| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Davegess, "The debate is pointless." Not for those who are on the fence or weak in their faith, no matter which side. I've learned a lot from studying and discussing the issue of origins. The problem I find is that you cannot find an atheist anywhere who is willing to debate the topic of origins without bringing up religion. Imagine if we went to the moon and found a monolith, yeah like in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Would there be people leaping to theorize about its origins contending that it evolved through pure chance; would they scoff and ridicule those who supposed that it must have been designed, constructed and placed there by an intelligent being or beings? No, it would be a valid contention. So why then when the topic is the origin of the universe do some pretend that the idea of intent and design to explain the universe and life is absurd and then launch into attacks against religion? It really is quite bizarre. Are you not at all interested in the question of origins, meaning of the universe and life? It is one of the most interesting topics of discussion that I know. | ||
| Tankhead |
Never meant to be a cheap shot at all Blake. Please don't turn this into a perceived personal attack. Just don't it's not worth it. Knowing what I believe, I do feel horrible for the families of those of faith and wonder what they are feeling. You believe something different and maybe have your own view on why their prayers were not answered (assuming for an instance that they were not, again I can't say for sure). Maybe they pray more, maybe some less. Interesting to me, that is all. | ||
| Blake |
Tanhead, >>> Worst argument ever. >>> Really? Come on Blake there is absolutely no logic in comparing that argument to the argument; Is there a God. You seem pretty intelligent but that was poor logic. The point of analogy was to your comments concerning unanswered prayers, and I already stated that the issue of prayer was one of religion and as such that it had no relevance whatsoever to a discussion of god's existence. Please try to focus and read and comprehend. I thought it was pretty clear. Having to repeat myself is a waste of time and makes the debate tedious and un-enjoyable. | ||
| Tankhead |
Oh and sorry about the confusing posts. Pressed for time. Sorry again. I will try and edit maybe later. Tx for pointing that out. not saying I agree with what every atheist states I am saying that I agree with the statement...... Like Dawkins I would put myself on the 6.9 out of 7 scale. Still room for change if it could be proven. Like the day a fall of a cliff and I don't fall then I won't believe in gravity anymore and will realize something has changed. | ||
| Blake |
Also, any bozo may state garbage like "worst argument ever". A thoughtful debater will at least follow up with reasoning. You're getting way off track with your worry about those who pray. If you'd like to discuss that, we can start a separate topic. This one I'd like to limit to the question of origins only. | ||
| Tankhead |
"The point of analogy was to your comments concerning unanswered prayers, and I already stated that the issue of prayer was one of religion and as such that it had no relevance whatsoever to a discussion of god's existence." It is very clear, I understand and I totally disagree with the context. I am focused, I have read, and I comprehend. But thanks for patronizing me. It is at this time where I will now stop contributing. This is where I have seen it go down hill in other threads and I just won't respond again. Thanks but no thanks. For the record the debate was about a person cancelling a debate not about origins. Head hits wall,, again. (Message edited by tankhead on September 14, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
Frank, >>> To me, everything about religion is a joke anyway. The idea of some accountability for and purpose to life is a joke? The search for the answer to the question of origins a joke? Your answer to me indicates less than sincere investigation of the subject. "Everything about religion is a joke"? >>> To me, the bible is just a great fictional work, like Lord of the Rings or all of the lore in the Warcraft universe. You hear that from a lot of atheists. It is nonsense. Many of the books comprising the bible relates actual history, as more time passes, more of it is actually corroberated, names, places, dates, events. The Genesis stories of creation and the flood I might understand being cast has mere fiction. How on earth are the books of Psalms and Proverbs fiction? I think like many atheists before you, you've revealed a glaring ignorance of that which you pretend to indict. Give it a read. Even if viewed as fiction, it includes some pretty engaging stories. But I really didn't want to get into religion or the bible here, just the question of origins, specifically the existence of god, the topic of the debate that has just been abandoned by it's scheduled atheist participant. | ||
| Blake |
