I'm in a debate with an aquantace. I have never really tried to debate before. So I'm posting the facebook interaction. I would like your opinions on not just what is said, but advice on how to debate better and what or if I should post anything back at this point. I took out some names.


·                                 Yeah, we evolved from apes...stupidity at its finest.



Other person:       it takes more crazy out there thinking to believe that there was a big explosion, and a universe was actually created from NOTHING, and then bacteria turned to fish, fish turned to something that walked on land, which turned into like a squirrel to a monkey to a human...lol I'll stick with intelligent design.

Me : Yet you think that god came from NOTHING. Interesting arguments

Other person:    I don't believe God came from nothing. Nowhere did I state that. The Big bang believes everything just happened out of nothing. Here, do an experiment for me. Sit in front of your empty microwave and wait for a cooked hot dog to appear. I'm guessing you'll die of starvation first. I believe, and I know..God exists. If you want to claim chimp dna be my guest. lol 

Me:  Not trying to start a fight here just pointing out that you said "a universe was actually created from NOTHING,". I just wanted to point out that before god there was.....? I don't have a problem having chimp DNA.

Other person:    I think I know what _____ believes, and it's why he and I both like Ancient Aliens so much. I do believe things can be created from nothing...but they don't just happen, they're created. Nothing, doesn't just happen to turn into a univers...e that works as perfectly as ours does. Science came about out of religion..and that is a fact. So if you believe in God, great..if you don't, that's fine. I know that God intervenes from time to time to let us know He's there. Like when he told ____ to sell his drumset for the betterment of mankind

Me:  Im not sure I follow your position on creating out of nothing. I understand that you think god created the universe. My question is who or what created god? Since you seem to think that he was created since he didn't come from nothing

Another person responds: AAnd on the same argument, what created the anti matter for the big bang theory?

Me:  You are correct _____. There are unanswered questions in science. Dark matter and dark energy are just to name a couple. They play a role in the big bang. But they are based in evidence not ideology.  

Other person:  Many things in religion are based on evidence and not ideology as well. The big bang probably happened..it's just that it was the first chapter of Genesis. scientists make me laugh. 15 years ago aspirin was bad for your heart..now you're supposed to take it for heart health. You see things like this everyday..they can't decide on simple things like coffee. Yet I'm supposed to believe these guy...s have all their stuff together and know for a fact how old everything is and how it all came to be. Wrong answer. Science has given us many great things...but at the same time, the science of man is foolishness. yes, that's from the Bible.

There is a book out there called the Case for Christ..has some very interesting things in it. I will look at any evidence that's given. I've just found that it's the scientific ones who are closed off, and yes...actually following an ideology as well. don't kid yourself   

Me:  I recognize that this is not going to lead anywhere. I know of the case for Christ. There are many problems with it. I will leave you with some recommended reading of my own that I have read and found to be enlightening. The god delusion- Richard Dawkins, letter to a Christian nation - Sam Harris, god is not great- Christopher hitchens

Other person:  I'm pretty sure it was them, I'm almost sure of it. I remember seeing Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens get owned in a debate by people from the Pro-God side of things. I know sam harris was one for sure...it's on youtube if I remember ...right. There are a million guys out there writing books to try and get people like me to not believe in God and that's fine...they can do whatever they like. Thing is, their books aren't going to sway me from something that I have actually seen work in my life. It just won't happen. Now, if you want to have a discussion with me about what exactly "God" is, that's a different story..that Brian and I might have things in common with each other I'm sure. But to try and state the case for me that everything you see, emotions, morality, all these things...just happened with nothing behind it...doesn't hold any water with me whatsoever. Once again, the stance of atheism and the stance of scientists is actually very much a religion in itself. Many scientists have a deep seeded disbelief in God and spend their lives trying to find the answers to prove it...not just trying to be scientific. I can't give anyone proof on paper God exists...and you can't give me any proof he doesnt. So no, it won't go anywhere

Me:   I know I'm not going to change your mind partly because in a debate such as you described, it is all on your view point of who "won". I would watch the same video and see that Hitchens and Harrison were the winners. I would even go so far as to say that you are a fan of Kent Hovind and Kirk Cameron. As you stated that science is a religion well that's not the case as science changes as the evidence and proofs change. Religion starts with an idea doesn't ever let go. Your comment on scientists this is the statistic: In the national academy of sciences
72.2% disbelieve in God
20.8% have doubt or agnosticism

Other person:   that statistic is kind of telling. While you would say they don't believe because of their work...I would say the opposite is true in many cases. Why would I just automatically be a fan of Kirk Cameron? Cause he was in the left behind mo...vies and fireproof? Or is an outspoken Christian? that's good for him, there's alot of them. I honestly don't know who the other guy is. My beliefs are changing all the time..but I do have things that don't change if that makes sense. I have alot of problems with organized religion. I believe man interferes with the message many times. Many times a church is where I felt the most judged, and many times I feel the church is hypocritical. But my faith is not towards a church..and I have a belief that will always be judged by it's followers..and therefore criticized. Atheism is actually a religion. You state science is always changing..but yet they always present their case as fact..and have many times been wrong. They're like weathermen. It would be nice to have their job...can be wrong all the time but never egg in the face..and still be taken very seriously. Scientists do try and provide proof in many instances to go along with their personal beliefs. Global warming for instance, and how hackers found out that they were actually doctoring the data and hiding facts to get the results they want. It happens. I don't put my faith in any man...period. I do believe in many things that scientists may offer up..they just take it to the next level of "it disproves God". Like evolution for instance. I believe in evolution...it happens. I don't believe in the large scale evolution where you get humans from apes though. That to me is hilarious and unintelligent.



