I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 11:48 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 10:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 10:17 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Yep he did that with GWOG's debate, he made a huge error in regards to Gamaliel in his response to GWOG and is engaging in childish taunts now. He has demonstrated nothing but how to be a jerk for Jesus.

Actually it was GWOG that screwed up the debate, not me. I don't expect anyone to acknowledge that fact, because after all, this is home-forum advantage for him, and to the home crowd, the home team can do no wrong.

As far as what I've demonstrated, I've demonstrated that the truth stands on its own two feet, and I've also demonstrated that, in our exchanges, you are simply not ready, little man.

I made a format mistake, and dropped too big a load of facts on your tiny head. Home turf advantage is meaningless here, the members have many times, and will gleefully roast a long term member who sticks their own foot in their mouth. They are quick to point out bad references, misinformation and fallacious logic...why? because it is about truth, and valid assertions.

" Just like you don't accept Christianity, I don't accept evolution."

The absolute ignorance of this statement is astounding. we don't accept a disproven fairy tale, so you don't accept scientific fact backed up by evidence? perhaps you should take a class in evolution. Education is empowering, that way when you open your mouth, you can make an educated assertion instead of exposing to the world the level of your ignorance that you seem to be so proud of.

Apples and oranges. One a philosophical belief in something without evidence based on a made up transcendental worldview and a fictional book, the other based on literally millions of pieces of evidence, the ability to observe evolution at work right now, and the ability to test and falsify the theories of evolution. You know what christianity is missing? EVIDENCE.

"I don't reject evolution because I don't understand it, I reject it because I DO understand it. I understand that you believe that reptiles evolved into birds...despite the fact that you've NEVER seen any such changes in your life"

Another astoundingly ignorant assertion. No...no....I hate to burst your bubble, but you clearly don't understand it. Stop gaining your knowledge from wwwdebunkevolution.com or answersingenesis.com BS misinformation type sites. Take the class, study the evidence, use your fucking brain...it isnt voodoo, it is fact. Christianity is voodoo.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do, When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Since you don't like to read and learn, and prefer pictures, here is a link I suggest you click.

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reas...oftheEarth

"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
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
16-02-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 10:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 10:17 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Yep he did that with GWOG's debate, he made a huge error in regards to Gamaliel in his response to GWOG and is engaging in childish taunts now. He has demonstrated nothing but how to be a jerk for Jesus.

Actually it was GWOG that screwed up the debate, not me. I don't expect anyone to acknowledge that fact, because after all, this is home-forum advantage for him, and to the home crowd, the home team can do no wrong.

As far as what I've demonstrated, I've demonstrated that the truth stands on its own two feet, and I've also demonstrated that, in our exchanges, you are simply not ready, little man.

Is your intent to simply demonstrate how awful Christian beliefs can make one behave? Well done, also with your Gamaliel faux pas, you have demonstrated that you are incapable of demonstrating your assertion about Jesus' existence.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 09:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 07:57 PM)Dahlia Wrote:  I'm working on a degree in cell biology, and let me tell ya - the more I study, the less evidence I see for design. Especially in the area of genetics.

Oh yeah, well please tell me where did the information contained in the DNA...where did the information come from??

I recommend doing a simple Google search for "origin of genetic material." You will find brief summaries as well as academic articles.

(15-02-2015 10:27 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 09:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Oh yeah, well please tell me where did the information contained in the DNA...where did the information come from??

Your mom!





Literally.

Big Grin

@Dahlia,
I see plenty of evidence for design... design through natural evolutionary processes.

Just no evidence for a designer.


Correct. I should have clarified what I meant by design.

And I see what you did there. Thumbsup hahaha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dahlia's post
16-02-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 10:08 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 07:50 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  My inability to understand and comprehend statistical data, as you say, my friend, is still decent enough to help me discern between the "coin tossing" and the "coin tosser" which apparently you don't.

If you want to learn how to tell them apart, I wrote something especially for you. It took me some time to do it (a few hours), but it's okay; I enjoy writing. You may choose to ignore it altogether, but in that case don't reply to my message. I don't want to hear your opinion about the ideas that you already have in your head. I want to hear your opinion about ideas that are presented to you from another head, like mine.

