Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype

[The Grand Nudger]

Where do you get your information on what atheists tend to like or do from?

For example, from this thread alone in response to me:

Well, that settles that, then.  You're getting the sorts of responses in thread because of the boards past and vast experience with people who lead in with OPs like yours.

Your fellow christians have lowered people expectations and patience, lol.

Not really your fault, but now you know and you;ve got a formal debate opportunity and this thread, where you could elaborate more on what you see as debatable between the atheist and theist POV.

[Nay_Sayer]

Where do you get your information on what atheists tend to like or do from?

For example, from this thread alone in response to me:

 "There's nothing to debate. Either you acknowledge facts or you do not."

and 

"Naturally not.  We all know how these 'debates' go.  You'll do your bit about the value of Christianity and the validity of the Bible.  The atheist will respond with criticisms based in reason, history and logic.  This will go back and forth for a bit until you invoke the need to accept things based on faith, at which point it is not longer a debate.
For the record, it isn't immediately clear that one can have a 'rational' debate about religion."


My understanding of atheist's tendencies is not completely unfounded. I will grant that it may be an over generalization since many Atheists will disagree on a variety of topics. But you'll notice that the atheist has "reason, history, and logic" on his side, but I just have a "bit" to do about the value of Christianity. Of course, these people are not willing to actually debate.

---

Someone has already accepted your challenge.  Did you miss it?

I may have. They haven't sent me a PM.

---

Ask the admins here to set up a one on one debate. It will be just you and one other person.

Why am I nervous? I don't trust people on the internet, and really don't trust christians coming to an atheist forum and immediately wanting to debate.

Why not?

I don't think he does. Valkyrie and I have both mentioned he needs to read the rules as he is in violation of the 30/30 rule.

I've read them. And I've read the rules. I don't think I'm in violation of 30/30 rule because of the exception to it. Maybe I'm wrong, but my post still remains as of now. I think its relevant to the ongoing discussion. It's clearly generated much of it.

---

Right here.  (When you debate me, I hope that you read all of my posts!)

I'd be happy to. I'd like to debate verbally, though.

Which is funny in a way because what I get from your posts is cowardice.

[Jehanne]

Verbal debates are also kind of creepy; it's kind of like meeting Donald Trump in person.

[Losty]

Moderator Notice
I don’t feel like PMing a bunch of people, so if you wrote or quoted the OP, your post has been edited. Now you know.

[Jehanne]

I have told him, publicly and privately, that if he wants to have a debate with me, he can do so here on the forum.

[SenseMaker007]

Christians only ever argue for the existence of a first cause and they never explain why that first cause is supposedly intelligent. Unless you include them attacking evolution (as they have no argument for intelligent design now that we know evolution is true, and evolution can explain the world, so they have to attack evolution).  And they never say why it should be the specifically Christian God. Unless you include them insisting that there is historical evidence for the resurrection. But evolution is true, there is no historical evidence of Jesus's resurrection at all, and a first cause is just a first cause. They can call it a prime mover all they want ... it doesn't make it anything other than just a first cause.

Nothing in modern physics demands a cause for all phenomena; the spontaneous transition of an electron to a lower or ground state isn't caused by anything; it just happens.  Ditto for radioactive decay of an unstable atom into its daughter elements.

Basic logic demands a cause for all phenomena, really, because a so-called "acausal" explanation for existence is still an explanation for something existing, of course, and is therefore actually causal in a wider sense. It may not be causal in a scientific sense ... but if X explains the existence of Y then it's certainly causal in a philosophical sense.

---

the spontaneous transition of an electron to a lower or ground state isn't caused by anything; it just happens.  Ditto for radioactive decay of an unstable atom into its daughter elements.

I highly doubt that any knowledgeable scientist thinks that acausal proccesses mean that things just happen for no apparent reason.

No apparent cause, sure, but no apparent cause doesn't mean no cause at all. It's far far more likely that some explanations are unknowable than it is that some things don't have explanations ... considering that there are so many things that do have explanations and there are so many things that were previously thought to have no explanation but were later found to have one. What's more likely, that the universe operates in two completely different and completely incompatible ways or that humans are faulty creatures that aren't always competent enough to see the way it operates? I'll stick with parsimony.

"It just happens for no reason" isn't an explanation for anything. It's no different to "God did it". But I doubt that any esteemed indeterminist scientist describes acausality and indeterminism as "it just happens".

After all, in science all indeterminism means is quantum unpredictability. Scientists just aren't able to predict certain things ... it doesn't mean there is nothing to predict.

[LastPoet]

You think indoctrination is rare? ...ok.

I may have explained myself horribly, what is rare is those heavily indoctrinated, finding the way to reason.

