Theism VS Atheism 1on1 Debate COMMENTS

[LoneMateria]

As for morality, I don't think we have found common ground on exactly what it is. You seem to have an interpretiation of "morality" as sort of a "rule book", while I think of it as more of a compass.

In any case, I think I'm done debating for a while. Time to go play some Starcraft!   Yeah, how much more geeky could I get?

Lol Starcraft brings back good old memories.  When does number 2 come out?

The way you put it, it made me think that you saw it as a rule book when I find it more of a guide line or a grey area.  Anyway thats for another time let me know when you want to debate some more.

[Reginus]

Lol Starcraft brings back good old memories.  When does number 2 come out?

Well, you know how Blizzard is. You have to take the "release date" and add on 3-6 month to compensate for delays. Anyway, they still havn't put up a release date for it, but I would guess that it will actualy come out some time in the fall of 2010. I'm not even sure if the beta version is up and running at this point.

The way you put it, it made me think that you saw it as a rule book when I find it more of a guide line or a grey area. Anyway thats for another time  let me know when you want to debate some more.

Will do. I havn't read it yet, but The Abolition of Man looks like a good book if you are interested on what C.S. Lewis has to say on the topic of "Is morality objective?"

[braxhunt]

Well, I'm glad everyone thinks I'm at least a nice guy. Thanks. BTW, somebody just posted that these arguments aren't even discussed by theologians anymore. If one of you atheists doesn't refute that I'm just gonna think there is some kind of unwritten rule that you guys can't disagree with eachother,

[Will]

We atheists disagree on many things, but generally speaking we have similar experiences with religious apologists to draw on when forming an opinion. I said that I have seen the arguments before during our debate. The same is true for many atheists, especially those that seek community in a public medium such as a forum.

[LoneMateria]

Will do. I havn't read it yet, but The Abolition of Man looks like a good book if you are interested on what C.S. Lewis has to say on the topic of "Is morality objective?"

yeah i've heard about C.S. Lewis, nothing good .  I'm actually going though 2 books right now and i'm about to start on the bible.  I'm currently reading Godless: How an evangelical preacher became one of america's leading atheists.  And I just started on God is not great.  But my big one is going to be the bible >.< its gonna suck.  Plus I can't find a reasonably priced 1611 King James version anywhere.

[Reginus]

Why do you want the King James version?

[braxhunt]

Will, I'm specifically talking about the claim that theologians don't discuss these arguments anymore.I was asking if you guys aren't going to challenge that. Is that really what you guys think? Theologians? Really?

[iNow]

Will, I'm specifically talking about the claim that theologians don't discuss these arguments anymore.I was asking if you guys aren't going to challenge that. Is that really what you guys think? Theologians? Really?

Well, if Will did, in fact say that, then perhaps people chose not to comment since it was completely peripheral and unrelated to the topic of the debate.  However, since you asked... Yes, if those were Will's words, then he probably over-stated that particular case (to the point where what he said was no longer accurate).  Either way... Theologians frequently talk about all kinds of silly unfounded nonsense, so why not that too?  Now, I'm off to go make a chic out of a rib.  I'm horny and this snake keeps talking to me.

[LoneMateria]

Why do you want the King James version?

I want the 1611 King James because it was the first bible in English.  Its more literature to me then say the New American Standards edition.  After reading Misquoting Jesus I figured I wanted an older translation.  But the price of the 1611 King James is so much I might have to settle for a regular King James Bible.

Will, I'm specifically talking about the claim that theologians don't discuss these arguments anymore.I was asking if you guys aren't going to challenge that. Is that really what you guys think? Theologians? Really?

It doesn't matter if theologians discuss this or not.  If they still want to use the argument and just ignore any counterpoint to it then they might as well not be talking about it.  For example the Cosmological Argument for the existence of a god is essentially a god of the gaps argument.  We don't know for sure what caused the big bang so a god did it.  Throw in a few unfounded assumptions and then you think you have a case.  If I were to substitute your god for the cause of the universe and replace it with fairies then would the argument still be valid?  Just take everywhere in the cosmological argument and replace god with fairies and your "argument (fallacy) becomes self evident.

