Jack - I challenge you.
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2012, 09:37 PM
Jack - I challenge you.
Jack, since you have requested a way to get better at debates, I would like to challenge you to a healthy, friendly debate. I will put my fundy pants on and we will have a practice debate. I'd like it to be known I AM an atheist, but since Jack has requested ways to get better at debates, what better way than to debate. I will use arguments known to myself and potentially others in an attempt to stump you, debate you and we will see how it goes.

Rules:

- No ad hominem attacks
- If any usage of "information" or statistics are to be used, they must be cited
- No strawman arguments

After the debate is over, feedback may be offered once the debate is agreed to be over. No other posters until it is over.

If Jack accepts, he may post "I accept" in this thread and we can begin.
Find all posts by this user
03-11-2012, 10:12 PM
RE: Jack - I challenge you.
Haha, I like you people.

I accept your challenge
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Jack's post
03-11-2012, 10:40 PM
RE: Jack - I challenge you.
Very well. I will start with an opening statement.

My goal in this debate is to prove that the bible is the primary source of good and governing principles through the new testament of Jesus Christ who died for your sins and also that the age of the earth cannot be accurately known through the sources of geological dating. I think this also contradicts the timeline of evolution in many ways, which leaves me skeptical of such claims.

As much as I love science, unfortunately I have a hard time agreeing with some of it in many aspects, geological dating being my primary issue. Although I would say that I think god very likely used the big bang to create the universe. To me, this is further proof that the bible is only bolstered in it's story of creation, since mainstream science has yet to address this very idea that the earth is "old" without contradicting itself in it's ways of proving this.


On top of this, I think the bible has wonderful things to say about us and how we should lead our society with moral, upstanding principles.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15
Find all posts by this user
03-11-2012, 11:33 PM
RE: Jack - I challenge you.
Quote:As much as I love science, unfortunately I have a hard time agreeing with some of it in many aspects, geological dating being my primary issue.

Can you be more specific on what issues you have with geological dating?

Quote:Although I would say that I think god very likely used the big bang to create the universe.


In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Not, "God created the Universe"

Quote:To me, this is further proof that the bible is only bolstered in it's story of creation, since mainstream science has yet to address this very idea that the earth is "old" without contradicting itself in it's ways of proving this.

Can you name some of the contradictions you see?

Quote:On top of this, I think the bible has wonderful things to say about us and how we should lead our society with moral, upstanding principles.

How could a society possibly be run with biblical principles? Instead of trials, would we ask murderers and rapists if they accept Jesus as their savior? If they said yes, they would be let off without charges, and if they said no, take them to the courtyards and stone them to death?
Find all posts by this user
04-11-2012, 12:18 AM
RE: Jack - I challenge you.
(03-11-2012 11:33 PM)Jack Wrote:  Can you be more specific on what issues you have with geological dating?

Quote:In Genesis 1:1 it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Not, "God created the Universe"

Quote:Can you name some of the contradictions you see?

I will more than happily answer all three of these together.

For one, there's various forms of geological dating. They are at best, guestimates. Firstly and foremost, Henry Morris has shown through scientific study that K-Ar dating on various materials is inaccurate. In one instance, it was shown that rock that was FRESH from lava beds dated to be anywhere from billions of years to MILLIONS of years old. This doesn't just mean that carbon dating is inaccurate, but means specifically that it simply cannot be used for various forms of dating.

After all, if you can attempt to measure the age of something that you know and have visibly observed through science, but when you test it using that idea or method of dating and the age turns out to be far later than you ever expected, how can you trust it in general?

This puts us back to revisiting our previous ideas.

Also, the bible in Genesis does not need to specify that God created the universe. The heavens are very easily portrayed as the universe, the stars. Back then, unfortunately we did not have a great idea of cosmology. So while some of genesis remains inspired by god, man surely would have been ridiculed back then for proposing things that contradicted their understanding. Now that we can see and understand the universe better, we know that god used the big bang TO create the heavens and the earth.

This means that if we cannot trust these dating methods and that we can take a modern translation of these things, it's very easy to see it as clear that god created the heavens and the earth, even if we do not yet know what the time has been in which it happened.

For your references:
Henry Morrison - Scientific Creationism - pages 140 to 147, which you can read there if you'd like.

Page 20 "Doubters still try"

Obviously, with today's science, and our understanding of GOOD science, we must look past literal interpretations, and look at deciphering the philisophical meaning of genesis. After all, time and space cannot exist where there is no matter therefore the moment of creation known as "the heavens" (the big bang, space) and the earth.

Quote:How could a society possibly be run with biblical principles? Instead of trials, would we ask murderers and rapists if they accept Jesus as their savior? If they said yes, they would be let off without charges, and if they said no, take them to the courtyards and stone them to death?

This is why it is GOD'S will, not ours, to decide the heart and intent of each individual. After all, no one knows you like he does. How many innocent people go to jail every year for crimes they did not commit? Jesus died for our sins, which means that even those who were unjustly punished in this life, are free after they die, so long as they believe in him.

The bible says that a believer must render themselves to the will and rules of a society, regardless if we agree with them or not. This does not mean a society runs off of every law of the bible, since non-believers clearly have their own rules and in a society, we all must get along.

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. Romans 13-17

This means that we should follow god's higher laws. Ultimately, we will all still be judged. So we should follow the higher laws, the things that are truly moral. But for those who intend to disobey such things, or be truly immoral, society abides by their own set of rules and laws.

God has sent floods and punished us for cruelty in the past, and the new testament shows that under the new covenant, we are free and renewed. I do not expect you to agree with the choices he makes. We may very well not like them, but in the end we will be judged, so even if a person is wronged, or does wrong, his heart and intentions are fully judged by the on who knows him or her best. Your parents know you well, just as you know yourself. The father, the son and the holy spirit are like our parents, although just as parents may not wish to see you go astray and make your own decisions, God allows us that free will.

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." 2 Timothy 1:9
Find all posts by this user
08-11-2012, 08:04 PM
RE: Jack - I challenge you.
Sorry, but it's probably gonna be next week before I can take the time to write a reply. I have been unthinkably busy this week.

I really look forward to continuing our debate though.
Find all posts by this user
08-11-2012, 08:24 PM
RE: Jack - I challenge you.
No worries my friend Smile Looking forward to it!
Find all posts by this user
23-11-2012, 04:59 AM
RE: Jack - I challenge you.
I do not believe Jack is coming back (unless the mods want to give him another 24/48 hours to respond) as it's been over a week. Alas, I think we can close this thread. That said, this was a fictional (obviously) side I played, in an attempt to help Jack get better at debates.

With that said...

#1: I used special pleading with geological dating. On top of this I used a lot of pseudo science and resources that I cited that did not actually take any credulity away from any sort of geometric dating. The xenolith dating issue has been beat to a pulp. There are many forms of dating used on many materials. Some theists like to use such an argument who think that discrediting one kind suddenly makes all dating inaccurate. If that were the case, geologists would be in some deep shit. If someone tosses something out like this, stick firm and question their sources, or go search it out. You did not force me to explain my sources, I flippantly tossed it out there.

#2: I used a lot of word play on bible verses. Note how easy it was for me to twist things into something even with citing sources to make things sound credible. I did nothing more than make it sound good and cherry picked from things that agreed. I also ignored the fact that despite those sources I cited, many things contradict it. I made examples from argument from ignorance in this sense. You allowed me to go from one subject to the next and didn't stick to your guns. Allowing me to dance around from subject to subject, ignoring your points and making my own. Answering the questions and getting to the root of it is important, you allowed me not to do any such thing.

#3. Philosophical evidence is not "evidence" - but appeal to emotion at best. Again, don't be afraid to press people on that. If a debate is about evidence, appeal to emotion is nothing more than tugging at heart strings and pleading for appeal, at the end of the day, it is not evidence. There is of course rational thought, logic and a good sound argument, but if no facts support it... it's still nothing more than "a good argument".
Find all posts by this user
23-11-2012, 09:08 AM
Jack - I challenge you.
Log and Jack,
I'll close this debate for now. If you want to continue your Boxing Ring, I'll open it back up.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: