Upcoming debate at UNA: God does not exist

No need to debate something so simple. No evidence for God. No debate.

Explain to me in detail how your heart continues to beat in your chest without some type of mechanism to keep it beating. You can't explain it.

http://myhealth.ucsd.edu/libra...c.asp?hwid=tx4097abc There you go fireman.

****

 

You might consider going to the debate, then, to see if the atheist representative can defend that all-subsuming assertion of yours. You could also evaluate what the believer submits as his evidence. You might conclude afterward that the matter is no as simple as you blithely claim.

I've read some of his "debates", his opinions and offerings of his so called evidence. In the debate butts got his, well butt, handed to him. Unless he has something new to offer I can't see any "evidence" he has that proves anything.

Not one shred of evidence has been produced, ever. If some new "evidence" is produced, it will be headline news. I won't hold my breath.

This a really stupid question. What does it have to do with God? Perhaps you could monitor a biology class at UNA.

-------------

I believe this is covered in high school biology.  Next time, pay attention.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Send fireman to the Burn Unit

You might want to go if for no other reason than a former resident troll here said he would be going. Or you might want to stay home for the same reason.

      You might want to go if for no other reason than a former resident troll here said he would be going. Or you might want to stay home for the same reason.





I have no interest in debating whether god is real or not but posted this for the many who do it daily in the religion forum here. They seem to enjoy it so I figured this would be right up there alley.

Are you talking about the rambling Rrammlin? I wouldn't go within 100ft of that crazy man. I always pictured him in a straight jacket drooling on himself.  LOL

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Send fireman to the Burn Unit






That WAS a pretty good burn he got!  LOL

 

 

Dark, I kinda pictured him like this. Well him and a couple of others too.

That works too.

9/29/11: Blair Scott vs. Kyle Butt, University of North Alabama

Blair Scott v. Kyle Butt: God Does Not Exist

WHEN: Thursday, September 29 · 7:00 pm – 9:30 pm (doors open at 5:30 pm)

WHERE: University of North Alabama, Norton Auditorium, Florence, AL

INFO: Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists will be debating Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press. The debate proposition is “God Does Not Exist” with Blair Scott arguing for the proposition and Kyle Butt arguing against it.

The debate will be held on September 29th at 7 p.m. at the Norton Auditorium on the University of North Alabama campus. Entrance to the debate is free and is on a first-come, first-seated basis. The auditorium seats 1,500 and is expected to fill up, so please arrive early if you want good seats. Remember that doors open at 5:30 p.m.

If you are unable to attend in person, the debate will be streamed live over the Internet. For details on streaming, please visit Apologetics Press.

DIRECTIONS:
Directions to the Campus
Norton Auditorium on the UNA campus
Map of Campus (PDF)

ON THE WEB:
American Atheists
Apologetics Press

posted by Blair Scott

 

 

It will also be on the internet, so you can avoid any trolls in attendance.

Trolls in attendance?

That would be ramm/buffalo/magpie/okuok.  He said all his esteemed friends would be there with him.

 

 

 

Anyone who claims the affirmative is embarrassing himself enough already.

Really looking forward to this event. Should be very interesting, trolls and all. I might carry some mace just to be on the safe side though.

      Really looking forward to this event. Should be very interesting, trolls and all. I might carry some mace just to be on the safe side though.


Good idea DA. Better to be safe than sorry.

Bump, begins at 7:00.  Log in and watch if you can't attend.

 

http://www.apologeticspress.or...y=6&article=2698

 

I fully believe Kyle did a most excellent job tonight.  I went to a debate earlier where two UNA Students debated each other.  In that debate the Atheist was able to capture the debate and prevailed.  As I Christian I can admit that but it was because the Atheist was able to distract and catch the Christian representative off guard and unprepared for what he was going to bring up.

Kyle was not only well studied and prepared but totally carried the night and tonight, and in my opinion the prayers for Kyle were answered.  Although the atheist said, in the after debate interview, that he would possibly be interested in debating again I don't think after this verbal woodshed event that he will be as quick to grab the stage with Kyle on the other end.

