Theism VS Atheism 1on1 Debate COMMENTS

[Reginus]

Here is the topic to discuss and comment on this debate.

Good luck to both Will and Brax.

[Arctonyx]

I must profess to be a little disappointed by Brax, the way he encouraged the debate made it seem that he would not use arguments that have been tried and tested by many religious people before, and proven to fail. He has put them more eloquently then they are usually used, but ultimately, the arguments used are not proof of God, and even if they were they are not proof of any one particular God over another. Hopefully there is more to read, but so far the arguments put forward are no more compelling then those put forward in GCSE R.E. classes.

And one particularly stood out. The argument put forward about not dying for lie is simply ludicrous, and I would have hoped above this calibre of debate. It should be obvious to all that many kinds of people are willing to die for a lie, whether that lie was committed in plain sight, or not.

[curiosityandthecat]

Haven't read every argument word for word, but it's, from what I can glean, a variation of the Kalam cosmological argument put forth by William Lane Craig. At least, the CORE aspect is. This argument has been ripped apart for years, and is even given to first-year philosophy students at my university as practice.

 

[Reginus]

The William Lane Craig argument if anyone is interested:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?rlz ... en&tab=wv#
Btw, skip the rather lengthy introduction. I also don't suggest wasting 2 1/2 hours watching the entire debate, as it was very lobsided.

[iNow]

First, thanks to Will for stepping up. I was previously slated to argue the opposition, and frankly after reading one post on the affirmative side, I'm already bored.  So, cheers.

Cosmological argument - 2 faults. Suffers from infinite regress, and is not internally consistent... If everything had a cause, then so too does the creator.  Further, there are questions now as to whether or not the big bang really started things.  More reading here:  

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spot ... index.html

Thus, while some cosmologists do not have a problem with assuming that our universe began in a singular state, most are convinced that the big bang singularity is an artefact - to be replaced by a more accurate description once quantum gravity research has made suitable progress.

...Or, here:

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spot ... index.html

In the loop quantum models, the big bang universe whose beginning is haunted by infinities... turns out to be a universe with a history reaching far beyond the big bang - a universe that, initially, was in a state of collapse, reaches zero extension at the point where general relativity predicts the big bang singularity, and, afterwards, expanded in perfect harmony with the predictions of the regular big bang models.

The rest of the CORE argument rests on a lot of unfounded, unsupported, and often mistaken assumptions, hence the rest of the structure built on that core can only be correct by mistake (much like a broken clock is right twice per day... any correct ideas stemming from those false premises are only correct coincidentally).  As for the FACTS side of the argument, they could just as easily be used to argue for Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or the tooth fairy and (for me, at least) don't seem to have any bearing on the topic.


Much of the argument pertained to the existence of god, and completely dismissed the thread topic regarding which is the more reasonable position.  I will, however, wait and see where that goes, as I presume the approach being taken on the affirmative side is that "These are the reasons god must exist, and since god must exist, it's more reasonable to believe in him than not."  It will be more telling once we get past the "I just copy/pasted these arguments which I'd written previously" and goes more into the tennis match of organic response to dynamic questions.

[iNow]

Unfortunately, the reply was merely a repetition of points, not a support of them.  No new evidence, no new information, simply the restatement of previously made unsupported claims.  Repetition alone does not make a point transition from an invalid to a valid one.

[SSY]

Very disappointed indeed, I really like this type of debate, in theory, the Richard Dawkins forum has them as well. Almost invariably the end up with the theist making incredibly poor arguments that have been refuted 1000s of times before, and then dismissing arguments of the same structure when they are reversed to show the faulty nature of their form. This argument seems to be exactly the same. 2 Thumbs down

Will certainly is patient though, I would not have bothered replying to the first post.

