Theism VS Atheism 1on1 Debate COMMENTS

[Whitney]

The only time there was violence was when something bad would happen and the pagans would say that their gods was mad because of the godless Christians and would go persecute them to appease the gods.

Things haven't changed much over the years....just different time place and people.

[LoneMateria]

Things haven't changed much over the years....just different time place and people.

It always seems ironic to me that Christians say their god is love and infinite mercy but when something bad happens that god is angry at us.  You notice god is always mad at the same group of people the person talking doesn't like?  Maybe next time a Cat. 5 hurricane hits the U.S. I can get on T.V. and say god is angry at Evangelical Christians for retarding science and education.  Lets alienate the same group of people who are trying to fuck our society up.

[Reginus]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to split this thread... One for the morality discussion (which is interesting, but off topic) and another for the comments regarding the debate itself?  I'm not trying to back-seat moderate, I just see the two as very clearly unrelated to one another.

Yeah, I'll probably make a separate topic some time today. Thanks for pointing that out.

[LoneMateria]

I don't see why you want to split the thread.  Its on topic with what is discussed in the debate.

[ACSlater]

Also, why does every christian assume because early Christians were willing to die for Jesus, Jesus must have been divine, there are so many holes. One, we don't know if they were willing to die or not, we just have stories, even if they were willing to die, they could still be mistaken, just as they would say modern suicide bombers are mistaken. Classic case of conclusion first, evidence second.

Where I do understand your point, I'm not too sure it's fair to say "every christian".

[Arctonyx]

Again this debate only serves to disappoint me, Brax's rebuttals revolve around arguments from incredulity, arguments from authority, and arguments from ignorance. And he also seems to have made some sort of connection that an old argument is an incorrect one (a fallacious argument makes it incorrect, not just age). He also seems very fond of implying that without God, morality is meaningless, which I hope is not his desired intention, but if it is, it is idiocy of the highest order. On top of that he invokes the rather common design fallacy of 'I'd know a painting was made by someone even if I'd never seen a painting before' which is wrong on so so so, many levels. Number 1, if you had never encountered a painting before you would not know that it was man-made, but deductive reasoning would lead you to say it was, as it is framed, most likely in a gallery and has a 'painted by X' label close to it.  Number 2, does that mean God spends his time designing clouds? We see 'designs' in clouds all the time, yet we recognise that they aren't created by an individual designer.

[Will]

I'm going to refrain from reading this thread until the end of the debate to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

[LoneMateria]

hilarious post by brax.  I laughed at the fallacies from start to end.  Seriously does he think that atheists haven't heard these arguments before?  I laughed so hard when he said The Cosmological Argument or "First Cause Argument" for the existence of god wasn't a, "god of the gaps" problem then compounds it by saying that we argue poorly at it.  It seems he doesn't have a grasp on what the argument is.

Brax is trying to use the argument from infinity and its laughable.  If you are reading this brax then answer me this, between each number there is an infinite number of decimals (ex. 1.5, 1.55, 1.555555555555, and so on).  This applies to time in seconds, each second has milliseconds and so on.  By your logic can we ever get from 1 second to the next?  There are an infinite number of points in between 58 seconds and 59 seconds.  By your logic we can't, yet at least 1 second has passed you by while reading this (thats assuming you are reading this)

Lets see i'm brax never addressed the issue of the fine tuned universe, he just seemed to ignore it which disappointed me.  The moral issue he acts like its some big deal, I mean he doesn't realize that killing has been the "NORM" since the beginning of our species.  Humans killed rival tribes, Christians killed Christians, Christians killed Jews, and Christians killed Muslims, Christians killed women, Christians killed children, and so on.

These "points" you make are poor do you have better ones?

[Reginus]

If you are reading this brax then answer me this, between each number there is an infinite number of decimals (ex. 1.5, 1.55, 1.555555555555, and so on).  This applies to time in seconds, each second has milliseconds and so on.  By your logic can we ever get from 1 second to the next?  There are an infinite number of points in between 58 seconds and 59 seconds.  By your logic we can't, yet at least 1 second has passed you by while reading this (thats assuming you are reading this)

Of course there are hypothical infinities, but there are no "real" infinities in nature.

The moral issue he acts like its some big deal, I mean he doesn't realize that killing has been the "NORM" since the beginning of our species. Humans killed rival tribes, Christians killed Christians, Christians killed Jews, and Christians killed Muslims, Christians killed women, Christians killed children, and so on.

I don't understand what your argument is. Morality by its very nature can be completely ignored.

[Arctonyx]

If you are reading this brax then answer me this, between each number there is an infinite number of decimals (ex. 1.5, 1.55, 1.555555555555, and so on).  This applies to time in seconds, each second has milliseconds and so on.  By your logic can we ever get from 1 second to the next?  There are an infinite number of points in between 58 seconds and 59 seconds.  By your logic we can't, yet at least 1 second has passed you by while reading this (thats assuming you are reading this)

Of course there are hypothical infinities, but there are no "real" infinities in nature.

Please explain what you mean by "real" infinities and how in any way that could possibly improve Brax's thus far laughable arguments? I must congratulate Will, if it were me debating I would have lost my patience a couple of posts into the debate simply due to quickly rising mountain of fallacies and plain ridiculous conjecture on Brax's part.

I don't understand what your argument is. Morality by its very nature can be completely ignored.

Then how can it have an objective source? If morals such as do not kill, steal and rape are objective, then why do some civilisations grow up around ignoring them? If morals are objective why does the west hold a majority view that eating dogs is wrong, but the east does not?

