Atheism vs Theism Debate (Part 2) Justin Winstead

Atheism vs Theism Debate on the topic of Does God Exist. Presented September 27, 2009, at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Presenters: Joseph Roberts (Atheist) and Justin Winstead (Theist). Moderator: Dr. Joseph McGahan (Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Louisiana at Monroe). Sponsored by the Philosophy Symposium at ULM and His Church in Monroe.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheism
• Theism
• Debate
• God
• Exist
• Justin
• Winstead
• Joseph
• Roberts

[jabberwock11]

Argument 1: I’m willing to make up an answer and you aren’t.

Argument 2: I roll 20 dice and … woha! What were the chances of that combination!?!

Argument 3: Argument 3 = Argument 1

Argument 4: Hmmm? Male lions often kill existing cubs when they take over the pride. Are they evil Lions?

Argument 5: Ummm …Buddha doesn’t stir you because … well …. You aren’t a Buddhist …. Duhhh!

Argument6: Not an argument

Next…..

[TheBeardedJeffersons]

This guy totally ripped off Frank Turek's case from the debate Turek vs. Hitchens atheism vs theism debate. The video can be found here on youtube. Such a dunce.

[spareaxe]

The design thing has been shot down already, even some smarter x-ians. Waste of time.

[SmokexFFx]

So it's quite clear everyone came in here with a predetermined winner, 1:22 - 1:30

[DonMezzo]

C'mon Joseph, don't fuck this up, Justin's whole argument is pretty much one big ass chain of fallacies.

[jimmycanmakecrack]

I can't seem to understand why most (not all, of course) christians see atheists as ignorent and closed-minded. Just becuase we don't live in your fantasy world you think we don't listen to your side of the story? I can tell you from my own expirences that some of us don't believe BECUASE we had to listen to your illogical jibberish since the day we were born. Maybe if christians would back up and see our side of the story there wouldn't be as much hostility between us.

long live logic!

[jinseikage2]

eye witnesses 2000 years ago?

SEEMS LEGIT

[gebash0rt]

Even the adjusted thesis 2: "Given time&space, everything that has a beginning has a cause."

is false. Example for the falsification:

Quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. There is no absolute vacuum because of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. So there are virtuel particles who come to existence out of nowhere.

Also I could argue that there is no object in our universe that has a "beginning" (your def?) because of the conservation of energy. Objects just recompose from other former atoms.

[gebash0rt]

Thesis 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Thesis 2: (..)

->The universe has a cause.

This is true if the 2 thesis are true.

Thesis 2 is obv. right and the first thesis is in this form not correct.

The first thesis should be: Given time&space, everything that has a beginning has a cause. This is just an example of missing an assumption, which you used in your def. But with this thesis, you can't conclude that the universe has a cause because space-time only begin with the big bang.

[gulyguff]

idiot



[rossmat707]

societies develop these "absolute" moral values through socializing. In order for a society to be stable certain rules must be agreed upon by the majority. That doesn't mean these morals were instilled in us by some divine power. We learn them from our environment/culture using emotional intelligence and logic.

[tsarenvy]

@justinwins1 i think he meant there are no MORAL absolutes, which there aren't