Help -Debating with Theists
Posted on: June 21, 2007 - 11:20pm
Offline
Help -Debating with Theists
Hello everyone, I'm new to this board and was wondering if you might be able to give me a hand with something. I've been a stanch atheist all my life and have recently come into a debate with a theist who is challenging my points and attacking my enlgish, as french is my native language. I do not have the necessary "Proofs?" that she is looking for and the rest of the board, not this site, seems quick to laugh it up and agree. I would appreciate it if someone could help me out, with some evidence perhaps or point me in the right direction. Your help is much appreciated. Thank you!
- Login to post comments
Welcome to the forums!
What exactly are you debating on the other forum and what 'proofs' are they asking for?
Thanks! This is a little complicated so apologies in advance. It started out as debating a moral issue - the right to die - and I brought it some quotes from Sam Harris. Suffice it to say that it has diluted down to the classic 'Athiest on Theist" "god exists vs he doesn't'. I tried to point out the brilliant thinkers of atheism and get hit with "look at Communist countries people like Stalin" and then I bring up darwinism and get hit with "he was a creationist" I admit to being a lifelong atheist but have not really done the research to argue for it, as it has just been taught to me by my parents, but I don't know where to begin..sorry dont know if that helps..
They are simply asking for evidence as to atheism, I tried to explain that atheism cannot be argued because it is a belief in nothing or lack of belief. So I cited the brilliance of humanity without god, and I get hit with the whole morality thing - why should people be moral if there is no god. Then I pointed out the evolution theory and get hit with "darwin was a creationits" and just a lot of other patronizing remarks like, "oh dear, you need to get your facts straiht" and othe rpatronizign shit. sorry if that helps, i dont know..
Ok, i don't see his point about stalin. I'd like him to prove he was a creationist (and no he didn't recant on his death bed thats a urban legend i think snopes has an article about it)
Tell the person that the burden of proof always always always rests on the postive claiment (the theist) talk to this person about empathy and receperocity. You might read Deludedgod's essay on the article. I think he's projecting with the need to get your facts striaght but thats just me. You might link him to a webiste that explains the "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy.
edit: link
burden of proof
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
or this one
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-shiftburden.htm
Have you heard this free download from the RRS? http://www.briansapient.com/carrier/RRS_Show24_64k.mp3
Also, listening to debates is good. Here's a couple of good ones.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1879356004848236265
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7385355182363346492
Thank you all so much. I believe in atheism strongly, just I let them get the better of me, and I get flustered and all my calm points which I can think of now are lost, partically in translation too, lol. I will look into all of these, again, thank you everyone for your help!
some exerpts from her points:
"And who or what made either you or Sam Harris a judge of human ignorance? Harris is displaying the worst kind of scientific technique, one that real scientists steer clear of. He starts with his theory and then works to prove it. An impartial scientist who really wants the right ahswers starts with the observable facts and develops his theory from that. Harris is more a polemecist than a scientist.
I'll stick to my God and leave you with your idol with feet of clay."
"Proof of what? Give me the proof? Explain it. It is impossible to debate with the likes of Harris and you because it is always 'it is proved' without ever actually stating the proof. Debate me, give me your proof, if you can. Harris is incapable of proving his position so I find it hard to believe you can."
"I repeat it is impossible to debate with some atheists. When asked to debate they say I can't be bothered to debate find the evidence for yourself, a very mature approach to a debate indeed. They further say it is impossible to debate with a theist. That is true because the atheists in question refuse to enter into a rational debate with the theist but throws slurs and accusations and then run away, a bit like pre-schoolers.
"Redeemer and I disagree violently on some topics to the extent of being unable to have a rational discussion. Biut here I do not include him in the some atheists as I know from his posts we could discuss religion. A surprising discovery as it is usually such an emotive topic."
Problem. To determine whether this quote is meaningful
Solution. The consequence of the quote is that, to Harris, man must be special to warrant the quote. If God is assumed to exist, then man can be assumed to have a soul and so be special. However, starting from Harris’ contention that there is no God then man cannot have a soul so, is he still special?
In this case, man is just a highly successful species on the evolutionary tree. But is he even successful enough to be classed as special. To decide this there are two things to consider, is he the apex of evolution and how does he rate in the scale of successfulness.
It would be the height of arrogance to make the assumption that man is the final product of evolution. It is also a completely untenable position.
As to how successful man is as a species will obviously depend on the criteria used to determine successfulness. I contend, that as just another animal the only viable criterion that can be used to judge the relative successfulness as species is one of survival. Nothing else can be considered as it is irrelevant to a successful species. Individual achievements, science and art, are not important to the overall success as if the species ceases to exist any achievements made by that species are of no consequence. Compared to such species as the crocodilians we have only a very short history, compared to the failed species of dinosaurs, the length of the existence of homo sapiens is a drop in the bucket of time. However, my argument is that none of these are the most successful species. One achievement man has that makes him unique is having created the ability to destroy himself, a negative in the scale of survivability. If he ever chooses to use that ability then virtually all life on the planet will cease to exist. But under the roiling radioactive clouds and over the silicified wastelands the king will then be the roaches. The ultimate survival machines. So, it is my contention that the humble roach is the most successful creature of all time.
So, the answer to the question of how special is man, the answer has to be not very. What would make him special and place him above the animal species is the possession of a soul. To have that requires a God. The outcome is that if there is a God then man is special, if there is not then he is at best a rather brutal mammalian species of nondescript survival probabilities.
For Harris’ quote to be meaningful, man must be special so there must be a God. But Harris’ contention there is not a God means that man is not special enough, at least to warrant mention here. Ergo, the quote is not meaningful Q.E.D.
