CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
34
Yay Nay
Debate Score:52
Arguments:41
Total Votes:54
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yay (14)
 
 Nay (27)

Debate Creator

Liber(1730) pic



The Evolution v. Creationism Battle Has Been Blown Out of Proportion

I come upon debates, arguments, wars arguing against the validity of science (by Christians) and against the validity of religion, and therefore against the omnipotence with which science-defying feats can be accomplished (by atheists, typically). What I find most mind-boggling is that the "Atheist vs. Christian war" is being focused so heavily on a single battle: the universe's creation. The Bible is filled with "miracles"; they are the heart of religion. Why don't atheists pick on the most important aspects of Christianity? The virgin birth (basic biology can debunk that one), the resurrection, etc., etc.

I wonder if perhaps the reason that the virgin birth, along with most others, are so rarely discussed is because it seems so minor. You tell a Christian that a man is needed to "make a baby", the response to be expected is, "It was a miracle." A universe's creation seems so large in comparison that it seems to have usurped all attention. When you tell a Christian that the universe is 14 billion years, and that an hypothetical "Big Bang" is responsible, they seem immediately to become defensive.

I do not wish for this to develop into an argument about the validity of these alleged miracles, for I loathe religious debate in all of its guises, but for  the tactics involved in the apaprent war to be discussed. 

Yay

Side Score: 18
VS.

Nay

Side Score: 34
2 points

It's good to keep talking about it to maybe come with new ideas. It's important to know where we came from.

Side: Yay
2 points

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I think that the Evolution-Creationism debate misses a simpler reality. What it really comes down to is human psychology. Humans are animals that have instinctive behaviors and the strongest and most basic instinct we share is the survival instinct. The survival instinct is the most compelling part of this argument because deep down, we are programed to survive - which makes us fear death. We can't imagine life ending when we die so creating the idea of an afterlife partially relieves our fear of dieing, or to put it another way: our survival instinct. Fearing death is the most basic driver of our behavior and is what drives people to religion. It is the biggest theme of Creationism and religion. Something created you and if you follow the creators rules when you are alive you will return to the creator to live on forever. The relief from the anxiety of death is granted. religion worked

Side: Yay
2 points

Yes it has. Creationism is plainly stupid and actually an insult to God. Why would he use such an inefficient method? I love a debate but refuse to debate with creationist nitwits. End of...

Side: Yay
1 point

Yes it has its time to just forget about how we got here and just be thankful that were here in the first place.

Side: Yay
zombee(1026) Disputed
1 point

A lot can be learned from examining history. It's also a fascinating story; it would be sad and detrimental to bury it.

It seems to me the status quo has been, for awhile, to teach evolution. The creationist uproar against it is fairly recent. So, wether it's warranted or not, any blowing out of proportion is a response to attempts to legitimize creationism and undermine evolution. If there was little or no action on the part of creationism, there would probably be proportional reaction for supporters of evolution.

Side: nay
1 point

No offence but this is very likely one the most negligent things I have ever heard in my entire life. If we never are to figure out how it is we came to be then we'll never truly understand where it is we are going and/or to become.

Side: nay
1 point

I personally think it has become too much like a war and because of this nothing productive is coming out of it. When a believer clashes against a non-believer it rarely results in one of them backing down going 'oh yeah you're right'. I think everybody should chill out and instead of attacking, educate peacefully and without tension. I don't think there needs to be a major conflict between the two to the extent it is today and it is only fueled by the fact that, believe it or not, the believers DO have faith (they don't make it up) and the non-believers DO actually feel that they are right. It should instead be filled with peaceful discussion and dialog which is seen by many people, though for some reason the attacking aspects are amplified by the Internet.

Side: Yay
Liber(1730) Disputed
2 points

and the non-believers DO actually feel that they are right.

Typical Christian arrogance: I'm right, and if you don't agree with me on the surface, it is simply because you're too afraid to!

Side: nay
hhioh(454) Disputed
2 points

How in any way was that being arrogant? O.o I said both parties feel their own views are right and are usually not just doing it to cause a problem - maybe you read it wrong?

