By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - How to Destroy an Athiests in a argument! (Updated with poll)

 

Who won?

The Athiest 40 70.18%
 
The creationist 17 29.82%
 
Total:57
KungKras said:
JoeTheBro said:
kanageddaamen said:
JoeTheBro said:
kanageddaamen said:
JoeTheBro said:
I'm fine with most atheists even if it's a super heated debate.

What pisses me off is when an atheist thinks science=atheism. Um hello, I'm a science guy yet I'm not an atheist. Also I find pastafarianism annoying. It's funny to use it as a joke but using it as an argument against religion just shows how little you know. The video I can laugh at because there are tons of blind and ignorant Jesus freaks just asking for trouble when talking to atheists.


If you applied the scientific method, you would have abandoned the hypothesis "a judeo-christian god exists" a long time ago


Oh thank you for perfectly fitting in to the science=atheism category.


My point is, if you were a "science guy" would have applied your adherence to the scientific method to the belief in god, and drawn the conclusion that it is a false hypothesis.

Naturally science ISN'T atheism (science is the persuit of truth via observation and analysis, atheism is the lack of a belief in a higher power) but 1.) Science dictates claiming nothing to be true without repeatable evidence that it is so (which nullifies any and all "beliefs."  If you are a "science guy" you either have evidence that something is true, or you do not, there is no room for "belief") and 2.) Any intellectually honest, scientific analysis of the question of a supreme being will yield an atheistic result


This is why science=atheism people piss me off. Your argument is on par with a Christian shaking his head saying "nope I'm right, you're wrong, it's in the bible." If you want to debate this then you should present your "scientific analysis of the question" instead of saying it's just science 101. By being vague this argument pushes the theist, in this case me, into arguing against science as a whole which we both know is a dead end.

So please get off your high horse and present your findings instead of doing whatever this is. Oh and don't try and argue that I'm not a science guy. I know this is the internet full of people making stuff up but I'm not one of them. My 2011 Nobel prize in telling the truth proves that. (thought ending on humor would lighten the mood)

The difference is that the scientific method is MADE to describe the real world, while the bible is only really good for explaining what christians believe.

The bible says generally to love everyone, and to forgive everyone, are saying that the real world doesn't subscribe to this type of thinking?



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

Around the Network
Player1x3 said:
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

 there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.

  • Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
  • Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead
  • Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead
  • Vladimir Lenin, Atheist: 5.5 million dead
  • Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead
  • Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead
  • Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead

          (all in time span of max 70 years)
Vs.

  • Catholic Inqusition: (time span: 500+ years) 20-30.000 dead
  • The Crusades :  (time span:200+ years) 1.5-2 million dead

Atheist dictators killed millions of people over the past century, and caused more death in a much shorter time span than almost any other catastrophe that has happened in the civilized world, and imprisoned  or murdered hundreds of thousands in an effort to eradicate religion itself, because, you know, mass murder is the inevitable result when a community becomes too intolerant of outlandish dogmas and too fond of critical thinking. Oh the irony!

I just have to bring this up. First, Hitler was a Christian at least as late as 1944*, though he may have changed after that (not likely though). Second, everyone on your list was a Statist, which is a secular religion.

 

Also, you're not using relative numbers. Relative to total population size, the Holocaust/WW2 and other atrocities aren't nearly as bad as you think they would be, and the Crusades and Inquisition are much worse. Comparing pre-industrial revilution massacres to post-industrial revolution massacres is just fallacious.

*I've examined the claims on both sides, and still am convinced that he was a Christian. That or he was the lunatic that he was and didn't have a cohesive belief system. I'm gonna go with that one.



Alara317 said:
DaRev said:

Proviso: I’m only speaking about Christianity in the following.

 Regarding you first paragraph, John 3:16 is probably the most well know verse in the Bible, “For God so LOVED the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” If you know anything about Christianity, as you claim you do, you would know that the whole of Christianity is based on God’s love for us, in that we cannot save ourselves because of human nature, that he sent his Son Jesus out of love to help bring us salvation from ourselves. Analogy, some people use knives to kill, some people use knives to cook, but that doesn’t change what a knife is. Similarly Christianity is love, no matter how people use it. It’s the people that are wrong not Christianity.

But that's the issue, dude, the 'for god so loved the world' stuff is only the new testament.  Half of the bible.  the revisionist edition.  There's a whole series of books about judgement and hellfire and sodom and floods and all this stuff about burning people and sleeping with animals.  I respect and appreciate that you chose to believe the parts that are about love and unity, but let's be honest here, you can't honestly think that's all there is.  That's one of the reaosns I dismiss religion:  its members tend to pick and chose what they want to believe in, explaining away what doesn't coincide with their own beliefs.  

 

I'd love to meet your challenge, but there is no challenge in place.  Your one thing about 'we believe things are created, so why can't we be?' argument is flawed right out of the gate.  it's a return to that faith thing, faith that what you believe is true despite there being no evidence.  we have evidence buildigns are created, we see them being created.  There is no actual argument for human creation beyond "Well, we might have been created, we don't know."  Yeah, and a giant might have molded mountains from rock and dirtbecuase he was bored, we don't know, but that's certainly not significant evidence to claim that it is the truth.  

it is nice, however, to speak with someone who is capable of writing something that can actually be deciphered, so thanks for that. 

OK, sorry for the late reply, but I'm just going to deal with the points above, but let me just point out tthat the whole of your response is rebuttable.

Firstly, I maintain that not only the New Testiment of the Bible has love as its basis.  I submit to you that the 10 Commandments recorded in the Old Testiment at Exodus 20, is all about LOVE. Commandments 1 to 4 LOVE God, Commandments 5 to 10 LOVE your fellow man (I've made this argument before in other threads).  For example, commadnment six says essentially 'You shall not murder' - I think that leads ultimately to loving your fellow man. Moreover, in Genesis 2 when Adam and Eve sinned and disobeyed God, it is his love for not only Adma and Eve, but for the whole of Humanity to come, that devised a plan so even though we sin, he will not just destroy the world and start all over again. This plan of LOVE for all humanity lead to John 3:16 and ultimately Jesus' death on the Cross. So I submit that from begining to end, the Bible is a story about LOVE.

Lastly, my faith argument is not flawed, in fact, I think it is very logical. Remember I gave you the definition of FAITH from the bible, that it contains evidence and substance. So logically, if look around my room as I type this, I can see my Wii U, my Speakers, my Rug, and my Window just to name a few. Logic tells me that EVERYTHING I see was Created. Well, if that is true, I can also see the water in the sink with some dirty dishes. I know where the dishes came from and that someone created them - I didn't see that someone do it, but it's logical to believe so. But where did the water come from? To cut a long story short, I must logically ask where did the elements H2O come from? Which man on Earth created them? If all the other things I can see around me like my Wii U were created, then who created the elements in H2O? For if Wii Us don't magically appear, so must also the elements in H2O, logically.

Note that even if Science can explain where the elements in H2O came from, the next logical question would be, so where did that thing come from? Science will always hit such a wall, where it simply cannot explain eveything without coming to one of two conclusions (1) that a Creator/God exists (2) Magic exists. Assuming the Atheist position that a Creator doesn't exist, Science must conclude that Magic exists, that things just appear, magically - for the Big Bang Theory, for example, does sound a bit like a magic show, doesn't it? But as commical as that sounds, the next logical question would be, where did the Magic come from - does Magic/Big Bangs come from nowhere? I think it is then, ultimately, logical to believe, that EVERYTHING must have a Creator, whether you talking about Wii Us and the elements in H2O.

Now, I'm not saying that Science is in any wrong or even that there was no Big Bang - in fact I accept the Big Bang Theory. What I'm saying is that Science ULTIMATELY can't explain everything. At some point you must apply  FAITH (remember evidence and substance). Faith that accepts Science which leads to the logical conclusion that the is a creator. Many Scientists have already come to this conclusion.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

DaRev said:

Note that even if Science can explain where the elements in H2O came from, the next logical question would be, so where did that thing come from? Science will always hit such a wall, where it simply cannot explain eveything without coming to one of two conclusions (1) that a Creator/God exists (2) Magic exists. Assuming the Atheist position that a Creator doesn't exist, Science must conclude that Magic exists, that things just appear, magically - for the Big Bang Theory, for example, does sound a bit like a magic show, doesn't it? But as commical as that sounds, the next logical question would be, where did the Magic come from - does Magic/Big Bangs come from nowhere? I think it is then, ultimately, logical to believe, that EVERYTHING must have a Creator, whether you talking about Wii Us and the elements in H2O.


You say every entity must be created. Something must come from something else...so why does God get a free pass? If you assume God doesn't have to be created, then why can't you say the same for the universe? 

Also, you're a Christian right? It's one thing to believe in a creator. But what leads you to believing in a single (rather than multiple) invisible, omnipotent, omnibeloved, omnipresent, omniscient, spaceless, timeless, absolute, and perfect creator? 



badgenome said:

Saying that is fine and well, but there are economic realities that that approach doesn't take into account. It is an emotional argument, not a logical one. There comes a point when governments have to say "no" just like insurance companies do, and I think more and more developed countries will face that problem as their demographic situations continue to deteriorate. How it's better to have that done by a government bureaucrat for the sake of a nation's finances instead of an assessor for the sake of his company's finances, I'm not really sure.