Views: 74

Comment by Jon Heim on May 4, 2011 at 3:45am

you're never going to win.....some people are just too deluded to debate with.


Comment by Discern on May 4, 2011 at 5:59am
If it were me and I wanted to keep the debate going, I'd start attacking christian foundations, rather than continue defending the atheist position. I couldn't debate evolution, as I'm not sure I believe it myself. For me, I didn't *convert to* evolution and big bang theory, I simply deconverted *from christianity* as the christian doctrine and bible itself had too many problems.

There's a world of stuff you can pull of the bible. Though it depends how seriously he takes the bible (if he doesn't believe everything in the bible, then that's a problem itself - why base your belief in the christian god if you don't take christian canon seriously?). You've got two sets of contradicting Ten Commandments, you've got God telling people not to eat 4-legged insects, you've got man created first in one verse, but animals created first in another verse, you've got eternal torment in the New Testament, but non-existent in the Old Testament (thanks for the warning, God), you've got Matthew referring to non-existent prophecies of the Messiah (Matt 2:23), and so on.
That's the kind of stuff that caused me to re-think christianity. All the talk about evolution and big bang made no impact on me whatsoever as a christian.
Comment by rich shull on May 4, 2011 at 8:26am

Perhaps you need the rest of the story as all of us do. I am part of an unstudied living anthropology of people from all over the world that might well prove to be the living misisng link.  We started out at the bottom of the gene pool, have keen caveperson senses, pain tolerance ,and our normal thoughts (again never in a text book) are the long hand version of human thoughts. Once we learned those thoughts the normal ones you use  result.  If these thought were known and linked ot human development and behavior the link to aminal would be obvious. Now here is the fun part we are high functioning autistic, and missed rain man era autism or we would be in a group home.


Sadly contemporary autism was invented for the good of a few psychologists and they forgot or never really knew all of the stroy . Our Cave person roots (boy from Alverez 1600's) and other traits might be the missing link. Contemporary autism will not own up to us as we do a normal life, and they can't explain our different thought process pain tolerance etc.  Since we are at the bottom of the gene pool we will not be discovered by science and when do make a case peer review keeps us hidden as we were not discovered in a research setting.  


Many of us in the group report matching our speech thought system (the same one you don't know you use) to that of a parriot.  Of Course they are limited in their words but they use the same primative picutre thought system.  


Sorry I can't help more, but try bringing this up in your debate and you will be laughed at for sure. 


for more see my web page  http://prerainmanautism.blogspot.com    best Rich

Comment by Serena Woodward on May 4, 2011 at 8:28am

The major flaw in the other person's argument actually occurs very early in the debate.  "The Big bang believes everything just happened out of nothing."   The Big Bang theory doesn't actually put forth the idea of something from nothing.  It postulates that the universe originally existed in a hot dense state that expanded and continues to expand.  In other words, there was always something, it just moved from one form of matter to another.  One of the first people to suggest the "big bang" was actually a Catholic Priest.  (That's always a handy fact.) 

If you really want to continue the debate, you need to step back from any emotional argument and concentrate on the facts.  Although I tend to agree with the previous poster, you will most likely never win this one.  Arguing with highly religious people is like trying to argue with a toddler.  It basically boils down to you trying to  have a sane and rational discussion and them doing what amounts to sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "la la la la". 

Good luck and if you need any more help, give a shout.

Comment by BryanPaul on May 4, 2011 at 8:35am
yeah you'll never win. They don't know the facts or even have a basic grasp of the big bang and twist it to look stupid along with science. This is a smart tactic used by the ignorant. Your choices are simple. Let it go because you'll end getting nowhere or drop to his level and make him look stupid like he's trying to do to you by telling him you'd love to see his written proof as it should be good for a laugh and if by chance it actually is worth more than ass wiping paper he will be famous as the first guy with written proof of god. I'd let it go. Good luck either way.
Comment by Brandon Cure on May 4, 2011 at 8:58am
Thanks for the input. I didn't think I was getting anywhere. I don't even think he knows what he believes anyway. That's what it seems to me.
Comment by Walter Maki on May 4, 2011 at 11:27am
This guy is in a hostile defense mode so trying to reason with him is pointless. I just  love it when they try to use (an ever growing) science for the argument due to the fact they keep updating/changing as we learn more. Plus this guy has some hidden doubts about the bible which makes me wonder with all it's errors is how can they trust this book to begin with. He is buried so deep in delusion it would be like arguing with a child. From what I can see it would just be a case of emotions running wild so it seems to be better to just walk away. That's my two bits worth of input.
Comment by Akshay Bist on May 4, 2011 at 12:32pm
I agree with Discern. You won't be able to win this debate by providing evidence & reasoning in favor of science. You need to attack his core beliefs.
Comment by Mo Trauen on May 4, 2011 at 6:02pm

Don't even try to win with these types of people.  All you can do is hope to plant a seed.  Recognize the little tricks he is pulling with his tactics, call him on them.  Throw in a thought that pulls the rug out from under his main half-baked ideas.  Then walk away.  Here is a good start on his basic confusion:







Comment by Christopher Bricklemyer on May 4, 2011 at 7:21pm

You'll never win, but I really enjoy using people's words against them. For instance the other person said: "I can't give anyone proof on paper God exists"


I would argue that the Bible is supposed to be that proof. So, by their own admission, it is not admissable as proof. I would then go on about burden of proof, but, that would fall on deaf ears.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service