Author Topic: Atheist Debate- Help (Read 1493 times)

s2srea · « **on:** June 23, 2011, 04:07:06 PM »

So I'm debating with a guy on a secular forum. Any help or knowledge is appreciated :wink:

s2srea Because you do not see him, He does not exist? It is actually quite human, mature and not infantile actually, to be able to reason this. Those who don’t, I would imagine, try very hard not to come to this conclusion, or deny it outright. This is why you need evolution for your religion, and many other things. If you do not have them, there must be a God- and you just wont have that.

Saber3: Why must there be a God if there is no evolution? The prime mover argument was discounted by David Hume 300 years ago.

s2srea As I have already pointed out, the evidence is you yourself. You don’t need evidence, you have it, only do not accept it, and are free to think that way. God does not force people to believe that which is true, He only gave you the ability and free will to do so. And this was my point in my first post- it’s a mystery (we will never know why) why this is the case.

First, an omnipotent god precludes free will and second if for the sake of argument I was to concede there is a god as described in the monotheistic canons, then wouldn’t it be logical to assume that since one of god’s attributes is that He is pure reason that he would perhaps not judge kindly those whose only source of knowledge in a revealed religion are the revelations of primitive and illiterate desert dwellers that lived and had their lives chronicled more than two millennia ago? A god of pure reason would most likely discard those that accept knowledge on faith rather than by reason and the weighing of evidence.

s2srea We are instructed to pass down the Word to our children. It is up to them to accept or not.

Like this extreme example perhaps? This was similar to my experience as a child.http://tinyurl.com/62hsp7c

I teach my children to think critically and question everything. I discourage them being an atheist just because Dad is. I talk about what other people believe and try to stay neutral. My youngest gets the indoctrination at school and was disturbed over the brutal story of Easter with the torture and death of Jesus. For days she was sad and had all of her toys dying. I wasn’t ready to discuss death with her yet. She goes around saying ‘God made us’. ‘God made everything.’ I don’t discourage her and if she goes on to be religious that is her right and I will support it. But I will also teach her to think critically and make her own decisions.

s2srea Yes, He is loving isn’t he. To know that God would come down and sacrifice himself for us- pretty powerful and amazing

Saber3: Not if He were a god. Then it would appear to be no big deal it would seem. God: “Look! I’m alive! Look! I’m now dead! Alive! Dead! Back and forth and so on. The real sacrifice was if Jesus was not divine and sacrificed himself knowing full well there was no turning back. Now that would be an inspiration!

s2srea Its very simple- they cannot be proven to those who who will not let themselves believe Saber. You choose not to use reason as a method of finding God.

Saber3: Where does your knowledge stem from? How do you know there is a god? What is your source? What evidence can you provide to convince me? So I appear to exist, how does that suggest there is a god?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 23, 2011, 04:17:47 PM »

Quote

Saber3: Why must there be a God if there is no evolution? The prime mover argument was discounted by David Hume 300 years ago.

I think you're wasting your time with this guy. He shouldn't defer to Hume, he should explain himself and repeat the arguments how someone could believe man exists without a Creator.

I'd shake the dust off my feet when he accused the people of the Bible of being illiterate. What's his proof?

You're not going to make any progress with someone who's an ideological atheist intent on using invective against a Christian apologist.

I suppose it's important to use caution when defending Catholic beliefs to an atheist in front of an audience.

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** June 23, 2011, 04:25:41 PM »

Thanks for the response bud.

Quote from: Telesphorus

I suppose it's important to use caution when defending Catholic beliefs to an atheist in front of an audience.

Why so Tele?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** June 23, 2011, 04:35:32 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Why so Tele?

Because if we are made to look foolish because of a lack of wit it reflects badly on the Faith. It's not easy to debate an atheist, particularly when they have so much cultural clout at this time, so many famous names they can refer to. When they can point to technological accomplishments to denigrate the times of the founders of our religion. So it's important to be cautious and to be prepared, because if we do badly it can scandalize people and make them think the arguments for religion are not as good as they really are.

s2srea · « **Reply #4 on:** June 23, 2011, 04:48:32 PM »

Ah.. In that case.... c'mon man- help me! lol

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 23, 2011, 04:52:16 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Ah.. In that case.... c'mon man- help me! lol

I'm not a philospher, and even if I were, it probably would be fruitless to debate someone like that.

There are many debates where so many cultural assumptions have been framed subconsciously by anti-Christians that solid reasoning and winning the debate makes no difference to how the debate is perceived.

If you really want to debate strident atheists I suggest you look over some examples of skepticism vs. faith I suggest you review some debates on youtube where the religious side is said to have acquitted itself well.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #6 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:11:14 PM »

Have you tried intelligent design yet?

What forum are you on?

Just curious!

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:29:23 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Saber3: Why must there be a God if there is no evolution? The prime mover argument was discounted by David Hume 300 years ago.

David Hume was an idiot and "discounting" an argument is not the same as disproving it.

There MUST be a Prime Mover, just as there MUST be a First Cause. Any other talk is totally irrational.

We are what are called contingent beings -- we do not bring ourselves into existence nor can we keep ourselves alive. ALL we see is, in the same sense, contingent. There MUST be a Necessary Being, from whom we received our beings.

No one denies the maxim that you cannot give what you do not have. Well, you cannot receive what was not given from another who possessed it, and in greater quantity. We are intelligent, but we did not make ourselves nor make our minds; Someone MUST possess a far greater degree of intelligence, so much so that He can create lesser, intelligent beings.

Admittedly this is the five-second version, but...

s2srea · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:33:09 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Have you tried intelligent design yet?

What forum are you on?

Just curious!

Actually Myrna, I decided to take Tele's advice. I don't have the time for research required to debate him. Its a website forum for people who live in other Southern California mountain communities (primarily the San Bernardino mountains) like me.

rimoftheworld.net

s2srea · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:33:49 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: s2srea

Saber3: Why must there be a God if there is no evolution? The prime mover argument was discounted by David Hume 300 years ago.

David Hume was an idiot and "discounting" an argument is not the same as disproving it.

There MUST be a Prime Mover, just as there MUST be a First Cause. Any other talk is totally irrational.

Ah... I was thinking JUST this! But I deleted the rest of my response in order to bow out of the argument. Next time..!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:41:08 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
Quote from: s2srea

Saber3: Why must there be a God if there is no evolution? The prime mover argument was discounted by David Hume 300 years ago.

David Hume was an idiot and "discounting" an argument is not the same as disproving it.

There MUST be a Prime Mover, just as there MUST be a First Cause. Any other talk is totally irrational.

Ah... I was thinking JUST this! But I deleted the rest of my response in order to bow out of the argument. Next time..!

Sorry if I encouraged you too much to give up. Still I was telling you what I would do, and that is to avoid such arguments without substantial preparation.

Daegus · « **Reply #11 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:44:10 PM »

You're going to have to forgive me for this (:scared2:) but I'm going to link you to "Catholic" Answers so you can see that you CAN have an argument for the existence of God.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp

While the article here is quite vague in the way it's written (surprise, surprise) you can learn a good deal off of it because it is based off of what St. Thomas Aquinas taught.

Daegus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:47:08 PM »

Also, Telesphorus is right. Unless you are substantially prepared for apologetics (and judging by your responses to this person that doesn't exactly seem to be the case), you shouldn't debate with atheists. The best thing you can do for them is pray, and, if you want, you can take up apologetics.

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:55:06 PM »

Tele- Don't worry- I would have looked like a fool to debate, so thanks :cheers:

Daegus- Thank you for the link, -very informative actually. You and Tele are right, I have not been substantially prepared. I just saw him in earlier posts writing some really stupid stuff.. look:

Its always safer to remain in the herd. Most people must be told how to think and the religions of the world make sure they hardwire their young at an early age.

“Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told – and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. … We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion.”
– Michael Crichton

... Its simple, as Carl Sagan's famous quote states, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It took many years of doubt and contemplation for me to shed the chains of religious brainwashing. I was 'saved' in a fundamentalist church after viewing a most horrendous film about hell when I was 7 years old. Nice.

I don't feel religion, including but not limited to, the Christian one, is true, or kind, or moral. The fact that the saviour of the world appeared in a remote and illeterate part of the world to save mankind seems strange to me. Vicarious redemption allows for the Christian follower to behave as horrible to his/her fellow man as they wish as long as they ask for forgiveness at the end of the day. The same reasoning makes care for the planet irrelevant to the faithful because of the 'rapture'. I feel religion is not only a primitive practice, but an immoral one that allows good people to commit divinely sanctioned atrocities.

I wish secularism was a religion so we would have massive funding, tax exempt status and a united voice, but we are as Richard Dawkins said, like herding cats.

Free thought requires no dogma, no sacred texts, no control.

Does this shoe fit?

Exilenomore · « **Reply #14 on:** June 23, 2011, 06:26:48 PM »

It is impossible to deny the existence of eternity. So there must be an eternal Being Who called us into existence. Someone who believes in the 'big bang' absurdity (which is gravely erroneous), is forced by his obstinate denial of the Creator to speak of a form of eternity in the 'nothingness' before the 'occurrence' of their 'big bang'. This idea of an 'eternal nothingness' is the product of a mind devoid of sanity, and it leads to another insanity which is 'nothingness' bringing forth beings.

To hold such beliefs is to accuse nature (and God in Whom they do not believe) of lying, because nature and natural reason dictate that beings come forth from beings, and not out of nothingness. But if beings come forth from beings, then there must be one eternal Being and Origin Who started the process of creation. There is no way around it and their denial of this basic lesson of nature shows that they glory in their claims of being reasoners vainly, since they refuse even to grasp the fact that creatures are brought forth.

So it is unavoidable that matter is brought into existence out of nothing by a Higher Intelligence, and not by nothingness itself, because chaos (an explosion) cannot bring about order.