Kid vs religion.

Author: Checkmate ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 50
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate

    ^A strong case against religion. I give all religious people the opportunity to address this. 
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Checkmate
    I didn't see the entire video to be honest. The arguments the kid (I'm assuming the narrator is the kid) is making is nothing new here.

    Do you by chance have a link to a debate between the kid as it were, and Peter Hitchens?

    The problem with deconstructing opinions, religious stances, etc. is when they have total control of the microphone. I think this kid has been on The Atheist Experience which quite frankly is the worst run radio/internet talk show I've ever listened to.

    I've listened to numerous talk shows, sometimes calling in, and I'll admit, some Christian talk show hosts abuse their power of control. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, if you've ever listened to sports talk radio, you might get an idea.

    The Atheist Experience, which I'm pretty sure this cosmic kid has a connection with, is by far worse than any religious or even sports talk show host I've ever heard. It's a circus. They choose callers according to what they want to talk about, that will create the most hype for their listeners, rather than who's next in the calling line. They talk over their callers, cut them off before any point can be made, and they have multiple cheerleaders tweeting their admiration for their control freak heroes. I'm sure the Cosmic Kid has his cheerleaders commenting below in this video.

    They won't debate actual Biblical scholars. The only debate I know of they had with a well known Christian is not a bible scholar. A great street evangelist, but not a bible scholar. Someone like Ravi Zacharias would have the kid running home.

    So if you can provide a video minus the control syndrome, I'll watch all the way through.

  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @RoderickSpode

    Here's him debating some other religious professor. 
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @RoderickSpode

    This is another debate which included Sam Harris and Dr Craig. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Checkmate
    Hi yeah I got bored after listening to the out of context verses the kid pulls out in an attempt to dismiss Hitchens first comments. 

    Comments such - as we have heard them before and will continue to do so because they have never been refuted. LOL!

    So when we hear over and over again arguments against the world being a sphere we should automatically think - "Well they are still being made - obviously the world must be flat".  Or when we hear arguments against evolution over and over again - it obviously means that evolutionists have NEVER satisfactorily refuted these points. 

    Yeah great advice. A kid.  Yep. And the only people likely to get sucked into it are probably other kids.  
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Checkmate
    Thanks for the 2 other videos. I'll check them out when I have a chance.

    I've actually seen a video where Craig was a guest on his podcast. 

    The nice part about a debate with Craig, is that they seem to be more about the existence of God than debating the alleged evils of scripture, which can be a relief. I think the video with Craig and Harris is about the existence of God. But I haven't seen it yet.

    The problem with debating scripture with atheists is that the atheist tends to jump ahead of the game by trying to argue that the God of the Bible is evil. They really need to disprove the existence of God first (which is where Lane comes in). The problem is that the atheist tends to be vague about whether they are claiming the God of the Bible as an existing entity is evil (or if He exists He would be evil), or the author's portrayal of the God of the bible being evil (thus rendering the authors evil).

    The actual existence of God as a real being has to bring inevitable questions like, "why do certain good things happen to me if God is evil"? And then sequencially what would follow is considering the possibility of not understanding the particular verses, or failing to consider the possibility that what the bible states as evil that society rejects being evil may in fact be harmful.



  • Utanity
    Utanity avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 375
    0
    2
    2
    Utanity avatar
    Utanity
    --> @Checkmate
    The guy in the video is really dumb because if you look behind him there is a book about Lennin and a book about october so he must be a commie anyway. And he is really rude because he keeps on cutting off the other guy who is talking properly about the bible. He is a sinner who wants to be a sinner and says blasphemy all the time so what he says is not right at all.
  • Utanity
    Utanity avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 375
    0
    2
    2
    Utanity avatar
    Utanity
    --> @Tradesecret
    So when we hear over and over again arguments against the world being a sphere we should automatically think - "Well they are still being made - obviously the world must be flat".  Or when we hear arguments against evolution over and over again - it obviously means that evolutionists have NEVER satisfactorily refuted these points. 

