Log in

The Union of Atheist Debaters [entries|friends|calendar]
The Union of Atheist Debaters

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

indecent propositions
I'm against the Mosque at Ground Zero... [18 Aug 2010|11:33pm]


indecent propositions
Y'ever had a theist demand that you prove atheism is true? [09 Aug 2010|10:53am]

[ mood | bouncy ]

indecent propositions
Atheism is NOT a replacement religion [28 Jul 2010|10:13pm]

[ mood | annoyed ]

When theists ask you what atheism has to offer, it sounds as if they want atheism to fill in the blanks that would be left behind if religion weren't true.

But atheism is not just another belief system with dogma and a community; whether or not atheism lacks the extraneous trappings of religion should not matter to whether or not one casts off religion. Only the existence--or lack thereof--of god has anything to do with whether or not one should be an atheist.

indecent propositions
God Discussion Radio Show - Tonight! [22 Jul 2010|11:45am]

[ mood | giddy ]

Coming Out Atheist show link:

I will be a guest along with several other prominent YouTube atheists and a few other notables.

Be there! :)

indecent propositions
Why do we argue against a god we don't believe in? [21 Jul 2010|11:08pm]

[ mood | cranky ]

indecent propositions
Indivisible [04 Jul 2010|03:50pm]

On this, the Fourth of July, it seems appropriate to discuss the words "under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance; as such, I've made a video on that very topic:

And, hey, you could do a lot worse than subscribing to my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/BionicDance
I try to provide fairly high-quality rabid-and-screaming pro-atheism videos on a frequent--indeed, almost daily--basis.

indecent propositions
Two New Vids [30 Jun 2010|08:39am]

[ mood | creative ]

First up is Don't Run On Automatic:

My catch-phrase/tagline these days is "Don't run on automatic; please...think." It seemed reasonable to make a video specifically addressing that point, so I made this one asking people whether facts, reason, and evidence meant anything to their thinking process, or whether they simply went with what felt right, regardless of whether it truly was.

Next up is God - The Show and Tell Deity:

This one addresses the completely chowderheaded theist notion that, because we can't know everything, we can't deny that god exists since he could be out there somewhere we haven't seen. The counter, of course, being that if god is that damn hard to find...where did religion come from? Either god shows the heck up from time to time, or religion is just one big game of Make-Believe™...pick one.

Enjoy! And subscribe to my channel, if you like what I do: http://www.youtube.com/user/BionicDance

indecent propositions
New video -- "Let's See Some ID, God!" [17 Jun 2010|09:00pm]

[ mood | curious ]

Do theists get their way of life from their scripture or their god? If they discovered that their scripture was wrong, would they change to what they know is right? If not...why not? Which is more important to them, that they believe in a god at all, or that it's THEIR god?
And what if they found that there was no god at all...would they change THEN? If not, why not?

And be sure to subscribe to my channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/BionicDance

indecent propositions
In God We Thrust [15 Jun 2010|12:13am]

[ mood | pissed off ]

My new video about having god thrust upon us by believers, and how nothing is taken from them by giving equal breathing space to non-believers:

Be sure to sub to my channel!

indecent propositions
You Are Not Special II - The Revenge [27 May 2010|10:07pm]

[ mood | pensive ]

this video is about the nature of life itself, and how it is NOT a mystical energy field surrounding all living things (much as I'd like to believe in the The Force...)

indecent propositions
Police Your Own [26 May 2010|11:16pm]

[ mood | creative ]

My new video about whether--and why or why not--atheists have a responsibility for the behavior of other atheists:

indecent propositions
Want to debate a Creationist for money? [13 Dec 2007|07:16pm]

[ mood | apathetic ]

This person who claims to be Evangelist David Hernandez messaged the following to me on my MySpace page.
I don't have the time or interest right now, but if someone else does, feel free to contact him.
Evangelist David Hernandez

Dec 13, 2007 3:41 PM

RE: No Subject
What if I throw in some money? I really need to debate someone that won't cause people to think that the debate was "scripted". That's why I am asking you. In other words, I need a challenge, so the debate is credable. You seem to know much about the Bible and Evolutionism. I think you'd be able to last long enough to where the debate is believable.

There are no facts to support evolutionism, and I'd love to debate it. If anything, you'll be able to educate people and dispell common myths about evolutionism. I think anyone who heard the debate would be well educated. So how about it?

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Atheist ApologetiX
Date: Dec 12, 2007 7:44 PM

Thank you for your interest.

Currently I'll have to decline as my time doesn't permit it. I'm also not looking for fame, self promotion or a career with this MySpace page.

The facts back up various theories of Evolution while the current christian Bible doesn't have artifacts to support it's varied stories let alone it's mythology of a creation.

I wore very similar, but different shoes when I was your age with just as much passion and conviction.

It will be interesting to see you in a few years.

Take care.

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Evangelist David Hernandez
Date: Dec 12, 2007 1:43 PM


My name is David. I'd like to challenge you to a debate on creation vs. evolution. I think that the debate would be educational and fun. The dabate would be recorded and posted on all of the ministry web sites.

I have looked at your myspace, and you seem to be a very intelligent individual. Would you be interested?

7 have made - indecent propositions
Know your enemy... [26 Mar 2006|03:50pm]

The Creationist.
"Why do people sprout this bullshit and how do you beat them?"

Read more...Collapse )

Edit- hopefully cut now!

19 have made - indecent propositions
The Atheist position. [24 Mar 2006|12:40pm]

In this entry, I'd like to discuss the various facets of the critical/atheist side of the debate.

First, what most people think of when they think of 'atheists' is 'someone with no morals and no values'. There's many reasons for that, and most of them stem from an historical willingness to conflate people who lack belief in the Christian deity - or any deity for that matter - with people who are anti-theist; Which is to say, people who actively deny the existence of the Christian deity, and seek to destroy the organisation of Christianity.

No matter if you merely lack belief in the Christian deity, lack belief in any&all deities, or are opposed to organised religion, or are opposed to Christianity in particular, Christians will label you 'atheist' meaning 'someone with no morals and no values'. It is therefore important that at the beginning of the debate, to define what 'atheist' exactly means. It is important in /any/ debate to use clearly defined terms in order that the debate does not get bogged down in Semantics later on. It is also may be important to define what a 'Christian' is, too - to handle those folks who like to throw out the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I've found that the best definition is simply to limit 'atheist' to 'someone who lacks belief in any and all deities, nothing more, nothing less.' This makes it clear that morals, ethics, virtue, duty, citizenship, etcetera etcetera - even up to /actually practicing a religion/ are all entirely out of the question here - It's entirely a matter of belief in /the existence of deities/. This also weeds out the people who are merely there to monger hate and slander you by conflating atheism with any negative strawman they want to build.

Now, as a (rather extreme but illustrative) example - I am an atheist Zen Buddhist. I practice Zen Buddhism as a religion, and I totally lack faith and/or belief in deities - the Buddha/buddhas aren't deities to me. They're not deities to many Buddhists, either, but have degenerated into a popular conception of 'deities' for many Buddhists and in popular Chinese, Tibetan, and Thai belief.

The notion that someone could both lack belief in deities and practice a religion really tends to blow many Christians out of the water. They just cannot handle the fact of my existence, and are unprepared for it - some just claim that I have a false religion and idolatrise the Buddha, and/or spout anti-buddhist hate/lies. One fellow on one mailing list was so sore that I kept tearing up his weak Christian apologetics, that he proceeded to froth at the mouth with anti-buddhist lies immediately upon learning that I am Buddhist - and continues to froth at me from my Trash bin. "I have only ever prayed one prayer, and it was thus - "Oh Lord, make mine enemies ridiculous." And it was granted." -- Voltaire.

Also, because a lack of belief is not actually a positive position - it is simply a state of being - there are no doctrines to defend, no conspiracy, no 'agenda'. I also make the distinction - which any sufficiently educated Christian will make - between /faith/, which is held despite facts - and /knowledge/.

Almost every Christian has faith in the existence of their deity. They may conflate this with knowledge of the existence of their deity, and indeed most of the 'debate' comes from the Christian apologetics attempting to produce /knowledge/ that "/proves/" their /faith/, and the critique (our critique) of that knowledge. None of them actually produce /proof of the existence of their deity/.

Atheists, by contrast, have neither knowledge of the existence of a deity (please, produce some that's other than speculation or debate over the particulars of a purely human phenomenon, and be the most famous person in history!), nor do we have faith. This is directly analogous to the Christian having no knowledge of, nor faith in, the existence of leprechauns. Convincing us to convert requires that the other side either inspire faith (which is an historically untravelled path), or produce verifiable knowledge (which is the vast majority of Christian apologetics/arguments, all of which are debunked time and again.)

Some atheists will move into the territory of anti-theism, and begin to critique the history of Christianity. I feel this is a bad choice - it then becomes a history debate, and history is determined by the victor... oftentimes, the 'victor' being the same church that burned the Library of Alexandria and forty cartloads of Judaic codexes, slew millions, etcetera... Still, bad idea, because it lends merit to the inherent argument that all theists make - that of the existence of their deity, which they presume - and often beg the question of the existence of.

For my own part, I know little about the details of Christian Apologetics. I feel it is irrelevant to argue about who did what to whom and why, when the question of what they are quibbling over - the (will of and thus existence of the) Deity - is undecided and may in fact be undecidable.

The first axiom of the Christian's argument is that their deity exists.

There is no apparent proof of this, it this premise is un-necessary to explain anything we are aware of at the time, and indeed most of the arguments that attempt to address the existence of 'deities' in general, fail. No-one can even agree on what constitutes a 'deity', nor how to authenticate that a given entity is a deity. Most of Christian apologetics is, however, the attempt of the Christian to either ignore this or to somehow persuade the listener of the existence of their deity by preponderance of a mass of incoherent, inchoate and often debunked 'facts' regarding the phenomenae of their religious movement.

The most relevant analogy of this to apply to Christians is the fact that everything Jesus did, can be reproduced by magicians, scientists, medical doctors or even surpassed. David Blaine, Penn & Teller, Randi, all can make example after example of this.

I mentioned briefly that atheists are merely people who lack belief in deities, nothing less, nothing more. I wish to stress this - if you decide to recognise this, you will spend all your time destroying the strawmen of 'atheism' that Christians put forward.

This will eventually lead to the argument of the ultimate source of morals, and which morals are best, and the assertion by theists/Christians that 'relativistic morals' - morals derived from good faith in humanity, experience, rationality, reason (from Buddhism even) - are somehow inferior to 'absolute morals' - morals as 'handed down by a divine entity'. I haven't done enough to construct a comparison of these, nor enough on building/proving the merits of a rational morality. To be honest, better and more dedicated professionals than I have spent entire careers without making much of any progress in it. I feel it is extremely important, however, and cannot stress it enough - defeating the popular notion that atheists lack morals, ethics, moral guidance, goodness, etcetera is my number one goal and I feel should be everyone's top goal.

Recent opinion polls have stated that atheists are the least trusted and most hated group / minority in America - because everyone equates 'atheism' with 'moral-less, ethics-less, sociopath', etcetera.

I hate to repeat and deny the awful accusations that Christians have always slandered us with, but I wish to also make it clear and present to every atheist that /this is how we are perceived/ and that it needs to change. I also want to open discussion on how to do this.

Excelling in our chosen professions, arguments, debates, work and personal lives isn't enough. We should overcome society's pervading prejudice against us by marginalising it to the wackos like Fred Phelps and the KKK.

indecent propositions
[23 Mar 2006|11:16pm]

hello community members, i just wanted to adress you all to let you know that this community has come under new management. as the new maintainer, i'd like to take this into a more active direction, invite theists into our community, engage in discussion, post new scientific/philosophical/theological theories. also, as a very political man, i am a socialist myself, i'd like to open the door for political discussion.

well, goodnight friends

3 have made - indecent propositions
I hope that this is a Joke [22 Mar 2006|04:32pm]

Christian Debate Techniques 101

How to reason with non-believers
Don’t get engaged in a discussion about issues, logic or evidence. That is a satanic ploy. Instead, follow the techniques outlined below, and you can claim victory in the crusade against the godless. All good Christians should learn by heart the good and wholesome sentences below.

Strategy 1: I feel really sorry for you!
Remember that no matter what you do, as a Christian you are a Better Person than the non-believer. Therefore, you must pity them. Also, it is obvious that the only reason people don’t believe in Christ is because they need an excuse to live licentious and immoral lives. Atheists claim they disbelieve because they have seen no evidence. That is a lie.

1) “I will pray for you.”

2) “Jesus loves you!”

3) “God loves you!”

4) “I feel sorry for you.”

5) “There must be some other reason that you are saying ‘no’ to God’s love.”

6) “But Jesus/God still loves you!”

Strategy 2: But Atheism is a Religion, Too.
It is obvious to all who have seen The Truth that to not believe in a religion is the same as believing in one.

7) “You have to believe in SOMETHING!”

8) “Everybody worships something.”

9) “It requires more faith to not believe in God, than it does to believe in one.”

10) “I wished I had as strong faith in God as you have in atheism (or, evolution.”

11) “You only believe that you are happy. But you can only find True Happiness through Jesus!”

Strategy 3: The Moral High Ground
Obviously, when the filthy atheists don’t accept the strong and logical arguments we have outlined above, it must be because they are morally filthy and corrupt.

12) “It is obvious you have already made up your mind, so I don’t want to waste my time arguing with you.”

13) “You have chosen to be blind to The TRUTH.”

14) “You have been fooled by the Devil.”

15) “Something must have happened that has made you bitter and angry on God.”

16) “I have met Jesus, so why can’t you?”

17) “Only the fool says in his heart there is no god.”

18) “You are running away from God.”

19) “You are hiding from The TRUTH.”

Strategy 4: “What’s wrong with you?”
Since the FACT about God and Jesus is so obvious to us believers, there must be something wrong with non-believers who don’t accept the obvious TRUTH.

20) “If there is no God, how can you explain the world we live in?”

21) “What has happened in your life to make you hate God?”

22) “Of course the Bible seems strange to non-believers. But if you had God’s Holy Spirit you would understand its wisdom.”

23) “Even if you don’t believe it, JESUS LOVES YOU!”

24) “Even if you don’t believe it, GOD EXISTS!”

Strategy 5: “Your life has no meaning!”
Remember to make non-believers understand that without belief in God and Jesus, their lives are meaningless.

25) “Without God we are alone in the world.”

26) “A universe without God is a universe without hope.”

27) “Without God, life is meaningless.”

28) “Christianity is not only the best answer, but the ONLY answer.”

29) “You use your life on something negative (atheism) instead of using it POSITIVELY (Christianity).”

Strategy 6: “Just you wait…”
If you still can’t make the unbelievers repent, make them realize that one day they will see the truth about Jesus. All it takes is some personal crisis, and they will find Jesus.

30) “Just wait, one day you will find God.”

31) “One day you will cry out for God to help you!”

32) “If you just believe, God will become real to you.”

33) “I was like you one day, and didn’t believe in God, but then…”

Strategy 7: God will kill you if you don’t believe!
This is the last chance. By using obvious or not-so-obvious threats of destruction or hell, you can win any debate.

34) “One day you will realize that Jesus is your only salvation.”

35) “One day you’ll know I was right, but THEN IT WILL BE TOO LATE!”

36) “Find God before it is too late!”

37) “You better wear flame-resistant clothes if you continue being an atheist!”

3 have made - indecent propositions
Common topics of debate: [22 Mar 2006|03:47pm]

Also, there are some of the common 'topics', in no particular order:

Abortion. This is the #1 topic. The Christians who argue pro-life inevitably boil it down to the following points:
A: 'Every sperm is sacred' - they claim the fetus is 'alive' from the moment of conception; Doctors disagree.
B: 'The USA is a Christian nation' - they claim that since the USA is a 'democracy', then mob rule is in effect, and they can force their religious values on everyone/anyone else; (This is tricky to change their thinking on. It is ingrained and sub-concious, and certainly seems to be the direction we are heading towards.)
C: Their opinions on medical issues, especially other people's medical issues, have more legal weight (because of mob rule/'democracy') than that of a licensed, educated, trained physician in posession of the facts of each case.

The South Dakota case makes it a bit more complicated, and I haven't done any research into that yet, but the trolls certainly do gloat over it, especially the ones who imagine that we have the rule of the mob instead of the rule of law. I know the strategy they are trying to use, here and otherwise, is to ensconce their religious views in law without overt reference to their religion.



OMGawth this is ENORMOUS. talk.origins archives has tonnes of information, but the best 'quick' education on the whole topic can be gotten by reading the Kitzmiller vs Dover School District decision. It all boils down to this:
The "God of the Gaps" argument. To whit - "There's this phenomenon that hasn't been explained by / seems improbable to be explained by / I can't imagine how it might be explained by - science, so our Deity did it." Which is really the willingness to assign a value without backing data (which is bad science), and Pascal's Wager - which begs the question of the existence of their deity. Behe's a poor scientist and has popularly published pseudo-science.

The trolls will claim there is no evidence for evolution. Laugh and point them at talk.origins, mention morphology relationship trees and DNA relationship trees, and then dismiss. They will weasel 'theory'. That should be nipped cold dead immediately.


Atheists are Satanists/evil/amoral.
This is ad hominem disguised. The biggest sticking point of them all is the assertion that 'rational morality is relative', and is therefore somehow inferior because it is not 'absolute'. Their morality, they do claim, is 'absolute' because it is 'divine' and 'unchanging'. I have a lot of issues with /that/, on many levels. It's probably the biggest thing that needs to be addressed and changed amongst atheists and other people with a naturalistic worldview - making an easily understood case for, and making people aware of, the fact that people aren't evil and are capable of having functional, useful, good sets of naturalistic morals (without having them be dictated by a 'deity' or the "deity's prophet"). I think I ought to try and get with some people on TheBrights.net and work something out.


Atheist/Gay/Satanist "agenda to destroy America". Fun, fun, fun, never-ending morass of ad hominem. Normally pointless to engage these folks except to build chops.


"The United States is a Christian Nation".
Theist, Please. This is my favourite easy-to-debunk bit. Most of the founding fathers were Deist, most hated organised religion and the body of organised Christianity of the time, freedom of religion means freedom from religion (I love that court opinion, too), official documents make it clear that we are a secular nation, and the Declaration of Independence (while it is a very influential document in the history of the United States) is not an official document of the United States Government - so the use of a Latin turn-of-phrase in it doesn't matter. Throw some Federalist Papers at them.


"The bible is factual history."
See, I know some, but not a great deal, about the actual Bible itself. I read through it once. I was annoyed by it. Other people have done enough work on the Bible itself, and every faction of Christianity argues with every other one on how to interpret almost every line. Counter that with Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and they might as well tar-and-feather themselves. I know it's not 100% literal, factual history.


This is a subset of the one immediately above. Which of the FIVE different creation stories in Genesis are they referring to? Most have never read it throughly enough to realise that there are conflicts in the story.