Assume for the sake of argument that a truly free, for profit health care market (which we don't have, as the health care system is up to its nuts in government intervention) could provide better services to more people. Would that still be immoral because it's for profit? Or, because health care is a "right", should a country be willing to spend a limitless amount of money on any sick child even if it brings financial ruin on everyone (including many more children, sick and healthy alike) because it's our duty? Is it maybe better to arrange help for such people through other means than the government?

American life expectancies skew lower on average than Europeans', not because of our health care system, but for a host of other reasons: lifestyles, obesity,  greater ethnic diversity, and so on. Americans were for a long time the heaviest smokers in the developed world, and removing smoking related deaths from the equation would move the US into the top half of developed countries for life expectancy. Now that Americans have stopped smoking at a faster rate than any other country, it is thought that the longevity gap might disappear altogether.

While I admit some of our health outcomes are as a result of an American lifestyle, we still rank low in health indicators that have nothing to do with lifestyle. We are 34th in the world when it comes to infant mortality rate. In fact looking at our closest neighbor in Canada, the only way in which we are more healthy than them is our lower rate of cigarette smoking. US residents have higher rates of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This is because almost every person in first world countries other than the US have a regular doctor that they see on a consistent basis. This leads to preventative medicine, instead of reactive medicine. Treating someone once a disease has already become chronic is not an optimal system. You can point to wait times for procedures being longer in Canada, however studies have shown that only elective procedures have increased wait times, essential procedures have the exact same time frame. In fact there is not a single recorded case of a death due to procedure wait times in Canada.

Your next point assumes that it would take a limitless amount of money to ensure everyone has healthcare which is completely untrue. By nationalizing healthcare and insuring that health care is no longer a for-profit business we would significantly decrease costs. Looking at the amount spent on healthcare as a percentage of gdp, US spends 17.4 percent of gdp to Norway's 9.6 percent. So the US spends a higher percentage of its gdp than Norway, which has the most nationalized healthcare system in the developed world. This holds true across the board, including countries like Switzerland, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Oh and by the way, all these countries are healthier than us too.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Around the Network
Mendicate Bias said:
badgenome said:

Saying that is fine and well, but there are economic realities that that approach doesn't take into account. It is an emotional argument, not a logical one. There comes a point when governments have to say "no" just like insurance companies do, and I think more and more developed countries will face that problem as their demographic situations continue to deteriorate. How it's better to have that done by a government bureaucrat for the sake of a nation's finances instead of an assessor for the sake of his company's finances, I'm not really sure.

Assume for the sake of argument that a truly free, for profit health care market (which we don't have, as the health care system is up to its nuts in government intervention) could provide better services to more people. Would that still be immoral because it's for profit? Or, because health care is a "right", should a country be willing to spend a limitless amount of money on any sick child even if it brings financial ruin on everyone (including many more children, sick and healthy alike) because it's our duty? Is it maybe better to arrange help for such people through other means than the government?

American life expectancies skew lower on average than Europeans', not because of our health care system, but for a host of other reasons: lifestyles, obesity,  greater ethnic diversity, and so on. Americans were for a long time the heaviest smokers in the developed world, and removing smoking related deaths from the equation would move the US into the top half of developed countries for life expectancy. Now that Americans have stopped smoking at a faster rate than any other country, it is thought that the longevity gap might disappear altogether.

 

While I admit some of our health outcomes are as a result of an American lifestyle, we still rank low in health indicators that have nothing to do with lifestyle. We are 34th in the world when it comes to infant mortality rate. In fact looking at our closest neighbor in Canada, the only way in which we are more healthy than them is our lower rate of cigarette smoking. US residents have higher rates of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This is because almost every person in first world countries other than the US have a regular doctor that they see on a consistent basis. This leads to preventative medicine, instead of reactive medicine. Treating someone once a disease has already become chronic is not an optimal system. You can point to wait times for procedures being longer in Canada, however studies have shown that only elective procedures have increased wait times, essential procedures have the exact same time frame. In fact there is not a single recorded case of a death due to procedure wait times in Canada.

Your next point assumes that it would take a limitless amount of money to ensure everyone has healthcare which is completely untrue. By nationalizing healthcare and insuring that health care is no longer a for-profit business we would significantly decrease costs. Looking at the amount spent on healthcare as a percentage of gdp, US spends 17.4 percent of gdp to Norway's 9.6 percent. So the US spends a higher percentage of its gdp than Norway, which has the most nationalized healthcare system in the developed world. This holds true across the board, including countries like Switzerland, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Oh and by the way, all these countries are healthier than us too.

 


1) Infant mortality rate is in fact a health indicator that has to do with lifestyle.   Just the lifestyle of the mother. Their smoking/drug use etc, is all vitally important.

2) Different countries measure infant mortality different.  In the US, any child that is born and breathes is an infant.   Other countries require a certain weight or length to qualify.

