Theism VS Atheism 1on1 Debate COMMENTS

[Reginus]

Psss I disagree with this assessment, but it's still pretty funny

[LoneMateria]

Lone, I appreciate your articulation of some of this, but honestly, having anything, but a one on one debate on an atheist forum is incredibly trying for a non-atheist not because of anything inappropriate on the part of atheists, but simply because I can hardly post a thing without having several different people jump on it and demand that I answer their specific questions. Then when I don't because, like you I'm sure, I don't have all day to spend in front of the screen I get chided for it. Moreover, I can say the most non-offensive things that have nothing to do with the discussion at all and get chided for that too.

I understand but were not requiring you to spend all your time here.  Just make a thread and see where the discussion goes.  I'm sure there are a lot of points we all agree on and others we don't.  I'm fairly confident we have the same views on Islam though our views of Christianity differ.  

I don't think anyone would fault you for taking a day or two to yourself from time to time.  Don't get overly worked up on a website it will burn you out.  I used to be an admin on a forum site years ago, you have to learn when to take a break.  I know I've been guilty of not answering all the questions presented to me either because of fatigue or getting side tracked or whatever.  But if someone asks why didn't you answer this I do my best to respond even if its posting a link to somewhere I answered the question before or something.  We don't always need an instantaneous response, we all have lives and we all understand that the internet isn't our top priority.  Don't neglect your personal life, we only have 1 life that we know of and there is no reason not to take time out to enjoy it.

Honestly if you feel people are being openly hostile toward you there are admins and mods on here that you can talk to about it.  They won't let people get away with flaming or openly harassing anyone.  However before you do it keep in mind that sometimes people say things that they don't consider offensive but people take offense to it.  There could be an honest misunderstanding or a temporary lapse in awareness of what is being said.  This is not uncommon when 2 views are at odds with one another for example democrats and republicans have these misunderstandings as well as theists and atheists.  I know I've said stuff before that people took offense to that I didn't know they would.  It becomes a consciousness raiser.

[braxhunt]

Well said Lone. You sound like my kind of atheist. And I might add that as I have point out several times already, I have really found that the majority of the atheists on this site have been wonderful people. Its just that the issues we're dealing with are so complex that they require lengthy answers with citations. That's fine when I'm just responding to one person, but its entirely different this way. However, your idea about just linking to other responses is a good one, I'll consider that. But as a rule, I try to keep it one on one just for the sake of spending time with my family and getting things done. And I know I'm going to get it for this, but I have been accused a couple of times of committing logical fallacies (although the only one that keeps coming up is "god of the gaps" which I really have answered). And so far it has been said that I am a liar and not a logical person. Sorry, but that is the lowest form of intercourse, and it wasn't you that said it, Lone. So when I am then accused of pulling the angry atheist card I feel like that's been demonstrated by some. I'm not even sure a real effort is being set forth to understand what I'm saying i.e. I responded to the posting of several "picked out" scriptures that were said to teach fideism by claiming that they need to be examined in context, and I demonstrated the problem by simply saying that I could pick out singular quotes from anyone here and make them sound like a bible-thumper. Someone seems to have taken that to mean that I was "threatening" to do so. Thats a stretch. So all I'm saying is, this doesn't seem like a beneficial way to talk things over.

[Arctonyx]

Brax, I have already given you the option, several times, to refute my accusation. At this moment it seems you are unwilling or unable to, I don't care if you no longer feel the need to debate with me. But you are playing a 'wounded puppy' card, to get out of debating with LoneMateria, and many others on this forum who have the patience to respond to your outlandish claims in a much more politically correct fashion then me. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I have offered before, and offer you the chance again to refute my claims as to get a retraction of my statement.

Although I have 1 question, what are your views on evolution? Throughout the debate you said that Will was wrong in bringing up creationist ideas, yet you seem to be selling messages that endorse creationism. Again this may not be the case, but you must realise that things you sell on your site appear to be endorsed by you personally? So to clear things up in future, and to save misconceptions, what are your views on evolution?

