I will debate any theist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(23-02-2015 11:26 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Here's the rules.

1. If you claim there is a "god" person - you bring them to the table.
Invisible buddies don't count. Unless you bring a being we can all see and touch - you're just bringing your delusions. I could claim to bring "The Great Pumpkin". But without visual verification - it's just a crap claim.

2. Any "evidence" you bring must withstand the evidence standards of a US court of law. Hearsay isn't permissible. Old books written by questionable authors go straight to the garbage bin.

3. The subject of debate shall be of nature that is in line with your religious belief - if you're looking for a debate about quantum mechanics, baking recipes, or the love life of a darter snail, I'm not interested.

Don't expect instant responses - I've got other stuff to do as well...

I am God.

According to all your above noted requirements, I have won.

That will be all.

Thank you.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(24-02-2015 11:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-02-2015 10:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  Present your evidence. Drinking Beverage

Evidence free of any particular interoperation? Sure.

The entirety of life, as subjectively observed and lived by me.

This is the final interpretation of God I held, so I understand what you're saying. But I disagree with your assumption that it means God.

God either exists or he does not. And the first task is to define what we mean by God. The second is to provide a reason to believe this. What is a God? What do you mean by this? We can't even get out the gate before this is established.

The second question is easier I suppose. Why do you think the universe is evidence of God? What would be substantially different of there was no God? All the physical laws are the same but there is no God. What is different?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(24-02-2015 11:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-02-2015 10:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  Present your evidence. Drinking Beverage

Evidence free of any particular interpretation? Sure.

The entirety of life, as subjectively observed and lived by me.

That's just about the most thoughtless, facile, lazy, shallow, ignorant answer imaginable. Well done. Thumbsup

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-02-2015, 10:06 AM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(24-02-2015 11:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-02-2015 11:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Evidence free of any particular interpretation? Sure.

The entirety of life, as subjectively observed and lived by me.

That's just about the most thoughtless, facile, lazy, shallow, ignorant answer imaginable. Well done. Thumbsup

I was hoping you would say, that the entirety of your own life, as subjectively observed and lived by you, leads you to a different conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(24-02-2015 11:35 AM)natachan Wrote:  God either exists or he does not. And the first task is to define what we mean by God. The second is to provide a reason to believe this. What is a God? What do you mean by this? We can't even get out the gate before this is established.

A God solely in comparison to disbelief, stripped of any additional attributes, fairly bare and to the bone, would just breakdown to a belief, that whatever forces that brought life together, possessed qualities such as foresight and intelligence, possessing creative capacities, or the qualities associated with being, rather than us merely being the product of a series of unguided, coincidental factors.

It's the difference between the belief that we are characters of some great story, being told as it goes along, a life believed to posses some significance and meaning, has a rhyme and reason, and a belief that life is all but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Religions are in essence a question of which story is a more faithful telling of the human predicament, while an authentic competitor, would be claim that there is no story at all.

God is merely that which brings the story together, the author, the condition of possibility for a story in the first place.

Quote:The second question is easier I suppose. Why do you think the universe is evidence of God? What would be substantially different of there was no God? All the physical laws are the same but there is no God. What is different?

Well, the laws of physics would likely appear the same. I don't think the world out there would likely be much different, it's the world in here that would look quite different, or at least need to be understood differently.

To paraphrase an old slave spiritual, I hear a tune, so there must be a God somewhere. If there were no tune, or if I was convinced that it was just a form of an auditory hallucination, than I can finally see a world absent of its harpist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 11:25 AM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(23-02-2015 11:26 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Here's the rules.

1. If you claim there is a "god" person - you bring them to the table.
Invisible buddies don't count. Unless you bring a being we can all see and touch - you're just bringing your delusions. I could claim to bring "The Great Pumpkin". But without visual verification - it's just a crap claim.

2. Any "evidence" you bring must withstand the evidence standards of a US court of law. Hearsay isn't permissible. Old books written by questionable authors go straight to the garbage bin.

3. The subject of debate shall be of nature that is in line with your religious belief - if you're looking for a debate about quantum mechanics, baking recipes, or the love life of a darter snail, I'm not interested.

Don't expect instant responses - I've got other stuff to do as well...

Eh... you're not exactly playing fair.

You're saying "I will debate anyone who believes in something that is based on faith; however, you're not allowed to use any faith-based claims as evidence or to bolster your claims. You must only use empirical evidence."

Now, there isn't anything wrong with debating via only empirical evidence, but there has to be an even battleground in order for a debate to even take place.

This debate is mostly impossible as the subject matter is incompatible. Faith based claims cannot combat something that requires hard empirical evidence and hard empirical evidence cannot combat faith based claims.

Outlawing either of them in the debate and then challenging your opponent under that ruleset is unfair as it is literally impossible for a legitimate argument to even be proposed for that side.

As I said, it is nearly impossible for this debate to take place with fair terms for both sides. The debaters have to find a medium between "Gawd did it" and "your fantasy voodoo don't prove crap".

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kingschosen's post
25-02-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 11:25 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  This debate is mostly impossible as the subject matter is incompatible. Faith based claims cannot combat something that requires hard empirical evidence and hard empirical evidence cannot combat faith based claims.

Shouldn't this tell you something KC...Blush

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 11:25 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 11:26 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Here's the rules.

1. If you claim there is a "god" person - you bring them to the table.
Invisible buddies don't count. Unless you bring a being we can all see and touch - you're just bringing your delusions. I could claim to bring "The Great Pumpkin". But without visual verification - it's just a crap claim.

2. Any "evidence" you bring must withstand the evidence standards of a US court of law. Hearsay isn't permissible. Old books written by questionable authors go straight to the garbage bin.

3. The subject of debate shall be of nature that is in line with your religious belief - if you're looking for a debate about quantum mechanics, baking recipes, or the love life of a darter snail, I'm not interested.

Don't expect instant responses - I've got other stuff to do as well...

Eh... you're not exactly playing fair.

You're saying "I will debate anyone who believes in something that is based on faith; however, you're not allowed to use any faith-based claims as evidence or to bolster your claims. You must only use empirical evidence."

Now, there isn't anything wrong with debating via only empirical evidence, but there has to be an even battleground in order for a debate to even take place.

This debate is mostly impossible as the subject matter is incompatible. Faith based claims cannot combat something that requires hard empirical evidence and hard empirical evidence cannot combat faith based claims.

Outlawing either of them in the debate and then challenging your opponent under that ruleset is unfair as it is literally impossible for a legitimate argument to even be proposed for that side.

As I said, it is nearly impossible for this debate to take place with fair terms for both sides. The debaters have to find a medium between "Gawd did it" and "your fantasy voodoo don't prove crap".

I'm being totally fair.

If somebody claims to know Bill Gates - I would only believe them, if they showed up with Bill Gates in tow... I'd even be more inclined to believe them, if they had a picture of themselves with Bill.

These "I'm buddies with the guy who created the universe" types want us to believe in their invisible buddy with NO evidence at all.


I'm calling their bluff.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
(25-02-2015 01:53 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 11:25 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Eh... you're not exactly playing fair.

You're saying "I will debate anyone who believes in something that is based on faith; however, you're not allowed to use any faith-based claims as evidence or to bolster your claims. You must only use empirical evidence."

Now, there isn't anything wrong with debating via only empirical evidence, but there has to be an even battleground in order for a debate to even take place.

This debate is mostly impossible as the subject matter is incompatible. Faith based claims cannot combat something that requires hard empirical evidence and hard empirical evidence cannot combat faith based claims.

Outlawing either of them in the debate and then challenging your opponent under that ruleset is unfair as it is literally impossible for a legitimate argument to even be proposed for that side.

As I said, it is nearly impossible for this debate to take place with fair terms for both sides. The debaters have to find a medium between "Gawd did it" and "your fantasy voodoo don't prove crap".

I'm being totally fair.

If somebody claims to know Bill Gates - I would only believe them, if they showed up with Bill Gates in tow... I'd even be more inclined to believe them, if they had a picture of themselves with Bill.

These "I'm buddies with the guy who created the universe" types want us to believe in their invisible buddy with NO evidence at all.


I'm calling their bluff.

...that is in no way the same thing. Knowing Bill Gates can be proved/disproved empirically; as such, so can the existence of Bill Gates.

With that analogy, you're asking someone to prove the physical with the physical.

With your challenge, you're asking someone to prove the metaphysical with the physical... a completely impossible request.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
25-02-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: I will debate any theist on here
And if the other can't give any rational reason to believe that the metaphysical exist or even explain what it is? Is it still unfair to expect this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: