#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.
|
Is there God?
Yes
Side Score: 196
|
No
Side Score: 210
|
|
6
points
http://www.everystudent.com/features/ There it is easy as 123 Side: Yes
3
points
1
point
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Time is an illusion anyways. We just put a measurement to the earth's rotations. We do age, but so do leaves. It's just natural. So, I would think that God has always existed and his form is not anything like ours. Actually, the Bible says that he is without form, much like energy... And as we know, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Why do people assume that he would have to go through the same natural laws as his creations? Side: Yes
1
point
Time is an illusion anyways. We just put a measurement to the earth's rotations. We do age, but so do leaves. It's just natural. By that logic, everything is an illusion. Time is a concept to understand something very real (just as evolution is a concept to understand something very real we just put measurements on change over time, or the psyche is a concept to understand something very real, we put measures to different qualities of the mind). There is a before, present, and after, that does exist. The beggining of time, would be the point where before can't take place.88So, I would think that God has always existed and his form is not anything like ours. Actually, the Bible says that he is without form, much like energy... And as we know, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Why do people assume that he would have to go through the same natural laws as his creations? Anything you claim to be the first cause, you must explain how that thing doesn't follow natural laws in order to be justified. If a being can exist to have created the universe, why not something simpler, like something inanimate? Side: Yes
By that logic, everything is an illusion. Everything IS an illusion! "Time is an illusion" -Albert Einstein "Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one" -Albert Einstein There is a before, present, and after, that does exist. Does it? We are born and we do die, but if we are eternal, are those not just merely cycles? What exists is now. Not five minutes ago, not five minutes from now. Only now, and now is what has always existed. If a being can exist to have created the universe, why not something simpler, like something inanimate? You expect a single eternal being to create something inanimate? Isn't it more likely that a "God" would create things that are animated, and something natural and without intelligence would create an entire universe of inanimate objects? Side: Yes
1
point
Does it? We are born and we do die, but if we are eternal, are those not just merely cycles? Yes, cycles that take up time... What exists is now. Not five minutes ago, not five minutes from now. Only now, and now is what has always existed. Actually, our brains take up time in order to digest information so to speak, we don't really live in the now, we technically live in the past, by about a couple milliseconds I think. In any case, how can now exist or be the way it is, if the past doesn't. Time is very real, in fact, time can be effected by the pull of gravity, black holes fuck with time itself. Side: No
Yes, cycles that take up time... How much time is in eternity? Actually, our brains take up time in order to digest information so to speak, we don't really live in the now, we technically live in the past, by about a couple milliseconds I think. That is just another measurement. Whatever it is, whenever it is, it is in the now. In any case, how can now exist or be the way it is, if the past doesn't. If the past exists, go ahead and go there. Tell me where it is. Time is very real, in fact, time can be effected by the pull of gravity, black holes fuck with time itself. Much of what we know about black holes is theoretical, but I would imagine that it has something to do with us not being able to have a reference for measuring time in a black hole. Side: Yes
1
point
How much time is in eternity? Infinite, but how do we know if eternity is possible? That is just another measurement. Whatever it is, whenever it is, it is in the now. Actually, our consciousness experiences things a couple milliseconds before it actually happens... So it is not in the now, it is in the NOW of the conscious experience, but what our consciousness experiences is not. If the past exists, go ahead and go there. Tell me where it is. You aren't making any sense, the past isn't anywhere it's before now... To say time doesn't exist or is an illusion, (and I mean time, beyond the word time) is to say the past never happened... Time is a measurement, so is distance, does distance not exist? To say "where is time" is not understanding what time really is, it's just the before, now, and after, nothing less, nothing more. Before, now, and after exist right? I mean, there was a before, I posted this argument right? There was a before, you joining CD right? The before exists... time exists, time itself is not an empty concept, maybe hard to wrap your mind around as other than a concept because you don't see it physically or anything, but it obviously exists... Much of what we know about black holes is theoretical, but I would imagine that it has something to do with us not being able to have a reference for measuring time in a black hole. It's not just about black wholes, time is slower or faster out in space (I can't remember which at the moment) but time is something that can be effected by other forces... Time is a measurement, but it is a measurement of something very real Side: No
Infinite, but how do we know if eternity is possible? Before the universe, there was no time (no earth or sun). With a universe or without it, eternity will continue. As I said, time is just an illusion. Actually, our consciousness experiences things a couple milliseconds before it actually happens... So it is not in the now, it is in the NOW of the conscious experience, but what our consciousness experiences is not. That doesn't make any sense. You can't experience something before it actually happens. If you are saying that your brain doesn't register what happens within that exact millisecond, then that makes no difference to what you directly experience. You aren't making any sense, the past isn't anywhere it's before now... To say time doesn't exist or is an illusion, (and I mean time, beyond the word time) is to say the past never happened... Something that exists occurs at this moment. The past happened... It isn't happening. What is time beyond the word? Time is a measurement, so is distance, does distance not exist? No, it doesn't. No measurements exist. They are man-made concepts. It is a measurement of the space between one point and another. Does space (as in empty gaps) exist? Is nothing something? Could we have distance if there were no objects? In order for you to get from Point A to Point B, you need space between the two... So is space something or is it merely the lack of something? Just as darkness is the lack of light, space is the lack of objects. To say "where is time" is not understanding what time really is, it's just the before, now, and after, nothing less, nothing more. It is a man-made concept. Physics agrees with this. Is this a scientific argument that you disagree with? Imagine a world with no clocks, no numbers, no schedules... How would you know time? You could of course go off the earth's rotations, but when day becomes night, is it because of time or is it because we just simply rotated away from the sun? The sun is light, and the absence of light is darkness. Time is just another measure of distance. Before, now, and after exist right? Exist- "1.be: to be, especially to be a real, actual, or current thing, not merely something imagined or written about 2.live: to be alive, or continue to live 3.occur: to be present or found in a particular place or situation" I mean, there was a before, I posted this argument right? The argument exists because I can continue to access it. If it were to be removed from the internet and deleted, it would no longer exist. The before exists... time exists, time itself is not an empty concept, maybe hard to wrap your mind around as other than a concept because you don't see it physically or anything, but it obviously exists... One second ago no longer exists, only now exists. One milisecond ago doesn't even exist. Time is a measurement of past and future... Neither exist at the moment. Only now exists. A lightning strike is just a flash. You see it for less than a second and then it disappears. Does it still exist after you saw it? No, because to exist is to be current. To occur at the present moment. If it is no longer occuring, it no longer exists. It's not just about black wholes, time is slower or faster out in space (I can't remember which at the moment) but time is something that can be effected by other forces... Time is a measurement, but it is a measurement of something very real So what is it then? http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/ Side: Yes
1
point
Before the universe, there was no time (no earth or sun). With a universe or without it, eternity will continue. As I said, time is just an illusion. time doesn't have to be measured by the earth's orbit, or turn in relation to the sun. That is simply measurement of time we are most used to. http://www.hawking.org.uk/ That doesn't make any sense. You can't experience something before it actually happens. I meant to say after, we are not experiencing something before hand, we are experiencing it after Something that exists occurs at this moment. The past happened... It isn't happening. I never said it did, it's existence as something that HAS HAPPENED... does exist... What is time beyond the word? the before, now, and after. No, it doesn't. No measurements exist. They are man-made concepts. It is a measurement of the space between one point and another. Does space (as in empty gaps) exist? Is nothing something? Could we have distance if there were no objects? In order for you to get from Point A to Point B, you need space between the two... So is space something or is it merely the lack of something? I agree, but space still exists right? Darkness exists right? A lack of light exists, no? A lack of taken space exists, no? space is actually something, space-time can be warped, can be effected. Can a nothing, or a lack of something be effected, or affect something? It is a man-made concept. Physics agrees with this. Is this a scientific argument that you disagree with? Check my link above. Imagine a world with no clocks, no numbers, no schedules... How would you know time? How do you know about the before, now, and after... just wait, you will consciously experience time... You could of course go off the earth's rotations, but when day becomes night, is it because of time or is it because we just simply rotated away from the sun? Both, we were able to rotate away from the sun, because of time. Without time, nothing can happen. The sun is light, and the absence of light is darkness. Time is just another measure of distance. So how is it different than measuring distance? If we can measure distance as distance, and time is another way of measuring distance, what separates measuring distance as distance, and time as distance? Exist- "1.be: to be, especially to be a real, actual, or current thing, not merely something imagined or written about; Notice how it says OR there... that is kind of a key term there... The argument exists because I can continue to access it. If it were to be removed from the internet and deleted, it would no longer exist. You didn't answer the question, there was still an or, before I posted this argument right? If it was deleted, wouldn't their still have been a before this argument was posted? So what is it then? I'll say it as many times as I need to, the before, now, and after, that is what it is. Side: No
time doesn't have to be measured by the earth's orbit, or turn in relation to the sun. That is simply measurement of time we are most used to. Okay, then give me an example of time outside the Earth's orbit and how it is a real thing, and not just a measurement. I meant to say after, we are not experiencing something before hand, we are experiencing it after Your experience of now can be different than mine... That doesn't mean you are experiencing something after it actually occurred though. http://www.youtube.com/ the before, now, and after. Do before and after exist? No. Only now exists. Before existed, and after will eventually become now. I agree, but space still exists right? Darkness exists right? A lack of light exists, no? If there was nothing, would you say that something exists? If you can say that space (as in nothing) or the lack of something exists, then that would mean that there is nothing that is non-existent. If my cup is lacking water, I would not say that my cup contains the lack of water, or that the lack of water exists. Even if it was just a drop of water in there, I would simply call it water... Or if the cup was empty, I would say that the cup exists. I could call it an empty cup, but it isn't a cup containing empty is it? Calling it empty is just another way to say that it is lacking liquid. A lack of taken space exists, no? A lack of taken space is just space. space is actually something If space is the opposite of solid, in the same way that nothing is the opposite of something... Then how is space something? Can a nothing, or a lack of something be effected, or affect something? If your cup is lacking water, then you add water. You aren't affecting the lack of something... You're affecting the water, which is something. Check my link above. Can you summarize or quote whatever it says in relation to the comment? How do you know about the before, now, and after... just wait, you will consciously experience time... I know the now, I know the now, and I know the now. What we experience are a sequence of nows. Imagine one of those little books that has a continuation of a scene on each page. When you flip the pages consecutively, you get what looks like movement. That's basically what time is. Both, we were able to rotate away from the sun, because of time. Without time, nothing can happen. Are you saying that time is what causes the earth to rotate? So how is it different than measuring distance? If we can measure distance as distance, and time is another way of measuring distance, what separates measuring distance as distance, and time as distance? Distance is measured by the space between two points. If no two points existed, you could not measure distance. If it was deleted, wouldn't their still have been a before this argument was posted? But before and after don't exist. How could they? Only now exists, because only now is occurring. Before existed. Notice how it says OR there... that is kind of a key term there... Real- physically existing: having actual physical existence Actual- existing now: existing or occurring at the moment That OR was used in the same sense as, you can call me a man OR a male. I'll say it as many times as I need to, the before, now, and after, that is what it is. Yeah, it would help if you stopped repeating yourself and paid attention to what I'm trying to say ;) Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
-1
points
1
point
1
point
3
points
WITHOUT EVEN THINKING WHY WILL ANY ONE SAY THERE IS NO GOD THIS IS ABSORB.MY EVIDENCE ARE AS FOLLOWS GOD IS THE SUPREME BEING AND THERE IS NO ONE LIKE HIM.GOD IS EVERY WHERE NO ONE CAN SEE HIM HE IS INVISIBLE. IF THERE IS NO GOD I THINK EVERYDAY WE DO RISKY THINGS BUT WE ARE STILL ALIVE SO GOD IS VERY SUPREME AND MERCIFUL IN EVERY WAY OF OUR LIFE.WE CANT WORSHIP ANY ONE EXCEPT FROM GOD.THANK YOU Side: Yes
3
points
If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father. Side: Yes
GOD / SATAN AND ANGELS . . . . http://dadmansabode.com/forum/ Side: Yes
1
point
No one has been there so how do you even know evolution exist Athiest response: '' That same argument can be refuted to yours''' God is just some random guess' Refuting; How is it a random guess. There is a reason why we believe in him. And also evolution is also a guess scientist just put fake info God is always there for us Athiest response:: Does god respond to your prayer? Have you even met him Rebuttal what do you mean your challenging god and also have you seen evolution that is the question. And if people haven't met god how come in some cases people die and come back to life. God made life and our bodies with love. atheist response: Where is the proof that he made love and feelings when humans are born with the ability to. My rebuttal: excuse me but sir we are going to have to settle this in a way that is easy to understand. Do you think our traits came from apes? Do we even act like apes? Science has been disproven wrongly so stop acting like it is always true when it is not. Can apes write a story? Can apes have sexual intercourse? Apes are not smarter than us?? So stop with your joke Side: Yes
Bad argument is bad. 1: Most people who believe in evolution are Christians. 2: Evolution has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 3: Natural selection=evolution, so unless you can give me one reason as to why it would stop working in a large scale of time, it's perfectly observable. 4: Apes can have sexual intercourse (fail man, fail), apes have emotions, apes can even paint. 5: EVolution is not a random guess. If you honestly think it is, you fail on a level so epic it deserves a brand-spankin' new title. Side: No
I believe that there is a God. Whether he is what we believe He is is another topic. I say that there is a God because what could have create the universe? Some people say all kinds of stuff about how the universe was an accident and that it came from nothing. My question is, how does something come from nothing? I believe that the creation of the universe is not something that we are meant to understand Side: Yes
The question "Is there God?" has such an obvious answer.... It doesn't matter if there is no proof... Many people believe so therefore God exists. If no one believed... well then, God probably wouldn't exist. But I think the same holds true for life itself... Try not believing that you exist... perhaps you won't. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
3
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You keep throwing up the fake picture over and over again, no evidence just garbage, not just to me ...to every one here ... and they break it apart ...because to be honest it is really simple ...and you find other person and try it again and again and again and again hoping to find an idiot that will share that delusion with you. Side: No
1
point
Funny, you are the only one who claims it as fake. And yet, you are also the only with the most laughable excuses. You have been reduced from an arrogant newbie to a troll that struggles to live. You know that it is only a matter of time until you left for good. Whats keeping you? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
And here we have the miracle that proves God.How do you know that this was caused by the supernatural though? Because our current understanding of the laws of nature don't apply to it? How do you know it isn't following the laws of nature, but we just don't understand how it was able be well preserved? How long will your denial last? That is ironic... XD Side: No
1
point
How do you know that this was caused by the supernatural though? Anything that cannot be explained through science is considered supernatural. Simple How do you know it isn't following the laws of nature, but we just don't understand how it was able be well preserved? Preservation is easy. The painting itself is impossible. Side: Yes
1
point
Anything that cannot be explained through science is considered supernatural. Simple No it's not, science is fallible, science doesn't know everything because science is a means of investigating things. We couldn't explain a lot of things via science, for a long time. (like lightning, the sun, the biodiversity of life, how people behaved, etc) doesn't mean those things are supernatural. If everything that hasn't been understood yet, via science is supernatural, then the supernatural is calculated to fade away. Preservation is easy. The painting itself is impossible. Or if, what is claiming is true, then we simply don't understand how the painting was preserved, not that it was impossible. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
Sorry I missed this one. I am saying that not understanding something scientifically, does not mean that it was supernatural It is actually. Modern science is not the same as primitive speculation. The Guadalupe is too mysterious to even allow any scientist to make a valid hypothesis about it. Side: Yes
1
point
It is actually. Modern science is not the same as primitive speculation. The Guadalupe is too mysterious to even allow any scientist to make a valid hypothesis about it. How do you know thier isn't a valid hypothesis on it? Even if there wasn't perhaps when more knowledge accumulates, then we will be able to form a hypothesis. Side: No
1
point
We couldn't explain a lot of things via science, for a long time. (like lightning, the sun, the biodiversity of life, how people behaved, etc) So how did we explain it? Supernatural and natural are words we created. We explain things in terms of what we have observed, and we explain those things in terms of what we have observed, and so on and so forth until we get to a point that we do not understand. In order for something to appear as if from divine origin, should it be totally exempt from scientific observation? How many layers do we need to get through to conclude that it is not related to God? Side: Yes
1
point
In order for something to appear as if from divine origin, should it be totally exempt from scientific observation? No there should be a reasoning, or evidence to how it was divine, or of god. I need a reason to think it was, not just think it, just because. That's my problem with spirituality and religion, it seems the beliefs are based on just because, and it never gets around as to why people believe them, or when it does, it is usually for crappy reasons. How many layers do we need to get through to conclude that it is not related to God? We don't need to go through layers, if science can't extract any evidence that something is related to a god, then we need a reasoning, or logic, or a reason to think that it is related to god, not just because. Side: No
No there should be a reasoning, or evidence to how it was divine, or of god. And what kind of evidence would that be? I need a reason to think it was, not just think it, just because. Do you need a reason why you are alive, or is it satisfying enough that you just are? Do you need a reason why someone loves you, or is it enough that they just do? Right now inside your skull is a chunk of meat, that through chemical reactions has come alive. It has given you the ability to see, smell, taste, feel and hear. Do you need to know why? Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because? That's my problem with spirituality and religion, it seems the beliefs are based on just because, and it never gets around as to why people believe them, or when it does, it is usually for crappy reasons. At the core, most beliefs are just because. Science peels the layers away and discovers those strange things we gave names to. Names are illusions as well. Are you your name? Are calling atoms, atoms, or energy, energy really helping us understand those things more? At the core they are a mystery. We can come up with theories, but how will we ever know what they truly are or why they are here? I personally believe that we have to look within ourselves to find answers. I believe that is our purpose... To know who we truly are, but it is something that can only be accomplished spiritually. To people who aren't spiritual, that just sounds crazy, so they will always be living a mystery. This life is YOU though. Everything you perceive is within you. If you want to see what makes a clock tick, you look inside. You don't look all around it, trying to find evidence of a maker. The fact that it exists is evidence enough... But you are not looking for IF it ticks, you are looking for WHY it ticks... And that reason is found in the clock itself. Side: Yes
1
point
And what kind of evidence would that be? It doesn't matter, as long as the evidence is sufficient. Do you need a reason why you are alive, or is it satisfying enough that you just are? Do you need a reason why someone loves you, or is it enough that they just do? Right now inside your skull is a chunk of meat, that through chemical reactions has come alive. It has given you the ability to see, smell, taste, feel and hear. Do you need to know why? Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because? No, because I have sufficient reason to believe in those things... With someone loving me, and if I ask "why do you love me?" and they don't have an answer that might be concerning, although love is a subjective thing, your disposition towards someone is subjective. Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because? But it's not just because in the same aspect of god, they give me reasons to think certain things. Why I am alive... well the evidence that I am alive is self evident, thus I don't believe I am alive just because... If someone loves me, and I know they genuinely love me, I don't need a reason as to why they love me, if I have a reason to believe it, then it's not "just because" in the same aspect of god. The thing is, I am not going to think something is true, just because, I am ok with not having answers, but I am not going to hold a belief... just because... At the core, most beliefs are just because. I see what you are doing here, but "just because" the way you are using it, is now how I meant it. I need a reason to think this or that, not just choose what I want to think. Science peels the layers away and discovers those strange things we gave names to. Names are illusions as well. Are you your name? Are calling atoms, atoms, or energy, energy really helping us understand those things more? At the core they are a mystery. We can come up with theories, but how will we ever know what they truly are or why they are here? Yeah, sure, but it's not the names that I care about, I acknowledge those names as... well arbitrary means of communicating, what I am interested is in what those words have in content. I personally believe that we have to look within ourselves to find answers. I believe that is our purpose... To know who we truly are, but it is something that can only be accomplished spiritually. To people who aren't spiritual, that just sounds crazy, so they will always be living a mystery. This life is YOU though. Everything you perceive is within you. If you want to see what makes a clock tick, you look inside. You don't look all around it, trying to find evidence of a maker. The fact that it exists is evidence enough... But you are not looking for IF it ticks, you are looking for WHY it ticks... And that reason is found in the clock itself. Answers to how we tick? I agree, that is why psychology this semester is fascinating ;P Side: No
It doesn't matter, as long as the evidence is sufficient. Okay, so what kind of evidence? How would you know if something proves the existence of God or not? No, because I have sufficient reason to believe in those things... With someone loving me, and if I ask "why do you love me?" and they don't have an answer that might be concerning, although love is a subjective thing, your disposition towards someone is subjective. And your beliefs aren't? But it's not just because in the same aspect of god, they give me reasons to think certain things. And what are those reasons? Why I am alive... well the evidence that I am alive is self evident, thus I don't believe I am alive just because... No? Then why are you alive? If someone loves me, and I know they genuinely love me, I don't need a reason as to why they love me, if I have a reason to believe it, then it's not "just because" in the same aspect of god. Some people have a genuine reason as to why they believe in God, just as you have a genuine reason as to why you believe someone loves you... But both could be wrong. The person may not actually love you, and God may not actually exist. To people who believe in God, their reason why is not just because, unless they truly don't have a reason... But name one thing you believe in without having a reason to believe in it. Reasons aren't always good, but there are always reasons for beliefs. The thing is, I am not going to think something is true, just because, I am ok with not having answers, but I am not going to hold a belief... just because... You should have said "just because" a few more times ;) You can believe whatever you want! However, you can't hold a belief just because. That shows ignorance (I am not calling you ignorant as in stupid, just so you know) in your understanding of the other sides opinions. It suggests that you are so consumed with one view, that you refuse to understand the other. The scientific studies that you use to back up your beliefs, I also use to back up mine. So what reasoning could you have that trumps mine? How is yours any less "just because" than mine? I see what you are doing here, but "just because" the way you are using it, is now how I meant it. I need a reason to think this or that, not just choose what I want to think. Like I said, all beliefs require reasons. Yeah, sure, but it's not the names that I care about, I acknowledge those names as... well arbitrary means of communicating, what I am interested is in what those words have in content. Like I said, "at the core they are a mystery." Answers to how we tick? I agree, that is why psychology this semester is fascinating ;P Psychology Today has a fascinating article on how time doesn't exist ;P http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ By the way, not HOW we tick... But WHY we tick. Side: Yes
1
point
Okay, so what kind of evidence? How would you know if something proves the existence of God or not? I don't know, you will have to show me... I won't believe in a god, I could request any sort of evidence, but there will always be a concept of god that is harder and harder to be capable of being evident. Even with a concept of god where evidence is impossible, that doesn't mean you believe it anyway cause evidence is impossible for it... it doesn't work that way... And your beliefs aren't? Depends on what beliefs. And what are those reasons? evidence... No? Then why are you alive? You have to differentiate between why and how. If I ask WHY something happened, and HOW something happened, in certain contexts they can mean the same thing. If I spill my soda, if I ask "why did my soda spilled?" the answer will be "because I knocked it over." if I ask "how my soda spilled?" the answer will be "because I knocked it over". Differentiate between why and how here is need. Some people have a genuine reason as to why they believe in God A substantiated reason? I'd like to hear it. But both could be wrong. The person may not actually love you, and God may not actually exist. agreed. To people who believe in God, their reason why is not just because, unless they truly don't have a reason... I think subconsciously it is, I have not come across a substantiated reason to believe in god. But name one thing you believe in without having a reason to believe in it. I try not to believe in things for no reason, of course I probably do, and I have, but I usually change my beliefs when I find they aren't on substantiated reasons. Reasons aren't always good, but there are always reasons for beliefs. Well of course... I find it strange you think I wouldn't realize that... I figured you'd understand what I meant, when I said "just because". Yes, they all don't believe "just because", some do, those have other reasons to substantiate. it, to make it more than "just because" because they understand that is wishful thinking, but I have yet to hear of a substantiated reason. A reason I said I won't believe "just because" is you are alluding to god not being able to have evidence for means we should believe in god anyway. You can believe whatever you want! However, you can't hold a belief just because. That shows ignorance (I am not calling you ignorant as in stupid, just so you know) in your understanding of the other sides opinions. It suggests that you are so consumed with one view, that you refuse to understand the other No, actually i genuinely try to understand the other view as much as possible, I am open to understanding why people believe in god, and I even at one point went through a phase where I tried to justify god's existence to myself. The scientific studies that you use to back up your beliefs, I also use to back up mine. So what reasoning could you have that trumps mine? How is yours any less "just because" than mine? I don't need a reason to NOT believe in something, I need a reason TO believe in something. I am not holding a belief. I am holding beliefs ABOUT your belief, but not an actual belief in god one way or the other. I hold the belief that I have not heard of any substantiated reasons to believe what you believe, and therefore it is erroneous to believe what you believe. Like I said, all beliefs require reasons. I agree, differentiate between why or how though in this context, because with WHY if you think what I think you mean, you are assuming another belief to be true, which is common with the belief in god. Like I said, "at the core they are a mystery." Agreed, but we do understand some, we may never fully understand everything, but that is the beauty of our world. Psychology Today has a fascinating article on how time doesn't exist ;P I trust physicists over psychologists on subjects that are studied by physicists rather than psychologists... By the way, not HOW we tick... But WHY we tick. What is the difference in this context? Side: No
I don't know, you will have to show me... I won't believe in a god, I could request any sort of evidence, but there will always be a concept of god that is harder and harder to be capable of being evident. Oh, good grief. Is a floating bunny sufficient proof for God, or can something else be evidence of God and we don't even realize it? If we discovered some new substance that just happens to be the same substance that God is made out of, how would we know? We don't have a God to go off of to know if we're observing something that is connected to God. Even with a concept of god where evidence is impossible, that doesn't mean you believe it anyway cause evidence is impossible for it... it doesn't work that way... How do you think beliefs work? They're subjective. I may believe that you are a female, but if you don't prove to me that you are a male, how would I know? Evidence isn't proving that a God doesn't exist either, so maybe it would be best for you to just not form any sort of opinion regarding the source of creation. Depends on what beliefs. Care to elaborate? evidence... What is the evidence? There is evidence against the Genesis creation myth, there is evidence against a talking serpent, against Greek and Roman gods... But what evidence is there against an intelligent Creator? None. If I spill my soda, if I ask "why did my soda spilled?" the answer will be "because I knocked it over." if I ask "how my soda spilled?" the answer will be "because I knocked it over". Differentiate between why and how here is need. Why is looking for a reason. How is looking for a method. Why= It landed on it's side. How=I knocked it over. A substantiated reason? I'd like to hear it. What substantiated reason do you have for not believing in God? Whatever you say could be interpreted differently by a theist, and used as support for their beliefs. I think subconsciously it is, I have not come across a substantiated reason to believe in god. Atheists (and people belonging to a religion) tend to think materialistically. Materialism is why we have wars... Money, oil, even religious wars. It is why we have crimes... Theft, murder, drug-trafficking. It is why we have both greed and poverty. Every government is run by materialists and we all know how corrupt the world's governments are. It is why our society is obsessed with fashion, appearance, cars, TV. It is why bullying and gossiping exists. It is responsible for depression and suicide. So many negative things. It's the reason why the world is going to shit. Okay, so that was materialism... Now let me explain spirituality, from my point of view, as well as many others. I see the entire universe as one, so everything is a connection of myself. I don't want to hurt anyone or anything, because ultimately I am doing harm to myself (self-defense is obviously a different story though.) This means that the ingredients in food that ultimately harm us, would not be included. Man-made pollutants would not exist. Hate is useless. It only leads to more hate. Arguing is useless, all ideas should be considered (Of course, I'm saying this while typing up an argument lol). Life should not be spent trying to acquire green paper that some old government dudes said equals life points. So, a spiritual society would be one of sharing. We all work together. The crap that comes on TV, appears in magazines, the internet, etc. brainwashes society into being even more materialistic, so that shit would be gone too. It sounds disappointing, but TV isn't something that truly spiritual people are interested in anyways. It's life that interests them. Live life as if it is a ride, not a job. An adventure, not a burden. I use the internet because it is useful. I can communicate with people and I can obtain a vast amount of knowledge through it... But it is ultimately more useful in a materialist society than a spiritual one, but that could be reversed depending on the things users are exposed to. Materialists tend to think of past and future more than they think about now (maybe that is why you've been trying to convince me before and after exist lol). People that focus on now are happier. They aren't thinking "I can't believe what that asshole said earlier!" or "I'm going to let him have it when I see him later!". Those things don't exist, so no need to continue worrying about them. I better stop before I make this argument too long lol. I'll let Russell Brand explain the rest: http://www.youtube.com/ Well of course... I find it strange you think I wouldn't realize that... I figured you'd understand what I meant, when I said "just because". See, shit like that doesn't need to be pointed out! That is trying to belittle the other person. It does not lead to any positive progress. You said "just because" multiple times, so I responded accordingly. Sorry if that wasn't an accurate insight into your ultimate understanding of things, but I don't know you personally. It's not that I don't think you are smart enough to understand it, but sometimes it's better to point out what it seems like the other person missed to get a clear idea of where they stand. A reason I said I won't believe "just because" is you are alluding to god not being able to have evidence for means we should believe in god anyway. You can believe whatever you want. I choose to believe in God, because in my opinion that seems more logical... But we're only human, and I don't come programmed with knowledge of everything, so sometimes I stick with a guess that best suits me. I do not live my life with a fear of any sort of eternal damnation, but to me my personal realization that a "God" exists was a freeing thing. I didn't always look at things spiritually. I was much more materialistic before, and I still sometimes fall victim to materialism due to the society we live in, but my outlook, mood and joy I get out of life has significantly improved. Why question that? No, actually i genuinely try to understand the other view as much as possible, I am open to understanding why people believe in god, and I even at one point went through a phase where I tried to justify god's existence to myself. Well, that's good. You should continue to remain open-minded. If you are still interested in the subject of "God", I could give you some titles of books by philosophical thinkers who have put a lot of thought into the idea. They aren't religious. Actually, I'm sure you've heard of Aldous Huxley (Brave New World). He has several books on the topic, and he ultimately comes to a spiritual conclusion. Alan Watts is another brilliant philosopher, that I know has changed the beliefs of a few atheists. Many of his lectures are on YouTube. I don't need a reason to NOT believe in something, I need a reason TO believe in something. You need a reason for both. They go hand in hand. I believe in God, therefore I don't believe an unintelligent whatever created the universe. You on the other hand, believe that the unintelligent whatever created the universe, but don't believe in God. Agreed, but we do understand some, we may never fully understand everything, but that is the beauty of our world. I believe that we can come to a better understanding through spirituality, but that's me. I trust physicists over psychologists on subjects that are studied by physicists rather than psychologists... Well, the greatest physicist of all time, Albert Einstein, concluded that a God must exist (and that time doesn't lol). Spirituality is big amongst physicists. I think that Psychology Today article was written by a physicist by the way, but I'm not entirely sure. What is the difference in this context? How does a clock tick? Gears and different parts. Kind of like our brain and internal organs. Why does a clock tick? It notifies us of each passing second. Each time the hand moves, it clicks. So, why do we tick? Just about everything has some sort of purpose. Bees pollinate flowers, trees give us oxygen, rain waters plants, and so on. I personally believe we are here for spiritual growth. A tree is known for what it contains. If an apple is the highlight of an apple tree, then we may be the highlight of Earth. But the apples didn't just appear on the tree. They grew from the tree, and from our point of view, that's the only use we have for apple trees. We want apples to keep growing because we have a purpose for them. So could it be that God wants humans to keep "growing" because he has a purpose for them? I think we need to look within ourselves to find out who we truly are, and like I said, I think God is our higher Self... So we're God exploring himself. Maybe God is trying to understand who he truly is. Side: Yes
1
point
Oh, good grief. Is a floating bunny sufficient proof for God, or can something else be evidence of God and we don't even realize it? If we discovered some new substance that just happens to be the same substance that God is made out of, how would we know? We don't have a God to go off of to know if we're observing something that is connected to God. And your point is? Whether the evidence is lacking because we simply don't have it, or because it is impossible, a reason to believe a god exists, is still lacking... How do you think beliefs work? They're subjective. I may believe that you are a female, but if you don't prove to me that you are a male, how would I know? Evidence isn't proving that a God doesn't exist either, so maybe it would be best for you to just not form any sort of opinion regarding the source of creation. If there was sufficient evidence for god's nonexistence, I would be a gnostic atheist, rather than an agnostic atheist. I don't need evidence against a god, to not believe, or not be convinced of a god's existence, there just needs to be a lack of evidence for a god. That is the most logical position. Care to elaborate? Some beliefs are subjective, some are objective. Depends on the belief. What is the evidence? There is evidence against the Genesis creation myth, there is evidence against a talking serpent, against Greek and Roman gods... But what evidence is there against an intelligent Creator? None. agreed, now what evidence is there for an intelligent creator? None. So we can't believe either way, we can't believe an intelligent creator exists, nor can we believe an intelligent creator doesn't exist, thus we are skeptical. Why is looking for a reason. How is looking for a method. Why= It landed on it's side. How=I knocked it over. How = It landed on it's side Why = I knocked it over I knocked it over is a reason, it landed on it's side is a method... it could go either way. What substantiated reason do you have for not believing in God? Whatever you say could be interpreted differently by a theist, and used as support for their beliefs. I don't need a reason... non-belief is the default position. My substantiated reason, is that their isn't a substantiated reason to believe in the first place, thus I do not believe. Atheists (and people belonging to a religion) tend to think materialistically. Materialism is why we have wars... Money, oil, even religious wars. It is why we have crimes... Theft, murder, drug-trafficking. It is why we have both greed and poverty. Every government is run by materialists and we all know how corrupt the world's governments are. It is why our society is obsessed with fashion, appearance, cars, TV. It is why bullying and gossiping exists. It is responsible for depression and suicide. So many negative things. It's the reason why the world is going to shit. You don't have to be materialistic to be an atheist, and you don't have to be spiritual to not be materialistic either. If you need spirituality to keep you from being materialistic, that's something you should think about. There are more important things than money, possessions, etc I agree. Now let me explain spirituality, from my point of view, as well as many others. I see the entire universe as one, so everything is a connection of myself. I don't want to hurt anyone or anything, because ultimately I am doing harm to myself (self-defense is obviously a different story though.) This means that the ingredients in food that ultimately harm us, would not be included. Man-made pollutants would not exist. Hate is useless. It only leads to more hate. Arguing is useless, all ideas should be considered (Of course, I'm saying this while typing up an argument lol). Life should not be spent trying to acquire green paper that some old government dudes said equals life points. So, a spiritual society would be one of sharing. Or just a philosophical society, with that philosophy. We all work together. The crap that comes on TV, appears in magazines, the internet, etc. brainwashes society into being even more materialistic, so that shit would be gone too. It sounds disappointing, but TV isn't something that truly spiritual people are interested in anyways. It's life that interests them. Live life as if it is a ride, not a job. An adventure, not a burden. I use the internet because it is useful. I can communicate with people and I can obtain a vast amount of knowledge through it... But it is ultimately more useful in a materialist society than a spiritual one, but that could be reversed depending on the things users are exposed to. Materialists tend to think of past and future more than they think about now (maybe that is why you've been trying to convince me before and after exist lol). People that focus on now are happier. They aren't thinking "I can't believe what that asshole said earlier!" or "I'm going to let him have it when I see him later!". Those things don't exist, so no need to continue worrying about them. We don't need spirituality to do that. I better stop before I make this argument too long lol. I'll let Russell Brand explain the rest: http://www.youtube.com/ We don't need spirituality to change the world, we don't need to convince ourselves something is true in order to motivate us to make the world better, if humanity needs fancies in order to motivate it to do better, then humanities problem is not that it doesn't have enough fancies, but that it is to unmotivated. You can believe whatever you want. I choose to believe in God, because in my opinion that seems more logical... But we're only human, and I don't come programmed with knowledge of everything, so sometimes I stick with a guess that best suits me. I do not live my life with a fear of any sort of eternal damnation, but to me my personal realization that a "God" exists was a freeing thing. I didn't always look at things spiritually. I was much more materialistic before, and I still sometimes fall victim to materialism due to the society we live in, but my outlook, mood and joy I get out of life has significantly improved. Why question that? I don't question living life more fulfilling, less on greed, and what not. What I do question is, the existence of a god, and an afterlife, those aren't necessary to be a better person. You need a reason for both. They go hand in hand. I believe in God, therefore I don't believe an unintelligent whatever created the universe. You on the other hand, believe that the unintelligent whatever created the universe, but don't believe in God. I believe SOMETHING created the universe, I don't believe it is unintelligent necessarily neither do I believe it IS intelligent necessarily. I don't need a reason to not believe, other than that there is no reason to believe. I was born non-believing, if the concept of a god never existed, nobody would believe, and they wouldn't need a reason, it being asserted doesn't make it necessary for their to be reason to not believe, unless a reason to believe has been shown. I believe that we can come to a better understanding through spirituality, but that's me. Well, if that is true, show me how. Of course this would require evidence for your spiritual claims. How does a clock tick? Gears and different parts. Kind of like our brain and internal organs. Why does a clock tick? Gears and different parts. Kind of like our brain and internal organs. Why does a clock tick? It notifies us of each passing second. Each time the hand moves, it clicks. How does a clock tick? It notifies us of each passing second. Each time the hand moves, it clicks. So, why do we tick? Just about everything has some sort of purpose. Bees pollinate flowers, trees give us oxygen, rain waters plants, and so on. I personally believe we are here for spiritual growth. Ahh NOW we are getting somewhere. Purpose can also just mean the function of something, but more often then not, it means the intention behind something. Why do you assume their is an intention behind everything? why do you think that? A tree is known for what it contains. If an apple is the highlight of an apple tree, then we may be the highlight of Earth. But the apples didn't just appear on the tree. They grew from the tree, and from our point of view, that's the only use we have for apple trees. We want apples to keep growing because we have a purpose for them. So could it be that God wants humans to keep "growing" because he has a purpose for them? I think we need to look within ourselves to find out who we truly are, and like I said, I think God is our higher Self... So we're God exploring himself. Maybe God is trying to understand who he truly is. But if humans (or other animals that eat apples) weren't around it would have no purpose. What makes you think there is a being that has a purpose for us? Side: No
Dude, we are making absolutely no progress. You appear to be disputing just to dispute. I think the main reason we aren't making any progress is because you are disputing definitions. As much as how and why seem like they can be used in place of each other, they actually can't... Not if you're trying to use proper English. When someone uses how, they are basically asking for a demostration. Using why, the person wants to know why something happened. I can see how someone could easily think of them as being the same, but they aren't, and if you were to answer a how question the same way you would answer a why question, then you are not answering them properly. The reason I typed up the difference between materialism and spirituality is because they are literally opposites. You seem to think that spirituality only applies to theists. Many atheists are actually spiritual, as well. I also pointed out that most people belonging to a religion are materialists, as well. I did not say that only atheists are materialistic. Another thing, a belief cannot be objective, or else it wouldn't be a belief. Objectivity isn't related to personal opinion. You also seem to be thinking that I consider my opinions to be facts, and you also seem to think that all opinions should be based on facts, or rather be facts... Making them not opinions. Also, this is related to our other debate, but you seem to think that to exist means something outside of presently being here and now, which can't be accurate unless you have created your own version of the word. It is one of those things that seems like it can work, just like how and why, but that would just be a misuse of the English language. If this is going to continue the way it is, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree and move on. Side: Yes
1
point
Dude, we are making absolutely no progress. You appear to be disputing just to dispute. I could say the same about you. I think the main reason we aren't making any progress is because you are disputing definitions. As much as how and why seem like they can be used in place of each other, they actually can't... Not if you're trying to use proper English. When someone uses how, they are basically asking for a demostration. Using why, the person wants to know why something happened. No to ask for a demonstration would mean to ask for someone to visually show how or why. I understand their is a difference between why or how, but only in certain contexts, you need to differentiate between how and why, are you implying that why is about the intention behind something, and how is simply the way it happened? If so, the question why, as you are using it, assumes a belief that may or may not be true, that their is an intention behind it. I can see how someone could easily think of them as being the same, but they aren't, and if you were to answer a how question the same way you would answer a why question, then you are not answering them properly. Not always, they can though, you need to specify what you mean by why, and what you mean by how, without them being equivalent. The reason I typed up the difference between materialism and spirituality is because they are literally opposites. You seem to think that spirituality only applies to theists. Many atheists are actually spiritual, as well. We probably have different ideas of "spirituality" and perhaps "materialism" to but I am pretty sure our ideas on the latter have a good amount of common ground. Their is no accepted definition of spirituality, so you could define what you mean by it. Another thing, a belief cannot be objective, or else it wouldn't be a belief. Objectivity isn't related to personal opinion. Fair point, I will concede that beliefs in and of themselves are not objective, but our beliefs can be OF objective things, and subjective things. You also seem to be thinking that I consider my opinions to be facts, and you also seem to think that all opinions should be based on facts, or rather be facts... Making them not opinions. No, I don't think opinions should be facts, but I do think they should be based on facts. Facts don't worsen your opinion they only strengthen it, so the opinion with the less facts but same amount of reasoning, is more fallacious or unsubstantiated, or false. Also, this is related to our other debate, but you seem to think that to exist means something outside of presently being here and now, which can't be accurate unless you have created your own version of the word. That is not at all what I meant, but I actually concede to your argument that time is nothing, I think it is a bit controversial, but I actually agree with you, time is nothing, however it isn't an illusion. But I would like to point out that I was never trying to argue that everything that exited before and after exists now, I was arguing that the past's existence would be the existence of things having happened. It is one of those things that seems like it can work, just like how and why, but that would just be a misuse of the English language. I can not answer your questions unless you differentiate your two questions, in ways that are not equivalent, so that I can understand how they are different. If I ask how I spilled my drink, someone may say "because I knocked it over by accident" and if I ask why instead, I may get the same answer, and both questions would have been answered correctly. The only time Why means something truly different from how, is when an intention or purpose is implied. If this is going to continue the way it is, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree and move on. I am fine with that, we can do that if you like? Side: No
I could say the same about you. You could... But what I'm trying to do is get you to understand what I am trying to say, and you're just paying attention to the first layer, so to speak. No to ask for a demonstration would mean to ask for someone to visually show how or why. I did say basically a demonstration, didn't I? Demonstration- "display showing HOW to do something: a presentation to others of the way in which something works or is done" Why- "asking reason: for what reason" How- "in what way: used to ask or report questions or to introduce statements about the manner in which something happens or is done" So let's apply those definitions to your examples: For what reason did your drink spill? It landed on it's side. Gravity. The lid wasn't on. There was liquid in it, and that's what happens when they fall. In what way did your drink spill? I knocked it over with my arm. If I were to say, "For what reason are you on CreateDebate?", you'd probably say something along the lines of "because I like to debate." If I were to say, "In what way are you on CreateDebate?", you'd probably say, "the internet" or "my computer." Not always, they can though, you need to specify what you mean by why, and what you mean by how, without them being equivalent. They cannot be equivalent. That defies the very nature of the words. We probably have different ideas of "spirituality" and perhaps "materialism" to but I am pretty sure our ideas on the latter have a good amount of common ground. Spiritual- "of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things" Spirit- "life force of person: the vital force that characterizes a human being as being alive" Materialism- "focus on possessions: devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values" Their is no accepted definition of spirituality, so you could define what you mean by it. Well, the church definition is that spirituality is "church property or revenue", which sounds more like materialism, doesn't it? I posted the definition I go by up above. but our beliefs can be OF objective things, and subjective things. An example? I don't think opinions should be facts, but I do think they should be based on facts. To an extent. I believe that the world is older than six thousand years because of dinosaur fossils. The existence of dinosaur fossils is a fact. But a lot of our beliefs are based on theories. I believe in the Big Bang and evolution because there is evidence, but they aren't facts. A lot of what people see as evidence against God, I see as evidence for God. So it all depends on the person. Facts don't worsen your opinion they only strengthen it, so the opinion with the less facts but same amount of reasoning, is more fallacious or unsubstantiated, or false. The existence of a God doesn't have any more evidence against it than your beliefs, so what are you calling false? Ultimately, we have never observed an intelligent being come from something that is non-intelligent, so it can even be said that evidence for an intelligent creator is more plausible than there not being one... But we can't prove it. You can point out the evidence against the world's religions, that is fine, but there is evidence for an intelligent creator, and there is also, depending on the interpretation, evidence against an intelligent creator. Who can disagree with that? I think it is a bit controversial, but I actually agree with you, time is nothing, however it isn't an illusion. Illusion- "something with deceptive appearance: something that deceives the senses or mind, e.g. by appearing to exist when it does not or appearing to be one thing when it is in fact another" I was arguing that the past's existence would be the existence of things having happened. Yeah, I know... But like I said, happened isn't happening. I guess you could say that memory exists, if that is what you mean. I can not answer your questions unless you differentiate your two questions, in ways that are not equivalent, so that I can understand how they are different. I have multiple times, and I even went into more detail this time, so hopefully it helps. The only time Why means something truly different from how, is when an intention or purpose is implied. That is assuming that there is no purpose. It would be more reasonable to say that the how we can often explain based on our observations, but the why is often unknown. How do we exist? We can say the location of the earth, sun, moon, water... We're just set up perfectly to sustain life... But why do we exist? We didn't have to exist and we have a good idea of how we exist, but what is the reason? It could very well be that there is no reason, therefore the why question is unnecessary. Scientists often try and solve the how... Philosophers usually deal with the why. Side: Yes
1
point
Spiritual- "of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things" Spirit- "life force of person: the vital force that characterizes a human being as being alive" Materialism- "focus on possessions: devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values" So one can only be non-materialistic if they believe in a soul? To an extent. I believe that the world is older than six thousand years because of dinosaur fossils. The existence of dinosaur fossils is a fact. But a lot of our beliefs are based on theories. I believe in the Big Bang and evolution because there is evidence, but they aren't facts. A lot of what people see as evidence against God, I see as evidence for God. So it all depends on the person. No they are explanations, a scientific theory, is an explanation based on scientific evidence, that are falsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang aren't facts, but they are factual, they they are the most efficient means of explaining. They can predict what happens next, and accounts for all things we know. The existence of a God doesn't have any more evidence against it than your beliefs, so what are you calling false? Ultimately, we have never observed an intelligent being come from something that is non-intelligent, so it can even be said that evidence for an intelligent creator is more plausible than there not being one... But we can't prove it. You can point out the evidence against the world's religions, that is fine, but there is evidence for an intelligent creator, and there is also, depending on the interpretation, evidence against an intelligent creator. Who can disagree with that? If that is true, god would have to come from an intelligent being, and that being would have to come from an intelligent being, and so forth, resulting in an infinite regress. That isn't a very solid argument for intelligence behind intelligence being necessary. Illusion- "something with deceptive appearance: something that deceives the senses or mind, e.g. by appearing to exist when it does not or appearing to be one thing when it is in fact another" Would you say darkness is an illusion? That is assuming that there is no purpose. No, that is neither assuming either way. Their isn't a reason to think there is a purpose behind everything, that their is an intelligence, or intention behind everything. So we go off not assuming that. But why do we exist? We didn't have to exist and we have a good idea of how we exist, but what is the reason? It could very well be that there is no reason, therefore the why question is unnecessary. Scientists often try and solve the how... Philosophers usually deal with the why. Only philosophers that believe there is an intention or purpose behind everything. Side: No
So one can only be non-materialistic if they believe in a soul? I gave the definition of spirit, instead of soul, for that reason. You obviously don't believe in a soul, but the term spirit can be applied to your beliefs. You don't have to believe in a soul to be spiritual. No they are explanations, a scientific theory, is an explanation based on scientific evidence, that are falsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang aren't facts, but they are factual, they they are the most efficient means of explaining. They can predict what happens next, and accounts for all things we know. This is what I mean by you addressing the first layer of my arguments, so to speak. You know what I meant. I even said they were based on evidence and you even agreed that they aren't facts. So all you did was add your two cents as if you were actually disputing anything I said. Those theories are factual, yes... And that is why I said evidence. One of the first things you learn as a science student is how often scientific theories are falsified. For example, we had assumed that all life needed the sun to survive, until the 1970's when we explored the dark depths of the ocean and found life! Scratch that theory. So although these theories are based on evidence, they are falsifiable, like you said. So, I don't know why you said "no"... You agree with me! lol If that is true, god would have to come from an intelligent being, and that being would have to come from an intelligent being, and so forth, resulting in an infinite regress. You're assuming God is bound by time, as in aging. Picture something that cannot be created nor destroyed, now imagine God as having similar properties. People who have had NDE's say that they discovered that God is energy. Energy has neither a beginning nor an end. Do you picture God as flesh? We've only observed living organisms bound by time and flesh, but like the sun and life theory, there may be properties we cannot comprehend yet. No matter your belief, everyone agrees that something has always existed... So why is it hard to believe that "God" could have always existed? That isn't a very solid argument for intelligence behind intelligence being necessary. Ultimately, intelligence had a source, and whatever that source may be, it always existed. Would you say darkness is an illusion? I think just about everything is an illusion lol. No, that is neither assuming either way. Didn't you say that why and how only differ when there is a purpose or intent? Only philosophers that believe there is an intention or purpose behind everything. And those are often the philosophers people quote. However, I think the why question applies to most philosophers. Philosophers are thinkers, where as scientists are doers. Doers search for the how. Thinkers search for the why. Side: Yes
1
point
I gave the definition of spirit, instead of soul, for that reason. You obviously don't believe in a soul, but the term spirit can be applied to your beliefs. You don't have to believe in a soul to be spiritual. Sorry, my mistake. Then yeah, I don't disagree with being "spiritual" I don't like the term personally because it implies a belief in superstition. Those theories are factual, yes... And that is why I said evidence. One of the first things you learn as a science student is how often scientific theories are falsified. For example, we had assumed that all life needed the sun to survive, until the 1970's when we explored the dark depths of the ocean and found life! Scratch that theory. So although these theories are based on evidence, they are falsifiable, like you said. Yes, they are best means of explaining the world around us, do get falsified and replaced, however the theory of evolution is the most efficient means for understanding the biodiversity of life right? The more evidence and facts your belief incorporates the better. You're assuming God is bound by time, as in aging. How can anything be bound by time? Time doesn't exist, you can't be bound to something that doesn't exist. Doesn't matter if god is eternal, or never aging, god is intelligent, and you asserted that intelligence can't come from non-intelligence, so god would have had to come from an intelligence no? If god didn't come from an intelligence, then we have intelligence coming from non-intelligence, proving intelligence can come from non-intelligence, making an intelligence behind our intelligence unnecessary. People who have had NDE's say that they discovered that God is energy. Energy has neither a beginning nor an end. If god is energy, god is an intelligence with no intelligence behind it, because it didn't come from anything, it always was. No matter your belief, everyone agrees that something has always existed... So why is it hard to believe that "God" could have always existed? Because their still isn't a reason to... Ultimately, intelligence had a source, and whatever that source may be, it always existed. So intelligence, came from an intelligence, that didn't come from an intelligence because it just has always existed. Totally legit. Didn't you say that why and how only differ when there is a purpose or intent? Yes. Purpose does exist, I was talking about purpose in the context you most likely meant it. There is a purpose as to why I am typing on this laptop, not necessarily their is a purpose to the existence of everything. And those are often the philosophers people quote. However, I think the why question applies to most philosophers. Philosophers are thinkers, where as scientists are doers. Doers search for the how. Thinkers search for the why. I would agree. Side: No
Sorry, my mistake. Then yeah, I don't disagree with being "spiritual" I don't like the term personally because it implies a belief in superstition. Superstition? Here is a quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is an atheist: "Not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us. I don't know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me." A spiritual feeling can pretty much be summed up as a feeling of oneness. How can anything be bound by time? Time doesn't exist, you can't be bound to something that doesn't exist. "You're assuming God is bound by time, as in aging." I did not mean time in the literal sense. You know I think time is an illusion. I meant aging. Doesn't matter if god is eternal, or never aging, god is intelligent, and you asserted that intelligence can't come from non-intelligence, so god would have had to come from an intelligence no? No. If he has always existed, he would not have come from anything. He would be the ultimate source of intelligence. If god didn't come from an intelligence, then we have intelligence coming from non-intelligence, proving intelligence can come from non-intelligence, making an intelligence behind our intelligence unnecessary. No, we have intelligence always existing. Maybe, like energy, consciousness can be neither created nor destroyed. Maybe it isn't intelligence being created, maybe it is the same intelligence just multiplying, or growing. This at least fits for my idea, which is that God is our higher Self. Because their still isn't a reason to... You just haven't found a reason. There is a difference. By your mindset, we can say that it is safe to assume that there is no reason to believe anything regarding what created us, agreed? So intelligence, came from an intelligence, that didn't come from an intelligence because it just has always existed. Totally legit. This sort of stuff only sounds crazy to people because they haven't taken enough time to think about it. Intelligence came from an intelligence that has always existed, that is what I believe. However, I don't think our intelligence is separate from the ultimate intelligence. So, the intelligence that has always existed, is the only intelligence that has ever existed. Think of it like water. I can pour water into separate cups, I can mix the water with different ingredients, I can make the water evaporate, I can freeze the water, I can do so many different things with the same water, and disguise it from what it ultimately is. When you drink tea or coffee, you don't think water... But the water is still there. Water from one bottle used to make coffee, tea, ice, steam... Is still the same water. So, like water, intelligence can be found "hiding" behind many different things... Humans, animals, insects... Some people even think that plants have some sort of intelligence, but what if it is all just one intelligence/consciousness that has taken several different forms? There is a purpose as to why I am typing on this laptop, not necessarily their is a purpose to the existence of everything. There may be. Without food and water we'd die. Without plants and animals, we wouldn't have food. Without the sun and water, we wouldn't have anything. Really, the conditions are just right... But the question is, is there a purpose behind all of it, or did we just luck out? Side: Yes
1
point
Superstition? Here is a quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is an atheist: "Not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us. I don't know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me." A spiritual feeling can pretty much be summed up as a feeling of oneness. It can be, definitely, and in that sense I suppose you could say I am spiritual, but generally spirituality is associated with superstition. No. If he has always existed, he would not have come from anything. He would be the ultimate source of intelligence. So intelligence exists, without it having to come from intelligence itself? No, we have intelligence always existing. Maybe, like energy, consciousness can be neither created nor destroyed. Maybe it isn't intelligence being created, maybe it is the same intelligence just multiplying, or growing. This at least fits for my idea, which is that God is our higher Self. So an intelligence that doesn't need another intelligence behind it? You just haven't found a reason. There is a difference. By your mindset, we can say that it is safe to assume that there is no reason to believe anything regarding what created us, agreed? Unless a reason is provided. This sort of stuff only sounds crazy to people because they haven't taken enough time to think about it. Intelligence came from an intelligence that has always existed, that is what I believe. However, I don't think our intelligence is separate from the ultimate intelligence. So, the intelligence that has always existed, is the only intelligence that has ever existed. Think of it like water. I can pour water into separate cups, I can mix the water with different ingredients, I can make the water evaporate, I can freeze the water, I can do so many different things with the same water, and disguise it from what it ultimately is. When you drink tea or coffee, you don't think water... But the water is still there. Water from one bottle used to make coffee, tea, ice, steam... Is still the same water. So, like water, intelligence can be found "hiding" behind many different things... Humans, animals, insects... Some people even think that plants have some sort of intelligence, but what if it is all just one intelligence/consciousness that has taken several different forms? I see what you are saying here, but by asserting that intelligence needs an intelligence behind it, wouldn't that also apply to an eternal intelligence? To assert intelligence needs intelligence behind it, you make eternal intelligence itself a paradox. Furthermore, we don't have evidence or reason to think intelligence requires intelligence behind it. We assume that because the product of our own intelligence, is the result of intelligent things, purposeful things, but that doesn't mean that all things that act intelligently need intelligence behind it. Also, does whatever intelligence need a GREATER intelligence behind it? We have created computers which are intelligent, not conscious, but intelligent, and in some ways more intelligent than us, we actually did come from an intelligence, the organism that we evolved from which was less intelligent, and the organism before that, being less intelligent, and so on. Intelligence doesn't necessarily need a GREATER intelligence, nor a less intelligence, and thus the most minimal intelligence could result from non-intelligence, no? There may be. Without food and water we'd die. Without plants and animals, we wouldn't have food. Without the sun and water, we wouldn't have anything. Really, the conditions are just right... But the question is, is there a purpose behind all of it, or did we just luck out? Luck out? the conditions that allow us to live, are the only conditions where we would be alive to be able to say "we lucked out" which is true, however slightly misleading. Of course we should find that the conditions that allow our lives exist where we live, that's just logical, but to allude to that being intentional... well... there is no reason to. 99% of the universe will kill us, millions of black holes are flying around the galaxy that would tear us apart, as well as stars that would obliterate us, meteores and asteroids, here on earth, life is about eat or get eaten, do or die, cretures bigger than you that want to kill, creatures smaller than you that can assissinate. We have removed ourselves from that to a good extent, but the universe isn't convenient for our existence. It is easy to look at all the things that are coincidentally convenient and go "gosh this world is so convenient" as easily as one could look at all the inconveniences of the world and go "gosh this world is so inconvenient", it's practically subjective either way. Side: No
It can be, definitely, and in that sense I suppose you could say I am spiritual, but generally spirituality is associated with superstition. Superstition is associated with irrationality and magic. A spiritual person wouldn't consider their beliefs irrational, would they? I think my beliefs are more rational than an atheists, but that's just my opinion. And as far as magic goes, it depends on your definition. If there is a God, it isn't necessarily magic. Maybe by our standards, because we can't personally create an entire universe, but our human capabilities don't really compare to God's capabilities. He wouldn't think of his abilities as magic, I assume. So intelligence exists, without it having to come from intelligence itself? It wouldn't have had to come from anything if it has always existed. It's a difficult concept to grasp, even I struggle with it... But when you realize that something has always existed, it isn't that difficult to think that maybe intelligence has always existed. Our personal intelligence is likely a continuation, or addition to that eternal intelligence. So an intelligence that doesn't need another intelligence behind it? Yes, an ultimate intelligence. All intelligence has an eternal source, no matter how you look at it. The question is, was that source intelligent or was it unintelligent? The latter just sounds silly to think that something unintelligent carried in it the building blocks of intelligence. Unless a reason is provided. Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself. I see what you are saying here, but by asserting that intelligence needs an intelligence behind it, wouldn't that also apply to an eternal intelligence? Well, lets think of it that way for a minute. A continuous chain of intelligence. God gave us intelligence, something else gave God intelligence, something before that gave that thing it's intelligence, and so on and so forth. So when does it stop? Is it infinite? That would mean that intelligence has always existed. Does it stop at something that is unintelligent? Well, that would disprove my argument that intelligence can only come from intelligence. Can it be that the ultimate source of the higher intelligences is an eternal intelligence? Well, then what is wrong with the idea that the intelligence that created the universe is an eternal intelligence? To assert intelligence needs intelligence behind it, you make eternal intelligence itself a paradox. Our intelligence here on earth needs an intelligent source, is what I am arguing. "God," who has always existed, has neither a beginning nor an end, would not need a source for its own intelligence. Furthermore, we don't have evidence or reason to think intelligence requires intelligence behind it. If we come to conclusions based on our observations, can we say that we have never seen intelligence come from something that is unintelligent? We have not seen an oak tree drop an acorn that grew to be a talking oak tree, or as far as we know, a thinking oak tree. Like the sun and life theory that was falsified in the 1970's, this one can be as well, but as of now, intelligence coming from intelligence seems pretty factual. We have created computers which are intelligent, not conscious, but intelligent, and in some ways more intelligent than us, we actually did come from an intelligence, the organism that we evolved from which was less intelligent, and the organism before that, being less intelligent, and so on. But the computers that we created came from an intelligence, and the intelligence that a computer has acquired is not necessarily real intelligence. Scientists and doctors have found that in order for people to make decisions, they need the part in their brain that creates emotions, to remain functional. A computer does not have any sort of emotion. And the intelligence that is uploaded into a computer, is knowledge that we have, but a computer can process it faster. Intelligence doesn't necessarily need a GREATER intelligence, nor a less intelligence, and thus the most minimal intelligence could result from non-intelligence, no? Whatever it was, had in it the building blocks for our current state of intelligence. If I were to plant an apple tree seed, everything that the tree will become is implied in the seed. I would not see it go from a little tree, to a big tree, and then wonder what the hell happened when it starts growing apples. The seed that had all of that within it came from a full grown apple tree though. This brings us to the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg, but instead of chickens and eggs, it is seed or tree. Well, ultimately a tree came into this world through growth, and then what it grew from ultimately came from the Big Bang. But within that point, was implication of everything. It had the ability to grow into everything that we see today. It is the seed of creation, and what if that seed was planted? However, with God, I do not think that it was a literal seed, but maybe a thought, which is a lot like a seed. If you were to write a novel, ultimately the seed of that novel was your mind. Of course we should find that the conditions that allow our lives exist where we live, that's just logical, but to allude to that being intentional... well... there is no reason to. You just haven't found a reason. 99% of the universe will kill us, millions of black holes are flying around the galaxy that would tear us apart, as well as stars that would obliterate us, meteores and asteroids, here on earth, life is about eat or get eaten, do or die, cretures bigger than you that want to kill, creatures smaller than you that can assissinate. Yet our population is growing. There are dangers, yes... But if we truly are eternal, like God, then what do we have to worry about? We have removed ourselves from that to a good extent, but the universe isn't convenient for our existence. It absolutely is convenient. We exist! How can it be any more convenient? Have you experienced anything better? It is easy to look at all the things that are coincidentally convenient and go "gosh this world is so convenient" as easily as one could look at all the inconveniences of the world and go "gosh this world is so inconvenient", it's practically subjective either way. The ego is what makes people look at it as inconvenient. Side: Yes
1
point
Superstition is associated with irrationality and magic. A spiritual person wouldn't consider their beliefs irrational, would they? No but most things that are associated with spirituality, are in my opinion, superstitious And as far as magic goes, it depends on your definition. a power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions http://www.merriam-webster.com/ If there is a God, it isn't necessarily magic. Maybe by our standards, because we can't personally create an entire universe, but our human capabilities don't really compare to God's capabilities. He wouldn't think of his abilities as magic, I assume. Did I ever say god was necessarily magic? Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself. So in other words try to logically justify god's existence... that's called confirmation bias... Well, lets think of it that way for a minute. A continuous chain of intelligence. God gave us intelligence, something else gave God intelligence, something before that gave that thing it's intelligence, and so on and so forth. So when does it stop? Is it infinite? That would mean that intelligence has always existed. Does it stop at something that is unintelligent? Well, that would disprove my argument that intelligence can only come from intelligence. Can it be that the ultimate source of the higher intelligences is an eternal intelligence? Well, then what is wrong with the idea that the intelligence that created the universe is an eternal intelligence? Fair point. If we come to conclusions based on our observations, can we say that we have never seen intelligence come from something that is unintelligent? We have not seen an oak tree drop an acorn that grew to be a talking oak tree, or as far as we know, a thinking oak tree. Yes we have, we have observed intelligent beings evolve here on earth, produced from the earth, and from stars, which are unintelligent. To say that isn't an observance of intelligence coming from non-intelligence, is itself, merely an assumption that an intelligence had to be, behind the things that created us. Observing intelligent things coming from intelligent things and going "Ha, only intelligence can produce another intelligence" and then observing intelligence with no evidence of intelligence behind it, and saying "There has to be an intelligence really far back that implemented this" is confirmation bias, at it's finest. But the computers that we created came from an intelligence, and the intelligence that a computer has acquired is not necessarily real intelligence. Scientists and doctors have found that in order for people to make decisions, they need the part in their brain that creates emotions, to remain functional. A computer does not have any sort of emotion. And the intelligence that is uploaded into a computer, is knowledge that we have, but a computer can process it faster. Considering you are talking about conscious intelligence, which is what produces intention, I concede that to be a rather fallacious argument. If I were to plant an apple tree seed, everything that the tree will become is implied in the seed. I would not see it go from a little tree, to a big tree, and then wonder what the hell happened when it starts growing apples. The seed that had all of that within it came from a full grown apple tree though. This brings us to the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg, but instead of chickens and eggs, it is seed or tree. Well, ultimately a tree came into this world through growth, and then what it grew from ultimately came from the Big Bang. But within that point, was implication of everything. It had the ability to grow into everything that we see today. It is the seed of creation, and what if that seed was planted? However, with God, I do not think that it was a literal seed, but maybe a thought, which is a lot like a seed. If you were to write a novel, ultimately the seed of that novel was your mind. How does this at all prove you point? Yes, things can be a product of intention, but there is no reason that you have supplied here that intention is necessary. You just haven't found a reason. Yes, and until I do come across a logical reason to believe, I don't see the point in believing. Saying things like "You just haven't found a reason" doesn't contribute anything, just highlight why I am not a believer. This would be the equivalent to me saying "You just haven't seen the flaws in your reasons in belief yet" or in translation, and I mean this with all due respect "I'm right, and you're wrong, and you just don't know how". If there is a reason to believe in god, don't just tell me there is, SHOW ME THAT REASON... Yet our population is growing. There are dangers, yes... But if we truly are eternal, like God, then what do we have to worry about? I never said that humans were eternal, if that is what you are getting at. Yes, our population is growing, the world is more convenient for us, than any other animal, because we have adapted to it. It absolutely is convenient. We exist! How can it be any more convenient? Have you experienced anything better? The ego is what makes people look at it as inconvenient. A suicidal person whom hates their lives wouldn't agree, or better yet, some of those whom were tortured in the holocaust wouldn't either. My point isn't that the universe is convenient or inconvenient, bad or good, shitty or wonderful. My point is, our disposition to the universe is rather subjective, and thus not a good argument for a god's existence. In other words, just because you appreciate your existence, doesn't mean that a god exists, your appreciation for your existence, is entirely a subjective disposition. Side: No
No but most things that are associated with spirituality, are in my opinion, superstitious Like? a power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions So, you think God is a person? Did I ever say god was necessarily magic? I thought you were implying it. So in other words try to logically justify god's existence... that's called confirmation bias... I usually call it wisdom... But I guess you could call it that. Would trying to logically justify God's non-existence be "confirmation bias", as well? Yes we have, we have observed intelligent beings evolve here on earth, produced from the earth, and from stars, which are unintelligent. Whoa, whoa, whoa... That is something you are going to have to back up. This is stuff we have actually observed? If you want to plant an apple tree, you take the seeds from an apple... Which grew from the tree. We grew from the Earth, but why could it not have been that intelligence was implied in that initial point, just as apples are implied in the seed? The apple seed grew into a tree before apples came out of it. To say that isn't an observance of intelligence coming from non-intelligence, is itself, merely an assumption that an intelligence had to be, behind the things that created us. No, it is a statement as to what we have observed. Would you have said that I had a bias towards the sun's light if I had claimed that all life needed sunlight to survive? No, until the 70's, that is what we had observed. Observing intelligent things coming from intelligent things and going "Ha, only intelligence can produce another intelligence" and then observing intelligence with no evidence of intelligence behind it, and saying "There has to be an intelligence really far back that implemented this" is confirmation bias, at it's finest. It is also observation at its finest. It can be falsified, though. Plus, I am not saying intelligence can only create intelligence as a fact, but as of now, that is all we have observed. Show me otherwise. How does this at all prove you point? Yes, things can be a product of intention, but there is no reason that you have supplied here that intention is necessary. I don't know why you keep bringing up the word "prove". I am not trying to prove anything. I am only offering up an idea. Saying things like "You just haven't found a reason" doesn't contribute anything, just highlight why I am not a believer. Oh, good grief, man! I am sorry that I am not convincing you, but we both know that you didn't come into this argument to be convinced. As that quote that Joe just posted said, when arguing, people tend not to listen to understand, they listen to reply. That is all I am getting from you. Even the stuff you agreed with, you have probably already forgotten. This would be the equivalent to me saying "You just haven't seen the flaws in your reasons in belief yet" or in translation, and I mean this with all due respect "I'm right, and you're wrong, and you just don't know how". No, it is as simple as saying, "Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else." It was not a jab at you for being an atheist. It was just me pointing out that there are reasons to believe in "God"... You just haven't found one. Is that really all that offensive? If there is a reason to believe in god, don't just tell me there is, SHOW ME THAT REASON... What have I been doing this entire debate? I have been giving you several reasons and you keep coming back to this shit! If you don't agree, then so be it. I have found no reason to be an atheist, you have found no reason to be a theist... That does not mean I have not offered up ideas. If you don't agree with them, then fine. I am sorry that I can't find you a video of God coming down from the sky on a winged-horse with rainbows shooting out of it's ass. A suicidal person whom hates their lives wouldn't agree, or better yet, some of those whom were tortured in the holocaust wouldn't either. And are those not human faults? We as humans have the ability to make this world a fantastic place... But we don't. Our ego has gotten in the way. Side: Yes
2
points
Like? an afterlife, a transcending soul, a higher power. So, you think God is a person? fair point. I thought you were implying it. You assumed that when I said superstition. I usually call it wisdom... But I guess you could call it that. Would trying to logically justify God's non-existence be "confirmation bias", as well? "Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way." It's not confirmation bias to back yourself up via logic and evidence, it is confirmation bias to go out of your way and try to convince yourself something is true. Earlier I said, I don't believe in god, because I haven't came across a reason, then you said I simply haven't found one yet, and I said if a reason is provided I will believe in a god, to which you said "find a reason to believe in god". That's confirmation bias. If you are trying to convince yourself god exists, if you are going out of your way to look for a reason to believe in god, you are searching for evidence selectively and interpreting it selectively for the bias that their is a god. Confirmation bias. That's not wisdom, that is something you learn in basic psychology that gets the best of us, but is in no way a virtue or wise. No, it is a statement as to what we have observed. Would you have said that I had a bias towards the sun's light if I had claimed that all life needed sunlight to survive? No, until the 70's, that is what we had observed. If you ignored all the evidence to the contrary, or interpret information in a biased way, to confirm what you believe is true. Rather than looking at all the evidence before forming a belief and then coming to a conclusion. Whoa, whoa, whoa... That is something you are going to have to back up. This is stuff we have actually observed? This is stuff we have evidence for. If you want to plant an apple tree, you take the seeds from an apple... Which grew from the tree. We grew from the Earth, but why could it not have been that intelligence was implied in that initial point, just as apples are implied in the seed? The apple seed grew into a tree before apples came out of it. I don't see why we need to assume intelligence is necessary or implied. It is also observation at its finest. It can be falsified, though. Plus, I am not saying intelligence can only create intelligence as a fact, but as of now, that is all we have observed. Show me otherwise. All biological life being produced from the earth? Bacteria gaining intelligence and becoming more complex? We haven't observed an intelligence behind these, so far as we can tell, that is intelligence coming from non-intelligence. To simply say "you don't know if their wasn't an intelligence behind that" is confirmation bias. No I don't know, but I have no reason to believe all the life here on earth had to come from an intelligent being, we've found them come about without ever finding any intelligence behind it. I don't know why you keep bringing up the word "prove". I am not trying to prove anything. I am only offering up an idea. And I accept your idea, as an idea, and a possibility simply from not being disproven. So what is the point in continuing this with me? Oh, good grief, man! I am sorry that I am not convincing you, but we both know that you didn't come into this argument to be convinced. As that quote that Joe just posted said, when arguing, people tend not to listen to understand, they listen to reply. That is all I am getting from you. Even the stuff you agreed with, you have probably already forgotten. I could say the same thing about you, you didn't come into this argument to be convinced either, and it is in my opinion a lot more obvious with you than me. I'm rather pretty confident debater but your arrogance here, reading through the thread, has rather surprised me, with all due respect. No, it is as simple as saying, "Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else." How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do? It was not a jab at you for being an atheist. It was just me pointing out that there are reasons to believe in "God"... You just haven't found one. Is that really all that offensive? It's not so much offensive, rather than a tad annoying, not contributing at all, and makes you seem rather arrogant. What have I been doing this entire debate? I have been giving you several reasons and you keep coming back to this shit! If you don't agree, then so be it. I have found no reason to be an atheist, you have found no reason to be a theist... That does not mean I have not offered up ideas. If you don't agree with them, then fine. It's a debate site, what do you expect? Yes I am going to disagree with you... But when you keep saying "you just haven't found a reason" as if it contributes to anything, or means anything at some point I feel obliged to point out it doesn't. I have listened, and accepted all your ideas, as ideas, if that is all you want to argue with me about, fine you win, but you have not convinced me, if that isn't what you want, you don't have to keep arguing with me. And are those not human faults? We as humans have the ability to make this world a fantastic place... But we don't. Our ego has gotten in the way. LOL, and you accuse me of not listening to you. The point I was trying to make is, the convenience of life doesn't contribute to logically justifying a belief in god, because the convenience of life is something that you feel towards life. It is subjective, your feelings about being alive doesn't at all contribute to making god more probable. . I don't even need proof to believe in a god, I just need something that at least makes god probable, not just a possibility, as I accept god already as a possibility until someone proves otherwise. I just need evidence, or one good argument that can stand up to scrutiny. Side: No
an afterlife, a transcending soul, a higher power. Like I said, there are spiritual atheists. It's not confirmation bias to back yourself up via logic and evidence, it is confirmation bias to go out of your way and try to convince yourself something is true. But I believe in the same scientific theories as you. However, we have come to different conclusions. If you think that it is more logical to not believe in "God", then clearly the term in that sense is subjective. So, either we are both guilty of confirmation bias, or neither of us are. Science does not say whether or not "God" exists. What people conclude regarding a Creator is opinion-based. Earlier I said, I don't believe in god, because I haven't came across a reason, then you said I simply haven't found one yet, and I said if a reason is provided I will believe in a god, to which you said "find a reason to believe in god". Did I say "yet"? I don't think I did, because if I were to have put it that way, that would appear as if I were saying that you are supposed to find a reason, which is not what I was trying to say. When I said that you have not found a reason... It was as simple as that. You haven't found a reason, I did. I haven't found a reason to believe we came from nothing, you did. It was not a jab. Also, when did I say "find a reason to believe in God"? That doesn't sound right. "Fine duh reason, asshole! Or duh lawd gonna sed ya tuh hell!" lol If you are trying to convince yourself god exists, if you are going out of your way to look for a reason to believe in god, you are searching for evidence selectively and interpreting it selectively for the bias that their is a god. I am not trying to find a reason. I obviously already found one. That's not wisdom, that is something you learn in basic psychology that gets the best of us, but is in no way a virtue or wise. “One must find the source within one's own Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking -- a detour, an error.” - Hermann Hesse My opinion of things is clearly a little different than yours. “Wisdom cannot be imparted. Wisdom that a wise man attempts to impart always sounds like foolishness to someone else ... Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it.” - Hermann Hesse What I think of as wisdom, you think of as foolishness. Rather than looking at all the evidence before forming a belief and then coming to a conclusion. I have looked at the evidence, and I have formed a conclusion. What have you done differently? This is stuff we have evidence for. Do we? The idea that life came from the lifeless is as much of a belief as the opposite idea, is it not? I don't see why we need to assume intelligence is necessary or implied We didn't need to assume that all life needed the sun to survive either... We just did. However, we all have a sense of individuality that allows us to come to our own conclusions, so WE don't really need to assume anything. Different beliefs draws different assumptions. We haven't observed an intelligence behind these, so far as we can tell, that is intelligence coming from non-intelligence. We also haven't seen them grow into advanced organisms. If bacteria is "gaining" intelligence, doesn't that mean that intelligence was implied within it the whole time? If a flower grows from a plant, it isn't a flower coming from nothing. The flower was implied in that plant from the start. To simply say "you don't know if their wasn't an intelligence behind that" is confirmation bias I guess you found a new favorite phrase lol. And I accept your idea, as an idea, and a possibility simply from not being disproven. So what is the point in continuing this with me? I've been asking myself the same question. I could say the same thing about you, you didn't come into this argument to be convinced either, and it is in my opinion a lot more obvious with you than me. You are not setting up your arguments to be convincing. You are asking me to prove stuff, not vice versa. I have been trying to treat this more along the lines of a conversation, where as you wanted to turn it into a battle. I offer up an idea, and then you slap it away saying something along the lines of, "that doesn't prove anything". Well, duh! That wasn't even my intention. You say that you accept my idea as an idea, but then in the following comment you say, "How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do?" The hostility that is implied in that comment is incredible, because there is absolutely no reason for it. The main reason I keep going off topic to address how you are handling this debate, is because of comments just like that. Do you even remember what I said that triggered that response from you? I said this: "No, it is as simple as saying, 'Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else." All I was saying is that people come to different conclusions. It was basically an attempt on my part to let you know that even though we disagree, I still respect your opinion. I think this is my third time having to say this, but it wasn't a JAB! It's not so much offensive, rather than a tad annoying, not contributing at all, and makes you seem rather arrogant. Well, shit happens. You misinterpreted it, and I hope you realize that so that we can drop this petty nonsense. It's a debate site, what do you expect? Civility was probably too much to ask for, you're right. But when you keep saying "you just haven't found a reason" as if it contributes to anything, or means anything at some point I feel obliged to point out it doesn't. Well, when the person I am debating with misinterprets my comment over and over again, sometimes I feel like pointing that out, as well. But when I have to point that out multiple times, and the person continues to misinterpret in such a way to make me seem like I am an asshole... Then what do I do? I could ditch the debate, but after you took the time to type up a long response, I'd rather not do that to you. The point I was trying to make is, the convenience of life doesn't contribute to logically justifying a belief in god, because the convenience of life is something that you feel towards life. Yeah, and I got your point... "LOL, and you accuse me of not listening to you." That comment of yours should seem pretty silly if you come to realize this. I was pointing out how the holocaust was caused by the Nazis, so if the Holocaust were to have never occurred, maybe due to a more loving society, then the victims would not have actually been victims, and would have likely been happy. But then we go even deeper... Government, money, crime, racism, hate... All derive from humans, and they're all avoidable. We could unite and not have to deal with government corruption, we could get rid of money and share, we could accept everyone for who they are, and we could be kind to each other... But we don't do all of those things on a global scale, therefore we have unhappy people, and those very reasons are why people often commit suicide, which was your other example. Life seems inconvenient, because we made it that way. I don't even need proof to believe in a god, I just need something that at least makes god probable, not just a possibility, as I accept god already as a possibility until someone proves otherwise. Right, and I was in the same place as you not too long ago. I was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I found my own personal reason to believe in "God", one you likely wouldn't understand. That's nothing against you, because I probably wouldn't have understood it a while ago either. I am not trying to convert you to the idea, I just want you to see that a theistic argument can work. Side: Yes
1
point
Like I said, there are spiritual atheists Indeed, but earlier you said spirituality was opposite of materialism, and with how blurry the definition of spirituality is, it can be, I was saying that because it is associated with those things I don't like to use the term spiritual. However believing in an afterlife, transcending soul, higher power is not necessary to not be materialistic. But I believe in the same scientific theories as you. However, we have come to different conclusions. If you think that it is more logical to not believe in "God", then clearly the term in that sense is subjective. So, either we are both guilty of confirmation bias, or neither of us are. Science does not say whether or not "God" exists. What people conclude regarding a Creator is opinion-based. Science isn't the only basis of truth, just the most efficient means of knowing. Science can't prove nor disprove god, nor has been able to show god to be probable, with this we have to rely on pure logic and reason to conclude whether or not god is worth believing. We may have all the same evidence, but in all honesty, I still am not convinced that belief in god is justified on logical grounds. Also, when did I say "find a reason to believe in God"? That doesn't sound right. "Fine duh reason, asshole! Or duh lawd gonna sed ya tuh hell!" lol Actually you did... "Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself." third last argument you made... you really need to reread the thread. What I think of as wisdom, you think of as foolishness. No what you seemingly claimed to be wisdom was actually confirmation bias. You seemingly have forgotten, or you haven't been keeping track the context of the entire thread... I have looked at the evidence, and I have formed a conclusion. What have you done differently? Supported my position with logic and reason. Do we? The idea that life came from the lifeless is as much of a belief as the opposite idea, is it not? yes it is, but to not believe we came from another being is totally logically justified. We can't assume that we have. We didn't need to assume that all life needed the sun to survive either... We just did. However, we all have a sense of individuality that allows us to come to our own conclusions, so WE don't really need to assume anything. Different beliefs draws different assumptions. Not all beliefs have to be based on assumptions, though I am sure we all have assumed, but the goal should be to assume as little as we can. We also haven't seen them grow into advanced organisms. If bacteria is "gaining" intelligence, doesn't that mean that intelligence was implied within it the whole time? If a flower grows from a plant, it isn't a flower coming from nothing. The flower was implied in that plant from the start. We have evidence that they most likely have. Please tell me what you mean "implied within it"? You are not setting up your arguments to be convincing. You are asking me to prove stuff, not vice versa. I have been trying to treat this more along the lines of a conversation, where as you wanted to turn it into a battle. you disputed me I offer up an idea, and then you slap it away saying something along the lines of, "that doesn't prove anything". Well, duh! That wasn't even my intention. You say that you accept my idea as an idea, but then in the following comment you say, "How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do?" The hostility that is implied in that comment is incredible, because there is absolutely no reason for it. Well I am sorry that I assumed that you were trying to make an argument against me, where you attempt to logically justify yourself on a debate site, I guess I should have known better... I'm not trying to be hostile... I'm debating... on a debate site. You made an argument against me, obviously (because we are on a debate site, and that you made yourself out as opposed to me) trying to challenge my viewpoint, which I have no problem with, as long as you have no problem with me challenging yours. Therefore my natural reaction is to make an argument against you. The main reason I keep going off topic to address how you are handling this debate, is because of comments just like that. Do you even remember what I said that triggered that response from you? I said this: "No, it is as simple as saying, 'Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else." All I was saying is that people come to different conclusions. It was basically an attempt on my part to let you know that even though we disagree, I still respect your opinion. I think this is my third time having to say this, but it wasn't a JAB! Yet, within those same arguments you were still attempting to refute other points I was making, and were still disputing me, having me assume that too was also a point against me. My point towards that, which is perfectly respectable, is that there are still logical grounds between belief and non-belief, and I have been arguing that non-belief is simply more logical. I'm sorry I assumed that a piece of an argument against me, wasn't also against me, or rather within an argument disputing me, I was supposed to assume one singular point wasn't... I am so sorry about that... Geesh To me it seemed as though you were implying that both atheism and theism is on equal grounds logically, and I made an argument against that, it's a debate site, people will disagree with you. When you said it wasn't a jab at my atheism, to be completely honest, I thought that you thought that I was personally offended, and by "jab" you meant offense, not an argument. Civility was probably too much to ask for, you're right. How have I been uncivil? All I've been doing is making counter arguments. I was pointing out how the holocaust was caused by the Nazis, so if the Holocaust were to have never occurred, maybe due to a more loving society, then the victims would not have actually been victims, and would have likely been happy. But then we go even deeper... Government, money, crime, racism, hate... All derive from humans, and they're all avoidable. We could unite and not have to deal with government corruption, we could get rid of money and share, we could accept everyone for who they are, and we could be kind to each other... But we don't do all of those things on a global scale, therefore we have unhappy people, and those very reasons are why people often commit suicide, which was your other example. Life seems inconvenient, because we made it that way. How does any of this take away from the fact that our disposition towards life is subjective? Right, and I was in the same place as you not too long ago. I was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I found my own personal reason to believe in "God", one you likely wouldn't understand. That's nothing against you, because I probably wouldn't have understood it a while ago either. I am not trying to convert you to the idea, I just want you to see that a theistic argument can work. If a theistic argument did work, I'd be a theist. Or if by a theist argument can work, you mean that there can be arguments for the theistic position I agree, if you mean by work, you mean logically justify the belief in a god, I disagree. In either case, on a debate site, I'm going to counter you, if I disagree, or at the very least point out what I think is wrong with your arguments. Side: No
Actually you did... "Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself." third last argument you made... you really need to reread the thread. That is still within the same context of what I explained in my previous argument. I can see it being confusing, but it was just another way of saying, if you are interested, find your own reason. Don't wait on science or religion. No what you seemingly claimed to be wisdom was actually confirmation bias. You seemingly have forgotten, or you haven't been keeping track the context of the entire thread... I said that I call it wisdom, and then I went on to point out how what I consider to be wise, and what you consider to be wise, are opposites. Even when you said that it was confirmation bias, did I not say something along the lines of, "I call it wisdom... But I guess you could call it that." Have we gotten to the point where you are looking so forward to me disputing you, that you ignore when I agree with you? Yes, what I consider to be wise can be a little biased, but does wisdom only apply to a single thing? Can there not be wisdom in multiple fields? What I refer to as wisdom, is spiritually based... You would think differently. Supported my position with logic and reason. You can only go so far, then you reach a cliff. You can choose to take a leap, which is to leap into either atheism or theism, or you can decide to stay on solid ground and not form an opinion either way. If you decide to take a leap, you're really on your own. You can grab a few things as you are falling, but then they are falling with you. So, with that "logic and reasoning," how did you conclude that a "God" does not exist? yes it is, but to not believe we came from another being is totally logically justified. We can't assume that we have. Says who? The assumption police? You assume just as much as I do. If not, then show me otherwise. Not all beliefs have to be based on assumptions, though I am sure we all have assumed, but the goal should be to assume as little as we can. There's a fork in the road that we took. I took theism, you took atheism. Who is making more assumptions? I'd say neither. Unless, of course, you haven't gone either way. But I doubt that is the case, or else this debate would not have gone on as long as it has. Please tell me what you mean "implied within it"? The ability to do something. An apple seed has the ability to grow into an apple tree, and then grow apples. Water has the ability to turn into steam. Whatever was the starting point of the Big Bang, had the ability to create intelligence. Of course, all of these things need something else to make it actually come into existence, but that's the case with everything. To create a child, you need a mother and a father. For a seed to grow into a tree, you need soil and water, as well. Everything is brought on through a combination. Everything you see was implied within an initial point. you disputed me You didn't have to respond. You made an argument against me, obviously (because we are on a debate site, and that you made yourself out as opposed to me) trying to challenge my viewpoint, which I have no problem with, as long as you have no problem with me challenging yours. Therefore my natural reaction is to make an argument against you. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me... But keep in mind that these debates come equipped with support and clarify, as well. Just because we disagreed initially, doesn't mean we can't come to an agreement. The only thing that really makes this a debate site is the dispute link lol. Yet, within those same arguments you were still attempting to refute other points I was making, and were still disputing me, having me assume that too was also a point against me. Why? I go point by point. If I had the option to choose either support, dispute or clarify for each individual point, I would. If my opponent starts becoming hostile, I react... But if the person debates with me civilly, then I treat them with equal respect. My point towards that, which is perfectly respectable, is that there are still logical grounds between belief and non-belief, and I have been arguing that non-belief is simply more logical. I just don't think that is a fair thing to say. Logic often implies scientific backing, and science does not make a conclusion either way when it comes to "God". The term in the sense that you are using it is subjective. Ignore religion for this... Why do you think non-belief is more logical than belief, in the context that I have been explaining it? I'm sorry I assumed that a piece of an argument against me, wasn't also against me, or rather within an argument disputing me, I was supposed to assume one singular point wasn't... I am so sorry about that... Geesh It's no big deal. To me it seemed as though you were implying that both atheism and theism is on equal grounds logically, and I made an argument against that, it's a debate site, people will disagree with you. I've been on this site for a long time. I have been in plenty of debates... I know how they work, but my view towards things has changed, and I have realized that nobody gets very far by trying to pull other people down. A car salesman does not sell a car by trying to belittle his customers. Respect is key... And although I can still be an asshole, that part of me appears less often... And I'd really like to just get rid of that part of me completely. So, this doesn't mean we can't dispute each other, but doing it in a respectful way goes much further than trying to demean each other. When you said it wasn't a jab at my atheism, to be completely honest, I thought that you thought that I was personally offended, and by "jab" you meant offense, not an argument. Alright, simple misunderstanding. I should have known that the slang I use doesn't always translate over. How have I been uncivil? All I've been doing is making counter arguments. You may not have meant for it to be that way, but that's how it appeared from my side. I'm probably guilty of it too. How does any of this take away from the fact that our disposition towards life is subjective? I said this: "It absolutely is convenient. We exist! How can it be any more convenient? Have you experienced anything better? The ego is what makes people look at it as inconvenient." Your response: "A suicidal person whom hates their lives wouldn't agree, or better yet, some of those whom were tortured in the holocaust wouldn't either. My point isn't that the universe is convenient or inconvenient, bad or good, shitty or wonderful. My point is, our disposition to the universe is rather subjective, and thus not a good argument for a god's existence. In other words, just because you appreciate your existence, doesn't mean that a god exists, your appreciation for your existence, is entirely a subjective disposition" My response: "And are those not human faults? We as humans have the ability to make this world a fantastic place... But we don't. Our ego has gotten in the way." Your response: "The point I was trying to make is, the convenience of life doesn't contribute to logically justifying a belief in god, because the convenience of life is something that you feel towards life." My response: "I was pointing out how the holocaust was caused by the Nazis, so if the Holocaust were to have never occurred, maybe due to a more loving society, then the victims would not have actually been victims, and would have likely been happy. But then we go even deeper... Government, money, crime, racism, hate... All derive from humans, and they're all avoidable. We could unite and not have to deal with government corruption, we could get rid of money and share, we could accept everyone for who they are, and we could be kind to each other... But we don't do all of those things on a global scale, therefore we have unhappy people, and those very reasons are why people often commit suicide, which was your other example. Life seems inconvenient, because we made it that way." So, my original argument was to say that existence in itself is convenient, as opposed to not existing at all. Then you brought up how our opinion towards life is subjective, and I tried to point out that people dislike their life because they are unhappy, and they are unhappy because of all the negative man-made things. If life was at the maximum level of positivity, which is very possible, then it is unlikely that people would have a negative disposition towards life. I am not arguing that because I enjoy life, "God" must exist... But the fact that we exist at all is very convenient, and although our opinion towards life is subjective, any negative disposition is mostly our fault. It is usually the negative disposition that makes our existence seem purposeless, but that is not to say that there is a purpose... However, there could be. It's just another idea. If a theistic argument did work, I'd be a theist. Actually, there could be a multitude of reasons why you aren't a theist. If I can convince one person, but not you... That only means that the theistic argument did not work for you. That could be from a lack of understanding or a bias. It doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a valid argument. This would be similar to me saying that if there were a valid atheistic argument, I'd be an atheist. Well, something convinced you to be an atheist, but not me... So, you determining whether or not my argument is valid, is subjective. Or if by a theist argument can work, you mean that there can be arguments for the theistic position I agree, if you mean by work, you mean logically justify the belief in a god, I disagree. In either case, on a debate site, I'm going to counter you, if I disagree, or at the very least point out what I think is wrong with your arguments. Alright, no problem. But I am curious, which parts do you disagree with? Side: Yes
Where's the proof that the earth is millions of years old? Nobody has been around that long,so how would evolutionist know that,if they weren't around that long? In other words,they have no proof to backup what they're saying & yet they want you to accept it as fact. If I was in court & said that person killed that woman,because I drew him doing it &/or did computer animations that would never hold in court &,we all know that. So in other words, why aren't evolutionist held to the same accountability? That's my question. Side: Yes
2
points
Where's the proof that the earth is millions of years old? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidenceagainstarecentcreation Nobody has been around that long,so how would evolutionist know that,if they weren't around that long? You realize that exact same argument can be used against you and what you believe in, right? In other words,they have no proof to backup what they're saying They have evidence from every major branch of science. Just because you are ignorant of this evidence doesn't mean it is absent. If I was in court & said that person killed that woman,because I drew him doing it &/or did computer animations that would never hold in court &,we all know that. So in other words, why aren't evolutionist held to the same accountability? Ummm....what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know? Side: No
1
point
yes because the lord has helped me in many times he has been a guide a freind is there such thing only jesus knows but jesus couldnt be alive if god wasnt alive and who made the race of men and women i belive that when the world ends god will take me to a safe place where we all can live happy Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I say yes, yes there is a god. Everyone has this theory about science and everything but who created science. I believe there is a higher power that humans are too scared to admit is there. I know there's theories such as the big bang but I believe it is more than mere coincidence that our planet is perfectly shaped and placed in just the right distance away from the sun for us to survive. Side: Yes
I know there's theories such as the big bang but I believe it is more than mere coincidence that our planet is perfectly shaped and placed in just the right distance away from the sun for us to survive. Do you have any idea how many planets there are out there? Billions upon billions. The chances of the planet being in the correct position are pretty nice. Also, what about the planet's shape? It's round, like nearly every planet out there. Side: No
