CreateDebate


Debate Info

35
28
Yes. No.
Debate Score:63
Arguments:55
Total Votes:64
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (24)
 
 No. (26)

Debate Creator

SitaraForJesus(3819) pic



Do you agree with Hitchens' Razor?

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.", is Hitchens' Razor.

Yes.

Side Score: 35
VS.

No.

Side Score: 28

I think the debate description isn't doing a good job of explaining Hitchens' razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens'_razor

Anyways... I generally agree with it. If a person makes a claim, they should be the ones who have to provide the proof/evidence.

"Fairies are real! And until you show or give me proof/evidence of their non-existence, they are real goddammit!"

Side: Yes.

Thank you and I agree. .

Side: Yes.
2 points

Hitchens' Razor is 100% true! It just doesn't apply to Christianity! The testimony of the apostles, who would have directly known if Jesus was or was not divine, even in the face of excruciating pain and death, is evidence.

Jesus was a believer in Hitchens' Razor!

John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true."

Side: Yes.
Idiotobx914(1341) Clarified
3 points

It just doesn't apply to Christianity!

LOL.

Side: Yes.
AngryGenX(463) Clarified
1 point

Is this the third or fourth time you have made a similar comment against me with no argument. If a man chooses to be flayed alive instead of admitting a lie, you should start to wonder if it was the truth.

Side: Yes.

I agree sir. That is grade a kickass awesome! .

Side: Yes.
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

Hitchens' Razor is 100% true! It just doesn't apply to Christianity!

Word of brain dead zealot...

Side: No.
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Word of brain dead zealot...

Brain dead engineer... Interesting theory... When was the last time you solved a differential equation?

Side: Yes.
Apeman(11) Disputed
1 point

"“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true."

... so, first he says: If I talk about myself, I'm a lair and you should believe a word I say, but if someone else talks about me, and I like what I hear, then I'm telling you to believe it all. However, if someone talks shit about me, even if it's true or not, then you shouldn't listen to these lairs!

My conclusion is that Jesus was acting all modest and humble, but actually was an enormously arrogant, narcissistic douche.

But hey... can you prove Jesus even existed without any religious writings? So first things first, AngryGenX (Nickname doesn't seem to be very christianny to me.. more of a TROLL) .. provide evidence of the existence of these lead characters in the Bible, without the Bible. No circulate arguments like the bible says it's truthful, thus the bible is truthful.

Side: No.
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

... so, first he says: If I talk about myself, I'm a lair and you should believe a word I say, but if someone else talks about me, and I like what I hear, then I'm telling you to believe it all. However, if someone talks shit about me, even if it's true or not, then you shouldn't listen to these lairs!

If someone walks up to you and says, "I am a really great person, you should love me because I say so" What is your reaction going to be? Probably not very positive. If one of your friends walk up to you and says, "Hey, you know that guy? He is wonderful! I love him and you would love him too if you got to know him." You first impulse would probably not be disbelief.

When muslims try to convert Christians, they always bring up "well when did Jesus stand up and say "I am God, worship me."" And the short answer is "never". The reason why is because it would be a meaningless statement. How many nutjobs in the world step up and make grand declarations that they are a god of a prophet? Jesus was not a Jim Jones or a Muhammed or a Warren Jeffs.

Side: Yes.
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

Why doesn't it apply to other religious texts?

Side: No.
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Well, take the book of mormon for example. There is only one person ever to have lived who knew if that was a lie or not, Joseph Smith. While he may have experienced some persecution, he benefited from his own book. The quran is anoter example, pure circular logic and again the only person who knew for sure if it was a lie or not benefited from the lie and never had to die for it.

Side: Yes.
Atrag(5445) Banned
1 point

I am thirsty . This can be dismissed to you?

Side: No.
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
2 points

Your statement saying you are thirsty IS evidence. Now if I just sat here and said "I think 4real had a steak dinner tonight..." is it, or is it not perfectly logical to say, "... on the other hand, maybe she didn't." ???

Side: Yes.
Apeman(11) Disputed
2 points

Yes, of course. Your claim is a personal experience and therefore not evidence and so, I can dismiss it. Change the word "thirsty" into "Jesus", "God", "Thor" or "Unicorn" ... and still the burden of proof is on you. Why should I care that you're thirsty? Claiming to be a deity comes with a follow up, like "now, kiss my feet and surrender all your virgins to me so I can have my way with them" ... claiming to be thirsty is like equally intrusive in people's lives as claiming to be a sheet of toilet paper!

Side: Yes.
1 point

Hitchens' Razor is the fact that anyone making a claim has the responsibility of said claim. If I claim the flying purple unicorns exist and we should all worship them, I bear the burden of proof and my claim can rightfully be dismissed unless and until I produce such evidence.

Side: Yes.
Atrag(5445) Disputed Banned
2 points

Yes Im aware of what the Hitchens Razon is. Dont you want to debate whether to agree with it or not?

Side: No.
1 point

Not at all. May I offer you a glass of water?

Side: No.

Do you agree with occams razor?

" It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected"

Even though occams razor is hard to use within religion...

Pretty sure believing in god consists of less assumptions than believing the big bang just popped into existence somehow while it was existing without time or space, it somehow just magically introduced time? well when did time start if it didn't exist at one point?

There are MANY MANY MANY more assumptions to go with when you dont believe in some type of creating force, so according to occams razor, god DOES exist.

EDIT: Idk if the debate was supposed to intend something about god or whatnot, but you didnt really specify anything just if we agree with it or not, so no i do not agree with it because its a contradictory term within itself.

Side: No.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

No, believing in God is a massive massive assumption. It requires all of the assumptions of the Big Bang, plus the assumption of God. God is a convenient explanation. The most convenient explanation will have the biggest assumption. You don't have any knowledge of how God did anything. Therefore God had to magically introduce time, etc. Plus the extra burden of not knowing where God came from. Does that explanation at least make sense to you?

Side: Yes.
1 point

i used to wonder as a child how could god have created himself, and ive recently learned in my life, whatever god is (i really hope you dont think of some old man with a white beard) it exists outside of time and space.

Youve seen how our universe is "circular" in the sense that if you keep going you will pop back up at the same location (i read that somewhere and saw it on something like through the wormhole http://io9.com/what-shape-is-the-universe-949025028) )

If you think about it, what exists outside of the universe? Or, what if you go to far out in the universe and the natural laws of physics that we are aware of cease to exist?

Obviously these are all theories and i will never claim to know god exists 100% for a fact, but i have a very strong feeling it does, and through past experience i would say it exists, i strongly believe some type of guiding/creating force exists, that exists outside of our universe in a timeless, spaceless dimension.

Side: No.

Occams razor sounds cool too. ill check it out. .

Side: No.
1 point

it cant really be used with god, as you can tell from mine and cartmans debate, theological issues just go to deep and are too personal for that, but it can be kind of used

Side: Yes.

And also, the entire statement of hitchens razor can be dismissed as having no evidence...

so ill use hitchens razor AGAINST hitchens razor, and voila, contradictions.

LOL

Side: No.

I met Craig Robinson.

I did not want to be rude, so I did not ask for a photo or autograph. He was drunk/high so it would be very unlikely that he remembered.

While I do not have the evidence for the meeting, it did in fact happen. Your belief/disbelief is irrelevant to the truth.

Side: No.
1 point

Hitchen's razor can be applied to the physical world. We don't have evidence for the outside world beyond our own small part of it. I choose to deny most of our world exists because I have no evidence.

Side: No.