Muslim Theist's get owned by Atheists in debate!
- Thread starter Ganymede
- Start date
The topic was changed from initially being: debating the existence of God to debating the NON existence of God.
I think it's good practice regardless. Theists almost always go for an emotional argument and as atheists get better at countering this their debates are improving. I've seen atheists get totally pwned in the USA against very well informed Christians. Argument from authority is the playground of Theistic ministers and their followers are not called sheep for nothing and so the atheist must be very well prepared to cleverly pull rug out from under anyone who makes this argument.
I think a powerpoint can help.
Also it's good to start the debate and go back to some basic points again and again so that the audience "gets it".
There is no evidence for Gods and Goddesses.
debate-
debate-
again - FSM, there is no evidence for Gods and Goddesses
These audiences need this to be made crystal clear.
I think it's good practice regardless. Theists almost always go for an emotional argument and as atheists get better at countering this their debates are improving. I've seen atheists get totally pwned in the USA against very well informed Christians. Argument from authority is the playground of Theistic ministers and their followers are not called sheep for nothing and so the atheist must be very well prepared to cleverly pull rug out from under anyone who makes this argument.
I think a powerpoint can help.
Also it's good to start the debate and go back to some basic points again and again so that the audience "gets it".
There is no evidence for Gods and Goddesses.
debate-
debate-
again - FSM, there is no evidence for Gods and Goddesses
These audiences need this to be made crystal clear.
Micheal good point. In fact to go one stage further I think they should have contiuned to point out again and again that just because we cannot explain something does not mean that it must have been God. It is just we either don't understand it yet or its beyond our understanding.
Also, I think on the would my watch have made itself randomly question I would answer it like this. You can take something far simpler than a watch, lets look at a single nut and bolt. Now you could put these in a jar and shake them around for eternity and they would never screw into each other. And the reason that this will never happen is very simple, its because some times no matter how simple something is, it needs any additional force or factor to happen. But this does not mean that something far more complex cannot happen by chance just because it is more complex. The definable factor is ONLY does the process have all the variables to be possible. So just because a nut and bolt does not qualify does not mean that life also doesn't.
Also, I think on the would my watch have made itself randomly question I would answer it like this. You can take something far simpler than a watch, lets look at a single nut and bolt. Now you could put these in a jar and shake them around for eternity and they would never screw into each other. And the reason that this will never happen is very simple, its because some times no matter how simple something is, it needs any additional force or factor to happen. But this does not mean that something far more complex cannot happen by chance just because it is more complex. The definable factor is ONLY does the process have all the variables to be possible. So just because a nut and bolt does not qualify does not mean that life also doesn't.
Does it matter? The argument will go in circles and you'll have atheists arguing that the universe has no reason for being, then going back to their lab benches looking at "relationships" to work out reasons for why they do what they do.
And another great point was when he said how weak animals are eaten etc. Which seems more a system based on evil than made by a loving god. This is so true, when you look under the surface humans and animals are only really made to look after themselves first. Life just does not look designed by this loving God and I felt the Theist totally avoided this point.
Which debater becomes more agitated and condescending? No question its the Muslim religious proponent. It's like he feels the flock is under attack so better to shoot the wolf and get the sheep back in line with more bullshit baffles brains ideology.
It's amusing - both in the debate and elsewhere - when some theists continue to propose no reason for existence without Allah to hold their hands. "Without Allah, you have no reason for being! There is no purpose to your suffering!"
Well done. Now: neuron 1; meet neuron 2. And think.
Well done. Now: neuron 1; meet neuron 2. And think.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Excellent point, no compassionate, or exalted being would design a system of survival that's so cruel and barbaric. Mr. Carrier brought up an excellent point when he used the Mob Boss analogy. And I think it's true. If GOD created the Tsunami that killed thousands of people in SE Asia, then he is complicit in the deaths of those innocent victoms.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Exactly, the Muslim was very agitated and combative during the entire debate. And the moderator instructed the crowd to not interupt the speakers with ovations. But the moderator refused to enforce his own rules.
It just goes to show what atheists and scientists are up against. Despite never antagonizing the crowd and being quite polite and courteous during the debate, Barker and Carrier are verbally assaulted by the Muslim who in turn incites the crowd which had been quite docile and polite before that. It was a microcosm of the real world, shocking and disgusting but something I've come to expect.
Yeah a crowd full of sheep