Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2010, 01:59 AM
 
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
The atheists are usually the ones who "win" the debate because it comes down to proof. If one makes a claim that God is real, one must have proof to back it up!It is very interesting,a lot of atheists felt he lost badly and were disappointed with him.
Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2010, 04:38 AM
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
Scientist has been pawned! I have defeated the most intelligent theist that I know in debates on my college campus, and facebook. I never see theist win. Hey scientist are you one of the uneducated theist or one of the tries to ignore the facts type theist? Here are some things for you to consider too. Since your arguments have been defeated here is something for you to ponder.
1. There is no evidence for God, and plenty against him.

Have a nice day! I would try to post more, but I have to leave for work, and I have already won like a thousand debates and I am a little tired of them. Maybe when I get back I will have time for a longer post with what the evidence is. I feel the athiest on here will refute anything this scientist guy says anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2010, 05:03 AM
 
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
(26-05-2010 10:10 PM)brendanIsBrendan Wrote:  He made the argument that if everyone thought about ice cream all at once then it would be a reality. So what if we all thought that God existed for say several hundred years, but then stopped. Would that cease to be a reality, or would you make the argument that that imaginary ice cream is also still in "existence." Basically just because everyone thinks something doesn't make it a reality; thoughts, let alone the brain, are not at all fully understood right now, one can hardly make a good argument based off them.

It's a stretch by my standards, I'm trying to program now too haha

EDIT: The George Washington part was just to continue the notion that existence at one point in time doesn't imply existence forever, stopping the possibility of the never-ending ice cream thought. Apologies for unorganization.

If I may...

It really depends on what you mean by 'exist' or 'existence'...

The definition, as per dictionary.com:

ex·ist –verb (used without object)
1.to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2.to have life or animation; live.
3.to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4.to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5.to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.

If we look at just the first entry, 'to have actual being'...

George Washington was an actual person, so 'yes', he did exist once before and, although he's been dead for hundreds of years, his existence was a tangible one. No one would doubt that he actually existed, even 300 years from now.

As for your ice cream example, it's a bit more complicated. If you look at the one event, where everyone thought about ice cream at the same time, historically, it was just a thought exercise. Some may think it was real, but that would be due to our memories not associating well (for example, if I think about ice cream today, and actually have ice cream 2-3 days from now, in retrospect, it would seem the ice cream I thought about today would be real...some type of association to go along with the thought).

Your ice cream example sounds vaguely similar to the 'god' experiences people have. Whether they are visions (hallucinations) or miracles (coincidences), they are still intangible thoughts that have an underlying source and not some heavenly intervention.
Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2010, 07:07 AM
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
(26-05-2010 09:35 PM)scientist Wrote:  No confusion here. It's for simplification. It'd be too impractical to try to argue against atheism, then skepticism, then materialism, then whoever. Don't you agree old boy?

It may be easier, but it is logically invalid. You can't attempt to invalidate atheism by attacking a different position. Do you understand this?

Quote:I'm arguing from a standpoint that I hid the coin in a place so deep no one knows about. I'm simply demonstrating the limits of science and technology. Just because something has not been found to have physical evidence, doesn't mean it does not exist (same with God's existence).

Entirely true, but the thing about the coin is that, given an idea of where to look, we could find it rather easily. If you said that there was a coin at such-and-such a depth in such-and-such an area, if we went looking for it there we would expect to find it. If there was no evidence of a coin, we would call you a liar.
If, on the other hand, you simply say that "there are things which science cannot detect", you would be entirely correct. There very well may be things which science cannot yet detect, but without evidence of their existence the only logical conclusion is that they do not exist. We have no reason to believe that they do.
Take, for example, your coin again. You say that there is a coin hidden somewhere under the Earth's crust. Without any evidence to support your claim, the answer is a straight "Maybe", for the simple reason that we don't know if you, specifically, hid a coin, but coins are under the soil everywhere.
However, your god is a much more complex object than a coin, so let's go with something less mundane: a Sherman tank. When you assert that there is a Sherman tank buried somewhere under the Earth's crust (and you don't give a specific location, either, since you don't know exactly where to look for your god) and there is absolutely zero evidence to support your contention, the only logical conclusion is that you are lying.
Now, if you were later able to produce evidence that there actually is a tank, the "You're lying" bit would be retracted. So far, though, you haven't.

The problem with this argument is that it's nothing but the bare assertion fallacy. You say that God hides somewhere outside the bounds of science. Well, you have to prove it before that statement is logically valid. Otherwise, you are simply making stuff up to explain the lack of evidence for your god.

Quote:Unbeliever, you are making too many mistakes already. Don't assume too much. You are misunderstanding a lot of your opponent's statements. Not good so early on.

HA

Quote:The failure here is you misunderstood my statement (pls. see above)

Then explain how I misunderstood.

Quote:So are you a materialist?

Yes.

Quote:Again for simplicity, I'm attacking materialism types here.

Again, for logical validity, you can't attack atheism by attacking materialism. The two are not the same. Disproving materialism does not disprove atheism, and vice-versa.

Quote:These are the ones who mistakenly believe in someone/something exists only if there's physical evidence.

No, that's scientific skepticism again.

Quote:This mental reality is just as reality as any physical reality. It happened, it's reality we can all agree upon (no subjective arguments needed) even without any physical evidence whatsoever.

I just answered this in my above post. The act of thinking about ice cream is a chemical reaction in the brain, so it is physical, and we can verify that it happened by asking everyone whether or not they thought about ice cream.

Quote:Unbeliever, if you can measure brain size physically, then if thoughts are just from the brain, why can't you measure the size of the ice cream in my thoughts?

Because we don't yet know what every single neuron and every single chemical in the brain does. It's an incredibly complex machine. Compare it, for example, to the computer. You know, broadly, what it does: it computes. You know what it uses to do so: binary switches. You just don't know, at any given time, what every switch is involved in calculating.

Quote:The mind can be independent of the brain.

Prove it.

Quote:It seems that way physically, but it doesn't mean this is the only explanation on the origin of thoughts.

So far you have offered no evidence against it. Care to, or are you going to continue with the bare assertions?

Quote:A lot of mysteries exist. Seeing our thoughts in the future is Star Trek. Until then, your argument cannot be used.

Except that it can. See the computer analogy above.

Quote:For simplification, as I've repeatedly explained I have to direct attack on materialsm types of atheism (as this is usually the common one). No mistake here at all.

Except that, as I have explained, you can't do that. It's a straw man.

Quote:You are actually the one who committed a strawman by assuming too much about your opponent. Ironic really....

Then show where I did.

Quote:Ut seems you have some experience with debates, but not major debates in my assessment. Your weakness is assuming too much that you misunderstand your opponent's statements. Now you know.

Your counter arguments have nothing new, same recycled ones we have defeated in major debates.

And now you're just asserting again. If I made mistakes, show where. Otherwise, you're simply blowing smoke.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
27-05-2010, 08:32 AM
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
Something else to consider, scientist: if your god is entirely outside the realm of the detectable, there can never be any evidence for it. You are, essentially, admitting that you can never prove that your god exists, but saying that we should believe anyway.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2010, 09:31 AM
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
One out of two. Either all, or most theist debaters think exactly the same (which is quite plausible, from what I've seen so far), or this is the new 'incarnation' of Martin (which is not implausible, either).

All learning is quite useless if you haven't learned to question what you learn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2010, 12:18 PM
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
(27-05-2010 09:31 AM)Juppers Wrote:  One out of two. Either all, or most theist debaters think exactly the same (which is quite plausible, from what I've seen so far), or this is the new 'incarnation' of Martin (which is not implausible, either).

Martin wasn't banned, was he? Why would he make a sock puppet if he wasn't banned?

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2010, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2010 12:40 PM by Juppers.)
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
Well, probably to make things more interesting here, as he must have noticed we were bored. I used to post on a forum where many users changed their usernames regularly, without having been banned, so I don't necessarily find it unlikely.

Anyway, I'm not saying that Scientist is Martin, only that they seem to share a very similar style.

All learning is quite useless if you haven't learned to question what you learn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2010, 02:00 PM
 
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
Martin has been known by many names throughout time, Randall Flagg, Walter O Dim, etc...

Just kidding around.
Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2010, 02:40 PM
 
RE: Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters
(27-05-2010 02:00 PM)Dregs Wrote:  Martin has been known by many names throughout time, Randall Flagg, Walter O Dim, etc...

Just kidding around.

You forgot 'Howdy Doody'... Tongue
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Atheists vs. theists hangout Just Another Atheist 4 259 16-05-2014 12:37 AM
Last Post: Shadow Fox
Shocked Theist Parenting zachzachzachzach 9 256 24-04-2014 11:53 AM
Last Post: Misanthropik
  A reciprocal challenge from a theist. sporehux 9 559 09-12-2013 05:43 AM
Last Post: OddGamer
Question Advice required! Invited to speak at a debate with a theist! nooneofconsequence 7 339 05-11-2013 05:01 PM
Last Post: nooneofconsequence
  Another FB debate with theist friend Atheist_pilgrim 2 372 18-08-2013 04:32 PM
Last Post: Atheist_pilgrim
  The Chicken, the Egg and the Theist TwoCultSurvivor 25 943 23-07-2013 04:07 PM
Last Post: kingschosen
  Facebook P.M.'s --> Theist With Daddy Issues Sticks Hand in Lion's Cage, Loses Arm KMFDM_Kid2000 6 638 13-07-2013 01:37 PM
Last Post: Dirtnapper324
Forum Jump: