Just to add something I should have thought about in my previous post: We do not have formal debates in regards to attempting to prove the existence or nonexistence of leprechauns. Therefore, it is just as silly to do it in terms of god, when there is just as much evidence for his existence as there is for the leprechaun's existence.

Maybe not televised ones. I suspect if you looked hard enough, you'd find them though.

The Wee Folk are Very Important Topics if you find the right nooks of the internet.

True, and I should probably add that I am not even heeding my own thoughts on the silliness of debate by being here in this forum arguing against theists. What can I state, other than that it is an addiction of mine. When it comes to the christian religion in particular, I consider myself quite the militant anti-theist.

I don't consider any of this banter to be debate at all, despite the colloquial use of the term.

(April 4, 2013 at 3:06 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: When it comes to the christian religion in particular, I consider myself quite the militant anti-theist.

We would have never guessed. (sarcasm)

I always think that the problem lies in the fact some of the times the person in the atheist corner is often a scientist or specialist in some way and is usually (not in a bad way) a bit of a geek, and not always very good in expressing their opinions in a crowd pleasing way.
Where as the christians and muslims seem to have guys who their ONLY talent is being crowd pleasing.

Take for example Hamza tzortzis he takes on Richard Dawkins (a biologist) in an argument on biology and loses, PZ myers in an argument on embyology and loses, he debates Lawrence Kraus (this guy is so geeky he actually looks like a grown up version of Millhouse from the simpsons) and I don't know if he loses or wins the argument was so complicated. But in every instance the opinion of Muslims and probably of a few neutral people will be that Hamza won just because he was relaxed and told a few jokes, gelled his hair back to look like the fonz and did an impressive smile.

The situation is basically you get a guy who's been locked in a room all his life studying fossils and animals vs a guy who trains everyday studying his body language and tone and how to please crowds and the timing of his jokes, and the people who get to decide who wins the argument are a crowd of a few builders and people who work in mcdonals or whatever (basically laymen like me).

You can always tell by Richards tone he doesn't give a shit if he impresses the crowd, a lot of the time he looks as if he hates the crowd, which is actually one of the reasons I like Richard Dawkins.
I liked it when he quoted the editor of the new scientist magazine and said “Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."

(April 4, 2013 at 5:02 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Lawrence Kraus (this guy is so geeky he actually looks like a grown up version of Millhouse from the simpsons) and I don't know if he loses or wins the argument was so complicated.

Actually, I find his debate skills embarrassing.

(April 4, 2013 at 2:28 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: The only reason it continues to get presented is because it hasn't be refuted in the minds of believers who'd rather stick their heads in the sand. That statement is equally true about atheists or theists, depending on what they're believing in without good evidence.

Which arguments are you referring to?

(April 4, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: Just to add something I should have thought about in my previous post: We do not have formal debates in regards to attempting to prove the existence or nonexistence of leprechauns. Therefore, it is just as silly to do it in terms of god, when there is just as much evidence for his existence as there is for the leprechaun's existence.

I am sorry, but this statement is rather silly, a claim for the existence of a material creature cannot be properly compared to a claim for the existence of a transcendent immaterial creator god. I don’t know why atheists always assume there should be some sort of material “evidence” that demonstrates God exists, what sort of evidence would you even expect to find? Are all truth claims verified by measuring evidence? That seems to be quite a simplistic view of epistemology.

(April 4, 2013 at 6:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: what sort of evidence would you even expect to find?

The sort you used to have a habit of claiming...creationist.

(April 4, 2013 at 6:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(April 4, 2013 at 6:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: what sort of evidence would you even expect to find?

The sort you used to have a habit of claiming...creationist.

Wait, so you are saying there is evidence for God's existence?