Kid vs religion.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 50
#31
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Checkmate
The problem I see with your Kid is his derision of Hitchens, who gives away the store in his introfuctory comments that he viscerally hates his side of the argument: defending God. As Hitchens is... well, we know, don't we, why in hell would he give it his best shot? The Kid does no better; he's as pompous an ass as is Hitchens. And from this, I'm supposed to question my own convictions on the matter; the existence of God? This was no "strong case against religion;" it was two pomposities trying to outdo one another, with one unaware that the Kid is there at all. The Kid notes, with some nail polishing, that he actually once met Hitchens and declares that Hitchens was not "particularly fond of my admittedly presumptuous..." and we can stop right there because I suspect that the one [guess who] was more fascinated by the other than vice versa. La-di-da. The utter waste of sensibility on the youth. If Hitchens was not impressed, there's little wonder. And this is the best that you, Checkmate, can provide as argument that there is a strong case against religion? Pardon my untimely belch.

Let us recall the motto of Oxford College: Dominus illuminatio mea
#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
I am not going to debate on the existence of God without the atheist also contemporaneously debating on the origins of the universe. 

You know as well as I do, that you cannot refute a negative.  And every positive I put up you will attempt to refute. 

I see no reason why I would give you a free hit.  You might see that as a courageous and brave thing to do.  But it is not. 

It tends to only confirm your own position and it also confirms the position of theist who sees the underhanded deception of the atheist.

If you want a fruitful discussion - start with equal presumptions - otherwise - grow a pair. 


#33
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
If you really were an atheist - you would defend your position.
I'm most willing to this by refuting any claims you make about the existence of God.
But not by defending any claims you make about the existence of God? Why? Do you hold beliefs you cannot defend?

Topic's author
#34
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
I can most certainly defend my claim that God is almost certainly not real. What I do not wish to do is make this a debate about the universe, as that is not my strong suit as I am not a scientist. Sure, if I invested hours into researching the cause of the universe, I will be able to answer all critiques against scientifically recognised facts, however, I am not prepared nor the right person to write a paper about the origin of the universe. What I am equipped to do is debunk reasons religious people think make a good cause for the existence of God.
#35
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
I can most certainly defend my claim that God is almost certainly not real. What I do not wish to do is make this a debate about the universe, as that is not my strong suit as I am not a scientist. Sure, if I invested hours into researching the cause of the universe, I will be able to answer all critiques against scientifically recognised facts, however, I am not prepared nor the right person to write a paper about the origin of the universe. What I am equipped to do is debunk reasons religious people think make a good cause for the existence of God.
Wow! a person who admits that they will only debate on strong topic of their own.  Just curious - then, that obviously means that when you debate someone - that they admit they know their stuff - otherwise - they are weak and lose the argument. What does that prove?  Not the truth. Only that you are a better debater.  

What a sad way to conduct debates.  My view is that debates are about truth - not finding out who is the best debater. 

I think people should not be debating just to find out who has the biggest ???? 

no wonder the world is having a hard time with truth - no one actually wants the truth - they just want to be the best story teller. 


Topic's author
#36
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Wow! a person who admits that they will only debate on strong topic of their own.
Well, yes?

What a sad way to conduct debates.  My view is that debates are about truth - not finding out who is the best debater.
Which is why I invite you to enlighten me about why God is real, something you seem keen to dodge. 

I think people should not be debating just to find out who has the biggest ???? 
The biggest? Yes? Go on. 

no wonder the world is having a hard time with truth - no one actually wants the truth - they just want to be the best story teller.

I want the truth. I want to know whether God is real. I believe that God is not real and you believe that God is real. Why can we not have a civil discussion about this?
#37
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
Aaah !

I love it. 

But if you really wanted the truth - you would not try and capture it on your own terms - but on the terms that are clear and equitable to everyone. 


You want to debate the question of God.  

But surely not with the conclusion already within the premises of the debate? ?????

This is why the debate must be equally between both sides. 


#38
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
I can most certainly defend my claim that God is almost certainly not real. 
Then why don't the both of you share the BoP of your own claims, his being that God exists, and yours being that God does not?

