CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Banning a theist from using scripture in a debate is unfair
Many theists don't accept the validity of "The origin of species" or "A brief history of time", yet still they are allowed to be used in debate. However, theists using scripture in debate is frowned upon, and often prohibited.
My question is, that if there is no universal standard by which evidence can be judged, how can it be fair to prohibit one side from using their's?
As long as the scripture is being used to defend criticisms made by opponents of the morality of the Bible and such, it's fine. But the Bible cannot be used to support the existence of the Christian god.
I agree that the Bible should not be used to support Christianity, but I also believe that other theories as to the origin of mankind should not be used that are not proven 100%; such as Big Bang, Evolution. These are just as fallible as the Bible itself, to those that don't buy in to these theories.
but I also believe that other theories as to the origin of mankind should not be used that are not proven 100%;
Not necessarily, a theory is the graduating point of an idea and has facts supporting it. Evolution in most senses of the word is proven, abiogenesis is the largest theoretical portion of it. Evolution brings about a claim, people gather evidence to support that claim.Claiming evolution is true because evolution says evolution is true would indeed be invalid, but I don't see many instances of people using that line of argument.
Doesn't this happen when the evidence for evolution is micro-evolution
Not at all, evidence of mutation and gene shuffling is acquired and accordingly described as micro-evolution of life. Micro-evolution over large periods of time becomes categorized as macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution happens, over extended time it becomes macro. Ignoring the fact that the genome project has proven macro-evolution, considering that gene shuffling and such occurs every generation, macro-evolution is a work in progress even if one doesn't wish to admit it's existence.
Where is the evidence to support anything, but what has been observed?
Macro-evolution has to occur between species, not within one. I didn't make the definition.
Please stop using that term like it's a separate thing, it really shows ignorance of the theory. Speciation would be the end result of many genetic changes which separates two member populations of the same species for a significant enough amount of time. This usually occurs by some form of isolation.
Macro-evolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. American Heritage® Dictionary
Description of geologic time - American Heritage® Dictionary The period of time covering the physical formation and development of Earth, especially the period prior to human history.
Micro-evolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. American Heritage® Dictionary
See the difference, learn the difference, write intelligently.
Macro-evolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. American Heritage® Dictionary
Description of geologic time - American Heritage® Dictionary The period of time covering the physical formation and development of Earth, especially the period prior to human history.
Micro-evolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. American Heritage® Dictionary
These are definitions from the literature in order to distinguish fields of study, because this subject is too massive, people that study taxonomy study fossil evidence and species in order to class them, people that study evolution split between, those at the zoological (Macro) scale and those at the genetic (Micro) scale, the fields do not offer separate outcomes, but are used together to show the path from one end to the other.
The fact that you believe they are different shows the mark of a discontinuous mind, speciation occurs first at the genetic level by separation, it then leads to differences in morphological features, evolution is a smooth gradient not a jump, that is cranes not sky hooks. I don't know why you included a definition of geologic time though.
See the difference, learn the difference, write intelligently.
I've provided you with links that you've ignored, calling what I say lies does not make it so. I do not wish for the studies of evolution to be the same, they are fields in the same subject
I included geologic time because it states when macro-evolution occurred and therefore is impossible for any one to have ever observed it.
Where is the evidence that this occurred? If it did occur, science cannot have a fluke. Please show me the formation and development of another planet. Earth cannot be unique, science has to be repeated to be science. There is nothing scientific about a fluke. The results of any scientific experiment has to be repeated in order for the experiment to be valid. Again flukes cannot happen in science.
A cure for cancer that works on one in a million is not a cure.
I included geologic time because it states when macro-evolution occurred and therefore is impossible for any one to have ever observed it.
Wrong, it just gives enough time for all of the separate complex life forms that have evolved to do so, I've provided you with a link that shows speciation.
Where is the evidence that this occurred?
I've provided you with it.
Please show me the formation and development of another planet
Earth cannot be unique, science has to be repeated to be science.
This is a flaw in the understanding of the scientific method, experimental data has to be repeatable for hypothesis to become theory.
There is nothing scientific about a fluke.
Some things only need happen once.
The results of any scientific experiment has to be repeated in order for the experiment to be valid.
Repeat your self much? I've already provided you with a link to a peer reviewed, that is, experimentally repeated report on speciation in Drosophila, and now on the formation of an earth like planet, there is also many more known earth like planets.
A cure for cancer that works on one in a million is not a cure.
Strawman again, but around eight million people die of cancer each year, if you could cure 8 people per year, I'd say that you had a cure, it's just unfortunate that it only has a tiny success rate.
'Micro evolution' is undeniably true, and no one has ever proposed any barrier from 'macro evolution' occurring, and they both use the same processes.
The only difference is time scale, and if you actually look carefully at the statistics, macroevolution, if microevolution is true, must be true on at least some portion of the life on earth, ie, it's just about impossible for there to not have been extremely major genetic changes from the earliest life to the oldest.
Plus, macroevolution being false means that the biodiversity of the earth existed through the entire 3.5 billion years of the history of life, which is absurd. If you think the earth is only 3000 years old, you have a lot of work to explain continental drift, the rich climatological history (and therefore extremely drastic changes that have happened), volcanic events, and the lack of human documentation of a majority of life despite having lived through all of it.
Let me get this straight, evolution cannot be proved 100%. What percent is it proved? 10%, 25%, 60%, 90%, 99% men have been wrongly imprisoned with no reasonable doubt that they where guilty.
“Challenge conventional wisdom and never accept the truth of something merely because everyone else views it as obvious.” Fredrich Haller, Einstein’s first employer
It is not discrimination to demand that theists support their arguments with reason and objective facts rather than subjective, personal interpretations of religious doctrine. Science is factually based, faith is belief based.
It is unfair because it is usually the atheists that use scripture in order to attempt to prove God doesn't exist or that religion is flawed. Hence banning a theist from using scripture is unfair.
Atheists productively use the scriptures as a way to disprove religion through its various contradictions (made easy by their implausible claims).
Theists who use the scriptures just rapingly remind us of what we already know; like "God is good," or "Ooh look! The bible says God made the universe! That means everything you say to deny that is wrong!" etc.- It's not like that'd help prove or disprove anything. It is just a brazen claim that can get taken down with ease if there was contradiction somewhere in the scripture, or a way to disprove it in real life.
Scriptures like the bible contain unrealistic things like talking snakes and donkeys. I mean, how could you trust that and use information from the same place talking snakes come from to make up a logical argument? It's just wrong...
It's not used to mock people's beliefs. It is used to highlight how contradicting/incorrect they are. Such as a Christian saying that "God is Infinitely Good. His Forgiveness knows no bounds." And then an Atheist going through the scripture showing that God ordered the slaughter of people with different beliefs, and how God demanded that children be stoned to death from acting mischievous and unruly. The Atheist will then demonstrate how those actions contradict God's status as being omnibenevolent; given the Christian is open-minded enough to accept the true definition of omnibenevolence.
And if Jesus comes as an excuse for a scapegoat of all sins, must they be wise enough to understand that God had did an action of complete and utter evil at some point, and nothing after that will justify what he has done (not even Jesus.) Because to deny that is just like saying that Hitler never killed the Jews because it only happened in the past. Or some shit like that.
If you don't believe in the Bible than using it, is mocking it. Since you do not believe it to be true, than what it says is irrelevant to you. If you believe what it says than it would be a relevant source.
Let me see if I can simplify this; Do you believe that what you read about science is true? What if I said only a fool believes what he reads? Science often contradicts itself and so therefore all of science must be false. Science is a scapegoat for all those that cannot think for themselves. Let the theories of a few rule the masses.
If you don't believe in the Bible than using it, is mocking it. Since you do not believe it to be true, than what it says is irrelevant to you. If you believe what it says than it would be a relevant source.
Atheists using the bible does not have to be restricted as mocking. If you have read my argument properly, you would see that Atheists use the scripture to show how incorrect they are of what they claim about God.
Let me see if I can simplify this; Do you believe that what you read about science is true? What if I said only a fool believes what he reads? Science often contradicts itself and so therefore all of science must be false. Science is a scapegoat for all those that cannot think for themselves. Let the theories of a few rule the masses.
Science is ever changing and is always renewing itself. And science can actually be tested. The problem with the bible and its contradictions is because it is supposed to be the word of God, who is in which we know as a perfect being. Science isn't perfect and isn't expected to be perfect; but God is. Showing imperfections in the bible can be more deadly than in science because of this. Understand? ... I think you already know this.
Please give an example of where an atheist uses the Bible and is not mocking it. Can't wait for you not to reply to this. List that long list where atheists use the Bible not mocking it. Be sure to include the thousands of links that back this up. It should be no problem to find links, because only atheists use critical thinking and are advanced beyond petty insults.
The Bible is not God's word it is man's interpretation of what they believed God wanted. Inspired by God, written by man. God is perfect, man imperfect. Science created by man. Understand?
Mocking it is irrelevant to revealing verses in the bible of God demanding people to brutally murder children for swearing.
The Bible is not God's word it is man's interpretation of what they believed God wanted. Inspired by God, written by man. God is perfect, man imperfect. Science created by man. Understand?
Then why in the hell are you following this man-made religion, (or failed attempt to understand God). Why pray or go to church? Why consider yourself a Christian? If you believe that Christianity is a man-made attempt to understand God, why not be Agnostic?
I have seen far more theists use scripture to prove that God exists than atheists or agnostics using scripture to disprove that God exists. The few times that I have witnessed atheists using scripture is when a theist refuses to debate on objective, non-scriptural ground.
This is hardly the only forum for debate. If you are specifically discussing people who use this forum then I concede that I do not have much experience on this site, but from my experience on other sites and with in person debates my observations do hold true.
I was specifically discussing those that use this forum. I'm sure that some where outside of here lies an atheist that actually does critically think and doesn't have as much hatred toward religion.
Hell, they can use quotes from Narnia books and pictures of the Virgin Mary appearing on a piece of toast for all I care. Not gonna do much good on me, but whatever floats their Arc, man.
Of course the nature of the debate dictates how appropriate the usage is. If its something about, say, prophecies or God's character, scripture seems like a perfectly valid source. But to use the Bible and only the Bible to prove the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus turns out some pretty limp arguments. If I believed in the Bible, I'd already be a Christian.
Only valid evidence should be used when objectively analyzing the veracity of a proposition.
Scripture is by no definition valid evidence. Therefore, one cannot use scripture to justify their position in the "God debate" if they wish to be intellectually honest.
To be intellectually honest one cannot rule out anything, including the Bible. If one start to "Pick and Choose" and not take all information into consideration; How can a rational conclusion be derived? Starting out with bias opinion is guaranteed to give you bias outcome.
Accepting only valid evidence and not unsubstantiated, self-contraidictory, un-scientific, pseudo-intellectual works is not being intellectually dishonest, it is adhering to rational thought.
Evidence, by its very definition, necessitates reasonable veracity. Scripture meets none of the standards of what we define as valid evidence.
Many times I have seen atheists attempt to use scripture in their arguments. Surely it's only fair if theists are permitted to use scripture to refute these petty arguments.
No, you shouldn't ban him from using scriptures in a debate, however, if there only argument is "Mathew 6:66 I'm right and your wrong!" then yeah, you should tell them to stop... Oops read it wrong, though it said "banning a theist from using scripture in a debate is fair"
Banning, maybe, but stating that it is irrelevant, no.
Religious scripture as evidence is purely subjective, there is no basis in fact.
On The Origin and A Brief History, are collections of what were at the time verified data, maybe they are not both 100% accurate but their margin is in single figures or less, that is not the point though, they will be altered to fit current data, something scripture will not.
If you want to use something as evidence, it has to have something that you can show experimentally or at least logically, in order to be able to argue it. Otherwise, it just looks like you can't think for yourself and accept what you are told.