---

You have time to hang out on forums, but not enough time to actually engage in meaningful dialogue? Your response is just asserting your superiority, which is an arbitrary opinion that has not been rooted in reason, but it mere opinion. You also engaged in an ad hominem abusive fallacy.

You have been offered a formal debate on this forum, by jehanne. Are you refusing your own invitation? And please stop poisoning the well, since you're so fond of fallacies.

I personally think its ultimately a waste of time to debate a christian or any devout. It's like debating a harry potter fan about the gamdalf's hat ability to talk. In the end l, its all about faith and books. You do you, I guess.

[Peebothuhlu]

Nothing in modern physics demands a cause for all phenomena; the spontaneous transition of an electron to a lower or ground state isn't caused by anything; it just happens.  Ditto for radioactive decay of an unstable atom into its daughter elements.

Basic logic demands a cause for all phenomena, really, because a so-called "acausal" explanation for existence is still an explanation for something existing, of course, and is therefore actually causal in a wider sense. It may not be causal in a scientific sense ... but if X explains the existence of Y then it's certainly causal in a philosophical sense.

---

the spontaneous transition of an electron to a lower or ground state isn't caused by anything; it just happens.  Ditto for radioactive decay of an unstable atom into its daughter elements.

I highly doubt that any knowledgeable scientist thinks that acausal proccesses mean that things just happen for no apparent reason.

No apparent cause, sure, but no apparent cause doesn't mean no cause at all. It's far far more likely that some explanations are unknowable than it is that some things don't have explanations ... considering that there are so many things that do have explanations and there are so many things that were previously thought to have no explanation but were later found to have one. What's more likely, that the universe operates in two completely different and completely incompatible ways or that humans are faulty creatures that aren't always competent enough to see the way it operates? I'll stick with parsimony.

"It just happens for no reason" isn't an explanation for anything. It's no different to "God did it". But I doubt that any esteemed indeterminist scientist describes acausality and indeterminism as "it just happens".

After all, in science all indeterminism means is quantum unpredictability. Scientists just aren't able to predict certain things ... it doesn't mean there is nothing to predict.

Hello!

You have to remember though that reality doesn't have to care about a human's logic. Or anything human's might or might not think about the reality surrounding us.

Electrons effectivly 'teleport' between energy states. One minute (Second?) they're at one level. The next *Bamph!* they are at a different level. Nothing in between. This also gives us the weirdness that is 'Electron tunneling' Where electrons simply 'Pop' though other matter.

Then we have Hawking radiation. Basically the closest thing we know of of 'Something' just suddenly being in reality. A partical 'becomes' real where before there was no partical before.

I'm sure folks will be along with a far better grasp of nuclear physics than my lay-man self to explain the "Why we can't know the certainty of partical physics as opposed to the 'We, they don't know yet so it's acausal.'

Which leads me back to my question of; "If something in reality can be 'Acausal' why can't all of reality itself just be 'Acausal'?"

Cheers.

Not at work.

[SenseMaker007]

You have to remember though that reality doesn't have to care about a human's logic. Or anything human's might or might not think about the reality surrounding us.

That's exactly my point. Which is precisely why it's more likely that we are unable to find an explanation than it is that there isn't one.

Electrons effectivly 'teleport' between energy states.

Effectively, sure. But that's, once again, just what scientists are able to assess.

We actually have absolutely no idea of what reality is like beyond our experience.

Then we have Hawking radiation. Basically the closest thing we know of of 'Something' just suddenly being in reality.

I think it's hilarious that once we get into the very big and very small parts of reality, and we are unable to understand it all, people think that things really do just pop in and out of existence rather than thinking that maybe, just maybe, the anomaly comes from the limits of our knowledge rather than the universe just being pure teleporty magic.

[Anomalocaris]

LetsDebateThings, this isn't a Skype room, so we naturally expect people who come here to participate to anticipate using text as a medium. This isn't a platform for finding atheists to debate elsewhere. When you sign up here, it's to be a member HERE, not to fish our membership. I'm certainly okay with members deciding to talk together organically outside of the forum, obviously. It'd be fucking weird if I had an opinion on the matter. However, I don't really like you coming here to ask to debate, but refusing to do so in the actual forum you are using. We have a formal debate section, and we would love for you to use it. You could even record your responses, post them to YouTube and then post those links in the debate thread, assuming the other member agreed to such a format, and you met our 30/30 rule first. You already have takers in terms of debate. If your preference is Skype, and you refuse to use this forum, I don't know why you're here. Go god bother somewhere else.

This*






*Though I don't like the membership talking together outside the forum because I'm nosey and suspect they're talking about me**




**This is either paranoia or a warning to others***


***Probably paranoia****





****Or is it?

Outside the forum We only say good things about you behind your back.

We never plot your downfall.....