I also found it amusing and evident when Kyle scored a close knockout when he began counter questioning Mr. Scott on his own words and Mr. Scott's only retort was to claim that Kyle was using a straw man argument.

Kyle proved, in my  opinion, to be a very worthy and adequate debating adversary and although Mr. Scott may appear determined and good in his youtube videos he certainly appeared to be taken back tonight and knew he had a debate on his hands.  Kyle totally scored when he began leading toward the singularity and acceptance in that although it cannot be proved.  I'm certainly not adequate to even remember where all Kyle prevailed and scored.  He just did a great job.

 

Too bad that, Kyle, the well-prepared, could offer no proof of the existence of God. Isn't that sort of essential to his argument?

You can do better than that one Jimi,   If you understood what the debate was actually about the burden of proof was on the Atheist, Mr. Scott for it was him that was in the affirmative.  It was his Contention that he could prove that God doesn't exist or prove a negative which he, in the first three minutes of the Debate, admitted he could not do.  Kyle's job was to counter or convince the audience that Mr. Scott could not do what he said he could.  Kyle didn't have to do that because Mr. Scott admitted up front in his first statement that he could not do what he said he could.  Kyle therefore had no argument to prove or advance. 

 

Your Atheist of the year, within the first three minutes of the debate conceded that he could not do what he broadcast to everyone that he could.  The debate was not advertised or about Kyle being able to prove God does exist, although Kyle said he would happily take that challenge.  This particular debate was the Atheist, Scott, saying he could prove God doe not exist, which he did not do.

 

If though you had followed Kyle's responses he, wisely, used atheistic reasoning and turned it around to prove the existence of God and left the Atheist of the year without a counter and searching for answers.  More than one time, when he was obviously stumped and caught without ability to answer he defaulted to saying well that's a straw man argument or giving some non-answer saying that it was two different basis.   

 

Any atheist, if they were truly honest, after viewing that debate may not change or alter their own beliefs but IF HONEST would concede that Kyle completely dominated the debate.  Now the question is whether or not the atheist was adequately prepared, up to the task of debating, or just finally found a Christian that was more than capable to defend the faith. 

 

I am just curious Jimi,  did you watch the debate yourself or was you there?

GB,

I watched the opening speeches from both men.  As you said, Scott gave up before he even started. When he told the audience to go google the information, I wondered why he even showed up.  I turned it off after that.

He looked bored and uncomfortable and should have just stayed home.

I didn't watch. Butts is just of the mindset that god exists cause he says so, so end of discussion "I win". I read the transcript of one of the "debates" he had before and he got his *** handed to him, but he still claimed "victory" on those same grounds-god exists because he says so. So in his mind and the minds of his followers he won.

Kyle Butt is just like every COC preacher I have ever met. They are like snake oil salesmen. They know the catch phrases and how to play on the emotions of the audience. I am sure he will sale a lot of his books to the local Christians. That was the whole point of the debate. He is a charlatan. Most everyone can see through his scam....well anyone with some common sense and reasoning.

 

The problem with debating someone like Kyle Butt is that he throws out so many untruths and accusations that there is just no way to address each one. He makes wild and unfounded statements about Evolution and then offers up complete BS as the answers. His views on science are a joke. I could not believe that he got applause by saying that science is always changing. I mean, come on....that is the whole point of science. To learn, and progress.

 

I agree with Jimi, he did not present any evidence to support his side. All he really did was try and tear down the other side. As Blair said everything he did offer up as evidence was nothing more than philosophy.

 

The best part of this debate was that we connected with a lot of other atheist last night. It gave us an opportunity to add to our numbers and gain more support for our organization here in the Shoals. For that I thank the UNA Christian Club and Kyle Butt. The table set up for Kyle was being packed away as we were still greeting and talking to people interested in our group. It was awesome!!

