Why You Can’t Debate Creationists
22 Apr 2014, 1:13 pm
trollcatman wrote:
No, he is correct. If someone make a negative claim (There is no God), they have to provide evidence for it. In the same way someone who makes a positive claim (There is a God) will also have to provide evidence.
Correct.
He who makes the assertion bears the burden to prove it.
22 Apr 2014, 1:40 pm
Hardcore atheists who actively reject God and bash religion really don't have a leg to stand on.
But there are plenty of more mild-mannered atheists and agnostics who simply say "I don't know everything there is to know in this world." This is the position I respect most. Bill Nye seems to fit in this category. He may not believe in God but he embraces what the fact that he doesn't know everything.
Creationists are an entirely different animal from your average Chrisitian. Debating with them that the Earth is in fact billions of years old and evolution is real is not a real debate at all. It's just a theatrical display of primitive psychological defenses in action. If you want to see psychology at work, watch a debate like this. Don't expect to learn anything though.
luanqibazao
Veteran
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner
22 Apr 2014, 1:48 pm
trollcatman wrote:
The point many religous people do not understand though is that most atheists are weak atheists: they take the non-existance of things as the default position until evidence comes along (I currently hold no belief in a God because I have not yet seen evidence). That is completely different from strong atheist who makes a negative claim.
^This. Theists often speak as if the atheist position were "There is no god, I know this absolutely, and nothing could ever change my mind!" They are projecting. I have never met an atheist who took that position.
I call myself an atheist, rather than an agnostic, because the concept of a deity is unsupported, irrational, and arbitrary. Arbitrary statements (those which can never be proven either true or false) do not deserve to be called "possible" in the same way that a scientific proposition like "extraterrestrial life may exist" is possible. An arbitrary statement refers to nothing save the speaker's imagination; logically, it is as if nothing had been said. But there is at least a theoretical possibility that something will happen tomorrow to change my mind.
22 Apr 2014, 2:22 pm
Willard wrote:
khaoz wrote:
And people who have to believe in a made up God to get through their day are mentally weak, and lazy mentally.
People who gather a handful of facts and arrogantly assume they know everything are small-minded, intolerant, intellectual bigots. Every generation's scientific cosmology has eventually looked like the primitive ignorance it was, to future generations.
First, particle physics is even now discovering the role of consciousness in the very makeup of physical matter. At it's purest level, Spacetime appears to be folding in on itself, to create basic particles and doing so with apparent conscious intent. Consciousness doesn't just imply a Prime Mover, it IS a Prime Mover, meaning the universe is a conscious organism, engaged in a constant and eternal act of self-creation. That may not be the Yahweh of the Bible, but it's hardly an inert, mechanical accident.
Second, although Evolution has now been taught by Liberal Progressive controlled educational systems for more than two generations now,as an absolute fact, the truth is, by Darwin's own standard of proof, it is a failed theory. Darwin himself stated that the proof of Evolution's validity would be found in the fossil record, in the form of intermediate stages, as one species gradually morphed into another over epochs of time. After more than a century of studying fossils, that evidence simply does not exist. There isn't just one missing link - there are hundreds.
Bible or no Bible, if you cling to a belief without evidence, you're the same sort of gullible dupe you accuse others of being. Sometimes the smartest answer you can give is "I don't know."
I agree that Khaoz shoulda quit while he was ahead, and stopped before personally slandering all folks who happened to be religious.
But you shoulda quit after your second paragraph yourself. Thats some seriously nonsensical nonsense that you're spouting in paragraph two onward.
According you: Darwin said he would be vindicated if fact A were found in the fossil record. You then neglect to say whether fact A was found or not! But go on to assert that because irrelevent fact Z has been found Darwin is disproved!
Fact A HAS been found in abundence. Many intermediate forms have been, and are still being found in the fossil record. The fact they have not found every single fossil link between every single one of the millions of species on earth is irrelevent.
So according to your own words- Darwin is proved right.
Be that as it may Im just curious about this: apparently you dont like EITHER Biblical Literalism, OR Darwin.
Since you dont want our evil cabal controlled school system to teach either evolution OR Creationism what DO you want the schools to teach?
