Atheists vs Believers DEBATE *** ROLE REVERSAL ***

The contraversial debate has been ongoing for thousands of years. Long before any of us were around (*reincarnation excluded). We have inherited this burden from either our ancestors, other influencing forces, or "God" itself. Often times we find we have made our decision to get off the fence, and that we view ourselves as on one side, or the other. Even though sufficient proof and supportive evidence and all facts may not be known to us, yet.

It all too often becomes an emotional debate, heavily fueled by our individual desires and passions. This is an excellent opportunity for you to debate the existance of "God" while minimizing our emotional involvment, and expand our tolerance of understanding for those on the other side of the fence.

I realize that the subject matter is open for interpretation to each and every individual.


The rules will be simple:

1) State whether you consider yourself an atheist, agnostic, or "believer", or any specific subsects of those categories. Then "role play" and argue the other side as efficiently as you can!

2) If you are a "believer" or "spiritual" or "religious" person, you are for all intensive purposes an "Atheist" and will argue their points in your posts on this thread.

3) If you are an "atheist" or "agnostic" you are for all intensive purposes a "believer" that there is a God. You do not necessarily have to pick one faith or one doctrine/dogma you are going to argue for. If you do, it may limit the arguements you will have, although you could change your role to another faith to present their beliefs and their ideals to justify why a God exists.

4) Please do your absolute best to refrain from breaking character. Remember that while posting in this thread, you are presenting the case for the opposite of what your personal beliefs may be.

I know for certain many FS&T members, as well as myself, has high expectations for this thread. We have briefly talked about it in other threads, and via U2Us.

Since we are debating points of view somewhat foriegn to us, perhaps some useful tools, tips and tricks, for debating can be found in another thread concerning debating, that i researched and authored a few weeks ago:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

One highly pertinent peice of information from the above link:

... In college, I was on the debate team during my freshman year. Retired general and unsuccessful presidential candidate Wesley Clark was on that debate team as well.
Although I am fond of intellectually-honest debate, most of the statements made by my opponents to prove that I am wrong have been of the intellectually-dishonest variety.
Lest I be accused of intellectually-dishonest debate myself, I hereby explain the difference.
Two intellectually honest tactics
There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest.

It may help some people who are not accustomed to effective debating, or help us who don't do it often get acquanted with some methods for debating.

I know personal opinion will play a part, and speculation is most certainly welcome, as it aids in promoting us to ask questions seldom asked. However, if you are stating your opinion, please notify the other members, and do not state something unproven as fact, please.

Again, the purpose of this thread is to promote tolerance and understanding between the valued members here. And, to make some progress towards an environment that promotes mutual respect for other peoples beliefs, for there must be truth in the way they think. If you want to understand the way your "opponents" think, then this "excersize" will more than likely permit contributing members to empathize a little more with eachother, and eachother's ideals and perspectives.

This may not be easy for some of us, to say the least.

But, it can be a fun learning experience, if we choose for it to be.

I Believe there is a God. For the entirety of this thread from this point forward, i will be representing the atheistic point of view.

I will begin making my arguements why i believe there is no god in my upcoming posts.

Have fun with this guys and girls, it is an interesting twist that may produce some interesting results.

Curious. Who do you think is going to win? Those argueing God exists, or those argueing God does not exist, and the concept is a lie?

Either way, this time BOTH sides will win!!!

Editted to fix BOLDS



[edit on 5-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]

(as i clear my throat)

GOOD LUCK BIBLE THUMPERS!!!

the gauntlet has been removed!

i'm a "believer"

here's one argument i use over and over again

"pascal's wager"

what do you lose if you believe in god, yet god doesn't exist?
a few hours, a bit more freedom of thought

what do you gain if you don't believe in god, and god doesn't exist?
something finite

what do you lose if you don't believe in god, yet god does exists?
well, something infinite

what do you gain if you do believe in god, and god does exist?
something infinite


it just seems pragmatic to believe in god
doesn't it?

