Need your help

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.

1 member likes this

< Previous Post

Comment by Wendy R. Dragon on May 4, 2011 at 9:12pm: I would have laughed at him from the start. He said "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." Soooooo. He's okay that it happened, but not that his invisible friend does not appear to have had a hand in the process. Right there he has agreed to the evolution story (albiet he obviously doesn't understand it) ... AND has violated Occam's Razor... (which states that if you have two models that explain the data equally well, the simpler one is the best choice). Since the basic difference between evolution and ID is the presence of god in the process, ID is the more (and unnecessarily) complex model... You can argue this point with little personal knowledge about individual ID arguments. Honestly, though, if you choose to engage these folks, do it for your own amusement, to hone your debate skills, or to motivate you to learn more about the arguments on both sides. (I have spent days walking through convoluted cosmological and philosophical arguments, because someone mentioned them. I love doing this, but then I'm weird). Don't do it because you think they are reasonable people who will be swayed by evidence or logic. You will never change their minds... especially someone like this who is so proud of their complete ignoance of science and their demonization of scientists.

Comment by Tom Heatherly on May 4, 2011 at 11:10pm: We sure are stubborn, even science must wait for the old crowd to die off so new ideas can come to the forefront. If religion wasn't such an easy control over folks, it would be waning.

Comment by Dustin on May 4, 2011 at 11:37pm: You already won the debate when they started their first words ... basically they say 'I am ignorant to reality and I am denying something that is substantially proven by most of the scientific community' ... if they are that deluded , there is no help for them.

You won. Congratulations. It doesn't matter if they realize they lost or not. Just be happy that you won.

Comment by Brandon Cure on May 4, 2011 at 11:51pm: As many of you have stated either I won or there really is no win, I felt the same way. Like I said I haven't really debated anyone since becoming an atheist. I just thought I would throw myself into it and see how my own arguments stood up rather than trying to change his mind. Plus his first post really got under my skin and I couldn't resist saying something. Thanks for the advice! I really appreciate it.

Comment by Wendy R. Dragon on May 5, 2011 at 7:17am: I think you did very well, and not just because it was your first time. You pointed out the special pleading that all relgious folk eventually get around to making, used facts to support your opinion (though he didn't seem to notice) and kept your cool (something many of us forget to do). Congratulations! Arguing with a theist seems to be a milestone for many of us atheists. I know it was for me.

Comment by Mo Trauen on May 5, 2011 at 10:12am: I forgot to add that any time you realize you are talking to a creationist the admonition to walk away applies with even greater strength. If you have a couple of well-honed bon mots to throw in, great, but remember that creationists are a combination of extremely ignorant and emotionally disturbed.

Comment by Teresa Turner on May 5, 2011 at 11:46am: I didn't read the whole thing because I need to leave for class in a few minutes, but from what I did read I have a few corrections to make: first, we didn't evolve FROM apes, we evolved from a common ancestor as apes. Looks like this --> common ancestor --> one branch: human ancestors -->another branch from common ancestor into ape-y ancestors.
Another: there was material that caused the big bang. It was incredibly dense and the particles collided much like the idea of the large hadron collider , causing a huuuuuuuuuuuuge explosion, thus the big bang. Now, I don't know where the material that caused the big bang came from, and no one else does. I don't expect to ever know where it came from, but I'm not going to use the god complex to fill in the blank spaces. I've already accepted the fact that there are a few things I will never ever know in my life time.
If you want to bring up the fact that we have physical proof that the earth is more than 6000 years old, bring up rocks and fossils and such. And also say how we're (atheists) are not all arrogant in thinking the entire universe was made for us when we are one tiny little rock orbiting one tiny little star in one tiny little galaxy amongst an innumerable number of galaxies and dark matter.

Comment by William C. Walker on May 5, 2011 at 5:00pm: Brandon, NO ONE wins an argument. In a discussion, you can frequently 'make a point'. That's about it. You might ask your friend if he's read much Greek & Roman history. Especially the history of the ORIGIN of Xianity. Emperor Constantine is the REAL founder & FUNDER of Catholicism / Xianity. In 325 CE he convened a council, at Nicaea. He felt that he needed a new god under which he hoped to unite his decaying empire. He directed the council & had a bunch of ignorant men decide on one - by VOTE. All that could not 'buy into' the majority was expelled. He directed the council to : Make it to astonish. All of this didn't save his empire, but he did create a new religion. One of the world's 'biggies'. Religion is mostly a matter of geography. Ask your friend what he thinks his beliefs would be had he been born in the Middle East, to Muslim parents.