Why You Can’t Debate Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

Why You Can’t Debate Creationists
http://news.yahoo.com/why-t-debate-crea ... itics.html

I am a creationist.

It should be "Why You Can't Debate Big Bang Theorists", especially if you read many of the comments.

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.

You have that wrong. It is the burden of those who claim he exists because their is no proof he does, that is why it is called faith. Faith is not proof. And saying it is true because the bible says it is true is not proof.]

Is it your intention to provide a concrete illustration of the title of this thread?

You clearly slept through yours.

You DO have it backwards.

If you assert that something exists its up to you to prove your assertion. not for me to prove you wrong.

If I assert that there is a teapot hurtling through space in the asteroid belt its up to me to prove it. Not for you to disprove it. Ditto if I assert that there is a diety.


And thats a seperate question anyway. Even if there is a God there still could have been a Big Bang, and evolution.

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).

And people who have to believe in a made up God to get through their day are mentally weak, and lazy mentally.

People do not need to disprove things for which is given no evidence. It would take a long time, finding evidence against all of the gods humans have made up. Then we would also need evidence against ice giants, dragons, gnomes.....

I don't understand why this is an issue. You believe what you want to believe and do not try to force it on me. Scientists are not running around saying "there is no God," They are just revealing evidence that suggests the Biblical time line is incorrect. That makes Creationists feel threatened for some reason so they are trying to demand that science stops being science. Creationists have no problem benefitting from all of the medicine and technology that science has made possible, but want scientists to just shut up about what has been discovered about the timeline. Its really pretty pathetic. Its nothing but insecurity, so you want everyone to shut up from saying what makes you uncomfortable.

Yes, a literal reading of Genesis has been disproven very thoroughly. But that does not disprove any interpretation or type of god. I don't think we can say with certainty there is no god. I don't consider it at all likely though.

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."

(Thread moved from News to PPR)

Correct.

He who makes the assertion bears the burden to prove it.