[edit on 1/5/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Here are a few of the reasons I hold atheistic views to be both valid, and justified, from my perspective:

1) By studying human history and behavior it is far more likely that this "God" concept was derived or invented by humans for the following reasons in my opinion:
-- In order to provide Divine justification for intoducing rules and regulations in order to control the people under the leaders, who were mostly monarchy who claimed to be either divinity or Gods themselves (pharaohs). It allowed the rulers to dictate their brand of moral and ethical opinions as law passed down from some imaginary all powerfull deities.
-- In order to relieve the fear of the unknown. It is human nature to fear the unknown, and people even in ancient times were capable of telling the difference between someone who was dead and someone who was alive. But people feared death to such a degree it was necessary to provide some means of an answer to what death was, and what happens after you die, while deminishing peoples fears of death.
-- It was a concept devised in order for people to control other people through fear. Plain and simple, some people helped evolve the concept of "god" for the benefit of themselves, by manipulating the majority of other people into turning to them for support against their percieved fears. This tactic can be seen and measured throughout history in almost all religious wars, such as the crusades. It seems people are more prone to follow those who can appear to have divine understanding from some supreme deity or deities.
-- It's easy to imagine that about 30,000 years ago, or more, our ancestors were witnessing phenomenon they simply could not explain, but felt a need to do so. For instance, FIRE. How would they have percieved FIRE was born? In their world, nothing moved unless it was due to being alive, or due to currents, water or wind. So, how would they have "discovered" fire, and how would they have viewed it's power and birth? More than likely the only fires they saw were due to natural causes. And the most likely of these causes was either Lightning or Volcanism. It is not a hard leap of the imagination to consider that they would have thought Lightning and fire were due to supernatural occurances, since they did not grasp a lot about natural forces. Also, there was a God from the southern realms of ancient Egypt which was associated with the Hebrew God YHWH, who was first described as the God of Thunder and Lightning, and war. Also, in the Greek/Roman Pantheon of Gods it was Jupiter/Zeus who was the TOP GOD, who also was described as being able to "throw lightning bolts".

2) The entire idea of "Monotheism" is based upon 1 God. From such a "God" the only perspective a Uni-God would have would be a perspective that is ATHEISTIC. For, in Monotheistic belief systems, "God" does fit some definitions of Atheist. PERMIT ME TO EXPLAIN:

Atheist: A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Source/Link:
dictionary.reference.com...

Let's look at the first definition and the second, both provided on the same sight, the same page. If "God" created us in "HIS IMAGE", then why can't we exchange the words "person" from the first definition, and the word "one" from the second definition. Then, Unless God is a hypocrit, the definition for atheist could read:
One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. So, if the first commandment says that "God" stated the first law is there are no other Gods besides God, then logically .....
God is an Atheist. If not, please tell me who God prays to, who God worships, and who God holds reverence for, please. If you can not, then certainly God is an atheist.

If you tell me that God is not an atheist because God believes in God's self, and knows God exists, I tell you now as an atheist, I too believe in myself, and I know I exist. Therefore, why do i need conversion to any faith or religion, since I am already like your God?

Moving on to a parrallel arguement concerning the story of Jesus Christ ...

1 - Christians believe that Jesus was God manifested in man.
2 - Christians that are good christians are trying to convert atheists.
3 - Christians are by the very definition of the word trying to be like Christ, who they believe was God manifested in human form.

So, since "God" (if it existed) fits the definition of "atheist", then the whole Christian concept is just one big run around.

Christians are converting atheists into being Christians who are trying to be like Christ, who they believe was God. So Christians are trying to be like atheists, while they are converting atheists into people who want to be atheists, like God is.

Atheist to Christian to convert more atheists into people who want to be like jesus who is god who is an atheist by it's very defintion.

Sorry you bible thumpers, but some logic must be eluding me. At any rate, these are a few reasons why this whole "God" concept doesn't make sense to me.

I am a believer, but sometimes I wonder if there isn't a god because why would a loving god "make" babys as sometimes retarted or severly disabled. It almost seems as if they got left out.



[edit on 5-1-2007 by wildcat]

Originally posted by wildcat
I am a believer, but sometimes I wonder if there isn't a god because why would a loving god "make" babys as sometimes retarted or severly disabled. It almost seems as if they got left out.

This is a good point. I U2U'd wildcat with some feedback on this. But the point is a valid one.

How do those who believe justify how a god could do such a thing?

Or are we to simply believe that "God works in mysterious ways" ???

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

madnessinmysoul,
I'm sorry i'm not too familiar with "Pascal's Wager".

In fact, i've never heard of it as far as i can remember. Could you tell me more about this?

thanks in advance for the explanation,
john

[edit on 5-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]

I don't think God makes babies retarded or disabled. Sin has done that. But, God can use such situations for good and so, "work in mysterious ways."

Originally posted by NowAmFound
I don't think God makes babies retarded or disabled. Sin has done that. But, God can use such situations for good and so, "work in mysterious ways."