You seem to be asking to be on attack, never defense. Why would any sensible person agree to such a rigged debate? Are you afraid of being on defense?
Topic's author
#39
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
Then why don't the both of you share the BoP of your own claims, his being that God exists, and yours being that God does not?
But the problem is that there is nothing for me to defend. I am not the one proposing the idea of a supernatural God, I am simply refuting a claim and defending my position. Take this as an example. If I proposed the idea that there were inaudible, intangible and invisible fairies dancing in my garden bed, who would bear the BoP? Obviously, as I am the one proposing this idea, I will have to defend it.

You seem to be asking to be on attack, never defense. Why would any sensible person agree to such a rigged debate? Are you afraid of being on defense?
You as a religious folk seem to get very tense and aggressive when being asked to prove your point. Calling me afraid and rigged to deflect your own inability to defend an ideology will hardly get you anywhere.
#40
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
Then why don't the both of you share the BoP of your own claims, his being that God exists, and yours being that God does not?

But the problem is that there is nothing for me to defend.
Sure there is. You have a positive claim that God does not exist. You should be able to defend that.

I am not the one proposing the idea of a supernatural God,...
But you are the one proposing the idea that a supernatural God does not exist.

I am simply refuting a claim and defending my position.
Those are 2 different things. You defend your claim by presenting logical support for it. You refute his claim by showing how his claim is illogical.

Take this as an example. If I proposed the idea that there were inaudible, intangible and invisible fairies dancing in my garden bed, who would bear the BoP?
You, because you have made a positive claim. If you proposed the idea that there were not inaudible, intangible and invisible sub-atomic particles in your garden bed, you would still hold the BoP. The trick of choosing fairies, is just that, a trick. Whomever proposes an idea must defend that idea.

Obviously, as I am the one proposing this idea, I will have to defend it.
Then we do not disagree. Your idea here is that God does not exist. Defend that.

You seem to be asking to be on attack, never defense. Why would any sensible person agree to such a rigged debate? Are you afraid of being on defense?

You as a religious folk seem to get very tense and aggressive when being asked to prove your point.
That is your perception, not fact. You seem to be projecting. We are similarly asking you to prove your point. Do you not see that? We object to the unfair condition where you get to attack our claim but never have to defend yours.

Calling me afraid and rigged to deflect your own inability to defend an ideology will hardly get you anywhere.
Neither will you assuming we are trying to deflect and are unable to defend. TS did not refuse to defend, he wanted you to defend also. Of the 2 of you, the one acting afraid and unable to defend his position is you.

And I did not call you afraid, I asked if you were afraid because you seem to be unwilling to defend your claim. If it isn't due to fear, please tell us what is causing your reticence.
Topic's author
#41
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
Sure there is. You have a positive claim that God does not exist. You should be able to defend that.
I can certainly defend that claim. 

But you are the one proposing the idea that a supernatural God does not exist.
You are confused. There is a difference between proposing an idea and refuting an idea. 

Those are 2 different things. You defend your claim by presenting logical support for it. You refute his claim by showing how his claim is illogical.
And that's what I will do, given the opportunity. 

You, because you have made a positive claim. If you proposed the idea that there were not inaudible, intangible and invisible sub-atomic particles in your garden bed, you would still hold the BoP. The trick of choosing fairies, is just that, a trick. Whomever proposes an idea must defend that idea.
Agreed. Whoever proposes an idea must defend that idea. Since you are proposing the idea of God, just like how I propose the claim of fairies, you must defend this claim. Surely, if I challenged you to a debate about garden fairies, it would not be good conduct to hand the BoP to you and say "find evidence that these things aren't real". You can't just say "well, you are the one proposing that these aren't real, so you bear the BoP", which is actually exactly what you have done. 

We object to the unfair condition where you get to attack our claim but never have to defend yours.
Okay, perhaps I didn't articulate myself clearly. The following is what I want. I want to have a debate purely about God, and weather he exists. As agreed by you and stated in the Hitchens Razor, since religious people are proposing an idea, they will have to back it up with evidence, or risk being dismissed without evidence. 

TS did not refuse to defend, he wanted you to defend also. Of the 2 of you, the one acting afraid and unable to defend his position is you.
It is clear that my opponent  fears they cannot defend their position, thus requiring them to put some responsibility on me. The reason I want a debate purely about God is because that is the subject I am the most well acquainted with. Take this as an example. Though I believe the earth is round, I would not be running head first into a flat-earth debate, as I have not conducted enough research on the topic to debate someone. Does this mean I am uncertain? No, I just simply have not read through the necessary papers which would give me a good argument.

