|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 3, 2003 17:16:55 GMT -5
This is my better idea from earlier today.
I've recently noticed something about atheists (sic). They normally have no problem with arguin about CHRISTianity and other beliefs, but I have rarely seen them take defense of their own.
This topic will be for atheists to attempt to dfend their beliefs. Any attacks or attempts to debate CHRISTianity or God will simply be ignored - because that's not what this thread is for.
The only thing I need to get rolling is for SleepyTemplar to post saying that he will join this debate. I'm not talking about a half-page response, I'm talking 2-5 words. "I accept." Would work nicely.
Do not attempt to state anything other than whether you accept or not, it will most likely be ignored. I will "fire the first shot", so to speak. I will ignore anything other than an acceptance or refusal because, in an analogie, in a war where you are on defense you do not strike the first blow. You do not start the "war." You do not choose the weapons of your opponent (the topics I will address.)
So atheists - pick up your shield. I must warn you however, that the shield of unbelief is about as thin as a page from a biology book. The armor of natural selection has as many holes in it as Darwin's theory - which leaves you with more holes than armor.
I hope you are prepared to defend your own "belief."
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Feb 3, 2003 17:30:43 GMT -5
Well, let's save the rhetoric and get to the debatin'. Although I would point out, so you have no misconceptions from the start - our 'atheism' is not a belief, it is the lack of such. Neither myself nor ST (as I understand his position) actually deny the possibility that some form of superior being exists, just the existance of specific gods (such as the christian one). We may be doubtful that any such being exists, as we see no evidence for one's existence, but we do not rule out the possibility entirely. That said - and it's not an argument, just a clarification needed beforehand - I accept, on my part.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 3, 2003 17:43:38 GMT -5
Thank you Paul. I will wait for Templar to reply before I begin. Try signing on MSN now.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 3, 2003 17:57:14 GMT -5
I accept, although if we're defending atheism in general, then you'll need to defend your own brand of atheism too.
EDIT: Oh, and Paul did a good job of defining basic atheism. We'll probably need to define our terms at first.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 3, 2003 18:20:44 GMT -5
Now that that is out of the way, we can proceed. First TopicHow do you believe the world, and/or universe came to be? A simple question deserving of a simple response.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 3, 2003 18:25:29 GMT -5
You're assuming the universe had an origin. The conversation of energy and matter states they cannot be created nor destroyed, and we've never inductively observed this law being broken. As such, to suggest the universe needs an origin is to break a law as firmly established as gravity. If you claim this law can be overriden, you must prove empirical evidence that is falsifible and repeatable to support this.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 3, 2003 18:26:57 GMT -5
Nice dancing shoes, but I'll ask you to remove them.
If it had no origin, then how is it here?
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 3, 2003 18:35:32 GMT -5
Nice theistic presuppositions, but I'll ask you to check them in with the doorman.
You're using a misunderstanding of causality. For something to occur, which is the idea of causality, it requires for something to exist in order to cause. To say the universe, defined as the totality of existence, requires a cause is a ludicrous concept as you're saying existence requires a cause. One of the major points of causality is that something cannot be the cause of itself (in the sense that it cannot bring itself into being from nothing- because it would first need to exist to do so). If you agree with this premise, then asking how existence came to be is meaningless. If you disagree with this firmly established premise, you must provide empirical evidence for a falsifible and repeatable hypothesis where being can come from non-being. As causality presupposes existence, existence is a causal primary upon which everything is contingent upon. Hence, if you agree that being cannot come from non-being, then existence is eternal.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 3, 2003 18:52:07 GMT -5
So you rebuke the big bang theory then?
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Feb 3, 2003 18:56:56 GMT -5
Uhm, the big bang theory states that all the matter in the universe was compressed at one time and then began to rapidly expand. It says nothing about the matter materializing in the middle of space miraculously... and even if we did rebuke it, it's only one possible theory, and not tied to our lack of belief in any way.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 3, 2003 18:59:19 GMT -5
The Big Bang doesn't say that the universe came from nothing. That's a strawman. The Big Bang involves the form of the universe changing. Remember the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter I talked about originally? "Matter and energy CANNOT be CREATED or DESTROYED". Now, if you wish to overturn this scientific law, you must provide evidence that's repeatable which shows this *CAN* happen.
The Big Bang has significant evidence for it, for example, the red shift and background radiation.
To repeat: Although the form of something can change (i.e. taking paint and paper and creating a painting), the matter that makes up the painting is not created nor destroyed. Burn the painting, and the matter still exists, but in a different form.
In addition, do you agree that being cannot come from non-being?
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 3, 2003 19:00:12 GMT -5
Then you have partially answered my question. How do YOU BELIEVE the EARTH came in to being? I'm not asking what all the possible ways are, I want YOUR BELIEF. (Not a "you" specifically, all atheists in this debate.) If you believe it had no origin, SAY SO and give all of your reasoning in plain english. Not all of us have a college education.
Templar posted before I replied, let me add to this post.
Beings can not come from non-beings. Everything has one origin and one origin alone. But we're not here to discuss my belief, as you attempt to take the offensive.
NOW, give me WHAT YOU BELIEVE PERSONALLY ON HOW THE EARTH CAME TO BE.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 3, 2003 19:14:08 GMT -5
I have no belief as to how the earth came into being because there is no conclusive evidence as to the exact process. In order for myself to belief something, there must be strong evidence for the belief in question to be true. Although good evidence exists to explain the general process, the exact method lacks strong evidence, and in that case I simply suspend belief on the exact process and consider possible hypotheses.
The earth is created (and by created, I mean from pre-existing materials, not creation ex nihilo) due to radiometric dating placing the earth at 4.5 billion years old, whereas the universe as we know is 15 billion years old. As most astronomy students know, stars originally are made up of primarily hydrogen gas. It's "life" cycle involves the fusion of hydrogen into helium to sustain itself. As it converts more of its hydrogen into helium, it eventually swells into a red giant. As it runs out of hydrogen, it begins fusing helium into heavier elements, until the point that iron is made. At this point, depending on the mass, it either shrinks into a white dwarf, goes nova, or explodes in a supernova. The supernova allows for the fusion of even heavier elements, and disperses them out into the area.
Current hypotheses on the matter state that from supernovae in our galaxy the dust/gas remaining began to coalesce to form our sun (as new stars can form from nebulae of gas/dust), and the heavier elements the planets and earth.
|
|
|
Post by Gimdin7 on Feb 3, 2003 19:35:38 GMT -5
Can Agnostics play too? I promise I'll answer your questions in a logical and complete fashion.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 9, 2003 1:16:31 GMT -5
Next Question:
Do you deny Christ's existence, or His divinity?
(All this is for me to gather some info before the debate)
|
|