[braxhunt]

I am skeptical when it comes to evolution, but that does not mean that I accept what the term "creationist" implies. I do not maintain a young earth position. I would agree with mainstream cosmology on the age of the universe and the age of the earth. Those were the issues that were brought up against me in the debate. Either way, I did not and do not debate as a creationist would on those issues and so to hold me to those views is a straw man argument. In terms of your accusation that I lied, You need to know that I hold to everything that I said in the debate, but even if I was wrong, one can be mistaken, or one may misunderstand genuinely. To assert either of those things is perfectly acceptable. To call someone a lier is character assassination.

BTW Arctonyx, how old are you? Yes, it's completely irrelevant, I'm just curious.

[iNow]

I am skeptical when it comes to evolution

Why?  It is, perhaps, the single most well supported idea ever put forward by science across the entire history of the human existence.  If you're skeptical of evolution, it suggests that you may not have had proper opportunity to learn about it, and I'd welcome the opportunity to address any specific questions or concerns you may have.  Would you like me to open a thread so we can walk through the issues resulting in your skepticism?  Is that type of dialog something in which you'd be interested?

[Will]

I am skeptical when it comes to evolution

Is there anything in particular that you're skeptical about? It's always fun to explore science.

[Arctonyx]

In terms of your accusation that I lied, You need to know that I hold to everything that I said in the debate, but even if I was wrong, one can be mistaken, or one may misunderstand genuinely. To assert either of those things is perfectly acceptable. To call someone a lier is character assassination.

BTW Arctonyx, how old are you? Yes, it's completely irrelevant, I'm just curious.

Ok, please explain where I misunderstood you, or if you were mistaken in this qoute:

Modern astrophysics has now confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt what theists have said all along. The universe was not always here. Since the early 90’s physicists have had convincing evidence that the universe began to exist a finite time ago.

As to me, you seemed to implicitly say the scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Which is what theists have said all along.

The second point is debatable, but on the first you either did not check your facts, or fed us what someone else had fed you. So you can see where I thought you lied? If I had said 'all theists think this', that would not only be a gross misrepresentation of my opponents opinion, but I would be lying if I had said that, and I'd hope that if I did. Someone would call me out on it, as I've never really been offended at being called as liar, I just see it as an opportunity to see if I was mistake, to ratify my views, or to point out where they were mistaken.

And if you must know I'm 19. I'm not sure what relevance this has to this topic though.

[braxhunt]

I really am not interested in discussing evolution, not because I am closed off to the idea. My closest friend is a theistic evolutionist and I discuss it with him regularly. Moreover, I spend much of my my week surrouned by academics from various fields who hold degrees in various sciences and I have plenty of opportunity to discuss it with them. I appreciate your willingness to talk about it, but it just has zero relevance to the question of God. In fact philosopher Alvin Plantinga actually believes if you grant biological evolution it makes the case for God stronger, as does J.P. Moreland. And there are many who don't see the connection between evolution and atheism such as, William Lane Craig, Francis Collins, Dinesh D'souza, Gerald Schroeder and a host of others. The reason is because if it's true, it only answers the question of how life arose, but it doesn't answer how the universe came to be.

By the way arctonyx, your age is irrelevant, I was jus wondering.

[Arctonyx]

The reason is because if it's true, it only answers the question of how life arose, but it doesn't answer how the universe came to be.

By the way arctonyx, your age is irrelevant, I was jus wondering.

Just a small correction here, evolution explains the variety of life, the big bang explains the origins of this universe (although not what came before it currently), and abiogenesis explains how life began. No theory is going to be all encompassing, evolution only explains the variety of life.

[LoneMateria]

but it just has zero relevance to the question of God.

I have to partly agree with you on this.  A god who made us through evolution could be an underachiever or could be a deistic god who just didn't care.  