    The evolutionists are wrong anyway because we know that the earth is not flat now anyway. Did you notice those books that guy had behind him? That tells it all doesn't it and there is no way he is going to understand if he keeps butting in like that.
  • Utanity
    Utanity avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 375
    0
    2
    2
    Utanity avatar
    Utanity
    --> @RoderickSpode
    The problem with debating scripture with atheists is that the atheist tends to jump ahead of the game by trying to argue that the God of the Bible is evil. They really need to disprove the existence of God first (which is where Lane comes in). The problem is that the atheist tends to be vague about whether they are claiming the God of the Bible as an existing entity is evil (or if He exists He would be evil), or the author's portrayal of the God of the bible being evil (thus rendering the authors evil).
    They are the evil ones because all they do is talk about evil and where does that come from? It comes from an evil heart because they reject God. If they reject God then they need to prove God doesn'[t exist which doesn't make sense because they are proving that evil exists. So they know that they cannot disprove God otherwise they would prove that there is no God. It is a circular argument but if you know God then you don't need to prove him. They need to disprove god first because if there is no proof that God is not provable then there cannot be an evil god.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Utanity
    So when we hear over and over again arguments against the world being a sphere we should automatically think - "Well they are still being made - obviously the world must be flat".  Or when we hear arguments against evolution over and over again - it obviously means that evolutionists have NEVER satisfactorily refuted these points. 

    The evolutionists are wrong anyway because we know that the earth is not flat now anyway. Did you notice those books that guy had behind him? That tells it all doesn't it and there is no way he is going to understand if he keeps butting in like that.

    Hello Utanity,

    you really are a confusing person.  Are you a Christian? By the way in my above post I never said evolution was wrong.  I used it as an illustration in relation the kid's argument against "contrary arguments" and I did the same with the world being a ball.   I was refuting his argument not his position.  I am not sure that I understand what you are saying about books.  On my shelves I have books by many atheists.  And other books from many religions and worldviews. I have Karl Marx's books as well.  But I am not a communist. I am not an atheist. And I am definitely a Christian.  

    I take the view that we should read widely -and particularly what others believe - it is always good to know where others are coming from. It is difficult to know what you think if you don't what other people think.  You need other people to ensure that you can evaluate your own ideas. I say - go and get a few books from what other's think and hopefully it will broaden your viewpoint.  
  • Utanity
    Utanity avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 375
    0
    2
    2
    Utanity avatar
    Utanity
    --> @Tradesecret
    You can't think what someone else thinks because you don't know what they are thinking anyway and if you did you would be that person. And that guy why does he deliberately show a book about october and another one about Lennin just behind him. Hes meaning to show off that he is a commie and anti God. There is nothing wrong with evolution per say it is just that evolution is not rue because it goes against what we already know is true and the Bible is the truth so how can an animal become another animal. It is just being stupid. But I know what other people think without knowing what they think because if they are thinking things that I am not thinking I can tell anyway which is not the way God wants us to think and it was Jesus who said anyway that it doesn't do any good for a man to think. Jesus said that we should Look at the birds of the air and not worry about anything else so I know not what someone is thinking but that they are thinking and that they should not be.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Utanity
    You can't think what someone else thinks because you don't know what they are thinking anyway and if you did you would be that person. And that guy why does he deliberately show a book about october and another one about Lennin just behind him. Hes meaning to show off that he is a commie and anti God. There is nothing wrong with evolution per say it is just that evolution is not rue because it goes against what we already know is true and the Bible is the truth so how can an animal become another animal. It is just being stupid. But I know what other people think without knowing what they think because if they are thinking things that I am not thinking I can tell anyway which is not the way God wants us to think and it was Jesus who said anyway that it doesn't do any good for a man to think. Jesus said that we should Look at the birds of the air and not worry about anything else so I know not what someone is thinking but that they are thinking and that they should not be.
    Did you say that all in one breath? 

    Thanks for making me smile. 
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @Tradesecret
    There’s something about your snarky attitude and sense of self importance which annoys me. Would you like to debate with me about the existence of God? I would rather not entangle myself in an endless comment war. Also, I think I’ll enjoy beating you.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,471
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    "I got bored after listening to the out of context verses"

     Not that old chestnut.....
    Context!!!!!!!



    A kid.  Yep. And the only people likely to get sucked into it are probably other kids.  
     Yep, he must have learned that trick from a Pastor or maybe a Chaplin eh Reverend?