Do you have any idea how many planets there are out there? Billions upon billions. The chances of the planet being in the correct position are pretty nice. An what are the odds of one of those rocky planets hitting another rocky planet at a perfect glancing blow to both give the earth an oversized iron core necessary for a strong magnetic field as well as a very large moon in orbit to stabilize the planet's spin and seasons? Oh, an that had to happen in the habitable zone, and the planet had to later be bombarded with comets via another rare event, all within a time frame before the star burns out... Of course assuming you were orbiting the right kind of star and it wasn't in a binary system or too close to the galactic core. And after all that, some how amino acids had to magically combine to make life, something that mathematically should never happen. Side: Yes
An what are the odds of one of those rocky planets hitting another rocky planet at a perfect glancing blow to both give the earth an oversized iron core necessary for a strong magnetic field as well as a very large moon in orbit to stabilize the planet's spin and seasons? 1: It doesn't need to be a "perfect glancing blow" 2: Plenty of other planets have moons and seasons. Also, the habitable zone is pretty large, and somewhat inaccurate too, as other forms of life could develop in areas that would be inhospitable to us. And after all that, some how amino acids had to magically combine to make life, something that mathematically should never happen. Yeah.. it's a little more complicated than that. Here's a good video on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/ Also, just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers and claim it was all made by a deity. And not just any deity, your deity from your religion from your denomination. Side: No
It doesn't need to be a "perfect glancing blow" Incorrect, if it hit straight on, both planets would have been annihilated and formed an asteroid belt. If the hit was more off center, the the core of the impactor would not have sunk to join the earth's core and the effects would not be the same. 2: Plenty of other planets have moons and seasons. Oh? Which ones? Mercury; no moon, Venus; no moon; Mars, two tiny moons that have no effect on it; Jupiter, gas giant; Saturn; gas giant; Uranus; gas giant; Neptune; gas giant. I don't believe we have ever discovered an exo-moon. The only analogue might be Pluto-Charon but we don't know if that occurred because of an impact. Do I have to explain the odds of Pluto having life? Seasons or not having seasons not really the issue, the issue is the orbital stability that the moon provides. I'll watch your video when I have more time. Also, just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers and claim it was all made by a deity No Christian I know of has said "stop looking for answers" Even if I thought you were wasting your time the discoveries on the way are worth the effort and resources. Do you think the scientific community doesn't have any devout Christians among them? And not just any deity, your deity from your religion from your denomination. Well, for starters, my deity has the most scientifically accurate creation "myth" of all religions in world history. Side: Yes
Yes. For several reasons. 1. The odds of our existence are so incredibly remote, it is logical to believe a higher power put us here. Of course we could be wrong, but it would be an understandable error. 2. The apostles of Jesus at least saw something that had them convinced enough to leave their old lives behind and suffer brutal deaths for their faith in Jesus. This is not a natural thing. If a man runs up to a group of people, swearing he saw a purple flying elephant, so everyone decided to flay him alive, but he continued to talk about what he saw, you should be at least partially inclined to believe that he sawsomething strange... Now if twelve people do the same thing, you should really really start to wonder what they saw. 3. Reading the bible has exposed truths to me about the nature of humanity that can't be found anywhere else. The author of the Bible knows mankind better than mankind. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Earth: Accretion model. Supported by cosmology, geology and physics. Space: Inflation, already assumed true, recently supported by even more evidence. While the actual cause of inflation itself is still up for debate, multiple theories in quantum-physics and cosmology have been proposed and are mathematically and observationally viable. Meaning that, at the very least, there are a few possibilities aside from God. The unfortunate thing about your statement is that you implore us to think...yet you take the side that requires the least amount of thinking. Side: No
|
6
points
Many ppl have stated they went to Hell & unlike the situation with alien stories,they've actually given great detail. Anyone who doesn't believe me can do any research they want to. If anyone hears their stories,they'll know they weren't dreaming or hallucinating. Plus there were too many witnesses to for it to be a dream or hallucination. Besides who's ever heard of someone having the same or similar dreams? If anyone thinks that ppl getting up from wheelchairs is a scam,you can have injured friend(s) or family member(s) go on the podium &,have them prayed for. If they refuse to,then you'll prove it's a scam. If they do pray for them, & they get healed you'll have something to be happy bout won't you? Either way you can't lose. You could also have a Pastor come over to your sick friend(s) or family member(s) to go over their hospital bed & pray for them if you like,so you won't have to spend any gas money. Side: Yes
4
points
J. K. Rowling gave great detail about Hogwarts, I guess that means she's been there? You're claiming that because people told stories with great detail, it must be accurate? Because that's ridiculous. People can make up stories, and false stories and memories can be caused by mental illness. Side: No
2
points
Yes God exist. If God is not there we wont be living in this world today. War natural disaster all these things happens without limit but since God is there he saves those who believe in him. This world will no longer be there if God doesnt exist, he loves us and he always protect you and me. Even satan cant touch you but God can. There is a true God the only father that is in heaven. He love us that he sent his only son to save us . Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
0
points
5
points
Actually that one has been debunked many times. This article covers many of the claims. If you just Google lady of guadalupe debunked you'll find many more articles. Side: No
2
points
sigh I have read much of those so called "debunked". All of them ended up as laughing stock in Christian forums. Hell, did you even read the comments below your source? All of them are mocking the writer primarily because: 1. It ignored the fact that the tilma lasted for 500 years when it should have decayed in 5. 2. It avoids the topics that NASA tested it and came to the conclusion that it was not painted with human hands nor made up of any known material. 3. They forces the argument on lack of documentation or contradicting records. But seriously, do you really expect a 500 year old aztect tribe to write accurately? Side: Yes
6
points
Hell, did you even read the comments below your source? That was not my source. I think you must have been looking at one of the other google links and got it mixed up. This was my source 1. It ignored the fact that the tilma lasted for 500 years when it should have decayed in 5. My source already addresses that. See the paragraph with a large font. 2. It avoids the topics that NASA tested it and came to the conclusion that it was not painted with human hands nor made up of any known material. NASA is an aerospace agency, not a miracle verification agency. The claim that NASA verified it is misleading and completely false. Lets start with the misleading part. Philip Serna Callahan did some consulting work for NASA. He is the one that examined the image. He did it of his own time not in any way related to NASA. Now for the completely false part; here is what he found... "In 1979, Dr. Philip Serna Callahan, a biophysicist affiliated with the University of Florida, conducted an infrared photographic investigation into the composition of the image in the Basilica. His preliminary findings have interesting implications for the indigenista exegeses. Callahan (1981) has described numerous overlays of pigments upon a primitive (original) image, without an underdrawing, and has suggested the composition of the colorants. Among the "retouches" he finds are the moon, sun rays, sash, all gold ornamentation (including the stars and the Nahui Ollin figure), to mention a few. Dr. Callahan's research has already been translated into Spanish in Mexico and published with the support of the Archdiocese of Mexico (Callahan and Smith 1981). Callahan contends, like art critics before him, that the additions he identifies are simply (and rather obviously, to him) International Gothic ornaments typical of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Spanish paintings of the Virgin Mary (Callahan 1981:8). Callahan's monograph also raises the possibility that some or all of the decorative elements were painted some time after the original was produced, perhaps toward the second half of the sixteenth century, when the mass conversions of the Valley of Mexico had already attenuated (cf. Leatham 1982). Some indigenistas have responded by denying the validity of Callahan's methods (e.g., he had to estimate his camera apertures) and results. They claim that the "unity" of the "codified messages" within the image negates the possibility of motifs being added by humans (HernAndez 1987: 14)." So to sum that up, the painting was sketched before being painted, something that most painters do. Parts of the image were added long after the original painting was created and they are just typical gothic ornaments matching other fifteenth and sixteenth century Spanish paintings of Mary. Long story short, it's a fake. Source (page 9) 3. They forces the argument on lack of documentation or contradicting records. But seriously, do you really expect a 500 year old aztect tribe to write accurately? The documentation is irrelevant since the painting is a fake. Side: No
1
point
Read the top of your source "http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201" It was made by the same author. And I believe that the skeptoid link is the compressed one as it was published just 3 years ago. My source already addresses that. See the paragraph with a large font. sigh Your link did not work. But dont worry, I know where it came from. Indeed, it has been admitted by the church that the painting has undergone several restorations but does that changed anything? It has survived 500 years of exposure to candles, weather, human hands and insects. Survived a bomb and acid exposure. Dont tell me you are going to force a simple argument and deny the bigger picture? P.S Dr. Callahan is a devote Catholic and a supporter of the Guadalupe. The documentation is irrelevant since the painting is a fake. Suit yourself. Side: Yes
5
points
It was made by the same author. And I believe that the skeptoid link is the compressed one as it was published just 3 years ago. The content of the two articles is not the same. Indeed, it has been admitted by the church that the painting has undergone several restorations but does that changed anything? Yes, it means they lied about it not fading, so they can't be trusted. It has survived 500 years of exposure to candles, weather, human hands and insects. Survived a bomb and acid exposure. They lied about it not having any paint on it. They lied about NASA testing it. They lied about the actual findings in Callahan's report. They lied about the canvas being made from native cactus plant fibers They lied about the pupils dilating when exposed to light. They lied about the temperature of the painting always staying a constant 98.6 degrees. They lied about it having a heartbeat when a stethoscope is placed against it. They claimed all of those things were true at some point in time and now they keep backing down further and further and admitting they aren't true. They clearly have no qualms about lying their asses off to try to make it look miraculous, so why would I believe any of their other claims. Side: No
1
point
The content of the two articles is not the same. One is unreviewed, the other is compressed. Yes, it means they lied about it not fading, so they can't be trusted. Theres a difference between lying and not speaking. They are ready to answer any questions but it is not their loss if you wont ask. They lied about it not having any paint on it. They lied about NASA testing it. sigh Technically speaking, it was the crowds who caused the misinformation not the Church. You cannot just lie about a persons report as it can get you arrested for Defamation. All the reports are readily available online. All are approved by scientific agencies and all you can do now is to deny the findings. Not that it concerns me, though. Side: Yes
1
point
One is unreviewed, the other is compressed. You would be able to explain, the reasoning within the article that shows a god existing, no? Or the reasoning on why to believe a god exists, no? Theres a difference between lying and not speaking. They are ready to answer any questions but it is not their loss if you wont ask. So they weren't directly lying, they were being misleading, by leaving out key information. either way, it's dishonest isn't it? Technically speaking, it was the crowds who caused the misinformation not the Church. You cannot just lie about a persons report as it can get you arrested for Defamation. All the reports are readily available online. All are approved by scientific agencies and all you can do now is to deny the findings. Not that it concerns me, though. First of all, there is a different between a scientific agency supporting the facts, and a spin off of those facts. I did read the article, and a logical reason to believe in god was not presented to me. If everything in it was true, that just means a painting was really well preserved beyond our understanding, that just means we need a better understanding, not that a god had anything to do with it. Side: No
1
point
You would be able to explain, the reasoning within the article that shows a god existing, no? Or the reasoning on why to believe a god exists, no? You did not read the research, have you? So they weren't directly lying, they were being misleading, by leaving out key information. either way, it's dishonest isn't it? A persons inability to ask questions is his own fault. The answer is readily available. You just have to ask, it's that simple. If everything in it was true, that just means a painting was really well preserved beyond our understanding, that just means we need a better understanding, not that a god had anything to do with it If its just age, i wouldn't find a problem in your argument. But the thing is, the test results show that not only was the painting impossible to be done by human hands, but also practically inexplainable due to how intricate it is, to the point that not even modern technology can imitate it. Only denial can get you out of here. Side: Yes
2
points
You did not read the research, have you? I read the article if that is what you are asking. A persons inability to ask questions is his own fault. The answer is readily available. You just have to ask, it's that simple. Why didn't they put that knowledge out there to begin with? It obviously was something, that could make what they are saying questionable, thus it's of course going to seem dishonest, when they don't acknowledge it in public writing. If its just age, i wouldn't find a problem in your argument. But the thing is, the test results show that not only was the painting impossible to be done by human hands, but also practically inexplainable due to how intricate it is, to the point that not even modern technology can imitate it. And how does it follow a god exists from this? Why not fairies? why not spirits? Side: No
1
point
I read the article if that is what you are asking. I can see that you did not raise any argument about the research done and the credibility of the scientists. Gee, I wonder why Why didn't they put that knowledge out there to begin with? Simple: no one's asking. And how does it follow a god exists from this? Why not fairies? why not spirits? Because if fairies and spirits exist, then so does the rest of the paranormal world. And that includes God. Side: Yes
2
points
I can see that you did not raise any argument about the research done and the credibility of the scientists. Gee, I wonder why Because it doesn't matter whether or not what is being claimed it true, I would figure you could use common sense to figure that out. Because if fairies and spirits exist, then so does the rest of the paranormal world. And that includes God. How would one supernatural claim being true, prove every supernatural claim? It doesn't follow. Side: No
1
point
Because it doesn't matter whether or not what is being claimed it true So you recognize the research as valid but you still deny the existence of God? How would one supernatural claim being true, prove every supernatural claim? It doesn't follow. One undebunkable proof is enough to change everything, apparently. Side: Yes
2
points
So you recognize the research as valid but you still deny the existence of God? I don't know if the research on it was valid, you didn't provide me any research to investigate. However even if what your article claimed was true, a painting that survived something that we don't understand how it did, I don't see how that logically follows that their is a supreme being whom caused the universe... One undebunkable proof is enough to change everything, apparently. Could you elaborate? I get the feeling, you are not understanding what I am telling you. Side: No
1
point
I don't know if the research on it was valid, you didn't provide me any research to investigate. Could you elaborate? I get the feeling, you are not understanding what I am telling you. Its easy. The moment that science start to recognize the existence of the paranormal is the moment that the definition of logic will change. Notice how NASA tested the Guadalupe but they never wrote the reports on their homepage. But when asked for its credibility, they would rather stay quiet. Alot of the scientists who failed in explaining the Guadalupe has converted. And all of them were rejected in the scientific community. And why is that? Admit it. It's all a matter of denial. Side: Yes
1
point
I already gave you one That's not research, that is an article... there is a difference, it didn't give me a study, or a reference to an experiment. Regardless though, again, even if it was true, it would mean nothing for you. How does it follow that a painting that had been well preserved for a long time, to a point where we don't understand how lead to the conclusion that their is a god. Notice how NASA tested the Guadalupe but they never wrote the reports on their homepage. But when asked for its credibility, they would rather stay quiet. Alot of the scientists who failed in explaining the Guadalupe has converted. And all of them were rejected in the scientific community. And why is that? Where did you get this from? Side: No
1
point
That's not research, that is an article It is a researched article that provides enough references to suit your every needs. How does it follow that a painting that had been well preserved for a long time, to a point where we don't understand how lead to the conclusion that their is a god Simple: 1. It has a background story 2. The painting itself is an icon of a religious figure 3. It is inexplanable It all matches the requirements that every single atheist demands in a miracle. You know that any further arguments will not last. Why struggle to keep up? Where did you get this from? Research mate. Ive made alot of research in Guadalupe. All those who claim to debunk it are limited to 2. They condemn the science as flawed or the scientists as bribed. Side: Yes
1
point
It is a researched article that provides enough references to suit your every needs. Does it cite the research, give links to the studies and what not on the painting? It all matches the requirements that every single atheist demands in a miracle. You know that any further arguments will not last. Why struggle to keep up? What is your definition of a miracle? something incredible happening, that seems highly unlikely and is nice. I think those miracles happen, I just don't think it is evidence of a god. Something that was caused by a god? Well I need a reason to conclude that, or evidence. Research mate. Ive made alot of research in Guadalupe. All those who claim to debunk it are limited to 2. They condemn the science as flawed or the scientists as bribed. If you want to convince me of these things, then show me your research. Side: No
1
point
Does it cite the research, give links to the studies and what not on the painting? Oh so thats what you are asking. Try this then It is complete with enough researches done by Harvard University and Oxford. And it is approved by scientists What is your definition of a miracle? event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency Stop running in circles, already. It hurts me more than it does to you If you want to convince me of these things, then show me your research. Side: Yes
She has tried same on me. I did checked those "scientists'" background. NASA scientist J. Smith does not exist nor there is any evidence that anything to do with that picture. Dr. Callaghan hoaxer with formal backgound in bugs, most of his papers are on worms and ants, the rest is on healing rocks. By the way he also "detected" Tachyons (theoretical particle faster than light) by connecting simple multimeter to a ficus... Centifolia eve accidentally send me link to a web page satirically mocking that idiot (she thought that they are supporting him). Dr. Aste Tonsmann employed by "Mexican Center for Guadalupe studies" ...so... :D Picture was also examined by random dentists and eye doctors (I don't know why...) who stated that it is magic ...?? ... Centifolia is deluded religious zealot, later she may try to get your actual name... I would be careful ... Side: No
1
point
I stopped debating her when I realized she wanted me to do all her homework for her. It doesn't work like that, I back up my claims with evidence as should be expected, so she should back up her own claims with evidence. I'm not going to do research into her own claims, neither would she research my claims, if she can't provide actual evidence, that's her problem not mine. She's a big girl, she can do her own research, and if not, she's not worth my time. Side: No
1
point
I'm afraid you're wrong. The bible predicted Israel would once again become a nation & it happened in 1948. The so called saying that man made Israel a nation doesn't change the fact that the bible got it right. If you study the bible, it states God's promise to Abraham that the earth is as numerous as the stars & that the earth was flat. In the time of the 1400s or so they believe that there were only certain amount of stars & that the earth was flat. Secularist also denied that the Romans were trying to kill the Christians & it was later proven to be true. If anyone watches the documentary Jesus & The Lost 40 Days,they'll see for themselves(what history already proved) that He did walk the earth. I know this sounds silly, but if you look at Superbook's version of,King Darius,you'll see that's what he looked like. Anyone who doesn't believe me,can go visit the temple in Babylon,see for themselves & do a comparison. Anyone who doesn't believe me can research this. Side: Yes
I have read much of those so called "debunked". That's a total lie. You still haven't read the article you keep telling people to read. All of them ended up as laughing stock in Christian forums. Further indication that you didn't read anything, you are just taking the opinion of other people. We laugh at the Bible, therefore it isn't true, according to you. Side: No
I seem you try to lie to other people.... It ignored the fact that the tilma lasted for 500 years when it should have decayed in 5. Never tested material. It avoids the topics that NASA tested it and came to the conclusion that it was not painted with human hands nor made up of any known material. Your favourite fake NASA scientist. you are really dumb religious zealot. Side: No
1
point
Actually the theory of man evolving from apes has been debunked. The only proof evolutionist have are mere drawings and computer animations. In other words, they have no proof whatsoever. In Job 40:15. It states of an animal that has a tail a long as a Cedar Tree. Anyone who has seen a Cedar Tree knows theres no current animal that has a tail that.long. So what animal is it? It's a dinosaur my friend Side: Yes
3
points
2
points
Perhaps as ridiculous as the purpose of evolution and existence of life, isnt it? Evolution is real, but why does it happen? If it seeks survival of the fittest, cockroaches has already won. If it seeks long life, trees has made it to the top. But no, the one who sits on the top of the food chain is the one who has no claws, no fangs, not even a good birthrate. And to add insult to injury, this animals are the only ones who question his beliefs. I choose intelligent design over nihilistic denials Side: Yes
6
points
You clearly do not understand evolution. It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.-Charles Darwin That is us, we are the most adaptable to change. Also no way are cockroaches the fittest just because they can survive nuclear explosions, of course trees would not be on the top of the food chain because you might have noticed but trees aren't carnivorous.
And just because you are Atheist does not mean you are Nihilist. People think Nihilism is just not believing in Religion but really it is believing life is completely without meaning and usually that nothing exists. Side: No
2
points
Also no way are cockroaches the fittest just because they can survive nuclear explosions, Wouldn't that make Cockroaches the highest level of evolutionized oganisms? They would clearly be most adaptable to change if they could survive a nuclear explosion. A human would be obliterated. A cockroach would survive. Which species shall flourish and repopulate? Humans or Roaches? Side: Yes
1
point
No, nuclear attacks don't go on all the time. You do understand that this is a hypothetical event I am talking about right? They are able to adapt to a situation that hasn't occurred. That doesn't make you fit. Are you sure about that? Survival of the fittest. Who are the "fittest"? Those who survive. Who survives? Those that are the "fittest". If a Cockroach survives a nuclear explosion and can adapt to the new environment and reproduce successfully then it is most fit for change since a nuclear explosion is a great change. Darwin would agree that those that survive a change were most fit to survive. That is how evolution works. Mutations occur, and if they fail to have to survive then the successful mutations are deemed as "the fittest". Like I really don't think that's hard to understand. Side: Yes
You do understand that this is a hypothetical event I am talking about right? You do understand that in a hypothetical event you can't draw conclusions unless the hypothetical event actually happens, right? Are you sure about that? Survival of the fittest. Who are the "fittest"? Those who survive. Who survives? Those that are the "fittest". If a Cockroach survives a nuclear explosion and can adapt to the new environment and reproduce successfully then it is most fit for change since a nuclear explosion is a great change. Darwin would agree that those that survive a change were most fit to survive. That is how evolution works. Mutations occur, and if they fail to have to survive then the successful mutations are deemed as "the fittest". It is survival of the fittest FOR WHAT ENVIRONMENT EXISTS. You don't get kudos points for being able to adapt to an environment that doesn't exist. According to you polar bears are more fit tan humans because they could survive the world freezing over. That's not how it works. As we can see, if the environment heats up instead of cools down, the polar bear no longer has the adaptation advantage. You can speculate all you want on whether the cockroach would be the fittest in the case of a nuclear strike, but your conclusion is worthless if there is no nuclear strike. Like I said before the cockroach would be the highest IN A NUCLEAR STRIKE. Like I really don't think that's hard to understand. Clearly it is, you don't get it. Side: No
1
point
You do understand that in a hypothetical event you can't draw conclusions unless the hypothetical event actually happens, right? Point of a hypothetical event is to make conclusions based on what you think would happen. That's the point of hypothetic situations. Based on this if it doesn't happen I can't make a conclusion off of it. Let me provide you with an example. Suppose subject A has been hit by a car and died. Subject B feels sad and lost. Now in the hypothetical we can say what if Subject A survived? Then Subject B would not be as sad and lost as he is now. That is drawing a conclusion from a hypothetical. It is survival of the fittest FOR WHAT ENVIRONMENT EXISTS. Okay? Let me use some logic here then. 1. The fittest are the one who survive in their given environment. 2. A nuclear bomb goes off. 3. Environment changes and is now different. 4. Species A, B, and C survive and reproduce and continue living. 5. The were the "fittest" to the change in their environment. 6. Species A, B, and C still exist in the new environment. 7. They truly are the "fittest" in this instance. I have said this the entire time. I don't get what you are attempting to argue. According to you polar bears are more fit tan humans because they could survive the world freezing over. That's not how it works. You clearly don't understand my argument at all. Did you even read what I said? iLoveVersace: " If a Cockroach survives a nuclear explosion and can adapt to the new environment and reproduce successfully then it is most fit for change since a nuclear explosion is a great change." Also if the world freezes over and polar bears are fine in that present environment they would be the most fit. Which is what I said about a Cockroach. Totes thanks for trying. As we can see, if the environment heats up instead of cools down, the polar bear no longer has the adaptation advantage. That's right, and any species that can survive extreme heat is now the "fittest" or at least "fit" to survive. You can speculate all you want on whether the cockroach would be the fittest in the case of a nuclear strike, but your conclusion is worthless if there is no nuclear strike. Oh okay. So its useless to speculate if humans would exist or survive after a catastrophic meteor strike too, right? Since the strike has not actually happened, yet, then speculation is useless. Cool. Go confirm that with any scientist or astronomer that spends their entire life speculating these things. They would agree with you in a second. Like I said before the cockroach would be the highest IN A NUCLEAR STRIKE. Didn't I already say this? Yes Claire. Yes you did. Clearly it is, you don't get it. Pfft, says your argument. Side: No
iLoveVersace:"Wouldn't that make Cockroaches the highest level of evolutionized oganisms?" That was your original argument. This makes no claims that highest levels because of nuclear strike. You said the answer was yes. Do you still say that about today's current conditions? If you don't think that is true for today's conditions, then you are correct. If you still think they are with today's conditions you have argued against yourself. You clearly don't understand my argument at all. Did you even read what I said? I was saying polar bears currently do not become more fit because of being able to survive freezing. That's right, and any species that can survive extreme heat is now the "fittest" or at least "fit" to survive. But, doesn't change how well the species has adapted to the current environment. Oh okay. So its useless to speculate if humans would exist or survive after a catastrophic meteor strike too, right? Since the strike has not actually happened, yet, then speculation is useless. Cool. Go confirm that with any scientist or astronomer that spends their entire life speculating these things. They would agree with you in a second. You misunderstood what I meant. I meant the conclusion can't be applied to current conditions. You went a little overboard there. Didn't I already say this? Yes Claire. Yes you did. So, your whole rebuttal is kind of stupid because we both understand what you wrote here. Pfft, says your argument. Your rebuttal doesn't seem to address my argument at all, so it makes sense to claim you don't understand. Side: Yes
1
point
That was your original argument. This makes no claims that highest levels because of nuclear strike. Did you read the rest of my "original argument"? It all flows together. You should have posted it all since I addresses his argument directly. You said the answer was yes. Do you still say that about today's current conditions? They are still fit since they still survive. We are still fit since humans still survive. I was saying polar bears currently do not become more fit because of being able to survive freezing. I never said potential made them more fit. I did hint that potential made them more adaptable to change. If your genetics help you survive in multiple environments, biomes, or whatever, you are fit. If you survive and reproduce you are fit. Both cockroakches and polar bear do this today. Therefore they are both fit. If a nuclear strike occurs the cockroach would survive and reproduce and still remain fit. The polar bear would die. It wasn't fit enough. But, doesn't change how well the species has adapted to the current environment. If it can surive and reproduce it has adapted pretty well to it's current environment. You misunderstood what I meant. I meant the conclusion can't be applied to current conditions. You went a little overboard there. Nope. I went off of what you said in text since it was so stupid and idiotic. Now you just want to change what you said. Cartman: " You can speculate all you want on whether the cockroach would be the fittest in the case of a nuclear strike, but your conclusion is worthless if there is no nuclear strike." So, by your own words a conclusion is useless if the event hasn't actually happened. Also speculation can be applied to current situations since they will help us adapt to that incoming change. I speculate that humans won't survive a metoer strike that will influence us to find ways to sirvive the metoer strike and begin to speculate again. So, your whole rebuttal is kind of stupid because we both understand what you wrote here. What's stupid is you. You = stupid. My argument was fine. You thought it wasn't. You're stupid. Your rebuttal doesn't seem to address my argument at all, so it makes sense to claim you don't understand. You know very well that my argument stayed on the same topic as yours and was perfectly relevant, idiot. Oh Claire why do you put up with this? I have no clue. I didn't think he was that idiotic. Side: Yes
Did you read the rest of my "original argument"? It all flows together. You should have posted it all since I addresses his argument directly. The rest of your original argument said that cockroaches are more fit because they could survive a nuclear explosion: "They would clearly be most adaptable to change if they could survive a nuclear explosion.". Now you are saying that surviving at all puts you at the highest level. They are still fit since they still survive. We are still fit since humans still survive. You are the one who assigned some higher level of fit that doesn't apply, not me. I never said potential made them more fit. I did hint that potential made them more adaptable to change. If your genetics help you survive in multiple environments, biomes, or whatever, you are fit. If you survive and reproduce you are fit. Both cockroakches and polar bear do this today. Therefore they are both fit. If a nuclear strike occurs the cockroach would survive and reproduce and still remain fit. The polar bear would die. It wasn't fit enough. Not true, your original argument said cockroaches were more fit. Nope. I went off of what you said in text since it was so stupid and idiotic. Now you just want to change what you said. Cartman: " You can speculate all you want on whether the cockroach would be the fittest in the case of a nuclear strike, but your conclusion is worthless if there is no nuclear strike." So, by your own words a conclusion is useless if the event hasn't actually happened. Also speculation can be applied to current situations since they will help us adapt to that incoming change. I speculate that humans won't survive a metoer strike that will influence us to find ways to sirvive the metoer strike and begin to speculate again. I didn't say you misunderstood what I said, I said you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't make it clear when the conclusion is worthless. The previous argument was to clear that up. What's stupid is you. You = stupid. My argument was fine. You thought it wasn't. You're stupid. Your argument repeated established fact. What is smart about that? You know very well that my argument stayed on the same topic as yours and was perfectly relevant, idiot. Oh Claire why do you put up with this? I have no clue. I didn't think he was that idiotic. Yes, you stayed on the same topic, but you were supposed to go to the new topic of showing how your opinion is different. I didn't say you were irrelevant. I said you didn't actually address what I said. Side: No
1
point
The rest of your original argument said that cockroaches are more fit because they could survive a nuclear explosion: "They would clearly be most adaptable to change if they could survive a nuclear explosion.". Now you are saying that surviving at all puts you at the highest level. How in God's name did you not understand what I said after quoting it? Let me explain it for you since you can't understand it. Cockroaches would be most adaptable to change if a nuclear occured and they survived. That means exactly what it reads. Now I am saying "surving at all puts you at the highest level"? Really? When did I say that? Oh that's right. I never did. You are at the highest level of survival if you can survive a nuclear explosion, DURING AND AFTER THE EXPLOSION, which apparently cockroaches can do. You are the one who assigned some higher level of fit that doesn't apply, not me What? You asked a question and I answered it. This is your response to my answer? Not true, your original argument said cockroaches were more fit. This is my entire first post. iLoveVersace: "Wouldn't that make Cockroaches the highest level of evolutionized oganisms? They would clearly be most adaptable to change* if they could survive a nuclear explosion. A human would be obliterated. A cockroach would survive. Which species shall flourish and repopulate? Humans or Roaches?" Never did I say more fit. Thanks for lying agiain, Liar. I didn't say you misunderstood what I said, I said you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't make it clear when the conclusion is worthless. The previous argument was to clear that up. You need to be more specific when you argue. Your argument repeated established fact. What is smart about that? Did you want some new form of transendent knowledge? Or a basis of previously known fact? you were supposed to go to the new topic of showing how your opinion is different. What opinion? Why even discuss why my non-existent opinion needs a new topic? That's irrelevant. I never need to tell you why my non-existent opinion is different. Thats completely irrelevant. Side: Yes
How in God's name did you not understand what I said after quoting it? Let me explain it for you since you can't understand it. Cockroaches would be most adaptable to change if a nuclear occured and they survived. That means exactly what it reads. Now I am saying "surving at all puts you at the highest level"? Really? When did I say that? Oh that's right. I never did. You are at the highest level of survival if you can survive a nuclear explosion, DURING AND AFTER THE EXPLOSION, which apparently cockroaches can do. Your statement is making a blanket claim that cockroaches are more fit in current conditions because they can survive an event that is not happening currently. Are you claiming this is true or not? What? You asked a question and I answered it. This is your response to my answer? You assigned the higher level before I asked anything. This is my entire first post. iLoveVersace: "Wouldn't that make Cockroaches the highest level of evolutionized oganisms? They would clearly be most adaptable to change if they could survive a nuclear explosion. A human would be obliterated. A cockroach would survive. Which species shall flourish and repopulate? Humans or Roaches?" Never did I say more fit. Thanks for lying agiain, Liar. How does that not mean more fit? If you are not saying cockroaches are more fit, then you didn't say anything at all. Do you believe that cockroaches are more fit since they can survive a nuclear explosion? You need to be more specific when you argue. Why? I was specific and you still didn't understand me. Did you want some new form of transendent knowledge? Or a basis of previously known fact? Which one of those is you actually showing how I have a said something different than what you believe and how it is different? What opinion? Why even discuss why my non-existent opinion needs a new topic? That's irrelevant. I never need to tell you why my non-existent opinion is different. Thats completely irrelevant. You don't have opinions? That's news to me. Side: No
1
point
2
points
we are the most adaptable to change No were not. The most adaptable to change are ants, rats, cockroaches, grass and phytoplanktons.By the way, ever heard of carnivorous plants? If evolution seeks to create the most flexible species, then it shouldnt have created humans who focuses on intelligence. Humans are one of the weakest predators in the planet, we have no body weapon to use and yet, we now rule the land, sea and sky. Gee, I wonder why Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Some plants are carnivorous but trees aren't and even the ones that are can only consume insects. The reason why we rule than land, sea and sky is because of our superior intelligence so we know how to build tools, weapons, buildings, aircraft, ships and boat whereas over species don't. Gradually over time humans used their intelligence to develop new technology, it was the work of them alone and evolution not a creator deity. Side: No
1
point
The reason why we rule than land, sea and sky is because of our superior intelligence Precisely. If evolution seeks adaptability, it would have improved the body of small rodents but instead, evolution decided to create humans who can not only create weapons but also test everything he knows. Philosophy never improved our survival rate. And yet, it exists. Would you still believe that evolution is a random chance? I vote for intelligent design. Side: Yes
Evolution doesn't 'seek' anything. Evolution favors those who are best suited to the environment they are in. Now those who are the most adaptable will do well in many environments. Humans are quite adaptable. We have pretty much removed ourselves from many environmental evolutionary forcing. Cold weather? Wear more clothes. Hot weather? AC. Species that do not have our capabilities that were listed by you folks for instance have better chances of survival in certain areas for sure, but just a note, humans can survive on every continent even Antarctica, no ants or cockroaches there! No trees either at this time in history. Using such measures doesn't work well though if you are saying one species is better than the other because many species are highly specialized for their environment. I mean look at penguins and polar bears. Just because species X can survive radiation doesn't mean it is 'better' than a species that cannot. There is no species that is the highest form of evolution. Small rodents are adapted to the environment they fit into. They are mainly nocturnal animals with highly developed senses of hearing for example, this allows them to avoid many predators. As ambush hunters crocodiles are highly adapted to their environment. Their eye placement allows them to be mostly underwater keeping them hidden from their prey. By using measures that do not pertain to those environments is silly. It is like saying humans are not the highest form of life because we cannot breath water, and the earth is mostly water. Philosophy is our ability to reason, it has improved our ability to survive. It has allowed us to differentiate through trial and error for instance. Evolution isn't random chance. It is random mutations but driven by natural selection. Mutations that are beneficial have statistically better odds at passing on their genes than ones that do not. Anyways feel free to ignore me. I jumped in an established discussion because it seemed to have ended. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
Sorry if I was unable to reply yesterday-too much work Evolution favors those who are best suited to the environment they are in As far as I can see...mankind was never made to adapt to anything. Our long legs made us unable to live in the swamps, slow and easy to tire made living in the plains too hard, and slow birthrate should have doomed us to extinction. But we didn't Intelligence was our only weapon. We used shoes against mud, bow and arrows in the plains and medicine made our life longer. Mankind was never gifted with any skill to even survive in the wild, and yet, here we are controlling the food chain and restricting ourselves from destroying too much. Dont you find that weird? I know that evolution is real, but I vote for intelligence design over random mutations Side: Yes
Don't you find it weird that everything "God" gave us is incredibly worthless? Humans were able to invent things to adapt to the environment. Evolution's crowning achievement is that it led to a creature that doesn't need natural selection to adapt. All your examples show is that God gave us nothing and we were able to adapt without Him. That is the worst design ever. That's like designing a car, but only coming up with the frame, then the frame invents wheels and an engine and starts driving everywhere, and calling that a good design. You can vote all you want, but science isn't a democracy. Side: Yes
I didn't really expect a reply as it is off topic of the debate...which seems to be dead now. I disagree with a few parts. ...mankind was never made to adapt to anything... Considering I say mankind isn't 'made' to do anything sure:) I think I know what you mean though but then you list a bunch of things showing that man has used intellect to adapt to environments that are outside of the environment of our evolutionary beginnings in the African plains. My only point there is that man is adaptable via intellect. slow and easy to tire made living in the plains too hard,... We are highly developed 'persistence hunters'. That has been a topic among paleontologists and anthropologists for a long while when discussing why look how we do. We are quite well suited for hunting on open plains where mankind developed from out evolutionary beginnings. David Attenborough discussed this form of hunting in a documentary this form of hunting was practiced on the African Savannah during many of our lifetimes. Humans used to hunt by wearing out our prey, we are long distance runners. Many four legged animals are way faster than us in a sprint but they cannot keep that pace up for long periods. As Humans we also cool ourselves much easier than many other mammals because we sweat, the prey would get over heated long before a hunter would. We are a product of our environment. But I already noted we recently have almost removed ourselves from any environmental evolutionary forces. This doesn't mean we are not evolving in any way it is just that the environmental forces are not favoring any traits over another as well as large populations being very stable evolution wise. There was a thread a bit ago that was saying something to the tune of 'Is it OK if a deity were responsible for evolution'. I noted it is ok as long as it isn't taught as science because it is not a scientific idea, it is not testable. Side: Yes
1
point
Humans used to hunt by wearing out our prey, we are long distance runners. Indeed. Then came the time when humans has learned how to farm. Ever since then, being "persistence hunters" has contradicted our way of life. We discovered the art of settling down and forming communities. We invented agriculture and selective breeding. But considering how we were built, none of those should have ever been. My only point there is that man is adaptable via intellect. Surviving through the use of intelligence is one thing. But wont you agree that mankind has become way too intelligent? Every living creature fears death, but only mankind was able to create religion and formulate philosophies to cope up with those fears Self sacrifice is not rare in the animal world. But only humans will kill another human in sadistic ways for an illogical reason. E.g, burying people alive to assist the Pharoah, sacrifice for the gods, and so on All creatures fear what they do not understand but why would humans slaughter homosexuals, commit genocide, and discriminate other religions or ethnic groups when they do not cause any harm to our society The more you look at it, the more illogical it looks. I vote for intelligent design. How bout you? Will you really consider this as mere coincidence in the gene pool? Side: Yes
But wont you agree that mankind has become way too intelligent? I am in the camp that we aren't smart enough. The stuff you list supports that! Just look at all of the terrible things you listed. I do not think anything you wrote promotes intelligent design as it seems to show we are still deeply flawed is all. All ID says is 'this is what happens, and a deity made it so' which is just a jump in logic I cannot make, it is non sequitur. It is a statement that cannot be tested. It should be 'this is what happens, now why?' If we haven't explained something yet in science saying a god did it is just lazy thinking. It is just a place holder until we do find out what causes these things. This has shown to be problematic thinking that stands in the way of discovery and progress. God of the gaps is not a good road for religious to go down as it just forces them to move goal posts as scientific discoveries are made or scientific ignore discoveries. Evolution is just that example, ID is a moving of the goal posts from us always being made a certain way, the other route is to just say evolution isn't true and we were always 'made' how we are. We see both camps in religious groups today. But considering how we were built, none of those should have ever been. I don't see this, we are highly social mammals. Social creatures have an intelligence we can relate to. You noted self sacrifice not being rare for instance. Selecting for more group minded mates is common among social mammals. Women have a limited time and amount of eggs to have children, they have to be choosey whose genes they get, men have an unlimited supply of their half though so they have to be competitive with each other for potential mate Our intelligence has allowed us to change some of the criteria for selecting mates for more than physical prowess. There is no reason to need a creator as it can all be explained through natural processes of selection for favorable traits and long periods of time. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Sorry for the late reply. Ill try to keep up with my messy schedules I do not think anything you wrote promotes intelligent design as it seems to show we are still deeply flawed is all It does actually. Together with other animals, we all had a single common parent gene but we humans are the only ones who has the ability to question our belief. In fact, it appears like we are the only ones who can even create a belief system Believing in the existence of a creator does not change anything in the equation of how the universe came to be. It simply adds purpose to being alive I don't see this, we are highly social mammals. Social creatures have an intelligence we can relate to. You dont see dolphins (2nd smartest animals) making their own religion, formulating a government, not even have a concept of time. Same goes to apes, wolves, elephants and other social animals. Extreme intelligence is something unique only to humans. And if Evolution happens in order to adapt to the environment, then how does having a belief system, moral code and philosophical learning improves our survival? Side: Yes
Extreme intelligence is something unique only to humans...In fact, it appears like we are the only ones who can even create a belief system I noted we can relate to aspects of social animals and their behaviors but this is a comparative measure using our own viewpoint as a control. As a species though we put a high value on our type of intelligence. Xanophese said "If horses had gods they would look like horses." If horses have similar hubris towards their own species as we show towards ourselves then we can assume they would use measures that favor themselves to show any divinity in their making which is just circular reasoning no matter who is doing it. Plato was guilty of this same reasoning in his 'The Republic' when he described men being in charge as natural because that is the state they are in now. His measures included natural differences in men and women where men have the advantage (as well as a description of women that isn't too accurate). It is easy to look at a measure and agree with it even if it is flawed if it favors you! We already discussed this a bit. To use a measure that is specific to any species as a measure for greatness is futile and incredibly subjective. We are different than other animals in 'X' way. We can identify things that separate us in our brains' development etc. and we can explain these changes through natural selection. But to say ID is why these things were selected or initiated is just a jump in logic that does not follow and cannot be proven as well as showing an amount of hubris and circular reasoning that I cannot get on board with. That is the ever receding or ever moving deity I noted last time. Either gods ability shrinks when we discover something or the posts get moved back and now god is responsible for the new thing instead of the old. We already have a working mechanism (natural selection) and to pin a deity on it is not only untestable it is not needed for the system to work. if Evolution happens in order to adapt to the environment, then how does having a belief system, moral code and philosophical learning improves our survival? There is plenty written about how social behaviors are selected. Our environment includes living things around us, predators, prey and even our families. Reciprocity is key here, animals that share their resources among their peers have a better chance of getting resources back in similar manner. Things like being selfish would reduce the chances of being a potential mate in the eyes of others as it could reduce resources available to them and reduce the chances of living through hard times such as drought because there would be less reciprocity of resources given. Here you have the start of a moral code forming about sharing. Now if you extrapolate this out for a very long time there would be a list of things that are considered good for the group and bad for the group. Here you have the start of philosophy and religions. Evolution via natural selection has time on its side. The foundation of these ideas like morality didn't start with the type of intelligence we have now but much earlier. Side: No