However when certain apologists start saying that the bible is the inerrant word of God (to my knowledge you haven't said that braxton so i'm not including you in this) then evolution becomes very relevant to the existence of god.  This is because they are giving their god characteristics, achievements, and methods to which he has done everything.  When those things leave the supernatural world and enter this world, we can test some of them.  In the bible God made all the animals as they are, however we can prove through evolution and common decent that never happened.  Just like the flood of Noah there where all but 2 (or 7 whichever book you are reading) of each animal that was killed.  We can look through genetics to see if there was a population bottleneck at a given point in a species history (like the Cheetah 10,000 years ago).  However for the story to be true all animals would have to have gone through this bottleneck which they haven't.  Disproving the achievements of the supposed deity bring both the veracity of its sacred texts into question and the existence of its deity into question thus it becomes relevant to the existence of the deity.

[iNow]

The reason is because if it's true, it only answers the question of how life arose, but it doesn't answer how the universe came to be.

Just a small correction here, evolution explains the variety of life, the big bang explains the origins of this universe (although not what came before it currently), and abiogenesis explains how life began. No theory is going to be all encompassing, evolution only explains the variety of life.

Indeed.  He's setting the bar for evolution artificially high, and it's as if he's here claiming that germ theory needs to also be able to explain gravity.

[braxhunt]

Look, the point is it wouldn't affect the question of God.

[Reginus]

However when certain apologists start saying that the bible is the inerrant word of God (to my knowledge you haven't said that braxton so i'm not including you in this) then evolution becomes very relevant to the existence of god.  This is because they are giving their god characteristics, achievements, and methods to which he has done everything.  When those things leave the supernatural world and enter this world, we can test some of them.  In the bible God made all the animals as they are, however we can prove through evolution and common decent that never happened.  Just like the flood of Noah there where all but 2 (or 7 whichever book you are reading) of each animal that was killed.  We can look through genetics to see if there was a population bottleneck at a given point in a species history (like the Cheetah 10,000 years ago).  However for the story to be true all animals would have to have gone through this bottleneck which they haven't.  Disproving the achievements of the supposed deity bring both the veracity of its sacred texts into question and the existence of its deity into question thus it becomes relevant to the existence of the deity.

Now I'm no expert on Hebrew literature, but I can say with some certainty that the Bible was not ment to be interpreted in the same way as a 21st century legal document. Besides, there would be practical consequences if the Bible were to explain evolution. If you were alive 4,000(edit: years ago), would that make you more or less likely to believe the Bible?

[LoneMateria]

Now I'm no expert on Hebrew literature, but I can say with some certainty that the Bible was not ment to be interpreted in the same way as a 21st century legal document. Besides, there would be practical consequences if the Bible were to explain evolution. If you were alive 4,000, would that make you more or less likely to believe the Bible?

First off did you not read my first sentence?  People say the bible is the inerrant word of God.  About 1/3 of the population of the United States call themselves Evangelical Christians, who believe in the literal word of the bible.  (Obviously they are relaxed on the laws of the OT)  There is no interpretation or mystical hidden messages if you want to know what any author is saying you read his/her words.  (A good book if you want to learn the history of the NT and alterations that were made is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman)

Now for the second part.  What practical consequences would there be if the bible were to explain evolution?  What practical consequences would there be if the bible explained that the earth orbits the sun and its a sphere, or that there are germs and bacteria that kill people?  Or that there are no witches, djinns, monsters, etc.?  Come on now if I were a god and I was doing miracles to help people believe in me what harm would I cause by saying, by the way the planet is 4.5 billion years old you are circling the sun?  If they are supposed to believe me I don't think they will say, "Well you parted the red sea to help me escape slavery, you protected us and provided everything we have and cherish, but the planet is a sphere and circles the sun ... thats too much sorry I can't handle it."

If you were alive 4,000 what?  If it was years ago and some magic man in the sky was explaining evolution to me after he did all these miracles and proved he was god then i'd listen.  I wouldn't say, "Don't lie to me I know how you made us, from magic dirt, see even I know how you did it and was that stuff about microscopic organisms?  MAGIC DIRT!!!!!!!!"

Look, the point is it wouldn't affect the question of God.

Did I not make good points?  Why?