 

 

 

"It was his Contention that he could prove that God doesn't exist or prove a negative which he, in the first three minutes of the Debate, admitted he could not do. "

That is not true. Blair Scott had nothing to do with the title of the debate and he did not say that he could prove God did not exist. That was the words of Kyle Butt and the UNA Christian Club. What Blair did say was that he and everyone else can come to the logical and probable conclusion that there is no God. Using the same logic and reasoning we do with many other myths. Tooth fairy, Loch Ness monster, etc.... The burden is and will always be on those that say that God does exist. If I say that something is real then I have to prove it before I could expect anyone to believe me. It is not on anyone else to prove me wrong if they have no good reason to believe me in the first place.

I will agree that Blair Scott is not the polished and slick speaker that Kyle Butt is. Kyle is a great preacher. He should be a politician. He can twist and turn with the best of the snakes.

DA, there was a tooth fairy. I trapped and killed her because I wanted her outfit. See my avatar?

Not true?  And you were there?   Blare Scotts opening statement, in the first three minutes, all he did was explain that he could not actually do what he said he could do.   After the debate there was an interview with Blair, before he came and brushed elbows with y'all" where he also admitted he could not prove God does not exist but accepted the debate anyway under the pretense that he could prove it.  I never said that Blair was responsible for the title but he accepted knowing beforehand that would be the title and led those who staged the debate that he was coming, debating, proving that he could prove God does not exist.

You need to check the link presented in the first post in this thread where the Times Daily advertised the debate.  From that Times Daily page came the following:

The proposition for the debate is, "God does not exist." Blair will be affirming, while Mr. Butt will be denying.

He (Blair) may not have been the sponsor of the debate or he may not have originally set the title but when he agreed to the debate he did so knowing that it was being advertised, as such, and that was that he could prove God does not exist.  Whoever chose the wording or the topic it would have never taken place if Blair was not wanting to do so.  You should have caught the after debate interview with him for he stated that he knew he couldn't prove what he said he could but wanted to have the debate anyway and that's why he opened it the way he did.  It WAS his to prove God does not exist, that was the title of the debate and the pretense for it so either you dreamed through the first five minutes of Blairs statement or you are in some state of denial. 

 

I will agree Blair Scott was not as polished as Kyle but he had the same time and ability to prepare as Kyle had.  He does not appear on his videos as he did last night in that verbal beatdown.  He appeared last night as the one using patented statements or standard lines and often he appeared lost and unable to answer the points presented to him. Blair characteristically attempted to use divert the attention away by injecting the Old Testament and Morality.  The only twisting or changing of words was when Blair called it rape when that word is never used in the Bible.  Maybe that get together after the debate was to console each other for the verbal beatdown that happened.   I say beatdown because it was a total one sided victory and if you were there you surely realize that.  Not that Blair had some points or times when he got some applause, he did, but overall it was not a good night for those who were rooting for Blair Scott and the atheist to prevail.  The debate before this one went well for them.  i saw both debates and this one was a total turnaround from the first.

God/gods do not exist. Nothing to debate.

****

You are obviously not acquainted with the protocols of debate.  It was not Mr. Butt's task in this debate to prove the existence of God.  It was Mr. Scott's obligation to affirmatively show, by evidence, that "God Does Not Exist." All that was necessary for Butt to do in order to prevail was to show that Scott had failed to prove the affirmative proposition that "God Does Not Exist."

 

If the proposition had been, "God Does Exist," then Butt would have borne the burden of proving, by evidence, that the proposition is true.  But that was NOT the proposition.

 

At those points in the debate where Butt introduced arguments relative to the existence of God, he did so not for the immediate and direct purpose of proving the existence of God, but for the purpose of presenting evidence that challenging arguments submitted by Scott in support of the affirmative proposition that "God Does Not Exist."

 

This might seem narrow or arcane to you, but what I have stated above is entirely consistent with the established protocols of formal debate.  I debated both in high school and in college and I am well acquainted with these matters.

