Happy Atheist Forum

Hi, I am a Christian apologist and was attracted to this forum because I like (and applaud you for) the idea of being positive about your worldview rather than angry. I am looking for individuals who would be willing to have a friendly and respectful Email debate regarding the existence/nonexistence of God, Divinity/historicity of Jesus Christ or some other subject.

It would, after completion, be posted on my website unchanged. Anyone is welcome to respond.

Welcome to the forum. I'm not personally interested in an email debate, but I'd be really happy to engage you in polite discussion here on the forum. Are there any particular topics you'd like to discuss?

Ya know, the majority of atheists are not angry, but thanks for the backhanded compliment.   :D

It really wasn't intended as a backhanded compliment. There are a lot of Christians and atheists who just leave unkind statements made with such glib certainty on many sites. I was genuinely complimenting the unique intent of this forum. However, I apologize if it did sound like I was damning you with faint praise. It was not my desire.

Quote from: "braxhunt"I am looking for individuals who would be willing to have a friendly and respectful Email debate regarding the existence/nonexistence of God, Divinity/historicity of Jesus Christ or some other subject.

It would, after completion, be posted on my website unchanged. Anyone is welcome to respond.

That debate always boils down to a fundamental difference that can't be resolved. What I would like to see you do is have a Catholic, a Southern Baptist, and a member of the LDS debate you about the validity of their denominations. What might the list of topic questions look like, anybody?    

Quote from: "braxhunt"It really wasn't intended as a backhanded compliment. There are a lot of Christians and atheists who just leave unkind statements made with such glib certainty on many sites. I was genuinely complimenting the unique intent of this forum. However, I apologize if it did sound like I was damning you with faint praise. It was not my desire.

Part of the problem is the nature of the internet. Anonymity breeds open and careless hostility. People will say and do things on the net that they would never even consider in person. Much of what atheists do that Christians see as unkind are really just generalized reactions to specific events. It's important to look at it from a sociological point of view: what atheists are going through right now is much like what women went through, then what African Americans went through, then what the gay community has been going through. It's a push for equality, the desire to have a voice, the abandonment of the historical fear to be ourselves in open view. I truly believe that if more Christians understood the atheist movement in those terms, they would be at least a little more understanding.

I actually just posted a link to a little story about a couple Christians who tried being atheists for a day (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3764&start=0). It's rather enlightening. Sounds like a good idea for a book, really.

Well, I guess all I can say is I gave it my best shot. I still am very interested in finding individuals who would be willing to have an email debate. I wanted it to be friendly and academic that is why I came to this forum. Nevertheless, I find that while no one here is being as aggressive as Christians and atheists are on other sites, some of you seem to be a bit touchy (which would be warranted if I had said anything negative, but all I have done is be respectful). I have atheist friends and we have preached at eachother quite often, so as much as I appreciate the advice it is not necessary. As for the poster who asked about debates within Christian communities, these are had quite regularly.

Quote from: "braxhunt"Well, I guess all I can say is I gave it my best shot. I still am very interested in finding individuals who would be willing to have an email debate. I wanted it to be friendly and academic that is why I came to this forum. Nevertheless, I find that while no one here is being as aggressive as Christians and atheists are on other sites, some of you seem to be a bit touchy (which would be warranted if I had said anything negative, but all I have done is be respectful). I have atheist friends and we have preached at eachother quite often, so as much as I appreciate the advice it is not necessary. As for the poster who asked about debates within Christian communities, these are had quite regularly.

I disagree that some of us are touchy. We're just more keenly aware of the hegemonic presuppositions made my theists.

I was hoping someone else would oblige.  I'm no expert on the historicity of Jesus and I'm probably one of the few people here who doesn't know the Bible as well as you, but I'm familiar with the philosophical arguments against your god, and I know a bit of the problems with Jesus (like the lack of contemporary mention of him).  I'll PM you my email and you can respond if you think I offer good enough latitude.  You may want to read some of my posts on this forum before you make that choice.