[Will]

Will, I'm specifically talking about the claim that theologians don't discuss these arguments anymore.I was asking if you guys aren't going to challenge that. Is that really what you guys think? Theologians? Really?

I never said they didn't make the claims anymore. I just suggested that they were not effective tools of evangelism.

[braxhunt]

Will, no I'm talking about Actronyx comments on the last page. Ok, I admit it. . . I don't know how to quote other posts.

[braxhunt]

All the arguments you have put forward have been refuted many times, and are no longer in contention among theologians and professors, because they don't work.

Ha, just figured out how to quote.  

Might go quote crazy now.

[Will]

Ah, I misunderstood.

One could argue that anyone with a working knowledge of theology is a theologist, which would mean that Braxton is a theologist and thus we have evidence that at least one theologist does use these arguments still.  

As long as there is religion there will be apologists, and that's okay with me. I enjoy my skepticism, and I hope that any theist that has a similar tendency to be skeptical would explore his or her belief system.

[iNow]

All the arguments you have put forward have been refuted many times, and are no longer in contention among theologians and professors, because they don't work.

Ha, just figured out how to quote.  


However, now for the bad news.  You've completely misrepresented what was actually said.  Let's review:

All the arguments you have put forward have been refuted many times, and are no longer in contention among theologians and professors

I'm specifically talking about the claim that theologians don't discuss these arguments anymore

See the difference?  So many of these misunderstandings could be avoided if we simply spent more time understanding what others actually say, and not just what we think they said.

[Recusant]

I found the whole fideism-(is dispute with non-believers proper) aspect interesting.

The bible does not seem to direct believers to reason as the source of wisdom.  In fact, if anything, it seems
to be much stronger in exhorting believers to rely primarily on faith, and the holy scriptures themselves.  
Relevant passages come to mind; mostly Jesus preaching that one must become like a little child to enter
the kingdom of heaven.  What is it about "little children" that distinguishes them from adults?  In this context,
it seems to me to be that they have yet to achieve the "age of reason."  Thus, in my opinion, Jesus is saying
that faith, not reason, is the path to wisdom, and to heaven.

 

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(â†'Points to both scripture and faith as the sources of wisdom. Reason is not mentioned.)

 

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

 

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall
not enter therein.

(Luke has this last passage also, almost word for word.)

Then there are at least a few passages that seem to point to reasoning as a less than desirable path.
Mostly the incident when Jesus spoke of rejecting the "leaven of the Pharisees."  The disciples begin to
"reason among themselves" about why he said this, and Jesus rebukes them for doing so.

Of course I understand that most modern churches reject fideism, but I would say that those who
embrace it (though obviously they don't call it that) have a fairly sound biblical basis.

As for the question of disputing with non-believers, as I pointed out in another thread, the bible is of
two minds regarding this, even putting two diametrically opposed views on the subject in consecutive
verses:

 

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I guess in this particular case, one can decide for themself whether debating non-believers is proper
or not, since the bible seems to have it both ways.  (No doubt braxhunt can point out why my
reading of these verses is mistaken.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________

On to the Kalam, which braxhunt seems to find so irrefutable.  Well, you can't refute a dog chasing his
tail, but what good is he doing?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (interesting that the name is somewhat of a redundancy in that "kalam" is
a word used in Muslim theology to describe a type of dialectical argument) is essentially circular, in that
there's a god hiding in the first premise.

The Kalam:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

As restated by Dan Barker in his essay Cosmological Kalamity:

1. Everything except God has a cause.
2. The universe is not God.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

It's clear from this that unless there is at least a hypothetical something else which is uncaused, "God,"
being the only uncaused thing, defines that state.  If your proof begins by assuming the existence of
that which it's intended to proove, it's not particularly useful.