I saw this debate and I was astonished that Balir Scott devoted so much time in his opening statement to the self-imposed task of showing that "near death experiences" (NDE) do not prove the existence of God.  I know of no Christian apologists who would argue that  NDEs prove anything other than that the mind can play strange tricks, especially when impinged upon by unusually strong stresses. Sure, there are some books and articles in the popular press that recount in great detail the reported experiences of persons who have had a NDE and thought they had entered some kind of domain of the afterlife, but to use 25% of his time to bumble around with his irrelevant red herring/straw man argument centered on NDEs was certainly an inefficient way for Scott to kick off his portion of the debate.

I am astonished that anyone over the age of five takes this nonsense seriously. One more time: there is NOTHING to debate.

Gbrk says that I can do better. At least I understood what the debate was about.

Why were you astonished at the nde statements? Many christians believe in them. No matter how many times they're debunked, let someone come forth, claim to have had one 20-30 or more years ago, and the christians eat it up. They can't buy their books fast enough and go to hear them tell about the "other side". No proof required. Just like the belief in a god. Seems to go together.

One thing that I know is that you cannot prove, by evidence, that anything does not exist. Unicorns or fairies, anyone? Anyone (Contendah) who says otherwise has zero knowledge of debate. Since there is no evidence for the existence of God, debate on this subject is not possible. To claim that it is, is to be idiotic. This whole subject is silly and rational thinking gives no other choice. Now you may continue saying stupid, irrational things about you God or Gods. You cannot, however offer any evidence other than wishful thinking to support your ridiculous claim. If you choose to believe in God, please do so. Do not, however, insult yourself by claiming that you have proof. If you are correct, then you have no reason to lie. I believe that your imaginary friend does not approve of lying. Saying that you have proof when you do not is a lie. Surely, the dumbest among you can understand this.

Kyle Butt is a Young Earth Creationist.  If there were no other reasons to discount his credibility, that one is easily enough.

 

Every branch of science refutes YEC.  It is logically, reasonably, scientifically, and demonstrably untrue.

 

If Butt was willing to lie about the age of the Earth, he's willing to lie about everything, and he did.

 

DF

Yes, God does exist.  Your very existance proves that.  You can argue that God does not exist all you want to.  That does not change the fact that He does.  The time will come when EVERY knee will bow down to Him.  I would not want to be in the shoes of the athiest when that time comes.

You are truly delusional. My existence has nothing to do with God. Neither does yours. Saying so doesn't make it true. Man created God in his own image. Believe what you like, just don't insult us both by saying that you have proof of your irrational belief.

One problem is that none of them can make their god appealing.  The god they worship is a pretty rough customer, even to the ones that love and follow him. It's like the cruel people that get their kids a puppy and let them pull, tug and torture the pup. Then when the puppy bites in self defense the cruel owner beats it. The god they describe can't be pleased no matter what they do.

Well then if you are certain of this then you "Atheist of the Year" has just been called an idiot  a, whether or not he titled the debate" he took the debate on the pretense that he could.  He also, during the debate, in as much said Hitchens and other atheist, who Kyle used direct quotes from, was incorrect or wrong.  He said he disagreed with them.  I apologize for not being able to cite the exact topics that he disagreed with but I do believe there was more than one.  I don't know if the debate will be out on youtube or not but possibly if some other saw the debate then can remember exactly the areas that Blair disagreed with Hitchens and other popular avowed atheist.

 

  He also, during the debate, in as much said Hitchens and other atheist, who Kyle used direct quotes from, was incorrect or wrong. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 I apologize for not being able to cite the exact topics that he disagreed with but I do believe there was more than one.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Gb, surely you can remember a little of it. My goodness, how do you claim victory if you can't? Did he disagree with them about everything or some things? Guess what, that happens. Even christians disagree with each other on many many points. Or so you all say.

---

Speaking of lies or lying about the things I thought it was a very interesting part of the debate when Kyle, in the process of debating with Blair Scott, got the Atheist of the Year to pronounce openly, in public debate, that just as many proclaim in situational ethics, that it is fully permissible (morally acceptable) to lie.  A method to the means so to say.   One of the best or biggest laughter times came when, after all this talk about it being permissible and justifiable to lie, Kyle inquired of Blair, have you lied tonight?

 

As for science and scientist and Kyle and the Apologetics Press they have many scientist on their list and site which refute other scientist.  The credibility of the scientist or person, I find, depends on the position they take.  Their particular credibility is usually determined, in the minds of others, as to if they personally believe in God or not.  For instance Apologetic Press believes their credentials are not only valid but highly esteemed.  Those who advocate Atheism, Evolution, or argue that there is no God naturally dismiss their credentials and pronounce them bad scientist.  

 

Amazing that all their studies (many hold doctorates) and work is all disqualified if they have a personal belief in Christ or if they participate and contribute to Apologetic s Press.  There are many articles over there at that site that are scientifically oriented yet I realize and know they are not accepted as valid by Atheist and some other scientist.   Their validity is determined not by their education or experience but mainly by if they believe in Christ or not.  If so that is such a biased response and non-scientific in itself.

All of this talk is meaningless unless you can come up with some evidence for God, which you can't. Everything else is just noise.

As for science and scientist and Kyle and the Apologetics Press they have many scientist on their list and site which refute other scientist.  The credibility of the scientist or person, I find, depends on the position they take.  Their particular credibility is usually determined, in the minds of others, as to if they personally believe in God or not. 

 

Link to that claim please. What happens is that christians quote so called "scientists" that are not connected in any way to the field the christians are claiming. Very few scientists believe in a god but someone in the scientific field might. Scientists are like doctors or any other people that work in one profession but in completely different areas or levels of expertise. In other words gb, would you let an orthopedic surgeon operate on your brain?

Proof that God exist?  Physical Proof?  It all depends on who considered is valid or not.  We can and have, as has the Bible, that Proof of God exist and existed.  It is whether or not you choose to accept that as valid or not.   Some have said before if God exist why doesn't He come here in front of me and appear to me and prove Himself.  Fact is not only has He but He has offered to live with you for the rest of your Physical Life.

 

God came to man, lived with and walked, talked, etc with man as a man in the flesh named Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ claimed to be God's son, literally God in Human Flesh, and He not only taught us and lived with us but died on the Cross as a perfect sacrifice for all who would accept Him.  For all who would accept that sacrifice for their sins and sinful nature He would (God would) give a gift of God's Holy Spirit to dwell and live with each Christian/believer.  In times when life becomes hard to bear and gets humanly tough God's Holy Spirit is there to insure that God knows and God comforts and God is real and alive.  No there is Physical Proof of God it's in Jesus Christ which is how Christianity differs from any and every other religion and god around. 

 

The question is whether or not you accept the information, the proof provided as valid.  Each person had to make that decision to themselves.  To claim, thought, when you have rejected God and have Rejected Christ, that it is all false and invalid is to say your opinion trumps and is move valid than millions of others who believe and testify otherwise. 

 

I say I have a dream and that dream was to fly.  You may or may not believe that but you most likely will consider that a valid statement based on the fact that you also have dreams.  It is something common among other people so everyone who has dreams will not find it difficult to believe.  They may not have the exact same dream but they have dreams so they believe in dreams and that they can and do exist.  If I say I have had a very bad pain in my heart and have a heart attack and this is what it is like.  You may not have had  a heart attack so you don't know what it's like but because other people, that have had heart attacks, say and testify to essentially the same thing you give it credence and say I believe in heart attacks that people have them and one day I might also.  Why is not the same consideration given unto God?  Enough people claim to have met God and live daily with God's Holy Spirit within their lives yet somehow this testimony from all these people is dismissed because you don't have the exact same experience.  How are you so certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt certain?

Because everything that you just said is looney tunes crazy. You make up a lot of crap and then claim that it is true because you believe it. "it is true because itis true" is not a valid argument. It is the product of the insane.