Why an email debate instead of a forum debate? If I ask people nicely to allow you and one other person to have a thread to debate in, people would probably be fine holding off until it's done before commenting.

Quote from: "Will"Why an email debate instead of a forum debate? If I ask people nicely to allow you and one other person to have a thread to debate in, people would probably be fine holding off until it's done before commenting.

I would agree to that. It would be an interesting read.

I don't want to risk my email because of the spam issue... it's not that I don't trust you to keep my email safe, it's that I have worked hard to funnel all spam to one account and use the other strictly for email. Plus, my work email is monitored, and my boss is Christian, and I'm not quite "out" at work yet. I would honor you request to stay away from posting a person to person thread.

Hismikeness  

I appreciate the response. And once again I apologize for anything I have said in the above posts that may have sounded insulting.  It was not my intent, but that is the nature of text discussion. Sometimes things are misunderstood because tone and inflection can not be heard. I have recieved an email address from oe of you and am excited about the debate we will have. I also would be open to the idea of a public debate on this forum in a thread created for that purpose between myself and one other individual. Great Idea! Whoever would be willing to do that just PM me so we can decide how it will work. Thank you so much (everyone) for taking this post seriously.

Quote from: "hismikeness"

Quote from: "Will"Why an email debate instead of a forum debate? If I ask people nicely to allow you and one other person to have a thread to debate in, people would probably be fine holding off until it's done before commenting.

I would agree to that. It would be an interesting read.

I don't want to risk my email because of the spam issue... it's not that I don't trust you to keep my email safe, it's that I have worked hard to funnel all spam to one account and use the other strictly for email. Plus, my work email is monitored, and my boss is Christian, and I'm not quite "out" at work yet. I would honor you request to stay away from posting a person to person thread.

Hismikeness  

A lot of people don't understand how an email can be connected to a real-life identity - and they don't understand that giving out your email and admitting your atheism could jeopardize your job and safety in many situations.  I can understand why people wouldn't think of this, it's crazy that people would hurt or fire a person for being an atheist so no reasonable person would think of that unless they'd heard of it.

I am sensitive to that. I would hate for anyone to be negatively affected because of this. For this reason I happily accept the invitation to debate on this, or any other site. However, if someone does want to I would like it if we could use first names in our posts (even if it is a pen-name). I look forward to any takers. I will be respectful at best and cordial at least.

If no one else throws their hat in the ring, I'll gladly be a back-up. I'll give other people a few days to volunteer, though.

Normally, I love to indulge in debates. But I fear I've already wasted too much precious time in this all-too short life  disputing theists on this subject.

Quote from: "braxhunt"Hi, I am a Christian apologist and was attracted to this forum because I like (and applaud you for) the idea of being positive about your worldview rather than angry. I am looking for individuals who would be willing to have a friendly and respectful Email debate regarding the existence/nonexistence of God, Divinity/historicity of Jesus Christ or some other subject.

It would, after completion, be posted on my website unchanged. Anyone is welcome to respond.

Who do you love, thank, and respect more: God or Jesus?

Quote from: "Brizz"Who do you love, thank, and respect more: God or Jesus?

If I were one of the trinity-folks, I'd have to say both, because they are one and the same.

Otherwise, God, since he created Jesus.

Hey braxhunt, could you link to your website that it'd be posted on? You may get some more interest if we could see where our hard-fought battle would be recorded.  

Sure, I would be happy to. Braxtonhunter.com

Quote from: "Kylyssa"A lot of people don't understand how an email can be connected to a real-life identity - and they don't understand that giving out your email and admitting your atheism could jeopardize your job and safety in many situations.  I can understand why people wouldn't think of this, it's crazy that people would hurt or fire a person for being an atheist so no reasonable person would think of that unless they'd heard of it.

Yup...I have friends here in Dallas who have lost their jobs or been threatened with the loss of their jobs just for being associated with free-thought orgs. events.  It's really hard to be yourself when you have to think about how what you say or do might affect your ability to keep/acquire work.  This is something I am having to think about a lot since Camp Quest Texas (about a week away) will be on the news and I will be there. Conversations related to existing news coverage have already outed me on Facebook (quite a few my friends and past school mates...I'm set to private for those not on my list) if they bother reading things I comment on.

Edit:  I'm too busy helping to prepare for the above mentioned event to participate in a formal debate or lengthy discussion.

Without using any bible quotes, give me one argument for the existence of god.   I think we all know that you will not have one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_God)

Quote from: "Reginus"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_God

If you actually read that article, you would know that it actually says very little.

Quote from: "heretical rants"We want evidence, not feelings. This means no post hoc and no "I once was lost, but now I'm found."

After that, you really just have the watchmaker argument, which is basically a blind shot-in-the-dark hypothesis that doesn't even support any specific God, just the deist god.

Ancient scriptures and self-fulfilling prophesies also do not count, nor do vague passages that could be interpreted to mean anything.

Example:
And [I swear] by the night when it draws in, and by the dawn when it breathes in. (Qur'an, 81:17-18)

This supposedly describes the process of photosynthesis.

Quote from: "the Wikipedia article"* The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
    * The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
    * The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulate this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[17]
    * The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.
    * The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
    * Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.
    * The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
    * The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
    * The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
    * The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
    * The Argument from Reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing itâ€"or anything else not the direct result of a physical causeâ€"and we could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.
    * Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory holds that the universe is bound to ultimately end in a Big Crunch, which will create a gravitational singularity that can be exploited to obtain practically infinite computational capacity; Tipler equates this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity to God.

As you can see, this amounts to "feelings" plus the watchmaker argument.

After this the article has the majority argument, the "miraculous Quran" argument, nutters who say they've seen god, and Pascal's wager.

Can these things really be considered evidence?

I guess I should have asked for "good" arguments.

Quote from: "buttercupbaby"I guess I should have asked for "good" arguments.

Even better, just ask for any evidence.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "buttercupbaby"I guess I should have asked for "good" arguments.

Even better, just ask for any evidence.

But little Betty Sue Jane from Louisiana feels GOD in her heart.  If you would only open up to the LORD you would share in this great gift which is evidence of HIS awesome power!!!!  

Quote from: "braxhunt"Hi, I am a Christian apologist and was attracted to this forum because I like (and applaud you for) the idea of being positive about your worldview rather than angry. I am looking for individuals who would be willing to have a friendly and respectful Email debate regarding the existence/nonexistence of God,

As others have noted, email is a no-go.  I'm also not going to share with you my social security number, nor my mothers maiden name.

Open a thread with such a debate as the central topic.
Post the link here.

I'd be glad to engage you on the topic if you're willing to avoid logical fallacies and blatant falsehoods.  
So... whatdya say?   You game?    

Inow, I would be interested in a such a debate. However, I am not sure exactly how that would work on a thread.Is there a reason we could not simply do the debate in PMs? Is there a way that we could set it up in a thread so that you and I would be the only ones able to add to the discussion, at least until we conclude the debate? I'm not sure exactly how that works.  If not I don't think it would be worthwhile as others may not respect the setup, although I'm willing to try.  If there is a way, the only thing I would ask is that either 1.) we agree to use no profanity (not that I expect you would) or 2.) if profanity is used I would be permitted to omit it when I post the debate on my site. As far as logical fallacies are concerned, I make every effort to avoid them, but everytime I come across a listing of fallacies it is longer than the last. For this reason it will be difficult to promise you that I will not use arguments that you may view as being fallacious.

Quote from: "braxhunt"Inow, I would be interested in a such a debate. However, I am not sure exactly how that would work on a thread.Is there a reason we could not simply do the debate in PMs? Is there a way that we could set it up in a thread so that you and I would be the only ones able to add to the discussion, at least until we conclude the debate? I'm not sure exactly how that works.  If not I don't think it would be worthwhile as others may not respect the setup

Your desire to do this privately (whether via PM or email) implies to me that you are merely seeking converts...  trying to spread the good word and bring another sheep into your flock...  The implication is NOT that you are seeking an honest debate (perhaps I am mistaken, and if so, I do apologize).  

Seriously... If you have a meritorious position to argue, then why the extreme reluctance and trepidation to do it openly and in public view?  One would think that... if you truly have an argument worth our time and attention... that you'd want it to be visible to the largest possible audience.

Open a thread.  Invite me in.  Of course I cannot speak on behalf of other contributors here, but I'll do everything I can to remain respectful, focused, and crisp.  Further, I can promise you that if I see a logical fallacy in your argument, I will not provide you with a list, but instead with a specific indication/description of which fallacy you have used and why it is inappropriate as a foundation for your position.

Buttercup claimed that there are no arguments for god's existence. I posted a link to several arguments. Now, if you if you disagree with these, or think that they're not supported by much evidence, that's fine. However the statement that there are no arguments for the existence of a god, is false.

Quote from: "Reginus"Buttercup claimed that there are no arguments for god's existence. I posted a link to several arguments. Now, if you if you disagree with these, or think that they're not supported by much evidence, that's fine. However the statement that there are no arguments for the existence of a god, is false.

A useless argument might as well be no argument.

Let me assure you, the reason that I wanted to debate in a an email or PM was only because I don't want the discussion to get convoluted with lots of other people joining in. My experience is that such a debate is unfocused. However, I am willing to try it. I don't  know how to invite someone to a post so if you would start it I would appreciate that. We would need to establish a subject for the debate. I am fine with "Does God Exist" but I will debate any subject. I don't know if your an atheist, agnostic, deist or what. Since I would probably be holding the affirmative position in any such debate I would expect that classically I would go first and in a somehwhat lengthy post lay out my arguments giving you plenty to take issue with. If this suits you then I'm ready when you are.

Quote from: "braxhunt"Let me assure you, the reason that I wanted to debate in a an email or PM was only because I don't want the discussion to get convoluted with lots of other people joining in. My experience is that such a debate is unfocused. However, I am willing to try it. I don't  know how to invite someone to a post so if you would start it I would appreciate that. We would need to establish a subject for the debate. I am fine with "Does God Exist" but I will debate any subject. I don't know if your an atheist, agnostic, deist or what. Since I would probably be holding the affirmative position in any such debate I would expect that classically I would go first and in a somehwhat lengthy post lay out my arguments giving you plenty to take issue with. If this suits you then I'm ready when you are.

We're a pretty congenial bunch here, Braxhunt. Someone has already mentioned that it'd be very easy to have a thread focus on a discussion between two people and, when that debate is closed, allow another to step up. Just lay it out.

Quote from: "braxhunt"We would need to establish a subject for the debate. I am fine with "Does God Exist" but I will debate any subject.

Well, since you've provided me with the option to choose, here is the subject I'd like you to address:


What objective, falsifiable, repeatable evidence is there for the existence of god which could not equally be applied to argue for the existence of Zeus or Apollo, and which is consistent across observers regardless of worldview or system of beliefs?


In the interest of transparency, I tend to shy away from the "does god exist" umbrella since (while I'm incredibly confident that there is no such entity) neither one of us can prove it does or does not exist as anything more than an ambiguously defined three letter word... and all the logic in the world won't help if the debate resides on flawed premises, questionable terms & definitions, and/or unprovable assertions.  Proofs are for math, not science, so going into this we know that we would be arguing likelihood of existence, not existence itself.

My contention is that the likelihood of gods existence is so low as to be dismissable, and should be classed in the same bucket as the likelihood of the tooth fairy, purple unicorns, or centaurs existing.


My request to you is to provide some objective, falsifiable, and repeatable evidence which indicates that the existence of god is based on something more than wish thinking or popular myth.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Someone has already mentioned that it'd be very easy to have a thread focus on a discussion between two people and, when that debate is closed, allow another to step up. Just lay it out.

Yes, very easy.  We could even make it so no one but the debating parties could post in the thread...which would be the easiest way to keep new people from accidentally responding, I know the regs would stay out of it if asked.  On other forums I've been on, they set up a comment thread so that those who feel the need to comment on the current debate can do so without interrupting the debate or losing their thoughts waiting for it to be over.

Inow - My argument for God would be similar to the way you would argue against God's existence based on your last post. I would argue that it is more probable that God exists than that God does not exist. I would not maintain that the existence of God could be proven. Because of this my argument would be based on evidences which are objective, but the nature of the debate would demand that we do just that with regard to the evidence. It would be falsifiable in that if the premises I lay out are shot down my view of God would be untenable. I ascribe to the God of theism. That is to say, the God whose existence I would be defending could be defined as the personal, intelligent, necessary and intentional first cause of the universe. I have found that the more wordy the title of a debate is, the more difficult it becomes to stay focused. For this reason I submit to you the option of debating the question "Which is more likely Atheism or Theism?" with theism defined as I have.

Whitney - I appreciate the idea and if Inow agrees then I would ask him to setup such a thread (or somebody tell me how, Ha ha).

Ruh roh, William Lane Craig, ahoy!  

Quote from: "braxhunt"I would not maintain that the existence of God could be proven. Because of this my argument would be based on evidences which are objective, but the nature of the debate would demand that we do just that with regard to the evidence. It would be falsifiable in that if the premises I lay out are shot down my view of God would be untenable. I ascribe to the God of theism.

Am I correct in thinking that your argument would reside wholly on your interpretation of the evidence, and not the evidence itself?  If so, then we're a no-go.

As a helpful tip, if that is your approach, then I can tell you right now that your argument will fail as a direct result of non-sequitur logic.

Quote from: "braxhunt"For this reason I submit to you the option of debating the question "Which is more likely Atheism or Theism?" with theism defined as I have.

I don't know what the means.  You seem to have left out some words which would make your sentence coherent.
Is atheism or theism more likely to do/be what?  

Or, perhaps did you mean to refer to the distribution of those terms as labels describing humans in our the global community (like 90% of the world are theists and 10% of the world are atheists, ergo theism is more likely)... approaching this as an issue of probability and statistics...   something like that?  

Again... as a helpful tip, if that is your approach, then I can tell you right now that your argument will fail as a direct result of appeal to popularity.

Quote from: "iNow"I don't know what the means.  You seem to have left out some words which would make your sentence coherent.
Is atheism or theism more likely to do/be what?  

Or, perhaps did you mean to refer to the distribution of those terms as labels describing humans in our the global community (like 90% of the world are theists and 10% of the world are atheists, ergo theism is more likely)... approaching this as an issue of probability and statistics...   something like that?  

Again... as a helpful tip, if that is your approach, then I can tell you right now that your argument will fail as a direct result of appeal to popularity.

Probably "Which is More Likely (To Be the Case in which Truth Resides in Regard to Existence and Cosmology): Atheism or Theism?"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Probably "Which is More Likely (To Be the Case in which Truth Resides in Regard to Existence and Cosmology): Atheism or Theism?"

Yes, I thought that, too, but wanted to give braxhunt a bit of a taste for what he is in for if he is not cautious with his terms.


In response to the above, I propose the following:
Which position is more rational and reasonable: Atheism or Theism?  Why?

Quote from: "iNow"In response to the above, I propose the following:
Which position is more rational and reasonable: Atheism or Theism?  Why?

Let me know if the above is a good topic for both parties and I'll get the debate area ready.

QuoteWhich position is more rational and reasonable: Atheism or Theism? Why?

I smell Pascal's wager coming on this one.

I really hope this takes off. It will make interesting reading.

Inow, I'm going to be a little direct here since you have. I am a PhD. candidate in philosophy and am well aware of the need for thorough definitions. I understand you think your being clever, but respectfully, I do not need the little tips. In academic circles philosophers understand that if any progress of epistemology is to be had then we must not unnecessarily complicate the words of another if we are aware of what they intend to say. I have and will make an effort to treat you with respect, I would expect that in return. If it is your intention to simply "knit-pick" the terminology I use on every point of the debate and then declare your intellectual superiority you have a poor understanding of how proper scholarly debate is to be handled.

By the way, I think you and I would be in a greement with regard to what should be done with the evidence. However, it always comes down to how one interprets the evidence. Unless you are a presuppositionalist you look at the evidence that is before you and you interpret.

P.S. Are you going to keep trying to guess what arguments I'm going to use? Why not save your responses for the debate?

Quote from: "braxhunt"Inow, I'm going to be a little direct here since you have. I am a PhD. candidate in philosophy

Thanks for the heads up.  I don't really care, but appreciate the open nature of your comment.  For your reference, I've never taken a formal debate class nor have I studied philosophy.  I am a scientist, and an analytical thinker, and I have the added benefit of arguing for the side which is more valid.  

As I mentioned above, I am more interested in evidence than logic.  Logic can prove anything really, even if that anything has zero basis in reality.  This is why I will be scrutinizing your premises and assertions rather forcefully.

Quote from: "braxhunt"I have and will make an effort to treat you with respect, I would expect that in return. If it is your intention to simply "knit-pick" the terminology I use on every point of the debate and then declare your intellectual superiority you have a poor understanding of how proper scholarly debate is to be handled.

Well, besides the fact that you have just back-handedly used an ad hominem by suggesting I am merely "declaring my intellectual superiority" and "have a poor understanding of how proper scholarly debate is to be handled," essentially attacking me as a messenger instead of addressing any of the content of my message... I wish to comment on your point about picking nits (note there is no "k" in that word when used in this context, and that the correct spelling is "nits."  The word you chose, "knits," is a homonym which refers instead to patterning and design with fibers or yarn, whereas the term of the expression you chose refers to the removal of lice, or "nits," and is written without a "k")...

However, now I am, in fact, just nit-picking... So, on to your comment suggesting that is what I was doing previously...


We are discussing a very vague concept here as pertains to theism, deity, and belief.  As I mentioned previously, discussions and debate about the god concept are often troubled since it is such an ambiguously defined three letter word.  By example, your version of god is likely to be markedly different from the version of god held by others... even those who practice your own personal brand of theism and faith.  For that reason alone, the demand for clarity in language and unambiguous points is indespensible, and for you to dismiss such a demand as "nit-picking" suggests to me that it is perhaps you who has a poor understanding of scholarly debate.  Now... taking a step back and taking a deep breath... I am rather confident this is not the case, and that you are a very learned and capable individual, however, I will not accept an assertion as empty as the one you've just put forward.  

Demanding unambiguous terms, dismissing logical flaws, and discarding baseless assertions is NOT nit picking, but is instead at the very heart of "scholarly debate."

Quote from: "braxhunt"P.S. Are you going to keep trying to guess what arguments I'm going to use? Why not save your responses for the debate?

You have yet to agree to the proposed topic.  I am still waiting.

Also, if I could request... Please start using the quote feature provided by this site's vBulletin software, and ask questions now if you are unsure how to do so.  I fear that arguments and points will be misplaced if you continue posting without reference to specific comments put forward by the person to whom you are reponding.  Agreed?

I am going to interject at this point, because I think this thread is starting to get a bit testy. Here is how I see it and what I would like to suggest:

 - braxhunt has very open, honest, and forthcoming about his intent and desires. I have seen nothing that indicates trickery, trolling, or mal-intent.

 - iNow, as a very new member of this forum, you are still getting a handle on the tenor and tone here. Your posts to braxhunt are a bit on the aggressive side. We like to give the benefit of the doubt to all people here, and sometimes our suspicions get the best of us, despite out efforts to be fair. I would respectfully request that you carefully consider the tone of your comments and take braxhunt at face value.

 - Whether or not anyone here wants to post these debates on braxhunt's site is entirely up to them, but we have created an area here, as noted, where this type of debate can be done.

 - Last observation relates to what braxhunt mentioned about wanting to do this in PMs, or off the main forum, and that is so many people piling into the thread without meaningful dialogue. It is already happening here, which is exactly what he said would happen. I don't want to see this debate get unfocused and off with tons of people inserting their comments or tangental thoughts.

If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to send me a PM, but this needs to move forward productively. Thank you.

Quote from: "McQ"I am going to interject at this point, because I think this thread is starting to get a bit testy. Here is how I see it and what I would like to suggest:

 - braxhunt has very open, honest, and forthcoming about his intent and desires. I have seen nothing that indicates trickery, trolling, or mal-intent.

 - iNow, as a very new member of this forum, you are still getting a handle on the tenor and tone here. Your posts to braxhunt are a bit on the aggressive side. We like to give the benefit of the doubt to all people here, and sometimes our suspicions get the best of us, despite out efforts to be fair. I would respectfully request that you carefully consider the tone of your comments and take braxhunt at face value.

 - Whether or not anyone here wants to post these debates on braxhunt's site is entirely up to them, but we have created an area here, as noted, where this type of debate can be done.

 - Last observation relates to what braxhunt mentioned about wanting to do this in PMs, or off the main forum, and that is so many people piling into the thread without meaningful dialogue. It is already happening here, which is exactly what he said would happen. I don't want to see this debate get unfocused and off with tons of people inserting their comments or tangental thoughts.

If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to send me a PM, but this needs to move forward productively. Thank you.

McQ... you sound like a chill dude. You are invited to my birthday party.  :hail:

Hismikeness

Thanks, hismikeness! I'll bring the adult beverages.  

I think Whitney has done a superb job with this forum, and agree that it is a unique place. It's difficult to find the right balance in moderating a forum, especially a forum where the entire context is a generally taboo topic. The mods here are a great mix and we tend to balance each other out nicely. We do appreciate the support!

Quote from: "McQ"iNow, as a very new member of this forum, you are still getting a handle on the tenor and tone here. Your posts to braxhunt are a bit on the aggressive side.

Unfortunately, my friend, I am more of a gladiator than a poet.   TBH, I am already censoring myself in my posts above, but will strive to do better so as not to upset larger site gestalt.  

INOW, You said you were more interested in evidence than logic. This is incoherent in that one cannot interpret the evidence before them, or even trust their own senses without logic.

You misunderstood me when you explained the need for a proper understanding of terms. I agree, we must define our terms. When I claimed that it is not helpful in academic discussion to unnecessarily confuse what someone else is saying, I made that comment based on the fact that when curiosity explained to you what I meant with regard to my suggested subject of the debate, you commented that you already understood. This means you were unnecessarily confusing the matter.

Once again, you may feel clever for getting off track with the whole nit-picking issue, but what I am discovering is that what attracted me to those on this site (namely the kindness or cordiality) may not be true of you. That does not make one a gladiator, it makes them childlike. In fact the proud assertion that one is a gladiator is in itself childlike.

My apologies to the administrator for the length of this post and this thread. I will once again submit the invitation to debate on this site in a thread with one other individual in a cordial public debate, but sadly I am afraid it cannot be Inow if this is the attitude that will be had. Any other takers?

I would volunteer but our views on what the debate should be are too different. You are looking for a philosophical debate, most of the people on this forum (me included), will be looking for a scientific one.

Quote from: "braxhunt"you were unnecessarily confusing the matter.
<…>
Once again, you may feel clever…
 <…>
what attracted me to those on this site (namely the kindness or cordiality) may not be true of you.
<…>
That does not make one a gladiator, it makes them childlike. In fact the proud assertion that one is a gladiator is in itself childlike.

Or, it could just be an authentic and sincere recognition of myself as a human being, and a concession that I am aware how I come across sometimes as aggressive and passionate about topics such as this.

Anyway… Thanks for all the ad hominem, for the consistent attempts to smear my character and abilities, and for completely ignoring my central points.

A flame war over the title of a topic??  

Inow, i'm truly sorry you saw it that way. However, when the site admin. even points it out (whose views I would assume more closely resemble yours than mine) I feel somewhat warranted in the assertion. I probably shouldn't have used a term like "childlike" and I apologize for that. Otherwise, I am not sure you understand the term "ad hominem." A good exercise would be this: if my claiming that I'm not sure you understand the term "ad hominem" strikes you as me arguing ad hominem then you misunderstand. However, I feel compelled now that I see a locked thread has been created specifically for this purpose to go ahead with the debate. If you want to then lets go ahead. If you don't like the title "What is more likely to be true atheism or theism." Then pick another one, but please pick one that isn't loaded.

May I suggest the topic be "Which is a more reasonable position: atheism or theism?"

Imo, it wouldn't be a topic that could be approached using the scientific method since things which can't be observed (god) are outside of science and would therefore have to be debated philosophically.  It is my view that from a solely scientific viewpoint one must be an agnostic atheist towards god...just as a scientist should remain agnostic and not claim the existence of alien life until there is observable evidence of it.  That said, I don't think there is a reason to think a god is more likely than not from a philosophical standpoint...but that would be the purpose of the debate.

Whitney, I appreciate the suggestion. It's a good idea. I would be fine with that topic. there is one thing I would like to mention, though, since someone else made a comment about the science/philosophy dynamic. I am fne with discussing the matter on scientific terms. While I hold no degrees in what would be considered here as science, I have studied relentlessly where the scientific data touches this discussion. It is not the case, on my view, that because God is not directly observable science has nothing to say on his existence. In the case of a murder forensic science is still a science in that the observable evidence is studied and then an inference is made as to what happened. I believe that there are things in the universe that are observable from which we may infer God's existence/non-existence.

I'm not sure what could be indirect scientific evidence of a god...but that would be the purpose of debate.

Quote from: "buttercupbaby"Without using any bible quotes, give me one argument for the existence of god.   I think we all know that you will not have one.

You deny my existence?

Quote from: "jbeukema"

Quote from: "buttercupbaby"Without using any bible quotes, give me one argument for the existence of god.   I think we all know that you will not have one.

You deny my existence?

We don't have any proof of your existence.  

oops double post.

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "jbeukema"

Quote from: "buttercupbaby"Without using any bible quotes, give me one argument for the existence of god.   I think we all know that you will not have one.

You deny my existence?

We don't have any proof of your existence.  :raised:
My existence is self-evident. It's you who can't be proven to exist.  

Does anyone else want to debate. I am open to hear possible subjects for debate and I am not married to the level of formality that was had in my debate with Will. However, I would prefer it be a one on one setting again.

Quote from: "braxhunt"Does anyone else want to debate. I am open to hear possible subjects for debate and I am not married to the level of formality that was had in my debate with Will. However, I would prefer it be a one on one setting again.

Sure.  As a former Christian Apologist myself (who stayed home form work sick today and doesn't have much to do as a consequence) I'd love to discuss the nature and possibility of the existence of God.  I do have one question though.  You mentioned posting them on your site.  Could you post a link to your site so that I can verify that you are posting your past debates without obviously editing them?  (not because I'm distrustful, but because I am cautious.)

Quote from: "andrewclunn"Sure.  As a former Christian Apologist myself (who stayed home form work sick today and doesn't have much to do as a consequence) I'd love to discuss the nature and possibility of the existence of God.  I do have one question though.  You mentioned posting them on your site.  Could you post a link to your site so that I can verify that you are posting your past debates without obviously editing them?  (not because I'm distrustful, but because I am cautious.)

Quote from: "braxhunt"Sure, I would be happy to. Braxtonhunter.com

I haven't posted the debate I had with Will yet, as  I am trying to set that page up. If you want to wait until that's done we can, but it could be several days.

I've listened to some of your Trinity Radio broadcasts and you seem the honest type. However, if you do decide to post our debate at some point, I would request a name change.  My father is a preacher, and as such I would not want it getting around that his son is an Atheist.  That is my choice and I wouldn't want it to impact him if possible.  My e-mail address is andrewclunn@gmail.com  And if we could, let's try to treat this more as an honest discussion than a formal debate.