_________________
Believing Sam Harris is a branch of human ignorance."
"Redeemer, I think you may have missed the point I was making. If, as Harris' quote implied, man is special, why is that so? I cannot see anything on an animalistic level to make him so, he is not even the most successful species. So, the only thing that can make him special is to have a soul. Harris' quote thus requires man to have a soul to be meaningful but he believes there is no deity therefore man does not have a soul. My argument was that as a result the quote is meaningless. The thought behind it is the exact opposite of the consequence of the statement."
sorry if these are tediuos to read
"And further, lets consider the great experiment in humanistic morality, a morality excluding a deity. Marxism which led inevitably to Stalinism.However bad any historical personality was they are amateurs compared to the blazing example of ethical behavior we should all aspire to, Stalin. His death toll in just a handful of years accounted for somewhere in the region of 20 million. And he was in power from 1929 to 1953. His total surpasses all others. And he is the product of a humanistic code of morality. YEAH, lets all go for one of those. Considering this man
So. lets not start trying to justify our moral codes by the actions of historical personages.
And
"Oh dear, you need to calm down, Alice and return to planet Earth.
Asimov? A science FICTION writer? Dawkins is another 'lets find evidence to support a predetermined theory'. Voltaire a dodgy philosopher. Einstein? I could write a book on him. It is simplistic to sum up his views and position in a few words as you try to do.
Lets take a look at a few atheists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Really shining examples. All examples of the 'no need to worry as long as I have power' brigade with no ethical reins on their monstrous personalities.
How about Mother Theresa and countless others who actually did good deeds instead of the likes of Harris and Dawkins who just talked and, in fact, ranted? What good deeds have they actually done? How have they made life better for anyone? Except themselves by lining their pockets by selling books to the gullible?"
Send me the link and I'll set em straight!!!
Sad part is, it is on the "all topics" section of a fetish web..didn't want to bring it up unless I had to, lest I offend someone. If you still would like to, and help is always appreciated, then just send me an e-mail and I'll link it to you. If not, I totally understand.....lol I just realized the extreme absurdity of arguing religion and christianity on a sexual fetish website, doesn't that defy some tenent of christianity?
i sent a message into your inbox - its on the left sidebar.
Welcome to the forum. Which of the world's 29 french speaking countries are you from? It's difficult to know what you should say because the people sound kind of stupid. You don't actually need proof to doubt an absurd claim that's backed up by nothing. But if you're just looking for a bit of ammunition for your argument this is a great website to get it.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Moi, Je suis une Québécoise! (Canada).
je pense qu on doit parler l'anglaise ici. Mais bienvenu quand meme.
oui, et moi aussi. Merci beaucoup Guache.
Oh shit,theyre talking in tounges,quick we need an exorsism.
Hi Alice and welcome to the forums!
You're right. Arguing for xianity on a sexual fetish website is quite odd. I'm pretty sure these folks are breaking some kind of xian rule.
As for offending the folks here, I doubt it. We're pretty open minded (unless, of course, it involves harming animals!)
Ah Quebec! I spent some time in Montreal years and years ago. It was truly lovely and I swear it was the cleanest city I'd ever visited. Not a gum wrapper or cigarette butt anywhere!
What I loved most about it was how cool the weather was. Even in September, I needed a jacket! During December, the biggest snowflakes I had ever seen just wafted gently from the sky!
The oddest part was that most of the people I met were Greek!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Hi Alice! It baffles me that a theist would ask an atheist for "proof" of any kind. The "proof" ball is most certainly not in your court.
Also, you have fantastic English. I know people that "speak" it as a first language .. and they can't communicate worth a damn. Anyone that tears you down for your ability to speak a 2nd language is not deserving of your time or energy.
“The four most over-rated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.”
-Christopher Hitchens
"I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of Him."
-Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Hi Alice, I've got just a few comments. You can find many threads and posts on these forums which deal with the common crap the christians bring about atheism being responsible for the crimes of Stalin and Mao.
About all the Harris talk: ask this person that even if Harris is wrong about everything, how on earth does that prove that any god exists, let alone the specific one this Donatien happens to believe in?
Furthermore, welcome to the site!
Hey everyone, thanks again for your support. I really appreciate all of your comments and help.
Alice
Absolutely. Monotheistic crazies always want to put the burden of proof onto the atheist, for obvious reasons. If they can get you to start babbling about proving them wrong, they are in pretty safe waters. After all, we can't prove an uber-wizard didn't exist for the same reasons they can't prove that one DOES ... there are no identifiable perameters to prove or disprove.
We do not have to provide proof for not believing that Jesus was a real uber-wizard battling evil any more than we have to provide proof for not believing Gandalf was a real uber-wizard that battled Sauron.
It's fanciful nonsense based on wild and unfounded speculation.
LOL, Nice - Uber Wizard, I like that! Well, the believers in "Uber Wizard" aka Jesus, have stooped to a new low - they banned me for professing Atheism on their "so godly" sexual fetish forum. Which is part of the huge air of comedy surrounding this whole debate. Apparantly they don't like me bashing Jesus..lmao. Ah, Christians, life would be boring without em.
Getting banned from a sexual fetish forum for being an atheist is just, well, odd.
Who knew it would be filled with xians!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Ted Haggard.
Haha!
I love the irony in all this.
There are two seasons in Canada, Hockey season and not-Hockey season.
Canada: 16% Atheist and growing.
I find that the harder someone fights against something, such as homosexuality, atheism etc etc etc, the better the chances that person is just fighting themselves.
Yup its classic projection i do believe. People who use this self-defense are usually more critical of the same traits in others.