This is too funny to pass up: Tank stated how suprised you (Christian, Jew, etc) will be when you are at no heaven when you die but in the ground until you rot. How would one be surprised if in death one has no cognition, just disappearing into nothingness? Your analogy failed amigo. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Tankhead; yes unfortunately it appears this one is going down that 'banging head' path however it does somewhat lend credence to the perspective point. Now back on point... When discussing religion, you can only do so (with any possible result that is) when both parties are allowed similar perspectives. If I engage a 3 year old in a discussion about how the internal combustion engine works then we know it's obviously pointless because the child has no concept of chemical reactions causing pressure to rotate hardened steel etc etc. The concepts, the building blocks, of that basic knowledge required to participate in that discussion simply are not there. If I were to engage a religious zealot who's been indoctrinated with church teachings since birth and continues to follow church teachings only without expanding their knowledge into other realms (such as science, biology, etc etc) then to debate them would be just as foolish yes? The person simply doesn't have that perspective and cannot understand the atheist's points, no matter how well founded. The same can be said of 'true believers'. If you have an individual that has the religious blinders on so tightly that they cannot even consider an alternate view of the universe other than their personal 'god' there is not any point in engaging that person in discussion. Unfortunately there are many people that fall into one of those categories and until they, individually, decide to open their minds and think about things critically we cannot do anything to sway them. You could even go so far as to draw a parallel between religion and substance abuse. The individual must seek a solution or answers on their own. You can't force a drunk to sober up any more than you can force a true believer to believe facts. and Blake... I really don't know what else to tell you regarding the definition of an atheist. I deny any deity exists, I don't believe it, I won't until something is proven and done so using proper peer reviewed scientific method. Thus I'm an atheist and yet since I'm not 100% certain, nor is anyone, I cannot say that there is not some being that could be considered a 'god'. That puts me in that 6.9 area... | ||
| Sifo |
How about discussing how the various theories of the origins of life would predict the signal/noise ratio of the information in DNA? This is analysis of scientific data to see how it fits varying theories. Every time I bring this up in one of these discussions it just gets ignored. I can't imagine why??? | ||
| Blake |
Tank, >>> It is very clear, I understand and I totally disagree with the context. Then concerning my analogy as follows: Your objection to god re prayer may or may not be valid; I don't agree at all, but your objection has no relation whatsoever to the question of god's existence. Your objection is questioning the validity of a certain religion or religions. Why did you state that: Should the parent of a child not respond to the child's stated desires, does the parent cease to exist? Of course not. Again, the above analogy had zero to do with the question of, "Is There a God" as you imagined and as you so stated. I can't tell what you're about, but I don't much like it. Seems you don't remember what you've stated and then deny having stated it. It's a bit maddening. It's tough to tolerate trying to debate with that. One point of note additionally: I've rarely appreciated the contributions of those who imagine themselves as arbiters of "(getting) people to think", your stated reason for posting here. I just prefer simple, frank, honest, heartfelt discussion. I don't need a self-proclaimed professor trying to get me to think, meaning I prefer to respond and interact with folks concerning their own actual ideas and beliefs, not whatever idea or theory they imagine might get me to think. It is at this time where I will now stop contributing. This is where I have seen it go down hill in other threads and I just won't respond again. You apparently missed the Racerx posts. This thread was steered directly downhill from the start by a bizarrely hostile atheist. Thanks but no thanks. For the record the debate was about a person cancelling a debate not about origins. Head hits wall,, again. The debate that was cancelled was about origins. Careful, banging your head against the wall can lead you to debate incoherently. We just aren't cut from the same cloth at all and it is likely to cause a lot of friction. Thank you for bowing out. (Message edited by Blake on September 14, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
One more point for Tankhead, >>> Science works the opposite without agenda. Its called the Scientific Method. Until you put humans into the mix. That is the problem with the both evolution "science" and global warming "science", too much agenda and non-science being passed off as science. Darwin himself stated that we should find a numerous examples of transitional life forms in the fossil record and that finding none would soundly refute his theory. We've found none. | ||
| Blake |
I don't agree Ken, that the best response to an atheist is laughter. That certainly isn't what my faith teaches. Some of their bizarre arguments might make me laugh, but not their atheism. | ||
| Blake |
I'm progressing chronologically through the thread and am late into the vigorous discussion, but I want to rebut some of the comments anyway. Thanks for tolerating my tardiness: Tankhead, >>> Here is a review of Craig and Harris debate. Why should we be interested in a review, especially by a very biased observer? >>> BTW, they have had many, many debates between the two, another thing the reporter failed to mention. The reporter wasn't talking about Harris other than attributing one of his quotes. The reporter was reporting on the renigging on a debate with Craig by atheist Toynbee. >>> Craig: not as strong in debate as touted. Says you. My take is different, but I put a lot more stake in content, hardly any in style. >>> The chimpanzee example in my listed article specifically. I fail to see any relevant point in that. One chimp exhibits empathy for her social circle? Yeah, dog, wolves, any pack animal does the same. >>> Have fun and make sure you watch the debate listed, both for that matter. Educate yourself.. Imagined superiority and condescension are really irritating. I understand, you don't like to be patronized. Me neither. LOL. | ||
| Blake |
Tank, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg Again, the topic is about a Ms. Toynbee, not Dr. Harris. However in the debate you mention above, Dr. Harris did indeed sink to insult, characterizing all Jews and Christians, as "psychopaths" among a bunch of other really petty, lame attacks on religion, which has ZERO to do with the topic of debate, "morality." He proved himself less than honorable in that and lost the debate on the spot. I was very embarrassed for the man. He is not a great speaker. (Message edited by blake on September 14, 2011) | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Blake; You stated; "Darwin himself stated that we should find a numerous examples of transitional life forms in the fossil record and that finding none would soundly refute his theory. We've found none." He died in 1882, ~130 years ago, a mere blink in the passage of time. It's taken hundreds of years to establish our scientific community and develop the scientific method. It's taken hundreds of years to make the hundreds of thousands of discoveries that are now part of the scientific record. Any scientist, in almost any discipline, will tell you that they have more to LEARN and DISCOVER in their field than what they currently know. An astrophysicist will state they know a great deal about how the universe formed etc etc but in the same breath state that there is an almost never ending supply of new questions. With every discovery comes more questions, by answering those questions we advance and the cycle continues and we, as a society, evolve. Darwin, if he did make that statement, certainly would not have expected those discoveries to be made 'next week'. He knew the slow and tedious process of scientific exploration and study. It has never been a FAST process. It's slow, steady and meticulous. It's careful and wary of misleading clues. Besides that, do you have any idea how much of this planet that has not been explored? only about 10% of the oceans have been explored! If we turn inland, yes we've explored the surface a great deal but we've only dug in a relatively small percentage of area and we don't go very deep in most situations. Basically put, it's a big rock and we've only looked in a little spot. HOWEVER the point is moot because those fossils do exist and have been found; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_ fossils Hope ya liked the little twist at the end, I could have just tossed that tidbit out first but I wanted to make the point. Just because we've not discovered an answer to a particular mystery of life does not mean 'god did it', it simply means WE haven't figured it out... yet  and using history as our guide, it looks like we will sooner or later... | ||
| Superdavetfft |
ah one more just so you can fact check me http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h tml | ||
| Blake |
SDave, Another religious thread? Well hello there... Just can't stop proselytizing eh? here we go... You are not only rude but need educating. I'll try to help. I wasn't proselytizing. proselytize: To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith. I'm pretty sure that I merely posted a thread about an atheist reneging on her commitment to a scholarly debate with Dr. William Craig on the question of god's existence. So which religion am I proselytizing for Dave? I guess you might say "deism", but that is not a religion; just a belief. Interesting that your first shot out of the gate is a personal crack. Try to avoid that from here on out if you want to enjoy thoughtful debate. Anyway here's the simple answer; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes Right, anyone who finds compelling evidence for god is a "flat-earther." Right away you've lost the debate and sunk to insult. The idea of creation is a valid scientific principle, and it's employed all the time, in archeology for instance. Dawkins is nothing but an intellectual coward who likes to preach to his choir and take petty cheap shots at believers. He does write books about his ideas though. That has allowed others, Dr. Craig for one, to soundly expose Dawkins' incredibly bogus reasoning and false logic. See http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=New sArticle&id=5493 for one. (You may have to register to gain access.) There's no spam or any other kind of negative to registering. If you are interested in truth, Dr. Craig's multiple articles addressing Dawkins will prove enlightening. It's difficult to not come away with the view that Dawkins is a complete boob. >>> Do some homework before you believe anything on Fox News. At best they're frequently misleading. Suggest you do some homework before you believe anything from Dawkins, Hitchens and friends. At best they are frequently misleading. But back to Fox News, are you implying that anything in the topical report is in error? What is your point? (none concerning this thread that I can see) There isn't a creationist on this planet that could keep up intellectually with Hitchens or Dawkins. That is nothing but self-delusion. Proof follows: In critique of one debate between Hitchens and Craig, an atheist blogging on http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230 reported his take on the debate in part as follows: The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. Perhaps Hitchens realized how bad things were for him after Craig’s opening speech, as even Hitchens’ rhetorical flourishes were not as confident as usual. Hitchens wasted his cross-examination time with questions like, “If a baby was born in Palestine, would you rather it be a Muslim baby or an atheist baby?” He did not even bother to give his concluding remarks, ceding the time instead to Q&A. I've not seen a single atheist debate Dr. Craig (from videos and transcripts and writings) who could match the integrity, rigor, scope, and scholarly relevance of Dr. Craig's arguments, analysis and logic. Especially that idiot Ray Comfort and his banana argument (look into it, it's pretty funny). Essentially debating a creationist is like arguing with someone who thinks the world is flat as Dawkins states in the above clip. Nice for you to never have to actually engage in thoughtful debate. Lame. If you intend to continue with that kind of derisive nonsense, I ask you to take your leave of this discussion. | ||
| Dannyd |
The problem I have with established religions is why does each one always feel that they are right and all other religions are wrong? Just the word God has a different meaning to each which then can cause arguments. If we could all just agree that there was some sort of divine spirit (for lack of a better word) that was responsible for making the universe then I could buy that. But when we start getting into a Christian god vs. a Muslim god and was Jesus really Gods son or was he just another prophet like Mohammed things just start getting too crazy for me. | ||
| Blake |
Curtis (Notpurples2), In a debate on existence the atheist has the high ground in the fact that they're the defense. They only have to show that the prosecution's(theist) evidence is insubstantial. I find no compelling justification for that characterization of the debate. In a debate on whether or not god exists, both sides try to present argument that shows that theirs is the most plausible view. That may be accomplished by refuting the opposition or by affirming one's own position. Why would you likewise not find that the theist must only show that the atheist evidence for naturalistic origins is insubstantial. That is the true debate, did the universe, all that comprises it and life happen on its own by accident or was there some intelligence required? Neither view has any advantage over the other in the character of the debate. All the theist need do is convince that the atheist view is improbable and that the theist view is probable. That's all. Dr. Craig does a very sound job of doing just that. In his own words, "Science can establish a premiss in an argument for a conclusion having religious significance." But you should be able to prove the existence of an entity if it actually exists or has existed. Prove that Socrates existed. Prove that extraterrestrials exist. See the problem? Your statement is undeniably false. Craig goes to Hitchens asking for proof of non-existence but doesn't have any concrete proof of existence. "Proof of non-existence" would mean proof that life and the universe sprang forth absent any intelligent intended direction. That is provable. All one need do is show how a collection of inanimate non-biological matter can through no artificial action become life. Heck, show how DNA can arise from random happenstance would be a start. Show how the universe can begin absent intentional creative forces. Science has been trying for a long time to do just that. It's yet to succeed. More and more scientists are conceding that it is unlikely, that DNA and the order of the universe are very convincing testament to the existence of some kind of intelligent designer/creator. He (Criag) seemed to rely on biblical references, creationist theory, and personal belief. Wow, that's a really poor representation of his five arguments in favor of god being more probable than not. His five arguments are as follows:
You can find detailed explanation of the above at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=New sArticle&id=8088 In addition, Alvin Plantinga, one of the world's leading philosophers, has laid out two dozen or so arguments for God's existence. Craig further summarizes:
Some overlap with above list, and actually an earlier discussion by Craig I think. See it at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=New sArticle&id=5507 | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It's easy to attack Christians personally with insults and petty barbs. If Christians respond in kind, atheists simply call them hypocrites. If someone believes something that I feel is untrue, I work to convince them of the untruth. I don't attack them calling them ignorant. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
That brings up another interesting point I've stated before in other heading banging discussions. Everyone is an atheist in some sense as they don't believe in any god, EXCEPT their own that is... | ||
| Blake |
SDave, You can't prove a negative and that's the hardest thing for theists to realize. That is a straw man and a cheap shot. I'll now demonstrate why. Presumption: The universe sprang forth from purely naturalistic causes. Prove it. That is not a negative, so prove it. Presumption: Life sprang forth accidentally from purely naturalistic mechanisms. Prove it. That is not a negative, so prove it. Either of the above if ever proven or even just plausibly/convincingly theorized would go a long way to challenging theism. Neither has been shown as more probable than intelligent design. Atheists have nothing to prove because we're not claiming anything. Baloney. Atheism by definition asserts that everything, the universe, all that comprises it, time itself, and life are all the result of purely naturalistic mechanisms, that no creator was required. Atheists simply ask theists to put up proof for what they claim. How is it unacceptable that theists simply ask atheists to put up proof for what they claim? Theists claim a 'god' exists thus the burden of proof lies solely on them. Atheist claim that the universe, all that comprises it, time itself, and life arose from pure happenstance, why would you not say that the burden of proof lies with them to prove that? Your arguments trying to dodge debate are thus proved false. | ||
| Blake |
By the way, you can prove a negative. I know what you meant though. What I think you meant was that you cannot prove non-existance. With that, I agree, but you can indeed prove a negative; it's a trivial matter. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Well that just made my point beautifully Blake, thank you  Your statement , or snippet etc... " God makes sense of the origin of the universe. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. God can be immediately known and experienced. " Is exactly what I was talking about in earlier posts. 'god did it' is NOT an answer to a question. 'god did it' or 'god explains it' is just a primitive reflex to the unknown based out of fear. The idea of god is comforting so some humans go to an idea of god when they simply don't know (or are afraid of the answer as with death, hey we die, go into the dirt, rot and eventually become more dirt... some folks can't handle this certainty) 'god did it' is what crippled Newton during his research. He would get to a point, attribute it to 'god' and go no further. Some topics would wait for hundreds of years before another scientist picked up and continued the work to find out more. http://www.nndb.com/people/871/000031778/ We see in this example where this 'god did it' attitude not only hinders growth of our culture but stops it altogether. This happened to the Arab world when a cleric decided that to work with numbers was to do the work of the devil (paraphrasing) and since that point no scientific advances of any magnitude have come from that culture. Their 'god' belief stopped them from progressing, it's that simple. Do some research on this, it's quite fascinating. The Arab world would rise and fall again over time but never regain it's prominence as an intellectual center. | ||
| Blake |
SDave, The 'world is flat' point illustrates that many 'truths' change by observation. Or revisionist history. But really, truths don't change unless situations change. Perceptions may change. Perception is not necessarily truth. On that we can agree. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
"By the way, you can prove a negative. " Blake, prove I am not sitting on a purple dragon at this very moment. If it's possible to prove a negative I'd like you to show me how you can PROVE my pet dragon 'Fred' isn't right here. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Well that just made my point beautifully Blake, thank you Uhm, Dave. Those aren't actual arguments, just the titles of the arguments. You have to actually read the arguments themselves to get a grasp of their reasoning. You'd have to refute the specific reasoning of the arguments to show them implausible. | ||
| Blake |
prove I am not sitting on a purple dragon at this very moment. Take a picture of yourself showing applicable view and post it on the internet. No purple dragon, proof complete. Two plus two does not equal five. It's beyond elementary to prove a negative. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
my dragon is invisible and won't show up on any camera or any other imaging technology we have today... my dragon is also all powerful and can appear and disappear on a whim he's here, Fred says 'hi'... so prove he isn't... |