What strange abyss are you leading us into here?
22 Apr 2014, 2:33 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
Willard wrote:
khaoz wrote:
And people who have to believe in a made up God to get through their day are mentally weak, and lazy mentally.
People who gather a handful of facts and arrogantly assume they know everything are small-minded, intolerant, intellectual bigots. Every generation's scientific cosmology has eventually looked like the primitive ignorance it was, to future generations.
First, particle physics is even now discovering the role of consciousness in the very makeup of physical matter. At it's purest level, Spacetime appears to be folding in on itself, to create basic particles and doing so with apparent conscious intent. Consciousness doesn't just imply a Prime Mover, it IS a Prime Mover, meaning the universe is a conscious organism, engaged in a constant and eternal act of self-creation. That may not be the Yahweh of the Bible, but it's hardly an inert, mechanical accident.
Second, although Evolution has now been taught by Liberal Progressive controlled educational systems for more than two generations now,as an absolute fact, the truth is, by Darwin's own standard of proof, it is a failed theory. Darwin himself stated that the proof of Evolution's validity would be found in the fossil record, in the form of intermediate stages, as one species gradually morphed into another over epochs of time. After more than a century of studying fossils, that evidence simply does not exist. There isn't just one missing link - there are hundreds.
Bible or no Bible, if you cling to a belief without evidence, you're the same sort of gullible dupe you accuse others of being. Sometimes the smartest answer you can give is "I don't know."
I agree that Khaoz shoulda quit while he was ahead, and stopped before personally slandering all folks who happened to be religious.
But you shoulda quit after your second paragraph yourself. Thats some seriously nonsensical nonsense that you're spouting in paragraph two onward.
According you: Darwin said he would be vindicated if fact A were found in the fossil record. You then neglect to say whether fact A was found or not! But go on to assert that because irrelevent fact Z has been found Darwin is disproved!
Fact A HAS been found in abundence. Many intermediate forms have been, and are still being found in the fossil record. The fact they have not found every single fossil link between every single one of the millions of species on earth is irrelevent.
So according to your own words- Darwin is proved right.
Be that as it may Im just curious about this: apparently you dont like EITHER Biblical Literalism, OR Darwin.
Since you dont want our evil cabal controlled school system to teach either evolution OR Creationism what DO you want the schools to teach?
What strange abyss are you leading us into here?
I am not slandering all religious people. I am saying that the push to teach Creationism in public schools is a ruse. It is not about a different perspective. If these extremists have their way they would completely outlaw the teaching of evolution because they view it as an attack on their beliefs. That does not mean all religious people feel this way. I am referring to the extremists
22 Apr 2014, 3:11 pm
Willard wrote:
Second, although Evolution has now been taught by Liberal Progressive controlled educational systems for more than two generations now,as an absolute fact, the truth is, by Darwin's own standard of proof, it is a failed theory. Darwin himself stated that the proof of Evolution's validity would be found in the fossil record, in the form of intermediate stages, as one species gradually morphed into another over epochs of time. After more than a century of studying fossils, that evidence simply does not exist. There isn't just one missing link - there are hundreds.
As naturalplastic said, lots and lots have been found. I am replying also so that I can include a link.
What you are referring to is called a transitional fossil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Quote:
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[
Darwin's caveat is discussed.
Quote:
In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as, "...the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory," but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[2] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[3] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
And it didn't stop there.
Quote:
Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.[4] Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.
My elementary school included a field trip to the local natural history museum where we got to see these fossils. This practice should continue.
22 Apr 2014, 3:13 pm
Creationists hate evolution and choose to stay enshrouded in ignorance on how things actually work as the rest of the population evolves leaving them light years behind.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
22 Apr 2014, 4:51 pm
DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
luanqibazao wrote:
DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
What many atheists seem to not comprehend is that the burden of proof falls on the person (or people) making the negative claim. They tell us to prove God exists when, philosophically, it is on them to prove that He does not.
You have that precisely backwards.
You clearly have never taken a basic philosophy class.
Ok. Prove me that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I have a deep devotion towards Bigfoot and pray to him everyday, so don't disrespect my religion.
I'll be waiting for the arguments...
Prof_Pretorius
Veteran
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,520
Location: Hiding in the attic of the Arkham Library
22 Apr 2014, 5:53 pm
Creationists are ignorant. Sometimes they've been misled and sometimes they are willfully ignorant. Either way they are useful. I love creationists. The more vocal the better.
Quote:
No, he is correct. If someone make a negative claim (There is no God), they have to provide evidence for it. In the same way someone who makes a positive claim (There is a God) will also have to provide evidence.
It's far from that simple. No one requires mathematical proofs against unicorns, leprechauns, Teshub the storm god, etc. Yahweh goes in the same can. He's a very specific deity with mythological properties. You first assert he exists, not that he doesn't. The concept of a generic deity or series of deities may be possible but that doesn't put a fairy named Bob in the candy cane forest.
There is a certain bait and switch quality to the discussion. Christians assert that Yahweh is god and use the term God to mean Yahweh.
Last edited by simon_says on 22 Apr 2014, 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
22 Apr 2014, 6:16 pm
zer0netgain wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
No, he is correct. If someone make a negative claim (There is no God), they have to provide evidence for it. In the same way someone who makes a positive claim (There is a God) will also have to provide evidence.
Correct.
He who makes the assertion bears the burden to prove it.
"There is no God" is not an original assertion, though, but a response to the original assertion "there is a God". Nobody would ever have said "there is no God" without someone first suggesting there was. To say "there is no God" is to say "you who say there is a God have not provided evidence to support you claim, nor has anyone else, including myself, so the logical conclusion for me at this time is that there is no God".
Last edited by yellowtamarin on 22 Apr 2014, 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
22 Apr 2014, 6:23 pm
This is really silly. You cannot prove or disprove god, at least not yet. If you claim either one, you should prove it. However, creationism is unbelievably dumb, unfounded and probably a purely psychological fluke. There are way more sound arguments against it than for it and thus this is a position we should prefer.
23 Apr 2014, 1:13 am
cannotthinkoff wrote:
This is really silly. You cannot prove or disprove god, at least not yet. If you claim either one, you should prove it. However, creationism is unbelievably dumb, unfounded and probably a purely psychological fluke. There are way more sound arguments against it than for it and thus this is a position we should prefer.
Yes you can its called logic let alone pointing out the multiple self contradictions in the bible.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
23 Apr 2014, 1:15 am
heavenlyabyss wrote:
Hardcore atheists who actively reject God and bash religion really don't have a leg to stand on.
But there are plenty of more mild-mannered atheists and agnostics who simply say "I don't know everything there is to know in this world." This is the position I respect most. Bill Nye seems to fit in this category. He may not believe in God but he embraces what the fact that he doesn't know everything.
Creationists are an entirely different animal from your average Chrisitian. Debating with them that the Earth is in fact billions of years old and evolution is real is not a real debate at all. It's just a theatrical display of primitive psychological defenses in action. If you want to see psychology at work, watch a debate like this. Don't expect to learn anything though.
Skepticism does not equal rejection.
But there are plenty of more mild-mannered atheists and agnostics who simply say "I don't know everything there is to know in this world." This is the position I respect most. Bill Nye seems to fit in this category. He may not believe in God but he embraces what the fact that he doesn't know everything.
Creationists are an entirely different animal from your average Chrisitian. Debating with them that the Earth is in fact billions of years old and evolution is real is not a real debate at all. It's just a theatrical display of primitive psychological defenses in action. If you want to see psychology at work, watch a debate like this. Don't expect to learn anything though.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU[/youtube]
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
23 Apr 2014, 2:10 am
I found the video to be patronizing. Why does the guy talk so slow? It's like he thinks we're stupid or something.
Anyway, religious people aren't offended when you tell them you don't believe in God. If anything, they feel sorry for you, or more likely, simply don't care.
God has different meanings to different people. Creationism I set apart from the average churchgoers who are harmless. Creationism is a little scary though.
You engage in too many online discussions about religion and you get a very warped perception of what real people in real life actually think. Just be careful of this.