"Dr. Dino / Kent Hovind ..."
Theist, please. It is to laugh. He got his 'doctorate' in 'Christian Education' from an unrecognised diploma mill in a split-level home in the MidWest, for a dissertation that is unpublished, far less substantial than what he claims, contains rambling narrative, unoriginal work, almost no references, spelling, grammar, usage and punctuational horrors and non-sequitur structure - which he also suppresses anyone from actually reading. He's been indicted for tax fraud wherein he claimed that he was bankrupt, whilst proffering a large sum of money he doesn't have to anyone who can change his mind about evolution on his own terms, which happen to be weasel-terms. He 'debates' in order to kick the other person in their lack of specialty and fails to correct factual errors and re-uses rhetoric that has been widely debunked. He is bad faith personified.


"ICR/AIG ..."
I've done some research on Answers In Genesis and Institute for Creation Research. AIG, for a very long time, had a motto on their front page of their website, declaiming that everything they did was done to support the literal truth of the Bible - which is a patent admission that nothing they publish is capable of being scientifically sound. They both cherry-pick data, they both ignore inconvenient facts. They are both widely plagiarised and cited as 'scientific sources'. They're not, and that train of debate should be stopped cold immediately - nothing they publish is science. Bad faith peddlers.


Future issues:
Heim-Droescher. Heim was a physicist that, in the Fifties, came up with an obscure and difficult-to-understand method of describing the universe - and it's now gaining popularity and research. It is immensely advanced mathematics, and might generate good science or might generate pseudo-science. The problem here is that some of Heim's later work starts to talk about 'organisation', 'spirit', psychology, etc. seemingly speaking to an 'intelligent designer' - and I'm certain that some of the ICR/AIG/ID people are going to start making grabs at Heim theory just because it might be so difficult to authoritatively de-bunk it, and hey - it's physics, right? Science proves ID! grarh.

1 have made - indecent propositions
K. These are comments that should be actual posts. [22 Mar 2006|03:45pm]

I made three comments to the first post that really ought to be two posts in their own right. So, here we go.

I've engaged in debates in Yahoo chat rooms for years and years, and I'd like to share some of my insights regarding the theist's side of the debate (from my POV, being atheist) -

There's the stereotypical troll. Makes a controversial statement, then moves on to another controversial statement, is spouting a monologue and does not engage in debate. Easy to spot. Does it to get attention or to rile people for fun or to validate their faith: "Oh, look, I stepped into the Lion's Den and prayed for them. Yay."

There's the 'ditto' troll, or the plagiarist. They will lift other people's work - sometimes word-for-word, sometimes with their own re-wording. Usually fairly easy to spot, may or may not ignore the fact that whatever they're plagiarising has been debunked.

There's the engaging troll. Makes controversial statement, actually tries to defend it. Ignores inconvenient facts/realities/evidence and never presents a compelling counter-argument. Most of these last about three levels of facts deep, or three levels of reasoning - about as far as any of them can think, because they never commit their thought processes to paper/writing. i.e., they will attempt to explain their own crackpot theory about why Marmota Monax chews cud and is therefore not kashrut, so Christians observing Groundhog Day are going to aitch-e-double-hockey-sticks. This ignores Jesus liberating everyone from the Old Testament laws. This was an actual crackpot argument.

Then, there's the thinking person with faith. These people make for great conversationalists, have thought about what they're doing, understand that atheists genuinely lack faith, lack belief in deities.

In many, many years, I've only had one memorable, /actual/ debate with someone 'of faith', and it was with a person of this vein. He is a philosophy major, and in about thirty minutes we boiled it all down to "Well, I have faith in this all-pervading intelligence, I just do - and I have no facts to back it up, only my feelings and experiences." No ad hominem, no ignoring points, no cherry-picking data, no thoughtless regurgitation of someone's debunked crap.

95% of the time, the particular 'debate' room acted as a social setting - for people to gather, offer community, bait the 'other side', scoff at 'the other side', discuss various things, talk about the political weather, and present or tear down a metric tonne of bullshit. It was practically a CSICOP coffehaus.

5% of the time, it was actual debate - with people who actually understood what it meant to debate, how to do it, and followed the procedural rules.

If you're wondering where to get more info on this, google "Atheists vs. Christians Yahoo" or some such. I'll see if I can't find some resources that we might have links to.

[ viewing | most recent entries ]