Side: Yay
1 point

I can't believe people still believe in god! I thought that the massive amount of mounting evidence for evolution coupled with ZERO evidence for god would have sorted this out among adults

Side: Yay
1 point

I think the issue is the exact term used "Believe" it's a fallacy passed down before rational thought can allow for interpretation. Imagen yourself as company having that kind of selling power that you can force the superiority of your product from birth and then the consumer upon reaching thinking age forfeits all the benefits of said product if they are to deviate from it in any manner and from that point debunking any argument against it merely by insisting that "absence of proof=proof."

Side: Yay
2 points

I prefer discussing the different aspects of a religious person's faith, and then trying to understand their reasoning for it.

After that, it's far easier (for me) to go after them through their own reasoning. It's more about using logic and understanding their philosophical understandings.

For both politics and religion, I feel that we can have far better discussions and more outstanding revelations if we used philosophy to argue the basis for many of their originating beliefs.

For example: Understand a Christian's belief on what God is supposed to be, and then question their use of prayer. Pretty soon, you can sometimes make them understand the uselessness of prayer. Do they no longer believe? No. But they believe LESS.

It takes a quest for knowledge and a level of understanding and tolerance. Many Atheists I find to attack at such a practical yet negative level. They make the assumption that everyone must think along the same lines as them, and seem too stubborn to try and see that people don't think alike.

If everyone in the world had the same type of reasoning as an Atheist, we would all be Atheist. You have to go about it in a positive. I find that even if you can't completely convince a theist to convert, the discussion is left in good spirits with the theist being open to your ideas and a willingness to continue it at another time.

Side: nay
2 points

I feel that we can have far better discussions and more outstanding revelations if we used philosophy to argue the basis for many of their originating beliefs.

Such a statement would be self-contradictory since philosophers understand that the origins of a belief has no bearing on whether or not the belief is true or valid. This is called the genetic fallacy.

If everyone in the world had the same type of reasoning as an Atheist, we would all be Atheist.

Why aren't we all atheists? After all, we are atheist with respect to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Baal, Thor, Apollo or Zeus. Some of us just go one god further. Quote from Richard Dawkins.

I find that even if you can't completely convince a theist to convert, the discussion is left in good spirits with the theist being open to your ideas and a willingness to continue it at another time.

I don't think any serious atheist would wish to convert any theist. When atheist lay out arguments against God, it is simply an academic exercise to show that there are no logical reasons to hold a belief in a supernatural creator.

Side: nay
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

Philosophy doesn't have to be about proving something wrong or right. Hell, Socrates didn't make it his effort to prove others wrong or force his own belief onto others. He merely challenged pre-conceived notions.

In order to know those pre-conceived notions, you must attempt to understand them. Not merely argue from a basis that only YOU assume to be true.

And I know the quote from Richard Dawkins, but I find it to be more of a satire than a serious statement. Atheists, to me, are people who do not believe in any God. Sure, if you wish to turn words around, we could say that "you're atheist when it comes to so-and-so", but generally... there are Atheists and there are Theists.

If you wish to only convince yourself, I feel that maybe you're just no ready to convince others... as well, we could have very different goals for debate.

From what you're telling me, it seems that you just want to talk down to people, I suppose to try and show them things that you already know.

my goal, however, is to learn the school of thought of others and use that in argument. As well, to make them understand me as well. It ends the discussion greatly and creates a more open-minded person. Not only the Theist, but even me. Every time I am willing to understand their reasoning, I find my fascination with their school of thought far better.

Now, maybe because I'm into Psychology, and this may not be your interest at all.

I suppose... even debate tactics are subjective and hold no truth.

Side: nay
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

Understand a Christian's belief on what God is supposed to be, and then question their use of prayer. Pretty soon, you can sometimes make them understand the uselessness of prayer.

If you thought of prayer as self dialog, and/or speaking up about what you think is most important, would you still understand it as useless?

As an atheist I wonder how you could think prayer was something else.

Side: nay
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

Well, from my talks with some Christians, they see it as a speaking directly to God and asking for some kind of divine intervention (give me strength, make cancer go away, etc).

If you view prayer differently, fine.

Side: nay
1 point

The Creation Vs Evolution is not a battle between believers and non-believers. It is a battle between the religious community and science. As long as Christians continue to introduce legislation to undermine the teaching of evolution, science will and should continue to fight back. Moreover, the religious community is putting pressure on school boards to teach creationism in school. Here are a couple of examples.

Recently, there were two anti-evolution bills introduced in New Hampshire (House Bill 1148 and 1457). House Bill 1457 states the following: “[r]equire science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes."

Moreover, the superintendent of the school system in Hart County, Kentucky, is complaining about the emphasis on evolution in the state's new end-of-course test for biology, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader (December 13, 2011). In a November 21, 2011, letter to state education commissioner Terry Holliday and the state board of education, Ricky D. Line expressed "deep concern about the increased emphasis on the evolution content required in the new End-of-Course Blueprint ... I find the increase is substantial and alarming." He continued, "I have a very difficult time believing that we have come to a point in education that we are teaching evolution, not the theory of evolution, as a factual occurrence, while totally omitting the creation story by a God who is bigger than all of us. I do not believe in macroevolution, and I do believe in creation by our God." Line oversees six schools with about 2200 students.

We must not give into the ignorance of these extremists who want to teach our children about creationism in a science classroom. Creationism is NOT science; it’s not even a well-founded theory. Its foundation is based on the use of miracles and the suspension of reality. I've said this before, but I believe that teaching our children something we know is false is tantamount to the abuse of young people.

Steven Jay Gould said it best…

“Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?”

Side: nay
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

It is a battle between the religious community and science.

As if it's somehow logical to consider "the religious community" and "science" as a neat and tidy mutually exclusive oppositional forces in a "battle".

As long as Christians continue to introduce legislation to undermine the teaching of evolution, science will and should continue to fight back.

And as long as Christians feel like they have a valid opinion regarding scientific matters they should speak up too in the DISCUSSION

This highlights a major dilemma with the concept of "separation of church and state". If the state has authority over what public schools should include in their curriculum, then whatever the religious leanings are of those in office will determine what is acceptable in public schools.

It's impossible for a state entity to make policy that doesn't favor some religious sects over others. <<

Side: nay
1 point

I come upon debates, arguments, wars arguing against the validity of science (by Christians) and against the validity of religion, and therefore against the omnipotence with which science-defying feats can be accomplished (by atheists, typically). What I find most mind-boggling is that the "Atheist vs. Christian war" is being focused so heavily on a single battle: the universe's creation.

The arguments are hopelessly lame unless the participants engage in rigorously logical reasoning. If they did, they would first have to come to terms on the meanings of the words they're using. And it seems hardly anyone bothers to do that, because if they did, they would find out that what they think are stark differences of belief, are (as I see it) the result of peculiar semantic idiosyncrasies, or one party interpreting a metaphor differently than another. At some point EVERYONE settles for an answer that they deem "good enough" to leave alone for awhile so that matters that prove themselves to be more important can be dealt with.

Seriously, if reality is infinite that means we can look back as long as we like, and speculate as many far fetched theories as we please, but we'll only be able to theorize about what came before such and such events. If reality is infinite there will always be a what came before, or a what's beyond that to wonder. Those who are scientifically minded (which does not necessarily exclude theists, or those who think of themselves as religious) are usually fine with the epistemological principle that "reality has always been".

The Bible is filled with "miracles"; they are the heart of religion.

Common sentiments are the heart of religion.

Why don't atheists pick on the most important aspects of Christianity? The virgin birth (basic biology can debunk that one), the resurrection, etc., etc.

Because the most important aspects of Christianity are based on sound philosophy. There are atheists who are bright enough to recognize that the things you listed are by no means the most important aspects of Christianity

I wonder if perhaps the reason that the virgin birth, along with most others, are so rarely discussed is because it seems so minor.

Which is it!? does it seem minor, or is it as you said a few sentences earlier representative of "the most important aspects of Christianity"?

Just to give you a tip....one of the most important aspects of Christianity is presented nicely with...."And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

You tell a Christian that a man is needed to "make a baby", the response to be expected is, "It was a miracle."

Which is another way of saying "I don't understand"

When you tell a Christian that the universe is 14 billion years, and that an hypothetical "Big Bang" is responsible, they seem immediately to become defensive.

You are asserting that their uncertainty about what really went down is not as well informed as yours. It's insulting

I loathe religious debate in all of its guises

But you don't seem to mind hypocrisy!

but for the tactics involved in the apaprent war to be discussed.

Thinking that you've thought everything out better than your opponent simply because of a label that they identify with or a script they find useful is not conducive to respectful progressive dialog. Spend some time looking for commonality between you and your opponent before you stereotype them. Treat them as an individual who has a valuable perspective to share.

Side: nay
Liber(1730) Disputed
1 point

Common sentiments are the heart of religion.

"Miracles" are perceived as beings the evidence of God's presence on earth, being something which appears to occur supernaturally and is therefore best explained (by the Christian, anyway) as having been done by God; without these, would there be any religion at all?

There are atheists who are bright enough to recognize that the things you listed are by no means the most important aspects of Christianity

Those atheists mustn't know much about Christianity, the entire foundation of which developed out of the allegedly miraculous birth, and equally miraculous death, of Christ.

Which is it!? does it seem minor, or is it as you said a few sentences earlier representative of "the most important aspects of Christianity"?

I meant that the virgin birth seems like a smaller miracle than the creation of the universe.

Which is another way of saying "I don't understand"

That's a generalization; if one truly believes in God, then no matter what they know about biological processes, they believe that God is capable of overriding them, hence the miracle.

You are asserting that their uncertainty about what really went down is not as well informed as yours. It's insulting

Not in the least. I make no claim to having anything more than rudimentary knowledge of cosmology.

Spend some time looking for commonality between you and your opponent

My opponent? I believe you have misjudged me greatly, for I am a Christian. The difference betwixt myself and those Christians whom I have lampooned is that they seem to not value any form of intellectual scrutiny. I want to see every aspect of Christianity torn to shreds and analyzed, not just one: one which has been repeated so frequently that it has become comical.

Treat them as an individual who has a valuable perspective to share.

Something which I have always endeavored to do, though I've found yet nobody else with a common desire.

Side: Yay
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

without these, would there be any religion at all?

In case you couldn't tell, I view religion differently than you do. When I think of religion I think of either 1. An individuals belief/value system or 2. An interpersonal association or organization based on shared beliefs/values

Those atheists mustn't know much about Christianity, the entire foundation of which developed out of the allegedly miraculous birth, and equally miraculous death, of Christ.

To the contrary I think it's foundation is based on the experience of being raised within a religious tradition that (through self criticism and collective self criticism) is determined to be in need of reform. Notice I didn't say abolishment.

That's a generalization; if one truly believes in God, then no matter what they know about biological processes, they believe that God is capable of overriding them, hence the miracle.

Things happen that defy our understanding. If the god metaphor helps you admit that your understanding can be surprisingly incomplete about things you were once overly satisfied with your understanding of, then hooray for you.

Not in the least. I make no claim to having anything more than rudimentary knowledge of cosmology.

In regards to lack of knowledge the difference between our most brilliant scientists and ordinary people is negligible, dontcha think?

I believe you have misjudged me greatly, for I am a Christian.

So than I am wondering if you can succinctly explain why you are comfortable identifying as a Christian.

I've found yet nobody else with a common desire.

Ok well nice to meet you Liber. Now you have. I'd be thrilled to have you analyze and tear to shred any aspect of the logic I make use of. Feel free to ask as many questions as it takes to expose a flaw in my armor and lay me open :)

Side: nay

Both sides should practice tolerance. It is rude to attack others because their belief system is different from theirs.

Side: Nay