(February 13, 2010 at 4:41 am)Fox_McCloud Wrote: In recent high profile debates though, it seems like atheists are taking a beating from theists and it is more than a little disheartening to see the people I had recently come to see as the champions of reason and my new world view, performing so poorly. Examples being: William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens, and Dinesh D`souza vs John W Loftus.People have bad debates and good debates. I've seen Hitchens slaughter more theists in debates that I've seen the other way around. Hopefully I'll be able to correct some of your views anyway. I should note that a formal written debate is very different from a live face-to-face debate. You are more likely to miss non-sequiturs and fallacies in a verbal debate because you are thinking on your feet. You are also more likely to get drawn into discussions that could have been dismissed (as per your morality example).
Quote:Both Craig and D`souza trounce the atheist with the cosmic origins argument. Essentially claiming that since science shows evidence of the big bang, the universe was not eternal and at some point was created. All matter and time itself began to exist. Also since scientifically and logically we know that something cannot come from nothing, the theist position is more reasonable then the atheist one that claims no god (essentially taking away the cause).Ok, well there are some problems with Craig and D'souza's argument here. Firstly, the Big Bang doesn't show that the universe was not eternal. Far from it. The Big Bang only shows that at some point in the past, the universe began to expand rapidly. Whether it existed before that is still unknown. The current theory is that the universe existed as a singularity without space or time. If it had no time, then it literally wasn't created (since creation is an event, and for events to precede things, you need time).
I also dispute your reasoning that "scientifically and logically we know that something cannot come from nothing"...that sounds like Ray Comfort reasoning to me. Science and logic deal with the universe we are currently in; they cannot possibly deal with the environment that the universe is in, or the environment before the universe expanded. We know nothing about this environment, whether it had laws, whether it is bound by logic, etc.
Finally, the theistic position is no more reasonable than the atheist position. The atheist position isn't a claim of "no god" as you say, but a claim of "non-belief in God". Atheists do not deny the existence of God, they simply do not believe in them. Strong atheists would be the ones making the claim. Back to "reasonable" positions, the theistic one places a God, an infinitely complex being, into the mix, in order to apparently solve a problem which I've just explained doesn't have to exist in the first place (given the absence of time). Unfortunately, putting something unexplainable as an explanation only causes more questions. Thus, I say their position is far less reasonable.
Quote:"Your absolutely right, objective morals do not exist, they are a biproduct of evolution of a social species. In order for our species to survive, it was advantageous for us to form a social structure and in doing so morals came about for everyones benefit. This does mean that rape, phedophilia, murder, etc.. is not wrong because its wrong, as there is not absolute right and wrong, there is only our subjective social structures view, and we agree as a people to avoid things that are destructive to our society and punish those who permit undesirable deeds. What it comes down to is: reality is the way it is, wether we like it or not, and that fact is certainly not self refuting."Can I ask you a question? How often did you re-write that, pause for thought, change certain words, improve it, etc. You have the advantage of not having to think on your feet. In a heated debate, it is often hard to stay on point when you are facing challenges from your opponent.
Quote:I guess I am just a little disappointed, I learned atheism from these guys, and they are getting torn apart by theists. I figured that as an atheist I had the clearly more logical, and reasonable, sensible position, and when explained properly, it would be very obvious to others. Yet from these debates, atheists actually became christians. I cannot say that it doesn't make me do a double take on my own beliefs.People in live debates regularly lie to cover their points from criticism, and they get away with it because most of the time nobody checks. This is why I prefer written debates, and why I started this forum. You have as much time as you like to formulate a response, and you can fact-check things people say. Having double takes on your own beliefs is a good thing; never defend your beliefs because they are your beliefs; defend them because you believe they are correct. The search for truth should be the priority, and if you find the arguments of theists convincing, evaluate them yourself.
