Why You Can’t Debate Creationists
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.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fhvmg9oiWU[/youtube]Creationists first time on the internet!
_________________
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
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPaWOvp0yw[/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
Heres a 2 hour and 45 minute long debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugh5rZsRd1c[/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
Food for thought.
In 2006, Richard Dawkins (based on advice from another world-renowned biologist, Stephen Jay Gould) made a claim about why he should not engage in debate with creationists:
Source: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/ ... eationists
While I suppose that no-one on WP has the reputation of Gould or Dawkins, the above statement could nonetheless serve as a reminder that there may be little to be gained from engaging in genuine debate with creationists, even if their arguments are completely torn apart again and again and again and again and again.
Proverbs 26:4
In 2006, Richard Dawkins (based on advice from another world-renowned biologist, Stephen Jay Gould) made a claim about why he should not engage in debate with creationists:
Source: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/ ... eationists
While I suppose that no-one on WP has the reputation of Gould or Dawkins, the above statement could nonetheless serve as a reminder that there may be little to be gained from engaging in genuine debate with creationists, even if their arguments are completely torn apart again and again and again and again and again.
Proverbs 26:4
There is something to that. But it could backfire as well: Creationist: "The scientists won't even debate this anymore"
Interesting if you could extend this to the fact-free people in politics.
In 2006, Richard Dawkins (based on advice from another world-renowned biologist, Stephen Jay Gould) made a claim about why he should not engage in debate with creationists:
Source: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/ ... eationists
While I suppose that no-one on WP has the reputation of Gould or Dawkins, the above statement could nonetheless serve as a reminder that there may be little to be gained from engaging in genuine debate with creationists, even if their arguments are completely torn apart again and again and again and again and again.
Proverbs 26:4
There is something to that. But it could backfire as well: Creationist: "The scientists won't even debate this anymore"
Interesting if you could extend this to the fact-free people in politics.
Sadly, I agree. That was excellent advice but it wasn't implemented at the time and now it won't work. The effect of never debating in the first place would have been to deny them legitimacy. But the effect of debating vigorously and then withdrawing looks like giving up in defeat.
Pretty much. The debate Bill Nye participated in recently wasn't even a debate at all. The Answers in Genesis guy just delivered the exact same sermon he always did while ignoring all of Nye's rebuttals. The guy was arguing from a position where the scientific method and basic rules of logic don't matter. You might as well debate a party sub, for all the good it would do.
Ken Ham: "Thus, the assumptions needed for radio-dating, and the fossil record cannot be made".
Ken Ham: "Therefore, I dismiss your evidence".
Ken Ham: "NEXT !"
He does sound like a clueless idiot.
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
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.
Oh
Mah
Gawd
You don't understand the first thing about logic and the scientific method. So lemme enlighten you: The burden of proof ALWAYS rests upon the one making the positive claim. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, AND lack of evidence of absence does not constitute evidence.
The *argumentum ad ignorantiam* fallacy is bidirectional:
-"There isn't enough evidence to prove that A is true, therefore A is false"
-"There isn't enough evidence to prove that A is false, therefore A must be true".
You can prove a negative. But you cannot do it directly. You have to show that the existential positive leads to a contradiction of something that has already been proven and/or observational data.
I am an agnostic because at the present time there isn't evidence for God's existence nor is there any evidence to demonstrate the impossibility of God's existence. Funny thing is though, the assumption of God's nonexistence is consistent with centuries of scientific experimentation. That is, the Universe doesn't need a God to do what it does. Hope that helps.
You have that precisely backwards.
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. 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.
Also, in most religions it is very difficult to be a weak theist (I currently believe in this God, but I'll consider the Gods/no God of other religions too if evidence comes along).
Weak atheists? Erm, we're called AGNOSTICS. However, the assumption of God's existence as an omipotent being has some logical problems: Can God make a stone so big he could not lift it?
As for creationists, I give them the shoebox test challenge: Take a shoebox filled with dirt, pour holy water onto the dirt, then say a few prayers and have God tranform that dirt into a live jackrabbit.
Ken Ham: "Thus, the assumptions needed for radio-dating, and the fossil record cannot be made".
Ken Ham: "Therefore, I dismiss your evidence".
Ken Ham: "NEXT !"
He does sound like a clueless idiot.
_________________
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
No, atheism and agnosticism are about different questions. I consider myself a weak atheist (I currently hold no belief in God/gods) and an agnostic (I do not have enough knowledge to have certainty about the existence of God/gods). Atheism for me is not explicit denial but simply the default position. I was not born with a belief in gods, dragons or gnomes. And since I have not found evidence for any of them, I don't believe in them. About omnipotent gods, there have also been religions with gods who are not all knowing and all powerful. Gods such as Odin were powerful and wise, but not in the way of the Abrahamic God.
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.
Oh
Mah
Gawd
You don't understand the first thing about logic and the scientific method. So lemme enlighten you: The burden of proof ALWAYS rests upon the one making the positive claim. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, AND lack of evidence of absence does not constitute evidence.
The *argumentum ad ignorantiam* fallacy is bidirectional:
-"There isn't enough evidence to prove that A is true, therefore A is false"
-"There isn't enough evidence to prove that A is false, therefore A must be true".
You can prove a negative. But you cannot do it directly. You have to show that the existential positive leads to a contradiction of something that has already been proven and/or observational data.
I am an agnostic because at the present time there isn't evidence for God's existence nor is there any evidence to demonstrate the impossibility of God's existence. Funny thing is though, the assumption of God's nonexistence is consistent with centuries of scientific experimentation. That is, the Universe doesn't need a God to do what it does. Hope that helps.
Exactly. It seems that these people attended a first course in philosophy and think they know everything.
A scientific theory cannot be proven to be true. Ever. We never know when it is true, or if we need to know more about the world to end up knowing that it is false. Therefore we turn to the other aspect. We put theories to test and find which of them cannot be true due to experimental evidence. And the theories that survive this elimination process are the acceptable theories to explain an aspect of reality. So the only theories acceptable to be scientific are the ones that are susceptible of being disproven by experimental evidence. The existence of god cannot be disproved by experimental evidence, just like the boogey man, big foot, unicorns, etc. And that's what the evolution of religion has been since the renaiscence: bending its beliefs to what has been proved to be false.
There are just people who live in the dark ages.