[Arctonyx]

Braxhunt is also continuing to show a poor understanding of altrusitic genes and how they can give rise to societal behaviours and what today we would call morals. He has also obviously not read Richard Dawkins 'The selfish gene' because if he had, he would know that it is a title used to draw in readers, and is not the core argument and I would've hoped anyone of learning could have at least taken the time to read the sources they quote. And I would urge him to go read up on evolutionary theory, because he is arguing that he is correct because the alternative is his constructed straw man. We understand an awful lot about how evolution gives rise to moral behaviour, and his rebuttal that we can not currently explain extraneous altruistic behaviour is firstly, completely false, and secondly not evidence of a divine creator.

This is where I disagree with Richard Dawkins, and why I think it is bad to base arguments against evolution based on his ideas. He is a great scientist and a very nice guy, but there are many other scientists who research this area, and have studied these ideas more closely. Such as the extraneous altruistic behaviours, Dawkins has in the past stated that this is because of 'misfiring' altruistic genes, when in fact it is probably much more easily explained by status gain. For example if your group sees you helping people in need, they are more likely to think highly of you, and give you a higher status (thus making you more likely to find a mate), just because these genes also kick in when people aren't watching, doesn't mean that they don't have a purpose, or an evolutionary backing. They are the kind of genes that put our health in danger for the possibility to reproduce more, there are many examples of these kinds of genes.

[LoneMateria]

I was hoping for something more exciting then this.  Its too bad brax is using old arguments that i've heard many times over.

I have, yet to hear a compelling reason why these arguments are invalid.

Obviously brax hasn't looked that hard or just ignored them. Its not that hard to find a counter apologetic website Iron Chariots is a pretty good one.  Also why does he have to quote mine?  You know brax seems like a nice guy but if all he is going to do is rehash old arguments and quote mine then he has lost.  He won't convince any of us that a god exists much less his god.

[edgeofuniverse]

Looks to me like Brax is using the best arguments but if you don't like em cause they're old Will is using the same old atheist stuff especially epicurius ---hundreds of years old. you seem to think just cause you heard someone give an answer on dawkins' website that means it's a done deal. No, you still have to defeat the arguments.

[Arctonyx]

Looks to me like Brax is using the best arguments but if you don't like em cause they're old Will is using the same old atheist stuff especially epicurius ---hundreds of years old. you seem to think just cause you heard someone give an answer on dawkins' website that means it's a done deal. No, you still have to defeat the arguments.

The arguments have been defeated countless times, and are either no evidence of a deity, or not evidence of one deity over another. Plus Brax seems to be showing a lack of knowledge in many areas pertaining to the evolution of morals, and all too readily quotes works and asserts meanings to works he has never read. Just because an argument is old does not make it invalid, what makes it invalid is that it can be defeated by anyone with a GCSE knowledge of R.E.

[Reginus]

So.... what's the standard way to defeat the argument from morality?

[Whitney]

Looks to me like Brax is using the best arguments but if you don't like em cause they're old Will is using the same old atheist stuff especially epicurius ---hundreds of years old. you seem to think just cause you heard someone give an answer on dawkins' website that means it's a done deal. No, you still have to defeat the arguments.

What is your relationship to Brax?

[Will]

So.... what's the standard way to defeat the argument from morality?

The evolutionary development of morality can be explained and verified.

[Arctonyx]

So.... what's the standard way to defeat the argument from morality?

That moral behaviour arises as a need to live and work as part of a cohesive group, for mutually beneficial gain. As working in a large group, especially for animals who by themselves are not particularly specialised (i.e. humans), is beneficial in terms of increased/more stable food supplies, a better chance of encountering a mate, safer from predators and more secure living areas. Murder, rape, theft, bribery, violence destroy the cohesion in groups, and therefore the members who practice them are ostracised, so they are kicked out or shunned, so an individual who practices these acts is less likely to breed. Therefore you have a build up of acceptable and 'moral' behaviour within a group to encourage that group to work together for mutually beneficial gain. These groups have grown and grown until becoming the society we live in today.

Religion is not required in explaining moral behaviour, and to claim such is making an argument from ignorance, as they must have gone out of their way to ignore the evidence that suggests that moral behaviour is derived by evolutionary means.