[Reginus]

Please explain what you mean by "real" infinities and how in any way that could possibly improve Brax's thus far laughable arguments?

An infinite amount of something that actualy has essence or existance (such as a particle or a minute). Lone's argument was that there are an infinate number of points in a second. However, in order for this to be true, the points(or sections of time) would have to be infinatly small, or in other words, non-existant. Therefore, this is an example of a purly hypothical infinity. Brax's argument (if I correctly understand it) is that in nature, there are no infinities of anything with essence, not even atoms. Since a second actualy has essence, (is not infinitly small or non-existant) there is no way that there could be an infinite amound of seconds.

[Arctonyx]

Please explain what you mean by "real" infinities and how in any way that could possibly improve Brax's thus far laughable arguments?

An infinite amount of something that actualy has essence or existance (such as a particle or a minute). Lone's argument was that there are an infinate number of points in a second. However, in order for this to be true, the points(or sections of time) would have to be infinatly small, or in other words, non-existant. Therefore, this is an example of a purly hypothical infinity. Brax's argument (if I correctly understand it) is that in nature, there are no infinities of anything with essence, not even atoms. Since a second actualy has essence, (is not infinitly small or non-existant) there is no way that there could be an infinite amound of seconds.

The problem is that whether an infinity is "real" or not does not help Brax's argument. He argued that if the universe stretched back into infinity then we could never reach 'our' point in time, firstly he is making the assumption that scientists think the universe stretches back into infinity. They simply don't know. Secondly he is implying that the only thing that could explain this is God, again untrue, we don't know. Anyone who asserts that there is a creator to the universe is lying to you, they cannot know. Thirdly, it's just plain ridiculous. That's like saying you cannot find the number 4 between 1 and 7 because there are an infinite number of points between 1 and 7 (which there are).

[Reginus]

Then how can it have an objective source? If morals such as do not kill, steal and rape are objective, then why do some civilisations grow up around ignoring them? If morals are objective why does the west hold a majority view that eating dogs is wrong, but the east does not?

I admit that I am very nieve about eastern culture, so please correct me if I am wrong about anything. First of all, I believe I can assume that these dog-eating civilizations do not think of dogs as the loving, loyal, and intelegent creatures that we think of them as in the West. Perhaps they are equivelent to mice, or other low-level animals in the mind of a person from the East. Second, culture has sort of a "snowballing" effect. If dog-eating becomes the norm, then people tend to ignore how morality goes against it. C.S. Lewis equates this with "getting our multiplication tables wrong."

[Reginus]

The problem is that whether an infinity is "real" or not does not help Brax's argument. He argued that if the universe stretched back into infinity then we could never reach 'our' point in time, firstly he is making the assumption that scientists think the universe stretches back into infinity. They simply don't know.

He is simply arguing that the universe must have began at some point in time. Scientists tend to have this view as well (big bang theory). Brax's argument is that if the universe really did begin at some point a finite time ago, it could not have just come into existance out of nothing.

Secondly he is implying that the only thing that could explain this is God, again untrue, we don't know. Anyone who asserts that there is a creator to the universe is lying to you, they cannot know.

Of course he can't be 100% sure, but the "god explaination" is better than no explaination, is it not?

Thirdly, it's just plain ridiculous. That's like saying you cannot find the number 4 between 1 and 7 because there are an infinite number of points between 1 and 7 (which there are)

Numbers are hypothical, right?   Time on the other hand, is real and measurable.

[Arctonyx]

I admit that I am very nieve about eastern culture, so please correct me if I am wrong about anything. First of all, I believe I can assume that these dog-eating civilizations do not think of dogs as the loving, loyal, and intelegent creatures that we think of them as in the West. Perhaps they are equivelent to mice, or other low-level animals in the mind of a person from the East. Second, culture has sort of a "snowballing" effect. If dog-eating becomes the norm, then people tend to ignore how morality goes against it. C.S. Lewis equates this with "getting our multiplication tables wrong."

On the contrary, in Eastern culture dogs are kept as pets maybe not as commonly as they are here in the west, but there are several Korean breeds of dog. Also it has been suggested that the first domesticated wolves arose in Eastern cultures. And how would dog eating become the norm if morality was objective? If people inherently saw eating dogs as wrong, it wouldn't become a social norm. In evolutionary terms this is rather easily explained, Eastern cultures exploited dogs as a food source primarily and as companions second, whereas western cultures did the opposite. Leaving you with a situation today where western cultures see eating dogs as wrong, and eastern cultures see at as a part of society. And what objective morality goes against eating dogs? None to my knowledge, our behaviour toward the consumption of dogs has been conditioned by a society with subjective morals.

Of course he can't be 100% sure, but the "god explaination" is better than no explaination, is it not?

No it is not. Seriously, this is the God of the gaps argument. An explanation with no evidence is not better then no explanation at all, pretending you know what happened is a wilful admittance to ignorance. You are pretending to know more then the cleverest people on Earth. By saying God did it, you're professing to know more then Stephen Hawking does about his particular field of Physics. I realise this could be misconstrued as an argument form authority, but I am pointing out that by making up explanations you are claiming to know more then the foremost experts in many fields.

It's as stupid as me saying 'I don't understand the stock market, therefore Leprechauns make it work.'. I would be pretending to know more then stock brokers who have devoted their entire lives to discovering the intricacies of the stock market. My idea that leprechauns make it work gives me no advantage to investment, it simply provides me a psychological teddy bear, by pretending to know more then I actually do.

Making up an explanation is irrational, superstitious, idiotic and I would say morally wrong, because you are wilfully lying to people.

Numbers are hypothical, right?  

No they are not.