Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

pahl · Feb 16, 2007, 08:02 pm

Looking around at youtube on Ted Haggard and other related stuff i stumbled upon this, in my mind, very interesting debate between two people about atheism. One is a theist and one is a atheist who was formerly a theist.

I just wanted to share this because i thought there was some interesting questions in atleast the atheists responses. Please share your impression of this. Also, if no real debate comes out of this then could some Mod move this to misc?

Even though there is more, watch atleast these, in order.

1
2
3

Ok, the theist is at a disadvantage here, in terms of debate-skill. But the other guy makes a good argument.

Jagged · Feb 16, 2007, 09:01 pm

Both have some basic logical fallicies, i think in general we have simply gone much more in depth to the argument here than either, and have already thorouly discussed the problems with both sides. The theist just doesn't make sense in general.

The first mile is evidence, while the second mile is faith. He the proceeds to define faith as the belief in something not proven. Why do you need the first mile?

His exceptions, based on the fact that he believes that his God is just- he only has two. I mean, he should be confronted with the argument of what he would do if that little indian pygmie kid told him the story of their god and asked him to convert. He has a "holier-than-thou." attitude.

He doesn't really say what he thinks about pascals wager other than it is "a bad argument" because "his video taught him so." I dont even understand whether the theist was talking about the atheist's argument or pascal's argument, or whether he even understood the point the atheist was trying to make.

I mean, there are blatant fallacies in this theist's argument, and i bet that if anybody confronted him with different situations he would modify his faith and qualify the hell statement to keep his God "just." All in all, however, his basic argument is that you need faith to believe in god (duh) and that Jesus said that you need faith. Thats all the evidence he presents, period, and thats circular logic.

He also fails to address the atheist's argument whatsoever, even though the atheist's argument was a tad callus and had its weak points. But just because the atheist can retaliate, and the theist doesnt even try, i dont think this even constitutes a debate.

Nevermind, i hadnt watched all three, and AZ just stated that is possible to disprove God, while in the first video he clearly stated that he could believe in unicorns when he saw unicorns. This undermines the definition of "proof." Both suck

pahl · Feb 17, 2007, 08:45 am

Yea, i do realize that we all probably have gone a lot deeper in to these debates here, and that this is obviously not a discussion between two people who both are exirianced in debating. But that is why i found it appealing, i already know what the result of asking some of these questions to someone here would be. And its interessting to see peoples expressions and answers on video.

And yea, i guess i shouldent have called this a debate, its really more of a theist-bashing. But i still thought it might spark some debate. For instance, one of them mentions that God has promised the jewish a free pass to heaven. Is this true? Also, i know a lot of people of faith think that a person that never been in contact with the "right" religion will get a free pass to heaven. But as the atheist says, that would mean that missionaries are "opening the gates of hell" for the people they prech for in order to "save" them. At same time it is a pretty unsympathetic view to hold that those people would go to hell.

Quote:

and AZ just stated that is possible to disprove God

Where? He said something about disproving the evidence, by which i think he meant disproving that the evidence is something that should be considered evidence.

pikatore · Feb 17, 2007, 09:55 am

That Christian gave a piss weak argument, not to mention a rubbish speaking style that's even worse than the atheist.

Feb 16, 2007, 08:02 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
pahl Igneous Magma Location: Sweden Posts: 261	Interesting Youtube Debate Looking around at youtube on Ted Haggard and other related stuff i stumbled upon this, in my mind, very interesting debate between two people about atheism. One is a theist and one is a atheist who was formerly a theist. I just wanted to share this because i thought there was some interesting questions in atleast the atheists responses. Please share your impression of this. Also, if no real debate comes out of this then could some Mod move this to misc? Even though there is more, watch atleast these, in order. 1 2 3 Ok, the theist is at a disadvantage here, in terms of debate-skill. But the other guy makes a good argument.

Feb 16, 2007, 09:01 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Jagged 99 Red Balloons Location: Washington DC Posts: 274	Both have some basic logical fallicies, i think in general we have simply gone much more in depth to the argument here than either, and have already thorouly discussed the problems with both sides. The theist just doesn't make sense in general. The first mile is evidence, while the second mile is faith. He the proceeds to define faith as the belief in something not proven. Why do you need the first mile? His exceptions, based on the fact that he believes that his God is just- he only has two. I mean, he should be confronted with the argument of what he would do if that little indian pygmie kid told him the story of their god and asked him to convert. He has a "holier-than-thou." attitude. He doesn't really say what he thinks about pascals wager other than it is "a bad argument" because "his video taught him so." I dont even understand whether the theist was talking about the atheist's argument or pascal's argument, or whether he even understood the point the atheist was trying to make. I mean, there are blatant fallacies in this theist's argument, and i bet that if anybody confronted him with different situations he would modify his faith and qualify the hell statement to keep his God "just." All in all, however, his basic argument is that you need faith to believe in god (duh) and that Jesus said that you need faith. Thats all the evidence he presents, period, and thats circular logic. He also fails to address the atheist's argument whatsoever, even though the atheist's argument was a tad callus and had its weak points. But just because the atheist can retaliate, and the theist doesnt even try, i dont think this even constitutes a debate. Nevermind, i hadnt watched all three, and AZ just stated that is possible to disprove God, while in the first video he clearly stated that he could believe in unicorns when he saw unicorns. This undermines the definition of "proof." Both suck

Feb 17, 2007, 09:55 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
pikatore A Celestial Monkey Location: In England Posts: 1,539	That Christian gave a piss weak argument, not to mention a rubbish speaking style that's even worse than the atheist.