3)

3)  ) 

(Numbers are statistically standardized vs and "average" amount of accidental deaths  hence why some countries life expetancy drops)



DaRev said:
KungKras said:

The difference is that the scientific method is MADE to describe the real world, while the bible is only really good for explaining what christians believe.

The bible says generally to love everyone, and to forgive everyone, are saying that the real world doesn't subscribe to this type of thinking?

Those are behavior guidelines. They don't tell me enything about the physical world except that christians believe in loving and forgiving everyone. (Which, judging from other passages and christian actions throughout history can be debated)



I LOVE ICELAND!

Player1x3 said:

...Lots of stuff..


I just want to take a moment to remind you that correlation is not the same as causation. 

I also want to point out that saying someone who's atheist killed someone is the same as killing someone in the name of atheism is just ignorant.  

That's like saying that a kid who goes into a school and kills 20 kids and just so happened to have played Videogames in the past killed people becuase of videogames.  Leaps of faith, making links that aren't there:  The mark of the believer.  

But how many people have been killed becuase they didn't pray to the same god?  There may very well be 1200 people in history killed in the name of atheism in an attempt to snuff out religion, but I can think of 2700 people killed since the turn of the millenium killed becuase western civilization didn't pray to mohammed.  How many people have been murdered for something as silly as mentioning mohammed in film or TV, or printing a comic? I recently read a story about parents who beat their kid to death becuase he skipped church.  

I propose everyone in the world is atheist, I just believe in one less god than you do.  

Also, Atheism doesn't strictly mean "the belief there is no god", Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. Trying to liken atheism to religion kind of completely misses the point.  That's like saying "off" is a TV station.  Simply not believing in something is not the same as believing something does not exist.  Subtle but key difference.  You'd do well to remember that in the future and stop with your ignorant, hateful rants against atheism.  



Mendicate Bias said:

 

While I admit some of our health outcomes are as a result of an American lifestyle, we still rank low in health indicators that have nothing to do with lifestyle. We are 34th in the world when it comes to infant mortality rate. In fact looking at our closest neighbor in Canada, the only way in which we are more healthy than them is our lower rate of cigarette smoking. US residents have higher rates of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This is because almost every person in first world countries other than the US have a regular doctor that they see on a consistent basis. This leads to preventative medicine, instead of reactive medicine. Treating someone once a disease has already become chronic is not an optimal system. You can point to wait times for procedures being longer in Canada, however studies have shown that only elective procedures have increased wait times, essential procedures have the exact same time frame. In fact there is not a single recorded case of a death due to procedure wait times in Canada.

Your next point assumes that it would take a limitless amount of money to ensure everyone has healthcare which is completely untrue. By nationalizing healthcare and insuring that health care is no longer a for-profit business we would significantly decrease costs. Looking at the amount spent on healthcare as a percentage of gdp, US spends 17.4 percent of gdp to Norway's 9.6 percent. So the US spends a higher percentage of its gdp than Norway, which has the most nationalized healthcare system in the developed world. This holds true across the board, including countries like Switzerland, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Oh and by the way, all these countries are healthier than us too.

 

Which might have something to do with why they spend less on health care. A cause, rather than an effect.

We also spend a great deal more per capita on education than every European country save Switzerland and Norway (and Luxembourg, which isn't so much a country as a rumpus room with an anthem), with much poorer results to show for it. I can't see why full nationalization of the health care sector would go any better. Trying to make the wasteful Leviathan that is the US federal government run like these little boutique countries seems like a fool's errand to me.



Jay520 said:
DaRev said:

Note that even if Science can explain where the elements in H2O came from, the next logical question would be, so where did that thing come from? Science will always hit such a wall, where it simply cannot explain eveything without coming to one of two conclusions (1) that a Creator/God exists (2) Magic exists. Assuming the Atheist position that a Creator doesn't exist, Science must conclude that Magic exists, that things just appear, magically - for the Big Bang Theory, for example, does sound a bit like a magic show, doesn't it? But as commical as that sounds, the next logical question would be, where did the Magic come from - does Magic/Big Bangs come from nowhere? I think it is then, ultimately, logical to believe, that EVERYTHING must have a Creator, whether you talking about Wii Us and the elements in H2O.


You say every entity must be created. Something must come from something else...so why does God get a free pass? If you assume God doesn't have to be created, then why can't you say the same for the universe? 

Also, you're a Christian right? It's one thing to believe in a creator. But what leads you to believing in a single (rather than multiple) invisible, omnipotent, omnibeloved, omnipresent, omniscient, spaceless, timeless, absolute, and perfect creator? 

no one or god gets a free pass I suspect that you see where Science runs into a wall inevitably, and MUST apply FAITH (evidence and substance) at some point through the best of scientific thnking.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.