*clears my throat* Hello everyone, my name is Jugg and im a atheoholic on the 19th year. *People clapping their hands* "Hi Jugg"

NowAmFound>> So in your logic, innocent people have to pay for other peoples sins?



[edit on 7/1/07 by Jugg]

Originally posted by Jugg

*clears my throat* Hello everyone, my name is Jugg and im a atheoholic on the 19th year. *People clapping their hands* "Hi Jugg"

** Sorry, but i have to request some clarification on what the word "ATHEOHOLIC" means?

Thanks in advance for the explanation,
john

Agnostic, there has to be a creator of such a complex thing as existance but someone so powerful could not be understood by our primitive minds.

Im halfway through reading "The Ark of a Million Years" and to comprehend how incredibly massive this Universe is, is totally incomprehensible. Think of our pysical Universe as the lower slice of a ball with us being in a slow vibrational visible word and the other 7 or more heavens above us is slices.

The problem with man's religions is that most of the main forms had their roots in earlier times and the doctrines were all set in stone. They all have some of the picture but none encompass the whole reality of existance like these so called "New Age Science-Religion" groups springing up everywhere.

Eventually I think man will come to grips with this fact and we will be able to move on morally, spiritually and ethically.

PS: For any one indivual book to claim to be "the truth" is disinfo as it would imply to stop looking and learning as this is all there is.



[edit on 7-1-2007 by mazzroth]

eso, pascal's wager is something that the philosopher pascal put forth

it's just a way of saying it's a safer bet to go with christianity than it is to go without god

however, it goes without acknowledging the other religions and the possibility that they may or may not be wrong...

Thanks for the explanation, it is always a pleasure to learn a new thing.

thanks again,
john

Did i win my own debate, or aren't too many other people playing?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Did i win my own debate, or aren't too many other people playing?

nobody seems to be showing up to the thread

it's a shame
i saw such great potential in this thread

i guess nobody wants to get out of their "comfort zone" in a discussion

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Did i win my own debate, or aren't too many other people playing?

nobody seems to be showing up to the thread

it's a shame
i saw such great potential in this thread

i guess nobody wants to get out of their "comfort zone" in a discussion

I tried to make it a comfortable thread. And I thought there were at least 4 or 5 members who thought the idea had potential as well.

Maybe they haven't been on for a few days.

Well, one last go-around till the thread falls away from page one. Perhaps in 2 to 4 months i'll bump it back up and see if it works.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Did i win my own debate, or aren't too many other people playing?

nobody seems to be showing up to the thread

it's a shame
i saw such great potential in this thread

i guess nobody wants to get out of their "comfort zone" in a discussion

Usually if someone writes on a old thread, it starts getting some more posters.

I tried to make it a comfortable thread. And I thought there were at least 4 or 5 members who thought the idea had potential as well.

Maybe they haven't been on for a few days.

Well, one last go-around till the thread falls away from page one. Perhaps in 2 to 4 months i'll bump it back up and see if it works.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by wildcat]

[edit on 9-1-2007 by wildcat]

I did not say what that last post of mine just said. And I do not see how what I origionaly said was a excessive qoute. I think Mirthfull Me obviously is abusing his/her power.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by wildcat]

[edit on 9-1-2007 by wildcat]

Nope, you just need to understand how to quote
ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

Please edit the quoted portion to the salient material needed to make your point! There is no need to repeat entire posts within the body of your response. Too many and too large quotes hampers the readability of our busy and populated message threads. Also, it adds unnecessary file size to the download of a thread page for members who are browsing ATS on modems (not everyone is on broadband, we're a very diverse global community).

I just quoted a section of rule, so I recommend clicking on the link and reading the full policy.

Well then how come what I origionaly said was changed?

And thanks for giving me a good reason why I was fined, unlike what I got earlier was that qouting someone qouting someone was excessive. I was qouting someone qouting me. The only people who would have a problem understanding my point, would be those with lower reading levels. I think that the other people on this thread aren't that stupid to figure out my point. It's like giving a ship captain GPS and autopilot, he no longer has to use his brain to figure out where he is and doesn't have to get experience by sailing the ship because it's on autopilot. My point is that making it easier to read see my point is only making our minds having to do less work. Thus leading us down a path where we aren't as smart as we used to be because we don't have to use our minds as much.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by wildcat]

[edit on 9-1-2007 by wildcat]

I have no idea, all the posts in this thread were edited by YOU. Anyways, we're now officially derailing this thread, so before it continues, I advise that everyone return to the topic and any further issues and concerns should be handle via u2.