This is similar to the situation we have in hand. I am certain I know how the universe began, but I have not conducted the complicated and tedious research required to make me an expert on the subject. 

I am however, willing to debate purely about God, something which no one seems to want to do. 
#42
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Sure there is. You have a positive claim that God does not exist. You should be able to defend that.
I can certainly defend that claim. 
Then what's the problem?

But you are the one proposing the idea that a supernatural God does not exist.
You are confused. There is a difference between proposing an idea and refuting an idea. 
No Sir. You are proposing the idea that a supernatural God does not exist, and trying to refute the idea that a supernatural God does exist. We are asking you to defend the idea you are proposing. Like I said....

Those are 2 different things. You defend your claim by presenting logical support for it. You refute his claim by showing how his claim is illogical.

And that's what I will do, given the opportunity. 
Then again, what is the problem?

...since religious people are proposing an idea, they will have to back it up with evidence,...
Well, this will always be the case if YOU are the one choosing which idea we discuss. TS wants to also discuss YOUR idea that God does NOT exist.

...or risk being dismissed without evidence.
Your argument is about to be dismissed if you don't present some evidence soon. It looks like TS may have already dismissed you.
Topic's author
#43
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
Very embarrassing that you refused to respond to the fruit of my comment. Here it is in case you missed it. 

Since you are proposing the idea of God, just like how I propose the claim of fairies, you must defend this claim. Surely, if I challenged you to a debate about garden fairies, it would not be good conduct to hand the BoP to you and say "find evidence that these things aren't real". You can't just say "well, you are the one proposing that these aren't real, so you bear the BoP", which is actually exactly what you have done. 

Evidently, you are confused. 
#44
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
Since you are proposing the idea of God, just like how I propose the claim of fairies, you must defend this claim.
Neither TS or I have refused to defend our claim. You have refused to defend your claim. You are also proposing an Idea. If you will not defend it, it will be dismissed.

Surely, if I challenged you to a debate about garden fairies, ....
Fairies is a childish trick that we saw through. Let it go. You challenged TS on a debate about the existence of God.

...it would not be good conduct to hand the BoP to you and say "find evidence that these things aren't real". You can't just say "well, you are the one proposing that these aren't real, so you bear the BoP", which is actually exactly what you have done. 
If you say they aren't real, there must be a reason for that belief. Surely you know your reasons? If you could not defend your claim that God does not exist, why do I need to defend my claim? You probably should not have made a claim you cannot defend. Though I remember you saying that you could defend your claim.

I can defend a claim that there are no fairies. Even an 8th grader would be able to. Why can't you? The bottom line that will not change is, each person making a positive claim will shoulder the BoP for that claim.

The BoP was not handed to you for my claim, it was handed to you for YOUR claim. I'll defend my claim. You defend yours.

Evidently, you are confused. 
Yet you are the one inexplicably babbling about fairies in a conversation about your God claims. Your claim has been dismissed.
Topic's author
#45
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
Since you are proposing the idea of God, just like how I propose the claim of fairies, you must defend this claim.
Neither TS or I have refused to defend our claim. You have refused to defend your claim.
I will defend my claim. 

You are also proposing an Idea. If you will not defend it, it will be dismissed.
You are terribly misled. I have already debunked this with my fairy analogy twice. If I propose an idea, I must provide evidence that what I say is true. If I cannot, then I may be dismissed. Since you do not understand, I'll give you a question. Give me evidence that there are no fairies. Remember, you can't hear, see or touch these fairies. 

Yet you are the one inexplicably babbling about fairies in a conversation about your God claims. Your claim has been dismissed
Personally, I view both fairies and God as just sad people's hope that there is more in life than can be observed. 
#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
Do you believe there was an origin to the universe? 

Topic's author
#47
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Tradesecret
I believe that there is a non-supernatural origin to the universe which is recognised as the Big Bang.
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
Ok. So do you positive assert that? 

Topic's author
#49
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes?
#50
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Indeed, and the biggest evidence is literally the fact that super natural phenomena is impossible in a physical world, and any non-physical realms would need to be demonstrated before you could even get to the other thing.