opponent.

I see that happening here... peeps will sooner or later realize they aren't making progress, get bored and give up trying.

The OP will then declare a victory and the crowd boo and hiss and ask for their money back.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
10-02-2015, 02:13 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 08:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 08:59 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Couple crumbs of knowledge for your consideration...

There exists not one scrap of evidence that a historical jesus ever existed...not one.

Not one person who EVER wrote of jesus, knew him. All based on stories passed down, and you know how people love to tell stories. Rolleyes

Not one person alive at the time of the mythical jesus witnessed the magical events..odd don't you think? if they had, someone would have written it down..lets take a peek at two of them..

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

wow Unsure interesting...zombie invasion into the holy city and not one literate human being at the time thought this was noteworthy?

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 min max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two renowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Consider

resurrection huh? Well lets enter a teaching moment...the anonymous authors of Mark wrote the first version of the fairy tale, then the anonymous authors of matthew and luke based their fairy tale on mark....speaking of mark...

Mark is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

Noticing this problem, a Xtian scribe decided to add verses 9-20.

John 20:30-31 - "but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye might have life through his name".......just about says it all right there, let me paraphrase; "we are making up these stories to help people believe...the story."

This sounds like a red flag that what we are reading should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Kinda reminds me of the book life of constantine, ""make them to astonish" in reference to some of the shenanigans his influence on christianity had.

Matthew is riddled with whimsical creative writings as well. I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's line the Royal after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line. But the really funny thing is, apparently they were not familiar with how the story goes....Joseph wasnt the father, god was. Flex

I could go on forever, but suffice it to say the Gospels are anything but relevant or factual.

Well, off to bed, enough schooling for the night. Let me know when you want your public spanking.

So basically in the above post, you've done nothing but regurgitate the same crap you used in the other thread....the same regurgitated crap that I already responded to, btw.

Tell ya what...start a new thread and post my response to your post in the OP..and we can just take it from there.

If not, then you obviously "ain't about that life".

oooh I don't see the response. Tell you what, challenge me to a debate in the boxing ring and we can enter a serious, civil, intellectual debate, think real hard before you do, having ones worldview eviscerated is a humbling experience, one I have happily given to many creationists in the past, and offer free of charge to you...come on, don't be scared, the worse thing can happen is you will learn something. Now, unlike some, I am a tad busy between being a full time college student finishing my third degree, a full time active duty military officer, and a married man with 4 kids and all the fun that goes along with that, so if I dont respond within an hour, don't get upset, the free lessons in your failed epistemological method of viewing the real world will come with time. Trust me.

click here, start thread, call of the wild challenges GWG to a debate. Come get some..

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...oxing-Ring

"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
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
10-02-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 02:13 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 08:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So basically in the above post, you've done nothing but regurgitate the same crap you used in the other thread....the same regurgitated crap that I already responded to, btw.

Tell ya what...start a new thread and post my response to your post in the OP..and we can just take it from there.

If not, then you obviously "ain't about that life".

oooh I don't see the response. Tell you what, challenge me to a debate in the boxing ring and we can enter a serious, civil, intellectual debate, think real hard before you do, having ones worldview eviscerated is a humbling experience, one I have happily given to many creationists in the past, and offer free of charge to you...come on, don't be scared, the worse thing can happen is you will learn something. Now, unlike some, I am a tad busy between being a full time college student finishing my third degree, a full time active duty military officer, and a married man with 4 kids and all the fun that goes along with that, so if I dont respond within an hour, don't get upset, the free lessons in your failed epistemological method of viewing the real world will come with time. Trust me.

click here, start thread, call of the wild challenges GWG to a debate. Come get some..

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...oxing-Ring

Aww shit, son. Better pick up that gauntlet.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 02:41 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 02:13 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  oooh I don't see the response. Tell you what, challenge me to a debate in the boxing ring and we can enter a serious, civil, intellectual debate, think real hard before you do, having ones worldview eviscerated is a humbling experience, one I have happily given to many creationists in the past, and offer free of charge to you...come on, don't be scared, the worse thing can happen is you will learn something. Now, unlike some, I am a tad busy between being a full time college student finishing my third degree, a full time active duty military officer, and a married man with 4 kids and all the fun that goes along with that, so if I dont respond within an hour, don't get upset, the free lessons in your failed epistemological method of viewing the real world will come with time. Trust me.

click here, start thread, call of the wild challenges GWG to a debate. Come get some..

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...oxing-Ring

Aww shit, son. Better pick up that gauntlet.

Big Grin

He is in for a surprise, hope his fiber count is high..

[Image: adf3np.jpg]

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: