PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     A question for all you athiest

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this is the point in the debate where I start to lose my enthusiasm.  if you can't see that most if not all of the arguments for creationism contain logical fallacies AND you can't accept any scientific fact that is indirectly observed, then I think we're at an impass.  

(I feel the same way when someone's position is that all of science is vast, atheistic conspiracy to prop up evolution and kill god.  Where does one go from there?)
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 08:16 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if you can't see that most if not all of the arguments for creationism contain logical fallacies


Sorry can't agree.

AND you can't accept any scientific fact that is indirectly observed,


A lot of what evolutionists accept as fact is history. I believe that the unobserved past is better explained by creationists.
We have the same data. We have explanations for the data, so do evolutionists. The problem to me seems to be that evolutionists refuse to accept non-materialistic explanations for anything discounting a supernatural account of origins as if it were impossible just because they have decided that it must be so.

It all boils down to the fact that either we were created or we evolved.It is unscientific to exclude the first possibility on philisophical grounds while accepting the latter also on philisophical grounds and insisting that this philisophical preference is fact and that there are no other options to be considered.

I feel the same way when someone's position is that all of science is vast, atheistic conspiracy to prop up evolution and kill god


That is a strawman conjured up by evolutionists. I really don't believe that there is a conspiracy but that people don't appear to understand the difference between real science and philisophical preference. It is no good lumping observable repeatable science in with historical unrepeatable unobservable science and then claiming that it is as true as gravity is true. We can observe gravity in action. We have never observed evolution in action.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:41 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did not mean my parenthetical comment to refer to you, specifically.  But the intellectual impass is the same.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 09:44 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:41 AM on April 19, 2009 :
We can observe gravity in action. We have never observed evolution in action.


But we have never observed the cause of gravity.  We have observed speciation, and looked at the genes that caused it.

The Theory of Evolution is on a much stronger footing than the Theory of Gravity.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:49 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
How about - all the ancient cultures had a flood 'myth' -80% of which clearly indicated that it was a worldwide flood?
What about hollow fangs carrying venom?
What about claws, hypodermic needles, armors, toxins, stalking strategies, sharp teeth, thorns, horns, electric shocks, adrenaline...

Lester, you lost.
You don't know what to answer.

I can answer to any of your bullshit easily. You can't reply to my bullshit.
And you don't even say "Hum... That's strange indeed. I had not thought about it. I'll give it some thought and come back to you later."
That shows your dishonesty.

"History" is what we used to make from hearsay. Now we have objective data.
Humans are unreliable.

It's funny the way creationists believe that humans are horrible sinners, not trustworthy, mean and contemptible, except when they say that they saw Jesus walking on water.
Hahaha!

I feel the same way when someone's position is that all of science is vast, atheistic conspiracy to prop up evolution and kill god
That is a strawman conjured up by evolutionists.
It's not. I've heard it lots of times.

If you don't say it, you're pretty much alone.

By the way, you don't know what "observation" is.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:55 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was hoping for some help explaining how scientific "observation" is frequently and across most, if not all disciplines, indirect - that is, not observed by the researcher with his/her senses.  On second thought, I am assuming that Lester and other creationists consider using technological sensory enhancements like microscopes and seismic detectors still to be okay.  Anyway, I can't address this properly because I don't have the background.  Anyone?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 10:02 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It has been posted before. But Lester doesn't deserve it. He doesn't read long posts.

It doesn't take too much to realize that "direct observation" doesn't exist. Everything is inference.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:09 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On the flood, I heard an interesting argument against it by an anthropologist in a debate with Ken Hovind.  He reminded his listeners that there are many organisms that have viral diseases which affect that one organism.  He used the example of lions, which have a dozen or so lion-specific diseases.  Since these diseases still exist, they must have come from before this mythic flood.  Furthermore, they must have survived in the bodies of lions, since they cannot survive outside the body.  Since only two individuals of each animal got room on the ark, those lions must have had to be carrying twelve diseases among them, making them extremely sick animals indeed.  Even if the lion example does not bear out, the argument about species/genus-specific diseases is certainly a compelling one.

I anticipate the answer will be something like:  all diseases such as this lay dormant in each creature, by divine will, so the ark was not a floating sickbed of dying animals.  I'm curious.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 10:15 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thanks, wisp.  I'll do a keyword search.  i'd like to know for my own arsenal, you know?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 10:17 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But we have never observed the cause of gravity


But we can continually observe its effects which are repeatable therefore we can have quite a lot to say about it that is easily refutable.

We have observed speciation, and looked at the genes that caused it


Well speciation is not evolution as far as I'm concerned. If it still looks like a fruit fly, it is still a fruit fly -I don't care who mates with who or who won't. It's the merry extrapolation to the elephant that is the joke. There appears to be vast variation within a 'kind' but there is no proof that one kind can become another no matter how long it tries. Believing in macroevolutionary change is a philisophical choice not a scientifically demonstrable possibility and certainly not a fact.

The Theory of Evolution is on a much stronger footing than the Theory of Gravity.


Well just saying it doesn't make it so -I think you must give that a bit more thought.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:16 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And your attempts to redefine reality to your liking do not make that so either.

If you were wrong does your world crumble?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:18 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:16 AM on April 19, 2009 :
The Theory of Evolution is on a much stronger footing than the Theory of Gravity.


Well just saying it doesn't make it so -I think you must give that a bit more thought.


I've not only given it some thought, I've discussed it with Francis Everitt, Ned Wright, and Steve Carlip, who know far more about gravity than I.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:13 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Leeesteeer... ^_^
Claws, hypodermic needles, armors, toxins, stalking strategies, sharp teeth, thorns, horns, electric shocks, adrenaline...

Well speciation is not evolution as far as I'm concerned. If it still looks like a fruit fly, it is still a fruit fly
If something has fangs and claws, then it doesn't look like anything in the pacific garden of Eden.

Gotcha!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:42 PM on April 19, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, you should add meat-eating to your list of hunting/defense-related features.  If there was no predation in the garden of eden, wouldn't we all be vegetarian?  or have the teeth and digestive tract of a vegetarian?
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 07:36 AM on April 20, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Well speciation is not evolution as far as I'm concerned. If it still looks like a fruit fly, it is still a fruit fly -I don't care who mates with who or who won't. It's the merry extrapolation to the elephant that is the joke. There appears to be vast variation within a 'kind' but there is no proof that one kind can become another no matter how long it tries. Believing in macroevolutionary change is a philisophical choice not a scientifically demonstrable possibility and certainly not a fact.


Not that this is an argument, but I am curious: does it not follow, in your mind, that if speciation continues to occur, sooner or later, you might get an animal that no longer looks like the original animal?  That is a different "kind"?  And if it doesn't follow, then why?  I mean, is it just that you can't imagine it, or that you have in mind a mechanism that would prevent that?  I get that we stand on different sides of this debate, but... well, I'm just trying to understand what goes on in your minds-eye when you try to imagine what you call "micro-evolution" resulting in "macro-evolution."  Even if you think it doesn't occur, can you at least imagine those smaller changes that occur in speciation adding up to, over time, a more dramatic change?

 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 08:23 AM on April 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sciborg
Wisp, you should add meat-eating to your list of hunting/defense-related features.  If there was no predation in the garden of eden, wouldn't we all be vegetarian?  or have the teeth and digestive tract of a vegetarian?
That would be clear enough for you and me. But not for them.

They might say (have said) that that's devolution.
I'm not joking.
They just lost the ability to leave without eating meat.

I replied that i would like to lose my ability to not-speak Mandarin, which is rather annoying.

I rather mention traits that can clearly and immediately shut them up (as Lester10 clearly has).
The vegan issue will get 1 reply, then the rebuttal, and then no replies.
The claw/fang issue will get no replies from the beginning.

That's why i mention "stalking abilities". Clear improvements. Something that cannot be considered a loss (you and i wouldn't consider meat eating a loss, but they manage to do it, even when, according to their myths, humans ate it since the beginning, and suck at it now due to devolution, and lions were vegan, and are so good at it now due to devolution).

By the way, i don't eat animals. I don't know if i'm supposed to be completely devolved, or less devolved...


Not that this is an argument, but I am curious: does it not follow, in your mind, that if speciation continues to occur, sooner or later, you might get an animal that no longer looks like the original animal?  That is a different "kind"?  And if it doesn't follow, then why?  I mean, is it just that you can't imagine it, or that you have in mind a mechanism that would prevent that?  I get that we stand on different sides of this debate, but... well, I'm just trying to understand what goes on in your minds-eye when you try to imagine what you call "micro-evolution" resulting in "macro-evolution."  Even if you think it doesn't occur, can you at least imagine those smaller changes that occur in speciation adding up to, over time, a more dramatic change?
I think they believe that speciation occurs because of the potential variability that was already there, and perhaps a pinch of devolution (loss).

They don't agree though. Timbrx doesn't believe in vestigiality, even if he believes in devolution. If we think something is vestigial, he thinks it has a function.
On the other hand, Lester10 has no problem believing that the legless lizard's vestigial limbs are exactly that. Limbs that have been lost (even if he thinks that's devolution, i.e. random mutations taking away random stuff).
I replied: "Lucky lizard, it didn't lose its head", and "Isn't it remarkable the way that, by randomly losing stuff, the legless lizard got to imitate one of God's perfect designs?" (that would be the snake).
I also asked him to try removing a lizard's limbs, and watching how it fares (to demonstrate that it would need to gain something while losing its limbs if it's going to survive).
Again, no replies.
But he got to make 1 reply (that vestigial limbs were due to devolution) to my question (What about the legless lizard's vestigial limbs?).

It's a silly reply, but still. 1 reply too many.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:33 AM on April 20, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do apologize for not doing all my homework.  it appears I am taking up your time getting me up to speed on the debate!  

I still hope Lester answers my last query.  I took my debater hat off for a moment because i really want to understand what goes on in the minds of people who share his disbelief - is it an inability to imagine micro-evolution leading to macro-evolution, or is it that it can be imagined, but they have in mind there is a mechanism that prevents it from  happening in the real world?  it seems so perfectly logical to me that it is difficult (speaking of imagination) to understand why it does not appear so perfectly obvious to someone else.  
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 09:41 AM on April 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, don't worry!

We've all asked ourselves the obvious questions that THEY should ask themselves.

I can tell you what they have left in "clear":
Microevolution is the natural (hum, perhaps it's supernatural) variability of the information within the genome of species.
Devolution is the irreversible loss of information.
Macroevolution would be an increase in information (which is impossible in their belief system).

I don't understand where's the limit of what the extant information can do. To them, the nylon digesting bacteria (do you know about it?) is a case of microevolution. God's foresight gave it, 6k years ago, the ability to mutate into a nylon digesting bacteria.

If we didn't know it's ancestors, perhaps they would have said that the nylon digesting bacteria was an example of irreducible complexity. Who knows...

They would say that no species can develop a new organ, for instance. Let's say an eye.
But if we divide the process in a million steps, they can't deny any step. Any step would be microevolution to them.

They don't know this though.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:50 PM on April 20, 2009 | IP
micelopez

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cant believe I'm actually posting on another debate. After years of debating you realize that there is absolutely nothing you can do to change another person's mind. However, most Christians post on these debates because they simply feel offended. Witch is very reasonable.

I am not here to change someones mind, I am not here to stay here and continue debating. So please don't bother replying to this post.

Lets start.


I honestly believe that our understanding of reality is superior to that of any creationist, but still there are things we'll never understand, and we'll have to believe anyway. Like our own existences. [/color]

(Edited by wisp 10/18/2008 at 1:11 PM).


This is absolutely ridiculous and its an offense to many people and scientist. I think you are forgetting that some of the greatest minds of our time were Christians, This includes Louis Pasteur, Galileo Galilei, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Erwin Schrodinger, Andreas Vesalius and many, many more. I am sure that these people had a very good understanding of "reality".

Do some of you honestly believe that Christians do not question their own believes every single day. Do you think they blindly follow what they believe without questioning it? Do you really believe that Christians themselves don't believe in science. Well to be honest most Christians do believe and enjoy science. Science does not stand for "Evolution" and "Evolution" only. Evolution on its own is a theory nothing more. Yes Evolutionist have a bunch of facts that they grabbed out of dust, but to be honest everything has its facts. Believe it or not even Christianity. Many Christian Scientist went to the same universities and schools as all the other evolutionist. They have the same education and yet their opinions are excluded from most debates around the world.  

Christians get less jobs every year because most atheist think Christianity is a bunch of nonsense, Christians are being slaughtered and killed in India and other countries because they believe in something Bigger. Now why do you think this is? Why would you want to slaughter and kill someone because he\she believes in Jesus? Why would people then continue being Christians if it just makes life harder? Maybe Christians are emotionally stronger then atheist or evolutionist to do the things that they do?. There are so many unjust things happening in the world and you "atheist" are pushing this agenda without even knowing it. You are supporting the people who is killing innocent people. I am sorry but you are simply missing the point of being a Christian, but please continue debating. The question comes down to, What if you are wrong?



 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 6:05 PM on May 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cant believe I'm actually posting on another debate.
I don't care. Focus.
After years of debating you realize that there is absolutely nothing you can do to change another person's mind.
If you say reasonable things to reasonable people, yes, you can.
However, most Christians post on these debates because they simply feel offended. Witch
*which
is very reasonable.
No, it's not.
I am not here to change someones mind, I am not here to stay here and continue debating.
How surprising.

You don't even say why you're here.

I'm, i'm, i'm... ??
So please don't bother replying to this post.
I won't please you.
Lets start.
I honestly believe that our understanding of reality is superior to that of any creationist, but still there are things we'll never understand, and we'll have to believe anyway. Like our own existences.
This is absolutely ridiculous
No, that's relative.
and its an offense to many people and scientist.
Scientists are people.
I think
I'm skeptic.
you are forgetting that some of the greatest minds of our time were Christians, This includes Louis Pasteur, Galileo Galilei, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Erwin Schrodinger, Andreas Vesalius and many, many more.
Blah, blah, blah. No, i'm not. I didn't say "christians" but "creationists".
I am sure that these people had a very good understanding of "reality".
I'm sure they didn't. I'm also sure that you don't know what you're talking about.
Do some of you honestly believe that Christians do not question their own believes every single day.
That would be generalization.
Do you think they blindly follow what they believe without questioning it?
By "they" you mean "we"?
Again, generalization.

Do you really believe that Christians themselves don't believe in science.
Generalization.
Nevertheless, good christians shouldn't believe in science.

Well to be honest most Christians do believe and enjoy science.
To be honest?

You don't know how to use that expression. And that alone says a lot.

Science does not stand for "Evolution" and "Evolution" only.
Hey, don't tell us. It's creationists who equate Evolution to Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and other fields of science.
Evolution on its own is a theory nothing more.
Nothing more? Do you know what a scientific theory is?
Yes Evolutionist have a bunch of facts that they grabbed out of dust, but to be honest everything has its facts.
Again your weird honesty... Now coupled to poetic speech...
Believe it or not even Christianity.
Yeah... I'm sure it must have gotten some facts right... Let me think... Mmm...

Mmm...

Mmm...

Well, nevermind. I'm prepared to admit that it must have a lot of facts right. Can't think of any at the moment (i'm sleepy).

Many Christian Scientist went to the same universities and schools as all the other evolutionist.
"All the other evolutionists" seems to imply that Christian Scientists are evolutionists too (which is quite likely for most of them).
They have the same education and yet their opinions are excluded from most debates around the world.
Then you're talking about creationists...

Christians get less jobs every year because most atheist think Christianity is a bunch of nonsense,
Where? I don't know about that.
Christians are being slaughtered and killed in India and other countries because they believe in something Bigger.
Bigger than what? India? Brahman?
Nothing is bigger than Brahman.

Now why do you think this is?
I don't.
Why would you want to slaughter and kill someone because he\she believes in Jesus?
I wouldn't. Not because of that anyway.
Why would people then continue being Christians if it just makes life harder?
Oh, i know this one!

Because it's the only true religion!!!

Maybe Christians are emotionally stronger
That's relative. They are more needy. They need a caring god to look after them. On the other hand, once they have it, you might say that they are emotionally stronger, because few things would affect them.
That's how it's relative.
then
*than
atheist or evolutionist to do the things that they do?
Twist the words and you'll be saying that mental institutions are stacked with the strongest people on Earth.
There are so many unjust things happening in the world and you "atheist" are pushing this agenda without even knowing it.
Hey, don't blame us! We didn't create the Universe, you know?

Chill out. Nothing can go wrong with Yahwe's minute secret plan.
You are supporting the people who is killing innocent people.
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm well aware that christians used to do quite a lot of that.

They even killed their own:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/tyndale_william.shtml

I am sorry
I don't buy it.
but you are simply missing the point of being a Christian,
All christians say that. And they all fail to show me the real point.
but please continue debating.
Thanks. But there's nobody to debate with.
The question comes down to, What if you are wrong?
You're wrong about that.

The question comes down to, Who gets closer to being right?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:51 PM on May 11, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The question comes down to, What if you are wrong?"

I f-ing HATE this response.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong... ohhhh... WAIT.  What you really mean is, "Why don't you abandon your position, because if you're incorrect and god DOES exist, you'll go to hell for not believing in him/her/it."  

This is not a particularly effective argument.  Given my position is that god does not exist, a threat that this non-existent entity will do dirty deeds unto me holds no water.  Even if I was sort of moved by the odd chance that this improbable fact was true, I'd have to take the perilous position that I believe god does NOT exist, but I'm going to ignore the facts and reasoning that support this, because of the potential implications to my well-being.  That's the logical equivalent of sticking my fingers in my ears and singing "la, la, LA, LA!!!!" real loud.  
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 10:59 AM on May 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That, along with "There are so many unjust things happening in the world and you "atheist" are pushing this agenda without even knowing it.", are just threats. He didn't mention a single fact to support his delusion.

Christianism is a virus that spreads mainly through a combined system of bribery and black mailing. And then it sticks through a system of emotional investment.

Only from outside you can see how sad it really is.

Nevertheless, i reckon it might be useful to some people. Some people might actually be better off with Christianism than without it (which is also sad).

"The question comes down to, What if you are wrong?"

I f-ing HATE this response.
Yeah, it's a non-response. It's nothing.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong... ohhhh... WAIT.  What you really mean is, "Why don't you abandon your position, because if you're incorrect and god DOES exist, you'll go to hell for not believing in him/her/it."  

This is not a particularly effective argument.
Indeed.
That's the old Pascal's Wager.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process this will make you believe, and will dull you—will quiet your proudly critical intellect...

Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.


Basically: Believe in God and act accordingly. If there's no god, you didn't lose anything. If there is, there's a lot to gain.

Pascal was cool. Nice thinking, with a touch of poetic dispair.
Too bad he didn't consider some other choices in his reasoning.

>>>Compared mythology shows us some jealous gods (just as jealous as Yahweh). Getting your worships wrong might actually be worse than not believing!!

Besides, to me, there's a lot to lose if you bet on the afterlife and you're wrong.

Given my position is that god does not exist, a threat that this non-existent entity will do dirty deeds unto me holds no water.
Exactly. It's the same with their bribery.

Christian currency is in "blurry afterlife points".

-If you believe and obey this you'll get 80 BAP.
-Sorry, they're worthless to me.
-Ok, wait, you'll get 100!
-I don't care.
-Nono, wait, you'll get 8.000! Final offer! Take it or leave it!!!
-I leave it.
But, wait... OK, 1 million. Happy?
-No...
-Well, then you get an eternity in Hell!! How do you like that???



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:32 PM on May 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dawkins on "What if you're wrong?":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:39 PM on May 12, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thanks for the Dawkins clip, Wisp.  I've seen that before.  Man, I FEEL his pain - what an annoying question to field.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 4:04 PM on May 12, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.