PS. I took the time to listen to the radio show you suggested (with the two "Lauras" from England) and to read the presentation about the chances one has to win the lottery, so I'm not that ignorant. The thing about the 7 tails in a row in that class experiment was something that I actually did a few years ago myself, without knowing about that radio show, of course. I wanted to see how many attempts I needed to get 10 heads or tails in a row and I did exactly what those guys did. I took a coin, flipped it and wrote down the outcome. It took me a little more than an hour to get ten (heads) in a row. So I'm not a stranger to statistics, as you stated. The paper I wrote is just about that, and more. Enjoy!

Cool. Because you listened to the podcast I returned the favor by reading your paper and I did enjoy it. Glad to see you have a firm grasp of mathematical probability.

Where you jump off the rails is the analogy of the dealer. Yes, I know, you equate the dealer to God, no surprise there.

One of the great misunderstandings regarding evolution is that people think that “it" has an outcome in mind. This is very different to your analogy, that of a Vegas card dealer dealing out tropical fruits instead of playing cards because the game itself is scripted and has predetermined constraints.

The Natural Poker table (to continue your analogy) isn’t bound to deal only playing cards. It isn’t playing a game of Poker with prescribed outcomes already accounted for with known quantities. The Natural rules, if you will, allow for mutations and changes in the population, something that could never happen in a Poker game. Poker hands are not procreating and are not subjected to environmental pressures. (This is similar to my discussion regarding the Blind Watchmaker and humping Ford F-150s with CotW).

While the odds of a Poker hand can be calculated because we know we have 52 cards and X number of players, the odds of evolution producing a Great Hammerhead shark for instance, cannot be calculated. We know it can happen because they exist, it could be said only after the fact, that the probabilty of Great Hammerhead sharks existing are 100%.

I hope that clarifies my position.

PS I’m happy to take whatever tone in this discussion you want, from civil to agonistic. Take your pick.

Hey, Thanks for returning the favor by reading my paper. I'm glad you enjoyed it. As, for the tone of our discussion, I am a convinced pacifist, so a civil tone would suit me much better. I don't really like to argue with people, unless absolutely necessary. And I don't think we have a reason to do it now. Maybe later. Big Grin

You might wonder what I am doing on this forum since I, apparently, believe in something different from the other people here. Why not go to a forum from the the other "camp," so to speak? The answer to that is that I hate religion as a concept, so I'd rather tie my nuts to the horn of a rhino charging towards a brick wall than join a "church." Any church. However, I am 100% convinced there is a God, which might sound nonsensical after saying what I said about my nuts.

Anyway, ignoring my "messed-up relationship with God," this God No-god debate that is going on in the world intrigues me. I've watched a lot of debates on this topic because I want to know what causes people to believe there is no God. So that's why I'm here.

It doesn't matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Job_1207's post
16-02-2015, 11:35 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 11:47 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:29 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  You might wonder what I am doing on this forum since I, apparently, believe in something different from the other people here. Why not go to a forum from the the other "camp," so to speak? The answer to that is that I hate religion as a concept, so I'd rather tie my nuts to the horn of a rhino charging towards a brick wall than join a "church." Any church. However, I am 100% convinced there is a God, which might sound nonsensical after saying what I said about my nuts.

No nuttier than Jesus is a GirlyMan or
[Image: gwynnies.jpg]
But not as nutty as CallMeWild.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-02-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:29 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 10:08 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Cool. Because you listened to the podcast I returned the favor by reading your paper and I did enjoy it. Glad to see you have a firm grasp of mathematical probability.

Where you jump off the rails is the analogy of the dealer. Yes, I know, you equate the dealer to God, no surprise there.

One of the great misunderstandings regarding evolution is that people think that “it" has an outcome in mind. This is very different to your analogy, that of a Vegas card dealer dealing out tropical fruits instead of playing cards because the game itself is scripted and has predetermined constraints.

The Natural Poker table (to continue your analogy) isn’t bound to deal only playing cards. It isn’t playing a game of Poker with prescribed outcomes already accounted for with known quantities. The Natural rules, if you will, allow for mutations and changes in the population, something that could never happen in a Poker game. Poker hands are not procreating and are not subjected to environmental pressures. (This is similar to my discussion regarding the Blind Watchmaker and humping Ford F-150s with CotW).