    Matthew 19:14  King James Version


    14 But Jesus said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven".

     Got to get em young . 

     Was it Brigham or bring em, young ? 

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,471
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Checkmate

    ^A strong case against religion. I give all religious people the opportunity to address this.

     Peter Hitchens, brother of that great atheist Christopher. 

  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @Stephen
    Peter Hitchens, the man who could have learnt a bit from his brother. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,568
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Checkmate
     I would rather not entangle myself in an endless comment war.

    Well you could open up a new thread and ask questions or challenge a premise rather than posting drive by topics that don't express much of yourself. It doesn't have to be a war either at all, just a game of the intellect. This would be ideal for me, and I play in the forums because I'm too busy to commit to debates. I know you weren't talking to me, but if you want to make this interesting make topics that really intrigue your interests about specific ideas you like or don't like and wish to hash out. There's too many "I'm mad at the Bible threads" and theist bashing topics....we can have discussions about God, the existence of God, the after life, theistic concepts and spiritual principles without picking at the Bible. It's a waste of time really, and atheists hate apologists so do you want to have a discussion about spirituality without it being some kind of a fight? it actually bothers me atheists and theists can't talk about these things without there being animosity, I personally have no hate towards opposing sides of beliefs and worldviews, that's silly stuff. 
    If you get into conversations with me, I'll give you interesting things to think about and ponder. 


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Checkmate
    There’s something about your snarky attitude and sense of self importance which annoys me. Would you like to debate with me about the existence of God? I would rather not entangle myself in an endless comment war. Also, I think I’ll enjoy beating you.
    Thanks for the compliment.  

    A debate.  Well that might be nice.  But the debate won't be about the existence of God.  It will be about the best explanation for the origin of the universe. That way the burden of proof is on both of us. 

    Please start the debate and set up the guidelines.  
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @Tradesecret
    I do not wish to discuss the best explanation for the origin of the universe. I wish to discuss the existence of God. I would enjoy a debate where you propose your case for God and I rebut it. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Checkmate
    Well, 

    I don't wish to debate that particular issue where all of the burden is on me and none is on you. 

    That is a fight where I lose before I start. 

    Either we start one where the burden is fair and equal and just or we don't debate. 


  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Tradesecret
    Just curious,

    But what would THIS debate look like if the burden was fair, equal, and just?
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @ethang5
    Great question as always. 

    My view is that a question about origins places the burden on both parties. 

    the question of God's existence is impossible for an atheist to disprove when they have the burden. It is also impossible to prove for the theist because of the implicit conclusion within the premise. 

    Neither party wants to give the other person a place of power.  I certainly don't want to do that. 

    If we both start with the burden  in the topic I mentioned - then it is for the atheist to prove his burden of how the universe started and likewise for the theist.

    It then permits both sides to cross examine the opposing arguments and refute them. Understandably - both sides will be refuted because neither have the ability to verify their positions.  

    the winner will be not the one with the best arguments but the one who has the most votes - obviously on this site - numbers and democracy seem to be the determiner of the winner of the debate - not necessarily the arguments. 

    Hence - in my mind - at least the premise of the discussion will be fair and equitable. 

    The outcome won't be. But I can live with that if I lost the debate because of numbers.  Yet I would find it a nonsense to set up a debate where the position has been dispensed with in the very first premise.  

    To argue about the existence of God per se - is implicitly to deny God's existence in the first place. It is impossible to come back from that position in a debate. Well in my view anyway. I certainly am happy to be shown otherwise. 
  • Checkmate
    Checkmate avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 104
    0
    1
    5
    Checkmate avatar
    Checkmate
    --> @Tradesecret
    But why should the burden be on me? You are the one proposing the idea of this all powerful God, not me. 

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Checkmate
    But why should the burden be on me? You are the one proposing the idea of this all powerful God, not me. 
    I think TS is saying you are the one proposing the idea of  no all powerful God, not him. You should at least have to defend that claim.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Checkmate
    I am not proposing that at all. 

    This is a topic by an atheist trying to demonstrate the absurdity of God. 

    Hence it is you who is making the assertion not me. 

    I responded to you.