I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 11:55 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:48 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  I just hope they don't kick me out of here for wasting too much "space" by creating a third thread.

The fact that you are concerned about this in this thread in particular is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. Big Grin

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem. - Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-02-2015, 11:56 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Third time is a charm, or so they say....

(15-02-2015 08:52 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...Posted a reply....


Is this a 'Yes'? A 'No'? or a 'Maybe'?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
16-02-2015, 11:59 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:35 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No nuttier than Jesus is a GirlyMan or

I love my Gwynnies! Heart

(16-02-2015 11:35 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  But not as nutty as CallMeWild.

[Image: 4135EkTxt1L.jpg]

Ain't as nutty as CotW. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
16-02-2015, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2015 12:16 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:48 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  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.

Reads like an orthogonal topic to me.

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem. - Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 06:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, evolution is mindless and blind - it's just not random.

Thanks, I will update my understanding of that accordingly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 01:25 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What "complex interconnections of the brain"? What the hell kind of answer is that...that isn't telling me anything.

I've personally answered this question about....4 times now if not more. It is an emergent property of a sufficiently evolved and healthy brain. You're more then welcome to look up what an "emergent property" is if you are failing to grasp the concept.
You question of "where did it come from?" is, besides being pedestrian and betraying your lack of knowledge on the workings of the human brain, also ill formed and nonsensical. You might as well be asking where digestion comes from or where enzymatic function comes from.
They are all emergent properties.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You can't answer one question by appealing to another one.
He's not you colossal fucking moron. He is not answering your question by appealing to another question, he's explaining it in very simple terms, so you would hopefully understand, by drawing a parallel from one example of an emergent property to another. Which is not only entirely valid, it's also correct.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am asking specifically about consciousness..there are plenty dead bodies in the morgue that has brains, but no consciousness...so what is the origin of consciousness?

If you shape and mold brain matter into a brain, you will have a brain, but where would you get the consciousness?
No. No. Just.... No no no no no no no, you are NOT that fucking stupid. You can not be that fucking stupid, it's just not physically possible. Just....how? Seriously!?Shocking
Why not ask what the origin of sight is because the morgue is full of dead bodies full of eyes that can't see anything any more. Or how about the origin of smell due to all the dead noses that can no longer smell?


(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, what the hell are you talking about? Isn't that what happened? What did I say that is factually incorrect??? You can't tell me what is factually incorrect about what I said, can you? The fact of the matter is, we get all of our bodily functions from a MINDLESS and BLIND process
Here are some problems:
1.) You are starting out with the preconceived notion that it is "common sense" that intelligence arises only from intelligence. That only a thinking deliberate causal agent could create other thinking deliberate causal agents. This is an unsubstantiated mixture of assertion and conjecture and it clouds your ability to ration objectively.
2.) You are taking a complex scientific theory and simplifying it down to the point of absurdity where it is not an accurate summation of the complexities of the theory, trying to cover the whole width and breadth of the theory in to a single sentence, and then attacking your sentence on the basis of violating "common sense" which is not an argument, nor a point worth making.
You are actively engaged in strawmaning a dishonest and disingenuous over simplification of a complex theory.

That would be like if I took this picture :
[Image: Christianity2.jpg]
or this picture:
[Image: 526580_10151947401405155_236275396_n.jpg]
and argued from that over simplification as if it was an accurate representation of the entirety of your belief. I'm not a dishonest cunt though so I don't. Which is one place where we differ, you dishonest cunt.

3.) You talk as if evolution states that nature gave us a brain or a kidney fully goddamn formed as it exists today. It does not say that, it says (in very simplified terms) that over great periods of time the small incremental changes in our biology will add up to very large changes and that, given enough time, we will go through enough incremental changes that we will no longer resemble those we descended from, yet we still draw our origins from them. This is exactly what the field of Genetics has PROVEN.

It's about a continual process of small incremental changes adding up, over long periods of time, to such a large and complex changes. It's NOT an asshole with a blind fold on trying to build a predetermined structure like a car.

This is remedial Biology and it should not have to be explained to you.

4.) Explain why, beyond "cause it can't durrrr", a slow moving gradual process of small incremental changes over millions of years can not add up to large and pronounced changes to the point that the decedents could possibly bare little to no resemblance to those they descended from.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The problem is, when I made that statement, I took away all of the fluff and feathers that you are used to...you know, the technical babble.
He does not use complex technical terms in his opening explanation of the origin of consciousness and you deride his answer as "not telling you anything", he does use technical terminology and you describe it as "fluff and feathers".
I cordially invite you to fuck your own face you intellectually dishonest cunt. Drinking Beverage

Evolutionary Biology is not a fucking lemonade recipe. The terminology and the technical aspects are vitally important to explaining such a complex theory and it's dozens of supporting fields of study each with their own complexities and technical aspects. The hand waving away of the technical aspects of the theory is EXACTLY WHY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
You're engaged in a reductio ad absurdum strawmaning of evolution, not in an actually attack on the actual theory of evolution.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Once you take away all of the fluff and feathers, the technical babble that is used to describe something that happened only in your head...you are stuck with EXACTLY what I said...a mindless and blind process that gave you vision and a brain.

Evolution did not "give us a brain" it "gave us", to use your pedestrian wordage, small incremental changes over millions of years which has lead to the brain we currently have. I'm sure you will fail to recognize a meaningful difference, but its fundamental to understanding the process of evolution.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, oh wise one....break it down to me so that I understand it...so that I can disagree with it right after. It isn't about understanding, it is about ACCEPTING.
The swan song of the self deluded and deliberately ignorant.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am not accusing you of misunderstanding Christianity just because you don't accept it.
That's because you can't. He has demonstrated a clear, and frankly better informed then you, understanding of Christianity and you have displayed a lack of understanding of evolution on a fundamental and basic level.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Whenever someone questions or disagrees with evolution, they always get accused of being ignorant of the theory...as if the theory is so damn hard to understand that only scientists and atheists can understand it.
Apparently it is, because you continue to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory and it's complexities.

Tell me: Why is it that nearly all scientists of relevant fields, and scientists in general, hold evolution to be accurate?
Why is it that all studies on the theory of evolution give the same consistently favorable results?
Why is it that in all countries that score high in science literacy have they extremely high percentages of Pro-Evolution populations?
Tell me why the only sections of the worlds population that reject the theory of evolution are those with poor science education standards and high degrees of religiosity?
Why is it that the only population that consistently rejects evolution is the group least qualified to judge the theory?

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Bullshit. I don't reject evolution because I don't understand it, I reject it because I DO understand it.
This is a demonstrable lie. You have shown multiple times now you don't understand it at even a beginner level.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I understand that you believe that reptiles evolved into birds...despite the fact that you've NEVER seen any such changes in your life..nor has anyone else, but you believe that it happened Laughat
If you think a good attack on evolution is that it does not do things it does not claim to do you are a blithering idiot. Evolution does not claim that a lizard can turn into a bird in front of your eyes over a single lifetime, so the fact we don't see that happen is not a mark against evolution, it's just a mark against your false strawman of an argument. This is a utter and complete misrepresentation of the theory and how it works.

The fact that we can't see massive changes in real time before our vary eyes does not mean that the change from reptile to bird left no evidence. Paleontology, Microbiology, Taxonomy, Genetics, and many other fields all show, as a matter of FACT, this did happen. It's not open to debate, it's been settled and definitively so.....for years now.
Your ignorance of the subject matter is not a valid rebuttal.

(16-02-2015 10:31 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Sounds like religion Laugh out load
First off no it does not, and your gutless baseless assertion that it does is worthless. More importantly though ..is you are making fun of yourself. If you consider Evolution to be a con, an absurdity and lacking in common sense...and that it sounds like religion to you...you are tacitly saying that your religion is a con, an absurdity, and lacking in common sense. The sword cuts both ways you fool.

