No-Holds Barred Battle Over the Existence of God

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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.

That's exactly my point. I've heard some really good arguments here on ATS, both from the Theist and Atheist point of view. Much better than the lame arguments presented by the "Rational Response Squad" and Kirk Cameron. My suggestion is that we form these arguments into a debate between the Theists and Atheists, and get all of those answers compiled into one formal debate.

That actually does not sound like a bad idea. I did not like the way it seemed to get very hot in that room with the atheists and Rick and Kirk. It was like they could not express them selves in any other way than to get mad at each other.
However I have loved the debating that has been going on since I signed on, it has been tough for me ( I will say ive had to stop and count to ten ) but it has benefited me and I have really enjoyed it and I hope it continues.

well, i assume the debate would be over the existence of god. with your side attempting to prove the existence of said deity, because that's the only logical way we could go.

Yes. I mean thats what she had in mind is it not blueangel ?

Why do you say its he only logical way to go madness?

I think MIIMS was suggesting that anecdotal evidence that the other side can't repeat is not logical. For example, "I woke up one morning and realized God had come to me; I became a believer", is not a justified basis of proof.

Re: "Reading the bible with an open mind." I learned to read when I was three. My parents had gone to Catholic schools but didn't go to church and religion wasn't discussed at home. When I was seven my aunt, who felt they were remiss, gave me a child's bible. I read it voraciously and loved the stories in it. However, I got no revelation, and I didn't feel the presence of god. Rather, I enjoyed it as I did when reading other mythology.

Occam

Originally posted by Occam
I think MIIMS was suggesting that anecdotal evidence that the other side can't repeat is not logical. For example, "I woke up one morning and realized God had come to me; I became a believer", is not a justified basis of proof.

Trust me, I was once an atheist and I know what arguments do and do not work. In this debate, we won't rely on anecdotal evidence.

Originally posted by followerofchrist
Why do you say its he only logical way to go madness?

because saying "there is a god" is an affirmative statement that can be backed up

saying "there is almost certainly no god" is a negative statement. you cannot prove a negative, but atheists can disprove the arguments of a positive. it's the only way a discussion can occur.

you're making a claim that something exists, so support it.

Madness I have stated my opinon, argued, talked to you on other threads so I respect you commitment to what you hold to.

I am not "giving in" rather just stating that no matter what I say or anybody says Im not trying to convert anyone but, the only way you would really know what I was talking about would be to experience it for yourself, a leap of Faith if you will.

God bless

Originally posted by followerofchrist
Madness I have stated my opinon, argued, talked to you on other threads so I respect you commitment to what you hold to.

you don't get it. there is no commitment to the deduction that there is no god inside of me, there's just a conclusion. i may be wrong, but right now the facts are on my side.

Now Ray Comfort has proven beyond doubt the presence of god with the magnificant Coke-can argument, he has now moved his illustrious scholarly arguments into the realm of the theory of evolution. He has made a challenge I believe no 'evolutionist' can ever meet:

The $10,000 Offer

A transitional form (or missing link) is an example of one species "evolving" into another species. Excited scientists thought they had found one when they discovered "Archaeopteryx." The fossil led to the theory that the dinosaurs did not become extinct, but rather all turned into birds. The Field Museum in Chicago displayed what was believed to be an archaeopteryx fossil on October 4-19, 1997. It was hailed as "Archaeopteryx: The Bird That Rocked the World." However, Dr. Alan Feduccia (evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina), said, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleo-babble' is going to change that." [Science, February 5, 1993]. So here's my challenge: I will give $10,000 to the first person who can prove to me that they have found a genuine living transitional form (a lizard that produced a bird, or a dog that produced kittens, or a sheep that produced a chicken, or even as Archaeopteryx--a dinosaur that produced a bird). Species do not cross, no matter how long you leave them. The whole of creation is proof that evolution is truly "a fairytale for grownups."

intelligentdesignversusevolution.com...

Wherefore art thou 'Muttoduck'?



RIP evolution 1869 - May 2007


Heh.

*"How do you know god is a he? God might be a she or an it."
*"It is written."

Not realy answering the question is it? A lot of things are written in a lot of supposedly 'holy' books -how do you know you've got it right and everyone else is wrong?


*"You might want to check to see if you aren't part of Pike's satanic vision *of the new age too.
*Might even lead you to the truth while studying the "plan of the ages". *Led me to the truth, as has quite a few others. Seek it and you'll find it."

This could be evidence of a plethora of phychological issues here-delusions of grandeur,compensating for a lack of something,projecting your own fears onto others etc..
Im quite sure,possibly as a small child,youve been indoctrinated and conditioned into a brainwashed mindset-all objectivity and impartiality has been thrown out the window.



*"You might also want to ask yourself why you refute all the other 3000+ *religions alive in the world today yet become righteously affronted when *people act the same with yours(quite hypocritical dont you think?)"

*"I've had about all the fun I can take arguing with blind men for awhile."



Yes of course ,you know the truth but everybody else has it wrong,its all very predictable.
Its interesting that you did not once in your reply address any of my points instead preferring to indulge in wild speculation and assumption(no pun intended)
I usualy have no problem with religious folk but it seems you think some humans are better than others due to a non provable beleif system,the next logical step for you is intolerant bigotry and righteous indignation-good luck.

[edit on 01/24/07 by karl 12]

Meletonin, Ray Comfort has used the Straw Man critical thinking fallacy in his argument against evolution. The idea is to state a position as having been offered by one's opponents then destroy it. However, the position stated isn't at all what the opponents really said, but rather either an extreme or a misinterpretation of their views. No biologist makes the kinds of claims Comfort attributes to them. As such, his argument is meaningless. He's knocking down a make-believe straw man that he set up.

Occam

Originally posted by Occam
He's knocking down a make-believe straw man that he set up.

Too right he is.

These guys prey on the ignorance of others. I really find it hard to accept that someone hasn't corrected Comfort on this line of thought by now. If so, that makes him another liar for Jaysus, otherwise just another fundamentalist who is ignorant of science.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by melatonin]