Scott vs. Butt debate summary: http://i.imgur.com/1BXxi.jpg

_________________________

Speaking of lies or lying about the things I thought it was a very interesting part of the debate when Kyle, in the process of debating with Blair Scott, got the Atheist of the Year to pronounce openly, in public debate, that just as many proclaim in situational ethics, that it is fully permissible (morally acceptable) to lie.  A method to the means so to say.   One of the best or biggest laughter times came when, after all this talk about it being permissible and justifiable to lie, Kyle inquired of Blair, have you lied tonight?

gb.  The N a z i s are at your door.  You have hidden a family of Jews in your attic.  Will you lie to save their lives?

DF

II Kings 8:10- Elisha, God's prophet, instructs Hazel to give Ben-hadad a false prophecy, which he does.

I Kings 22:22- Granted that this takes place by a spirit speaking through a false prophet which Ahab should not have been listening to in order to bring Ahab into judgment for his own wickedness. But it is still God-ordained deception.

John 7:1-10- There seems to be some uncertainty about the word "yet" in verse 8. Whether this should be included or not, Jesus tricked his brothers into thinking he was not going to the feast- but once they were gone he went up " in cognito".

Jeremiah 38:24-27- King Zedekiah instructs Jeremiah to lie to the king's officials about the subject of Jeremiah's conversation with the king as a means of saving Jeremiah's life. We see no condemnation from God towards Jeremiah when he follows this advice. Does the end justify the means?

Exodus 1:15-21- The midwives blatantly lie to Pharoah about their disobedience to his obviously wicked command. Their motives were obviously good (v 17), intending to save the Israelite babies out of fear for God. Not only does God not disapprove of their deception, but He compliments and rewards their methods (v20,21). Is it OK to do a "small" sin to avoid doing a "large" sin?

I Samuel 16:1-5- God instructs Samuel to mislead the elders of the city (and Saul, indirectly) about the true intentions of Samuel's visit. Samuel tells them he is simply there to sacrifice, but in reality he is anointing the next king of Israel.

I Samuel 21:1-3- David lies to Ahimelech the priest about his mission. David tells the priest that he is on a secret mission for Saul, when he is really running from Saul. Again we do not see any condemnation from God or remorse from David. Keeping in mind that David was so sensitive that he was distraught over cutting Saul's robe a short time later, it seems odd that lying to the priest does not bother him a bit.

I Samuel 27:8-12- David lies to the Philistine king Achish, telling him that he was attaching Jewish towns, when he was actually raiding other Philistine settlements. Again, no condemnation from God and no remorse from David.

Don't try to read too much into my post.   You post indicated that Kyle Butt lied, as if he deliberately lied, about the Young Earth.   You know as well as I do that Kyle has a very good reason and basis he believes what he does as do you.  He happens do disagree with you and you with him but neither of you lie you are just voicing your beliefs based upon that which you consider to be the factual theory.  I don't see deception going on.  

 

I did though think that was one of the better parts of the debate where Kyle ask Blair if he had lied anytime during the debate.  It was just one point he got a large laugh and caught Blair off guard.

 

As to your question I hope you are being facetious.  Of course I would as would most anyone.  There is however one thing I would never lie about even at the sacrifice of my own life and an even harder decision at my families and that would be to deny my savior and God.  To that I could and would never do.  Not for saving my own life or for as much wealth as you could accumulate would I deny my Savior or the Holy Spirit of God within me.  Any other scenario and the answer to that I could potentially lie about depending on the situation.  I can't say I would feel right or good about it and would have to ask forgiveness for my sins as I do with my current shortcomings.  Man/women, the flesh, is sinful in and of itself and capable of any and all sins. 

The only twisting or changing of words was when Blair called it rape when that word is never used in the Bible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The bible uses ravish or ravished. Saying that is twisting or changing words is like saying you can't say the word some instead of an unspecified amount.