(16-02-2015 10:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.
He made an error in formatting which made his response difficult to respond to effectively. An error that I acknowledge freely, that he has acknowledged freely, and that has been fixed for close to two full fucking days now leaving you absolutely no excuse for not dragging your uneducated and cowardly ass back to the debate to address his refutations of your boorish amateur assertions and fabrications.
So get your stupid delusional ass back to the debate you accepted, answer his criticisms, and shove your fabricated persecution complex up your fucking ass.

Kneel mortal before Whiskey I, Lord of Dalmore, Duke of Jameson, Defender of the Sloshed, and God-Emperor of Holy Terra.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
16-02-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 11:39 AM)goodwithoutgod 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.

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?

I like the way you put things. You seem to be an educated, decent human being. And I agree with everything you say in your post, except that is doesn't apply to me personally. I'll explain in a minute why.

The reasons you pointed out for why someone would have faith in a "God" are all true. Also the reasons you put forth for why the same someone should try to live with the "truth" and accept it as what it is (rather than lie to themselves that there is a God, just because it makes them feel better) are spot on.
However, and there had to be a however, things are not always what we want them to be.

And now the explanation I promised about my personal conviction. I can say about myself that I am convinced there is a God, but I don't have "faith" in him. The reason for my conviction is the accumulated personal experience and knowledge that I have gathered so far in my life (I'm 43, by the way, if that's important). I'm not part of a church, never have been, although by birth I think I'm supposed to be a Christian. My parents are not really believers, as far as I can tell. They do celebrate Easter and Christmas but so does everybody else. So religious indoctrination is not the reason I believe there is a God, as is the case with many people today, unfortunately. I think I am smart enough to think for myself and draw my own conclusions.

Now comes the weird part. Apparently I should have all the reasons in the world to accept the "truth" and join the good side, or at least the side where people think outside the box and not just follow commandments blindly. But in order to do that I would have to convince myself that what I believe is not true. Now, believing something and forcing yourself to believe something you want (just because it's more convenient) are two completely different things. I don't have faith in God, which means I don't really expect to be rewarded for my "faith" in him, so the reward argument is out in my case. But, then, if the reward (either short term or long term) is out of the question, what would be left to keep me on this side of the barricades? Nothing! Absolutely nothing. I should be on your side dancing on tables and brandishing my underwear above my head, relieved that I'm not going to spend eternity in a pit of fire as punishment for my alleged sins after all. I bet a lot of people "believe" in God exactly for that reason, because they are afraid. I'm not. As far as I'm concerned God is a combination of a bully and a coward. He can kick your ass anytime he wants, but he doesn't have the guts to talk to you face to face and explain to you why you had to be part of his... whatever he calls it.

So, I don't believe in God because I expect something from him, I don't believe in him because I'm afraid of him, then why the hell do I believe he is out there? Because I have no choice! I have been shown a glimpse of him once, and I can't pretend it never happened. Either accept that or start lying to myself.

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
16-02-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
The trolls are out in force today. Facepalm

I've recently grown rudimentary legs and am making the move from water to land.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(16-02-2015 01:29 PM)pablo Wrote:  The trolls are out in force today. Facepalm

It doesn't matter if a single troll or a team of trolls are out in force. They will be destroyed by our members.Tongue

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
16-02-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(14-02-2015 08:59 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Not only did I watch it, but I responded to it. The context of the video did not demonstrate/explain how life could have originated from nonlife...so YOU are the one that didn't watch it.

Really. Rolleyes This post by Bucky Ball contains the link to the video series that I was referring to that he had posted. If you only watched "the video", then you didn't watch the series... Furthermore, I see no response from you about this except for your post here. And, if that's what you're calling "responded to it", it's nothing short of pathetic. Laugh out load

In addition to what Bucky Ball posted, try looking up John Sutherland. He has done some interesting work too.

Fox News: Praying Preying on ignorance since 1996.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: