Theism VS Atheism 1on1 Debate COMMENTS

[Reginus]

I think that the whole "you must become a little child to enter the kingdom of heaven" thing is generaly saying that you must become free of the corruption of sin, and is not really implying anything about becoming free of reason. Atleast that was always my interpretation.

[Recusant]

I think that the whole "you must become a little child to enter the kingdom of heaven" thing is generaly saying that you must become free of the corruption of sin, and is not really implying anything about becoming free of reason. Atleast that was always my interpretation.

Hmm, even little children are guilty of original sin, so I have reason to doubt that your interpretation is correct, but I'm sure most Christian scholars (especially those who renounce fideism) would agree with you.

[Reginus]

purgatory

And yeah, I think fideism is absolutly ridiculous

[Will]

I did want to bring up something during the debate but I held off because it was theism in general and not Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is a doubting Thomas for rejecting fideism. In John 20:24-29, Thomas seeks evidence to verify the resurrection and gets an earful from Jesus for his skepticism. "...blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." That's fideism. Thomas wasn't satisfied with the unreliable testimony of people, instead seeking an objectively verifiable answer to the question. $5 says that Thomas Aquinas would have made the same mistake.

[Arctonyx]

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.

Well I have an answer pretty much prepared for your cosmological argument in your first post. May as well just do bullet points, sorry if the orders a bit out of whack, responding to them as they appeared in your argument

1) We do not know whether the universe was caused, or whether it stretches back into infinity, or whether the 1000's of other explanations it could be are more likely. You have misrepresented your opponents opinions, straw man fallacy by presuming we believe the universe can only stretch back into infinity.

2) Even if there is a cause and it is proven to be supernatural, then why is your Christian God invoked? Why not the Hindu Gods? Why not Zeus?

3) Current scientific consensus IS NOT that the universe wasn't always there, physicists DO NOT say the universe was created a finite time ago, do not lie. The current scientific consensus is that the current universe expanded from a singularity, WE DO NOT KNOW the origins of that singularity, whether it was a bounce from a previous universe or a spiders web of millions of universes or something else entirely.

3) Your argument that whatever made the universe must be eternal is just plain wrong. Just because something is made of time, space and matter/energy does not mean that whatever the cause was (if there was a cause) must be 'beyond' those things. Lets put this into algebra, we have T, S and M/E. You have jumped to the conclusion that G is responsible for all of these. YOU CAN NOT KNOW whether the cause was 'non-temporal', do not claim you know something you can not, or even suggest that there is evidence supports such.

4) There is NO evidence for what you claim to be 'non-temporal', something with no presence can not (as far as we know) have an effect on the temporal without reverting to magic

5) There is no evidence for the non-temporal, and even if there was there is no evidence it is eternal, cop-out argument.

6) Argument from authority:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Pity, so when did theologians come up with Modern Medicine? Oh yeah that's right they didn't. Theologians pretend to have 'scaled' this mountain of ignorance, just because you claim to do something doesn't mean you have.

7) The infinity argument is just plain stupid, there are an infinite number of points between 1 and 2, yet if I increase the number 1 by infinitesimally small units I will reach 2 eventually. By your reckoning this should be impossible. Furthermore you are arguing that if the universe does stretch back into infinity, that it can never have existed, a rather strange argument again based on things YOU CAN NOT KNOW

Additionally science does not argue that the big bang retreats into 'nothingness'. Your whole argument revolves around a God of the Gaps, don't pretend that it isn't.

I think I went a little overboard on the caps, but as I said I lost my patience rather quickly with the amount of falsehoods you were blurting out. And I said they were no longer in contention by theologians, simply because the arguments you presented have been shot down so many times that it's pointless to bring them up again. Because they are filled with holes and logical fallacies.

[braxhunt]

I take it as personally offensive that you would accuse me of lieing. I hope that as you develop a more well rounded understanding of academic debate you will find that "character assasination" is the most debased form of argument. Also, I was not arguing against a straw man argument when I argued against an infinite regress as I was presented the eternal universe hypothesis several times. Yes we can know that an infinite regression is not possible. We know it philosophically. Yes we can know that the non-temporal exists in that the temporal is dependant on space and matter both of which most have a first cause. Your infinity between two points is not what physicists and philosophers call an "actual infinity." You may contend that there are infinite points between, say 3 and 4 but you still have point "3" so you still have a starting point. And the scriptural arguments for fideism do not stand in that context is everything. I could take singular quotes from virtually anyone on this forum, quote them alone and make you all sound like bible-thumping holy rollers.

[Arctonyx]

I take it as personally offensive that you would accuse me of lieing. I hope that as you develop a more well rounded understanding of academic debate you will find that "character assasination" is the most debased form of argument. Also, I was not arguing against a straw man argument when I argued against an infinite regress as I was presented the eternal universe hypothesis several times. Yes we can know that an infinite regression is not possible. We know it philosophically. Yes we can know that the non-temporal exists in that the temporal is dependant on space and matter both of which most have a first cause. Your infinity between two points is not what physicists and philosophers call an "actual infinity." You may contend that there are infinite points between, say 3 and 4 but you still have point "3" so you still have a starting point. And the scriptural arguments for fideism do not stand in that context is everything. I could take singular quotes from virtually anyone on this forum, quote them alone and make you all sound like bible-thumping holy rollers.

I'm sorry if you find it offensive, but I do not make the accusation lightly:

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.

Simply put, that is a lie on your part. Whether it's a failure to check the facts or a wilful ignorance, I do not care. You  purposely misrepresented information, also known as a lie. And I'm sorry to say this, but if you can not critically analyse your response to my comments, and do not realise just how fallacious your 'rebuttals' are, then there is no point debating with you. You did not respond to my arguments on more then a couple of points (and those responses themselves were based on fallacious claims and never dealt with the entire argument), personally attacked me for calling you a liar on one point(although I would say I was valid in that statement, considering the above evidence) and then threatened us with quote mining. I'm afraid it is you, who has not grasped the basics of a debate.

Also I decided to have a little dig around on your website, and what I found on your products page seems to say rather a lot. You have 4 'messages' about Evolution, titled:

The answer to evolution
The fairytales of evolution
The lies of evolution
The racism of evolution

Whilst, I see that they aren't directly pertinent to this debate and I haven't personally seen them as I'm unwilling to pay $20 for something I will probably have heard before. I can not take anyone seriously who blatantly ignores such well substantiated theories, as these messages seem to suggest you do. It suggests that no matter what we say, what evidence we provide, that you will ignore it. I'm a rational person, people debate me out of positions I hold all the time, selling such messages seem to suggest that you will never question your beliefs, and in this debate not being able to question your beliefs would automatically (in my view) hand the 'win' (if anyone can win in this debate) over to Will. Simply because arguing you have the more rational position, when you will not question any of your beliefs or the information you've been given, is rather ironic.

I admit I could be completely wrong in this assessment of you, I'm making an assumption, based on the evidence that you are selling such messages, that you are unable or unwilling to question your beliefs and ideas. And that is not the basis for a rational debate. Although I must admit, being a former Mormon myself that your message entitled 'the dangers of Mormonism' did make me giggle, considering the people in my family and in my community who attend the Mormon church around here

[LoneMateria]

Your infinity between two points is not what physicists and philosophers call an "actual infinity." You may contend that there are infinite points between, say 3 and 4 but you still have point "3" so you still have a starting point.
...
 I could take singular quotes from virtually anyone on this forum, quote them alone and make you all sound like bible-thumping holy rollers.

What about mathematicians?  I have no idea an "actual infinity" is can you describe it?  It doesn't matter if we use a starting point for reference.  Infinity is infinity and the argument doesn't change.  It just switched scales.  There is still an infinite amount of numbers between the 3rd second of the minute and the 4th second of the minute, if we couldn't get past infinity then we wouldn't get by we would be frozen in time.  

Also i'm sure we can quote mine your posts and make you sound like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins.  I don't take much stock in quote mining.

Yes we can know that an infinite regression is not possible. We know it philosophically.

Thats a big assertion and you demonstrate how universal infinite regression is not possible?  The problem with the argument is that even if the eternal universe theory is wrong you would have to demonstrate every other explanation that could ever be conceived is equally wrong and that it only could have been done by a singular intelligence in which it itself is immune to the infinite regression (and specifically your god).  When you start mixing that type of pseudoscience with actual science you cannot be sure that you are right.  I could claim using the same logic you use that a small family of space leprechauns created the universe.  Would I be right?  Or that the family created your god and we should worship them?  Or that it was Satan who created the universe and he made God on accident and God is in hell and Satan rules heaven.  That is the problem of mixing pseudoscience with science.

[braxhunt]

Simply because arguing you have the more rational position, when you will not question any of your beliefs or the information you've been given, is rather ironic.

I admit I could be completely wrong in this assessment of you, I'm making an assumption, based on the evidence that you are selling such messages, that you are unable or unwilling to question your beliefs and ideas.

You have no knowledge of what my view of evolution is because I have not told you. Further, it makes no difference to whether theism is true. As a side note those messages are actually about naturalism, not "evolution" but I don't handle that part of my site and it's was a mistake. I am more than willing to change my position on issues if I am presented with compelling evidence. The fact that I make my work available to anyone who wants it is not an assertion that I cannot be persuaded otherwise. If that were true then no true scientific or philosophical works would ever be published by honest authors.

I did not respond to your other arguments because 1) I already have in the debate, and 2) guess what? I'm not in a formal debate with you. If you want to debate formally then ask, but I am not gonna be roped into debating dozens of atheists on this one thread where everyone has questions and I spend my entire day answering.

This may be my last post with regard to you, Arctonyx. There are plenty of cordial atheists on this site with whom I can converse. Furthermore, I have made no unkind comments that I am aware of. If I have I apologize, but I will not continue to converse with an individual who engages in "character assasination." It sounds like you have a lot of anger. Your the kind of person I only find on the internet because you say the kinds of things most people would never say in person because of something called common courtesy. I'd rather view atheists as the respectful kind of people I have found in some others here.

[Arctonyx]

I have been perfectly cordial, I accused you of lying on 1 point, and provided evidence. On all other points, although I know I lost my patience and may have seemed aggressive (that was not my intention), I was perfectly cordial. I am sorry that I made an assumption regarding your views on evolution, however you must realise that selling such things on your site suggests you are a creationist? Especially with those titles. Furthermore I would argue that you have not made them available for all to view, as you are in fact, charging money for them.

I'm sorry if I do not engage in something called 'common courtesy', however I was raised to tell the truth, and not to care if the truth happened to step on some peoples toes. I'm usually very cordial and open to debate others views, however I will not engage in tip toeing just to be considered politically correct, if someone says something that is so obviously wrong, I will call them out on it. And please point out where I have not been cordial with you, I tried several times (in vain, obviously), to point out the logical fallacies you were relying on, in several different posts. And all you've done to reply is call it 'character assassination' because I pointed out a lie on your part, and have the evidence of your own words to back it up. I find it odd that you have not yet actually responded to these allegations, as if you were not lying it should be incredibly easy to point out where I misinterpreted your words. I welcome you to point out, where I misinterpreted what you said, and I will admit I was wrong and retract my statement.

[LoneMateria]

brax why are you only interested in 1 on 1 debates?  Seriously we have theists on here and they have taken your side on some issues why do you only want to debate 1 on 1?  We have big discussions and if your views are right and backed up by evidence were not going to play the ignore game (like you did with regard to my last post).  Not everything has to be a debate, there is such a thing as an open discussion to which no one is obliged to agree or disagree with every point you or someone else makes.  However we are (at least I am) prepared to back up any points I make in a discussion with evidence, logic, reason, or whatever else may be called for.  

Also i'm getting somewhat annoyed you are playing the "angry atheist" card.  I can tell that the members you are accusing of being angry are just frustrated.  Sometimes we all expect things to go a certain way and they don't but when you make comments like:

I did not respond to your other arguments because 1) I already have in the debate, and 2) guess what? I'm not in a formal debate with you.

You are the one who looks angry, and you are the one who is not cordial.  If you were to ask a question to me and I were to respond that way how would you view me?  If you asked me a question about my position on something and I intentionally refused to answer it then said well were not in a debate so i'm not going to answer it, how strong would you view my position?  And this could be over something as simple as he/she honestly didn't see that in your debate, it was long after all and i'm sure there are points everyone missed.

[Will]

Chilax, everyone.  

[braxhunt]

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.

[Arctonyx]

Chilax, everyone.   How could I not be chillaxed?

[Ultima22689]

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.

With all due respect braxhunt, that is what happens when you try to argue against logical people with fallacies and debunked theories.