While the odds of a Poker hand can be calculated because we know we have 52 cards and X number of players, the odds of evolution producing a Great Hammerhead shark for instance, cannot be calculated. We know it can happen because they exist, it could be said only after the fact, that the probabilty of Great Hammerhead sharks existing are 100%.

I hope that clarifies my position.

PS I’m happy to take whatever tone in this discussion you want, from civil to agonistic. Take your pick.

Hey, Thanks for returning the favor by reading my paper. I'm glad you enjoyed it. As, for the tone of our discussion, I am a convinced pacifist, so a civil tone would suit me much better. I don't really like to argue with people, unless absolutely necessary. And I don't think we have a reason to do it now. Maybe later. Big Grin

You might wonder what I am doing on this forum since I, apparently, believe in something different from the other people here. Why not go to a forum from the the other "camp," so to speak? The answer to that is that I hate religion as a concept, so I'd rather tie my nuts to the horn of a rhino charging towards a brick wall than join a "church." Any church. However, I am 100% convinced there is a God, which might sound nonsensical after saying what I said about my nuts.

Anyway, ignoring my "messed-up relationship with God," this God No-god debate that is going on in the world intrigues me. I've watched a lot of debates on this topic because I want to know what causes people to believe there is no God. So that's why I'm here.


If you would like to debate me 1:1 we could go into the Boxing Ring thread. Even if you don't you might want to create a new thread away from this one as right now this is CotW's McDonald's thread. You don't want any part of this. Thumbsup

“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
16-02-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:29 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 10:08 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Cool. Because you listened to the podcast I returned the favor by reading your paper and I did enjoy it. Glad to see you have a firm grasp of mathematical probability.

Where you jump off the rails is the analogy of the dealer. Yes, I know, you equate the dealer to God, no surprise there.

One of the great misunderstandings regarding evolution is that people think that “it" has an outcome in mind. This is very different to your analogy, that of a Vegas card dealer dealing out tropical fruits instead of playing cards because the game itself is scripted and has predetermined constraints.

The Natural Poker table (to continue your analogy) isn’t bound to deal only playing cards. It isn’t playing a game of Poker with prescribed outcomes already accounted for with known quantities. The Natural rules, if you will, allow for mutations and changes in the population, something that could never happen in a Poker game. Poker hands are not procreating and are not subjected to environmental pressures. (This is similar to my discussion regarding the Blind Watchmaker and humping Ford F-150s with CotW).

While the odds of a Poker hand can be calculated because we know we have 52 cards and X number of players, the odds of evolution producing a Great Hammerhead shark for instance, cannot be calculated. We know it can happen because they exist, it could be said only after the fact, that the probabilty of Great Hammerhead sharks existing are 100%.

I hope that clarifies my position.

PS I’m happy to take whatever tone in this discussion you want, from civil to agonistic. Take your pick.

Hey, Thanks for returning the favor by reading my paper. I'm glad you enjoyed it. As, for the tone of our discussion, I am a convinced pacifist, so a civil tone would suit me much better. I don't really like to argue with people, unless absolutely necessary. And I don't think we have a reason to do it now. Maybe later. Big Grin

You might wonder what I am doing on this forum since I, apparently, believe in something different from the other people here. Why not go to a forum from the the other "camp," so to speak? The answer to that is that I hate religion as a concept, so I'd rather tie my nuts to the horn of a rhino charging towards a brick wall than join a "church." Any church. However, I am 100% convinced there is a God, which might sound nonsensical after saying what I said about my nuts.

Anyway, ignoring my "messed-up relationship with God," this God No-god debate that is going on in the world intrigues me. I've watched a lot of debates on this topic because I want to know what causes people to believe there is no God. So that's why I'm here.

I haven't been following this conversation, so excuse my intrusion....but I find your post intriguing....but not strange really. I understand believing in something bigger than you, while not subscribing to the delusion of religion=church. That may put you into a more intelligent philosophical category then a true blue biblical based believer. The question I have is why do you have faith?

I have found that faith IS the delusion, belief without evidence. Faith is pretending to know things that you dont know. To say "I have faith in god" really means "I pretend to know things I don't know about god"....THINK about it, you dont know, you HOPE. Faith is an epistemology. It's a method and process people use to understand reality. Faith-based claims are knowledge claims. For example, "I have faith that jesus christ will heal my sickness because it says so in Luke" is a knowledge claim. The utterer of this statement is asserting jesus will heal her. Those who make faith claims are professing to know something about the external world. For example, when someone says "jesus walked on water" (matthew 14:22-33), that person is claiming TO KNOW there was an historical figure names jesus and that he, unaided by technology, literally walked across the surface of the water. This is a knowledge claim...an objective statement of fact.

Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or lived. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient greece, medieval japan or 21st century saudia arabia do not lead to belief in christianity. It seems, therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning.

Faith is a failed epistemology. Showing why faith fails has been done before and done well. (Bering 2011, Harris 2004, Loftus 2010, 2013, McCormick 2012, Schick & Vaughn 2008, Shermer 1997, 2011, Smith 1979, STenger & Barker 2012, Torres 2012, Wade 2009 etc)

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This can not point one to the path of truth. Here are five points believers/non believers should be able to agree upon.

1) There are different faith traditions.
2) Different faith traditions make different truth claims.
3) The truth claims of some faith traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions. For example, Muslims believe muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after muhammad was a prophet.
4) It cannot both be the case that muhammad was the last prophet, and someone who lived after him was also a prophet.
5) Therefore: At LEAST one of these claims must be false....perhaps both....

it is impossible to figure out which of these claims is incorrect if the tool one uses is faith. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way.....yet.

When I ask people why do they have faith, I commonly get "why take away faith if it helps people get through the day"...I've never really understood how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someone's reasoning would significantly increase their chances of getting through their day.

With reliable forms of reasoning comes the capability of crafting conditions that enable people to navigate life's obstacles. By using a more reliable form of reasoning, people are more capable of bringing about conditions that enable them to flourish.

To argue that people need faith is to abandon hope, and to condescend and accuse the faithful of being incapable of understanding the importance of reason and rationality. There are better and worse ways to come to terms with death, to find strength during times of personal crisis, to make meaning and purpose in our lives, to interpret our sense of awe and wonder, and to contribute to human well-being...and the faithful are completely capable of understanding and achieving this..if they would only try.

Your thoughts?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
16-02-2015, 11:45 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:37 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 11:29 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  Anyway, ignoring my "messed-up relationship with God," this God No-god debate that is going on in the world intrigues me. I've watched a lot of debates on this topic because I want to know what causes people to believe there is no God. So that's why I'm here.

If you would like to debate me 1:1 we could go into the Boxing Ring thread. Even if you don't you might want to create a new thread away from this one as right now this is CotW's McDonald's thread. You don't want any part of this. Thumbsup

I agree it should be split but I don't think it should be split into the Boxing Ring. It has the potential to be an interesting dialog. Meanwhile ...

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 11:45 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
[Image: jesus-mcdonald.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-02-2015, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 11:58 AM by Job_1207.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:37 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 11:29 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  Hey, Thanks for returning the favor by reading my paper. I'm glad you enjoyed it. As, for the tone of our discussion, I am a convinced pacifist, so a civil tone would suit me much better. I don't really like to argue with people, unless absolutely necessary. And I don't think we have a reason to do it now. Maybe later. Big Grin

You might wonder what I am doing on this forum since I, apparently, believe in something different from the other people here. Why not go to a forum from the the other "camp," so to speak? The answer to that is that I hate religion as a concept, so I'd rather tie my nuts to the horn of a rhino charging towards a brick wall than join a "church." Any church. However, I am 100% convinced there is a God, which might sound nonsensical after saying what I said about my nuts.

Anyway, ignoring my "messed-up relationship with God," this God No-god debate that is going on in the world intrigues me. I've watched a lot of debates on this topic because I want to know what causes people to believe there is no God. So that's why I'm here.


If you would like to debate me 1:1 we could go into the Boxing Ring thread. Even if you don't you might want to create a new thread away from this one as right now this is CotW's McDonald's thread. You don't want any part of this. Thumbsup

Okay, I can do that. I've already created two threads that went cold after a few days. I don't know how things work with those threads if they get deleted or what. It seems kind of abusive to created a thread just for talking to one person, but I have nothing against it. I just hope they don't kick me out of here for wasting too much "space" by creating a third thread.

On second thought, why don't you find the first thread I created (What's gonna happen when I cash in my chips?) and we can continue out debate there.

It doesn't matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: