No-Holds Barred Battle Over the Existence of God

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Leave it to the real Christian Apologists who would wipe the floor with their opponents in this debate. I mean, of course, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Gene Scott. All of them are dead though...

oooh, don't forget about St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, they would have torn any atheist to shreds.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Kirk Cameron and his "scientist" buddy are terrible Christian apologists. Seriously. I heard one of their sermons before and when they got to the whole "banana argument" I just felt like crying.

Leave it to the real Christian Apologists who would wipe the floor with their opponents in this debate. I mean, of course, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Gene Scott. All of them are dead though...

Well, there are always people like Lee Strobel and Norman Giesler, not to mention Alvin Plantinga; I would love to see the outcome between ABC's Rational Response Squad and Giesler/Plantinga. It wouldn't even be close.

I'm not sure, I don't think the RRS are the perfect example of those able to present the rationalist/atheist position. So I think it was a fair debate between two not so knowledgeable representatives of each group.

I'm quite sure Plantinga would be scalped by Dawkins, especially if he uses the vacuous arguments he raised in his review of Dawkins' book.

I think one of Plantinga's argument goes a bit like this: we can't expect a natural process like unguided evolution to give us reliable cognition. However, god can give us reliable cognition, as we are in his image. We have reliable cognition, therefore god exists.

Yeah, mmmkay, heh. I think Occam could be applied here - evolution favours generally reliable cognition - I see no reason for it to favour wildly inaccurate cognition, what advantage to survival is there in hallucinatory perception?

One of his other arguments can be summed up to 'naturalism makes me sad, therefore god exists'

I can agree with most that Dawkins' latest was not his best by far, but the lame apologetics in response were even worse.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
oooh, don't forget about St. Thomas Aquinas

dawkins tore chubby (trust me, that's an understatement) aquinas' arguments for the existence to god a new one with only a few pages of writing.

and St. Augustine, they would have torn any atheist to shreds.

yeah, that's a doubtful one too

Originally posted by Sword and Shield
Well, there are always people like Lee Strobel and Norman Giesler, not to mention Alvin Plantinga; I would love to see the outcome between ABC's Rational Response Squad and Giesler/Plantinga. It wouldn't even be close.

why do you guys get to chose both sides of the argument?

hell, you say dawkins is nothing, have you ever actually read his work? i'm familiar with the apolegetics of lewis, aquinas, augustine, and many others (it's what happens when you go through a few years of catholic schooling) so i can actually judge them.

you say dawkins uses no logic than quote this

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." C.S. Lewis

that's just an assertion!

pot, kettle, black etc

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

hell, you say dawkins is nothing, have you ever actually read his work?

Yes, I have read Dawkins work and I don't find it particularly revolutionary in it's content; he's spouting the same stuff as Ingersoll did in the 19th century, only Ingersoll did it better.

i'm familiar with the apolegetics of lewis, aquinas, augustine, and many others (it's what happens when you go through a few years of catholic schooling) so i can actually judge them.

You don't have to go to Catholic schools to get an education in philosophy, Comparative Religions or Christian Apologetics; Catholics do not have the exclusive rights to apologetics and logic, you know.

you say dawkins uses no logic than quote this

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." C.S. Lewis that's just an assertion!

No, it is logical thinking, something that Dawkins and his crowd could use some refresher training in.

pot, kettle, black etc

Whatever, you say, madness, after all you are the expert here, right? :

[edit on 5/13/2007 by Sword and Shield]

You have voted madnessinmysoul for the way above top secret award.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

dawkins tore chubby (trust me, that's an understatement) aquinas' arguments for the existence to god a new one with only a few pages of writing.

You're one of the funniest guys I've met. Hooray for the Dawkinian disciples!


[edit on 13-5-2007 by thehumbleone]

[edit on 13-5-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by thehumbleone

You're one of the funniest guys I've met. Hooray for the Dawkinian disciples!

what can i say, the truth is funny. aquinas weighed in excess of 300 pounds, probably due to the copious amounts of food available to the clergy at the expense of the general populace.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

what can i say, the truth is funny. aquinas weighed in excess of 300 pounds, probably due to the copious amounts of food available to the clergy at the expense of the general populace.

Truth can be funny, but stupidity and ignorance are more funny.

I have no religious background and am a scientist, but I started taking philosophy classes for the fun of it when I was in my forties. I have to say that I was delighted with the brilliant logic of Aquinus and people like Bishop Berkeley. It was fun to find the very subtle critical thinking error or unjustifiable premise that they slipped in at the beginning of their arguments. As soon as these were identified their whole logical arguments fell like a house of card in an earthquake.

And I've found that it doesn't matter how brilliant either side is, if the other side is reasonably knowledgeable and competent AND has the data on their side they can't lose. That's why the theists you referenced, no matter how clever, would fail in an argument with a bright nontheist.

Occam

that video clip debate was utterly retarded, and not just because of the pro-God's existance guys being kind of unoriginal in their approach, or shall i say lame.

it was utterly stupid because the immature creator of the video, whom was also either the one who was debating against God's existance, or one of his close friends, had to add little captions for the viewer, adding in little points, and taking away from the opposing viewpoints?

what kind of sillyness is that? you just threw equality and fairness right out of the window, so the whole debate as presented is flawed and bias. therefore it means nothing. if it was evidence in court, it would be thrown out.

post up a video without little anti-God caption replies to each of the points made for God's existence, and it will be legit, but that link on page 1 is certainly not.

what it shows is that the atheist 'followers' who are watching this video need to have things pointed out to them, the things said that were stupid, or wrong, or right, or anything. why cant the viewer make up their own mind?

is it because, they have no mind?

or could it be that they do, but its just so feeble that any ole body can control it through red lettered captions?

in my opinion, you can't have creation without a creator. that is cause and effect. that creator does not have to have a personality, or even be a being, it could vary well be an element or simply an event. for example, it would be like saying,

"The big bang is God."

well, theres truth to that. without the big bang, there would not be this, that, and the other, and so one could say it is the creator of this, that, and the other.

and thats what atheists are missing. they think God has to be depicted in the classical way; an old man with a beard directly intervening in Earthly affairs, and this couldn't be further from the truth! its pure closemindedness ..

its "we cant explain it, so it just is". that is taking the exact same line as people who are pro God's existence and that, as you can see, will get you nowhere in a 'scientific debate'.

is it that they cannot comprehend the true meaning of creation and creator?


[edit on 5/13/2007 by runetang]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Truth can be funny, but stupidity and ignorance are more funny.

Zomg I think Madnessinmysoul was just pwnt. (forgive the 1337speak)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This got me to thinking... I believe that many of us here on ATS can form a better debate than these idiots on the "Rational Response Squad" and "Former Child Actor Plus Fake Scientist Squad". Am I the only one interested in an all out battle between Atheists and Christians on ATS?

This could really turn out to be a nice, healthy debate with both sides learning a lot from each other. But, I'm not just talking about a normal debate. I'm talking about a DEBATE OF COSMIC PROPORTIONS!! I'M TALKING ABOUT:



So, Who's ready to step up to the plate? Who's ready to start where C.S. Lewis or Dawkins left off? Who's ready to walk in the steps of the best Apologists the World has ever seen?

I've debated Christians before. They lie, cheat, and make appeals to their audience, then they complain when we call them out.

The whole problem with debate is it creates a notion that the concept of god is open to debate. As it stands, Christians have abandoned the effort to define god because it always fails.

As for Christianity itself, I've already shown that the need for salvation itself is a case of fraud, and Christians have some much evidence against me that they utterly failed to respond.

The reason its so hard to explain or understand is because its an experiance first hand. Take watching movies for example, two or more of your friends says this is a good movie you should see it. Then, you have another friend who says that movie is garbage. Well, you go see the movie and your like, that was a really good movie.

The point is you could not have made that assumption from what others said, you had to experiance it first hand so you could say so.

True for most Christians from birth we are raised around it. But, there are quite a few that may not have had that, they may have been anything other than Christians but, they converted over not because of someone else TELLING them to but, because THEY made the choice to.

Originally posted by followerofchrist
The reason its so hard to explain or understand is because its an experiance first hand. Take watching movies for example, two or more of your friends says this is a good movie you should see it. Then, you have another friend who says that movie is garbage. Well, you go see the movie and your like, that was a really good movie.

The point is you could not have made that assumption from what others said, you had to experiance it first hand so you could say so.

But first hand experience is not applicable (for stories of gods and other supernaturals that is). How can you state first hand experience of a faith based deity? The notion that a person has had a direct godly experience is false, in that belief is no substitute for truth


G

I understand but, you will never see where Christians are coming from otherwise. Please do not take me for being rude or anything, im just saying it may sound impossible but, with this if you put aside all that you know for yourself as the truth and read it will have a greater impact. Im not trying to convert you. All im saying is if you want to understand then, put aside everything you learned, read the bible asking God to make it known to you and then, if nothing happens you can say well, I tested it and proved it false. Thats all im saying.

Originally posted by followerofchrist
I understand but, you will never see where Christians are coming from otherwise. Please do not take me for being rude or anything, im just saying it may sound impossible but, with this if you put aside all that you know for yourself as the truth and read it will have a greater impact. Im not trying to convert you. All im saying is if you want to understand then, put aside everything you learned, read the bible asking God to make it known to you and then, if nothing happens you can say well, I tested it and proved it false. Thats all im saying.

I've read the bible and I still makes no difference, in fact it only strengthens my resolve that religions are false. There is virtually nothing that could, in my mind, convince me that any deity exists (to me the evidence suggests otherwise).


G

Ok. But did you, when you read the Bible, did you leave everything you knew for yourself as truth? if so, then please enjoy your life and may it be a blessing to you.

God bless

[edit on 14-5-2007 by followerofchrist]

TheB1ueSoldier, i'm going to agree with columbus. just look at this debate from the thread, the christian side violted their own premise in their second point: NO BIBLE.

I know we have two different views madness but, the way I saw it on abc.com out of 13 minutes they explained "in their own way" how God does exist, and why Atheists dont believe in like 6 minutes or something.

how do you explain how the world began without using the Big Bang?

just a question no harm done

I know we have two different views madness but, the way I saw it on abc.com out of 13 minutes they explained "in their own way" how God does exist, and why Atheists dont believe in like 6 minutes or something.

how do you explain how the world began without using the Big Bang?

just a question no harm done