1
point
As a species though we put a high value on our type of intelligence.We are different than other animals in 'X' way. I agree that every animal is different from the other. Each one has their own uniqueness and such. My point is; why is it that the one who sits on the top of the food chain is the one who has the least weapons and the only one who can formulate a religion? Dont you find it odd that only humans has the ability of reasoning and keeps track of time? It is impossible to prove nor disprove the existence of God using the scientific formula. But believing in one does not change anything. There is plenty written about how social behaviors are selected. You failed to explain the reason for having a belief system, philosophical rule. Our History is also ridden with dark tales such as slavery, genocide and slaughter homosexuals. It does not contribute to our survival rate, and yet it exists. Side: Yes
Really I don't mind someone holding a position they do as long as untestable positions do not masquerade as science or trying to sneak it into public schools. When you keep asking 'why' something is think of how you would test the answer you want to give. why is it that the one who sits on the top of the food chain is the one who has the least weapons and the only one who can formulate a religion? Because our situation isn't about having more 'weapons' as this is another subjective measure. For instance I would argue that our intellect is also a weapon, perhaps the deadliest weapon. It isn't about more of anything it is about quality. There doesn't need to be a 'why' for us forming religion. I mean we can answer it by noting many primitive cultures didn't have ways to fully explain why it rained and used deities to fill in the blanks but I think you are alluding to more towards the answer you have for yourself. We also assume other species cannot form these complex ideas but do not know with absolute certainty. I do agree though that it is unlikely that other species have formed any religion, just saying this is an assumption. These differences are not a sign that we were designed or that there is a deity, as our differences only show that we differ. Reading through the posts in this thread I see other debaters have pointed out that a creator does not logically follow a question we can not say 'why'. Dont you find it odd that only humans has the ability of reasoning and keeps track of time? I don't find it odd at all. Again these examples are centric to us (and slight assumptions), this is us thinking the sun revolves around us. We have time keeping tools that are tooled for how we want, animals have similar time keeping tools that are tooled for how they want. For instance dogs know their owners come home around a certain time. They tell time differently than we do, and their method is centric to them. Using that measure is hubris at work (which can be explained via evolution too...). You keep asking 'why' is something how it is and many of these things can be explained why it likely got to where it 'is'. You keep asking for deeper meaning where their may be none though. It is like asking why an electron has a negative charge. While some of the inner workings are not explained yet tacking a deity on to a "is' type question as the 'why' requires a jump in logic and is lazy thinking. You failed to explain the reason for having a belief system, philosophical rule. Our History is also ridden with dark tales such as slavery, genocide and slaughter homosexuals. It does not contribute to our survival rate, and yet it exists. I told you how it would start. The reason it is there is because it was a bunch of beneficial things that started to accumulate over time. There really is no other why that is needed out of necessity to explain why it is how it is. We know how the mechanism works, it doesn't need a 'purpose' it just is a product of what works best in the situation. Tacking a 'purpose' above the why it works is superfluous, it is looking for meaning where it is already explained. It is there because it helped the group in some way and it became selected for as the behavior allowed those who practiced it more chances to mate. Also things like slavery genocide and the like are also easily explained in evolutionary terms. Again having to do with resources and reciprocity. Social species share with those that are close or more similar to them, kin groups etc. The further away from each other the species gets the less likely they will get to share with the other group. This helps protect the core groups by ensuring the group doing the best stays that way as long as conditions favor them. In times of scarce resources this is exactly what happens and still happens today. It is easy to exclude members of the group if they do not have close relations to them. People enslaved their neighbors not their family, they enslaved members of a perceived lower class, or a different religion, not their brothers and sisters. It helps the survival rate of specific groups, the ones benefiting from the disproportionate 'sharing' of the groups resources. We see this in forms of commerce even. Where core groups benefit from the work of others world wide. Most people don't care about the work conditions from where their clothes are made, they are far removed from that reality. It is easy for large groups to take advantage of other groups if they are perceived to be dissimilar to them. It helps the group on one end of the deal. Many of these are just rehashed questions I opposed before and my same answers still apply. Basically the idea of using our strengths as a measure for this already has the preconceived answer you want, but adding a deity as the answer of why to 'is' type answers is a jump in logic. Again if you wish to convince anyone in my position you will need to think of someway to test your answer because the 'this is a mystery therefore there is a god' approach doesn't do well with my group. We may never agree as we value different types of logic/evidence. Side: No
1
point
For instance I would argue that our intellect is also a weapon, perhaps the deadliest weapon. Just my 2 cents: No, intelligence is not the deadliest weapon. There has been a species that is much smarter than humans. But they got extinct for being too smart. They were so intelligent, they abandoned the need for community and since they are their brains are at highspeed, the stress must have taken its toll on them. I cant be sure of what is mankind's true uniqueness. But just ignore this. This is nothing more than a minor dispute. There doesn't need to be a 'why' for us forming religion. And up until know, it exists because of the need for answers What happens after we die? How can something come from nothing? Does miracle exists? What am I here for? The questions that created religion are the same questions that we still cannot answer. I don't find it odd at all. My point is, if every single animal came from a single parent gene, how come only humans can be so unique? We all had the same start, followed the same timeline, lived in the same planet, and yet, humans are the only ones who can create technology, write history, and probably appreciate the beauty of Earth. You can reject it as mere coincidence in the gene pool, but I wont ignore the elephant in the room. I told you how it would start. The reason it is there is because it was a bunch of beneficial things that started to accumulate over time. Consider this a clarification: You simply explained the process of empathy, community and social hierarchy.But in the end, we went back to square 1; You failed to explain how it happened that only humans can do such a feat. You dont see animals selling their children, killing homosexuals and giving rights to an inferior species. Admit it, the uniqueness of humans is what makes the concept of a heartless evolution seem a little bit weird and inexplicable sigh Notice how the wisest scientists have an open mind towards spirituality? It is not a jump in logic, but an idea that gives your life a meaning. Side: Yes
They were so intelligent, they abandoned the need for community and since they are their brains are at highspeed, Community or a sense of it is not dependent on intelligence but a specific kind of intelligence. The article you linked had an idea that led to their extinction as well that doesn't seem to be what you think it is. "A big skull was not conducive to easy births, and thus a within-group pressure toward smaller heads was probably always present, as it still is in present-day humans, who have an unusually high infant mortality rate due to big-headed babies. This pressure, together with possible interbreeding with migrating groups of smaller-brained peoples, may have led to a gradual decrease in the frequency of the Boskop genes in the growing population of what is now South Africa." They also note that they were in fact members of a community. Being smart in a different environment, one that had centuries of medical discoveries to build upon may have changed their course but the timing could have been off and they were passed up by a species that could out compete them. And up until know, it exists because of the need for answers... Right, and I showed where some answered 'eroded' because we answered them. Even some of the ones you list have been answered. Your miracle question for instance has been answered, you just don't seem to like the answer. My point is, if every single animal came from a single parent gene, how come only humans can be so unique? We are not the only unique creatures, here is that centric thinking again of the sun revolving around us. Every species seems to be pretty unique and specialized. You are just placing the importance on skills humans have. Horses and gods and all. This is one of my main contentions as it involves circular reasoning as I already outlined earlier with my example of Plato and the 'Republic'. It is a terrible measure as the premise already preconceives the conclusion. Notice how the wisest scientists have an open mind towards spirituality? ...? Saying something is doesn't make it so. There are plenty of 'wise' scientists on either side of the fence and the number seems to change a little depending on what you consider a scientist. The majority of biologists for example are not theists. It is not a jump in logic, but an idea that gives your life a meaning. You haven't explained how it logically follows, in fact no one has. This has been a point of contention for centuries. It is also a jump in logic that needs a slew of other untestable assumptions to rest on. It is as if it is sprinting towards an end that cannot be proven. I prefer to be able to test my ideas and see if they hold up to scrutiny. I would also point out there are many ways to get meaning out of life. A deity is not the only path. You simply explained the process of empathy, community and social hierarchy.But in the end, we went back to square 1; You failed to explain how it happened that only humans can do such a feat. Actually what I explained many herd animals do and not just us. To explain why humans are likely to take it further than other mammals is as easy as your example of the Boskops people, bigger brains. We have more metal capacity to understand or develop the complexity of these ideas to a further degree. The difference between us and many animals is just degrees of complex ideas and not a switch of complete difference. The 'why' is because those traits were selected for as it helped the survival of the group. Side: No
1
point
Community or a sense of it is not dependent on intelligence but a specific kind of intelligence. I have a poor research here, so i will just skip this. If you dont mind, that is. Right, and I showed where some answered 'eroded' because we answered them. uhh...what? It is impossible to answer the question of afterlife unless you came back from the dead. Hence, as long as we do not have any evidence of what lies out there, religion will never disappear. We are not the only unique creatures, here is that centric thinking again of the sun revolving around us. But we are, arent we? In a physical sense; yes, every animal has their own uniqueness. But over all, have you seen any other types of animals who can study science, invent literature and managed to leave the planet? The majority of biologists for example are not theists. Correct me if im wrong, but arent Charles Darwin a theologist? I would also point out there are many ways to get meaning out of life. A deity is not the only path. Every person in the world desires to live for a purpose than to be born and die as a meaningless substance. But I agree, you dont need religion to believe in a god. You haven't explained how it logically follows, in fact no one has. Simple: By knowing that you were born for a reason, lives with a purpose and die as someone valued gives everyone a sense of joy. Its the basics of philosophy We have more metal capacity to understand or develop the complexity. And thats my point. Its weird how every animal species has another species that can rival their intelligence and strength, except humans. We are the only animal who does not recognize any lesser race and protects animals that does not benefits us in anyway Side: Yes
Right, and I showed where some answered 'eroded' because we answered them. uhh...what? It is impossible to answer the question of afterlife unless you came back from the dead. Hence, as long as we do not have any evidence of what lies out there, religion will never disappear. I didn't answer that one, I showed where beliefs used to hold a god accountable for an action but when science found out why that action happens the idea of god had to move to be in charge of the new finding or just cede the idea. I am not sure you get what I am saying as you keep using circular thinking for your point and it keeps cropping up. Example: But over all, have you seen any other types of animals who can study science, invent literature and managed to leave the planet? Its weird how every animal species has another species that can rival their intelligence and strength, except humans. How is this. Men are better than women. Men are stronger and in general have more facial hair. By using criteria that is favorable you can claim anything whether others will think it is right or not, all this shows is subjectivity of the speaker. This is what you are doing but instead of sexes you are using species. I also contest that it is weird what you point out. Things evolve together, predator/prey. It makes evolutionary sense that many species are adapted to be at odds with each other. As for humans, we have almost removed ourselves from evolutionary forcing of predator/prey. We have no natural predators as an apex predator. Other animals have adapted to this, they have learned to run from humans. Really the things you keep using as odd examples are easily explained with evolution. Correct me if im wrong, but arent Charles Darwin a theologist? And correct me if I am wrong...he is not the majority either. If you are talking science and using examples from the 1800's you are not talking science but history. Science is current, using science from the past is an exercise in how much our understanding of things has changed and little else. But I agree, you dont need religion to believe in a god. Not what I said. I said you do not need a god/deity to have meaning in life. Simple: By knowing that you were born for a reason, lives with a purpose and die as someone valued gives everyone a sense of joy. Its the basics of philosophy 'A deity exists' follows 'knowing you were born with a reason to live'? I disagree. I also disagree people are born with a reason to live, I feel they figure that out as their own reason to live as they go. I do not believe life is not predetermined. Of course we all have the same basic needs, beyond that though is personal discrete reasons. Side: No
1
point
I didn't answer that one, I showed where beliefs used to hold a god accountable for an action but when science found out why that action happens the idea of god had to move to be in charge of the new finding or just cede the idea. Using a diety to fill in the blanks makes sense if you ask me. This is not circular thinking, it is just impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested. By using criteria that is favorable you can claim anything whether others will think it is right or not, all this shows is subjectivity of the speaker. I am not using a personal criteria. I am pointing out the fact that differs humans from an ordinary animal.We all had the same beginnings but only humans has managed to take over the whole ecosystem of the planet, conquer our predators and travel through space. In less than 10,000 years of existence Admit it, we are special And correct me if I am wrong...he is not the majority either. He is a scientist who made major contributions in the field of biology. Hence I am implying that if biology can cause someone to loose faith, he would be the first one to be. A 2009 study showed that the population of scientists who believes in a god ranks at 51% while atheists are at 41%, the rest are undecided. Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today. Of course we all have the same basic needs, beyond that though is personal discrete reasons. It is a matter of being recognized and valued, my friend. No matter how many people you allow yourself to be surrounded with, only you can understand who you really are and it is a sad thing to hear no voice other than your own. Here is the part where a believer gains all the advantages and as to why religious people tend to live happier. Side: Yes
On a tablet so no quotes, sorry. Using a deity to fill in blanks is not circular reasoning it is non sequitur. The measures you are using are circular, they are predefined by you to be special so when you look it is self confirming. A deity just isnt needed to explain how we got here, the system works without it. You said we were special, so out off all gods creations it is about us? I disagree, thats the central thinking that drives your criteria. If my use of why men are better was wrong why isnt this form of that argument? Heck yeah both uses are subjective and focusef on itself as the measure of what is important. Darwin struggled greatly over his findings and his religion and he had far less evidence and scientific advances at his disposal than we do now. Religious people are happier because ignorace is bliss. Seriosly though this is a cause and effect claim. People that have some form of meditation , religios or not, have higher instances of happyness from endorphins released and lower levels of stress. Prayer falls under forms of meditationin many religions. No divinity needed. This is also a general claim about happyness as well. A non believer can be just as happy if not more than some believers and vice versa. It is not a limit to the amount of happyness an individual experiences. The religious need for nonconformists to be unhappy baffles me. There is tons of religious learning material that promotes this. Cults do this you know...if you leave it will get worse talk. ;) Also humans have been around waaay more than 10k years. It is closer to 200k years. Are you claiming a young earth or just miss a zero? Side: No
1
point
Using a deity to fill in blanks is not circular reasoning it is non sequitur. Considering the fact that it is an argument born out of ignorance, i must say that it makes sense. A deity just isnt needed to explain how we got here, the system works without it. And that simply brings us to the topic of human arrogance and narcissism. The ability to explain something does not refute the existence of a celestial being. First rule of religious debates: "God cannot be proven, nor disproven" Darwin struggled greatly over his findings and his religion and he had far less evidence and scientific advances at his disposal than we do now. And yet there is more religious scientists than Darwin's time Religious people are happier because ignorace is bliss Thats a disappointing argument coming from you. A religious person and an atheist can be as intelligent as anyone. Now about happiness and religion; no, you cant compare praying with meditation. Meditation is simply the art of slowing down your mind so you can focus more attentively. Prayer on the other hand is to leave all your worries behind and have faith in the diety you worship. Go figure which one has a better effect. A non believer can be just as happy if not more than some believers and vice versa. Except when trouble arise, a nonbeliever will not have same advantages as the one who believes Also humans have been around waaay more than 10k years. I was referring to the birth of civilization, not the appearance of Homo Erectus Side: Yes
Tablet again no quotes. Evolution does not directly disprove god, that was not my point. (It contradicts part of theChristian bible, if that disproves anything it is against the christian idea of god / creation and not all gods).My point was god is not needed to explain how we evolved, adding a creator to design is supurflous. More religious scientists now than Darwins time? Not by the link you gave...it stated the percentage is roughly the same. There are more scientists now than before but using numbers instead of percents is now apples and oranges. Also the more educated people get the less religios the get as noted by your study. Religious having advantages over non believers when they are in trouble? Please cite that because it sounds as subjective as it gets. For instance the recent issue in Oregon with the family who wanted to heal their kids with prayer rather than medical science. Several of their children passed away from easily treatable circumstances. Advantage can easily be seen for the non believer in times of trouble as they will not be fooled by delusion in some situations. You say believers and non believers run the gambit on intelligence but want to put a stake on limiting happyness? This is an example of having your cake and eating it too. Prayer and meditation are lumped together all the time, and prayer has no advantages over meditation. Google scholar it if you really have an interest. Also the STEP study on prayer showed pretty conclusive results that prayer does not work on others. The STEP project is the largest controlled study, not personal anecdotes. Edit, it is poor form of me to just say google scolar it if you were interested. I just know there are many studies on prayer and meditation out there. The subject has lots of data about it in the medical and psych fields. Any way here is a couple studies. Neither claim one is better than the other, my point is it is pretty well studied area and the practices are often put in the same group. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/ Prayer and meditation have been used as health-enhancing techniques for centuries. Their use has been investigated more recently in the context of more conventional, allopathic medical approaches. These studies, despite methodological limitations, show some promise for the formal application and integration of these techniques into western medical practice. Some potential benefits from meditation include reduced perceived stress and improvement in mild hypertension. Prayer appears to offer subjective benefit to those who pray; the effects of intercessory prayer on the health status of unknowing individuals requires more investigation. Back to Results Formats AbstractFull TextPDFExport citation (RIS) Email citation Search by Subject Complementary TherapiesHumansMeditationMental HealingRehabilitationSensitivity and SpecificityUnited States http:// A probability sample of elderly community-dwelling adults in North Carolina was assembled in 1986 and followed for 6 years. Level of participation in private religious activities such as prayer, meditation, or Bible study was assessed by self-report at baseline, along with a wide variety of sociodemographic and health variables. Side: No
1
point
My point was god is not needed to explain how we evolved, adding a creator to design is supurflous. How can you say he is not needed when you cannot direct the laws of nature into your liking? If it is impossible to disprove God, then it is impossible to say that he is not required. More religious scientists now than Darwins time? Not by the link you gave...it stated the percentage is roughly the same. >In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. >According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not Religious having advantages over non believers when they are in trouble? I was simply referring to the psychological benefits that religion can bring. All psychologists agree that religion is a drug that can alleviate a person's pain but addiction can result into insanity and ruthlessness. (e.g Westboro Chruch, Old Earth Creationists and Muslim Extremists) Prayer and meditation are lumped together all the time, and prayer has no advantages over meditation. As experts put it; Mediation is an enhanced form of listening, prayer is an enhanced for of talking. When a person is troubled, he seeks someone whom he can open his thoughts to. Similarly, prayer is the act of opening yourself and letting it go. Which explains why religious people lead the most fulfilling life. Your link simply stated their benefits, none tried to differ one from the other. But I can understand. They are both extremely alike. Side: Yes
If it is impossible to disprove God, then it is impossible to say that he is not required. This is a false statement. If I can come up with a scenario where things can happen without God, God is not required. You actually have it backwards. Since it is impossible to prove that God exists, it does make sense to say that God is not a requirement. Since you can't prove He exists, there must be the possibility that He doesn't exist. If it is possible for Him to not exist, He obviously can't be a requirement for anything. Side: No
The theory of evolution works with out a god, the onus is not on me to prove whether God is needed. I do not need to direct the laws of nature only show that the theory works within the laws of nature. Disproving God and saying he's not required are two different claims, one is not dependant on the other. I am not in the disproving god camp, I say I have no reason to believe in a god. I have not been shown that there be a need for a deity. The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared. The percentage says 42 percent believe in a personal god the next however states god or a higher power so it is using more inclusive language for other beliefs. It is mixing criteria that was left undefined in the first pollthus comparing the two is apples and oranges. When comparing polls you need to look at the wording of the questions as it changes the outcomes of the answers. Many polls will ask the same question different ways to differentiate the subtle differences in how people feel. The first poll has 20 percent un accounted for the second poll has about 10 percent for, this number could easily be sitting here. What we don't see here is the differentiation between those that believe in God and those that believe in a higher power. You claiming an increase would have just as much weight as me saying it has decreased based on those numbers, that is neither of us could make that claim using that poll because it is not explicit in the poll. We simply cannot tell from here if either group has waxed or waned. The fact the second poll mixes terms while the original does not makes this comparison at odds. In your example of prayer and meditation the Dr doesn't declare one is better than the other specifically she doesn't declare this in a peer-reviewed journal. She only illuminates the subtle differences between prayer and meditation in the user. Your claim of religious people living the most fulfilling lives is highly subjective. There is no objective way to measure this claim. What is most fulfilling for one may not be for the other all that you are doing is saying "I like this way you should too". Side: No
1
point
The theory of evolution works with out a god. And that brought us back to square 1. Evolution works by adapting to the ever changing environment. The rules of nature dictates that he who is most adaptable will win. But in a humorous feat, the one who sits on the top of the food chain are humans who are unrivaled in their intelligence. We are the only animals who can create a philosophy, record history and the only species with a sense of responsibility to protect the weak, no matter who or what. Like what I said before: you can dismiss it as random chance but I will not ignore the elephant in the room I have not been shown that there be a need for a deity. This would be a big twist in our argument but we created religion for a reason. It is a place of haven for the troubled minds, a tool to mend chaos and keep a society united no matter how dim the situation is. Religion is a powerful weapon that when used for good, it can create harmony and peace. But of course, just like any weapons, it can be used for evil as well. The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared. I cant see much differences. There are still more religious scientists today than there were a few decades years ago What we don't see here is the differentiation between those that believe in God and those that believe in a higher power. The only thing that conflicts them are the forms of worship. Other than that, I see nothing else that would divide their definition. In your example of prayer and meditation the Dr doesn't declare one is better To be fair, both of them serves different purpose. Prayer is for the one who bears too much, Meditation is for the one who wanted to listen. Your claim of religious people living the most fulfilling lives is highly subjective. It's not subjective at all. It is common knowledge Side: Yes
There's no elephant in the room, the scientific community and many people who read up on biology can easily see how evolution explains the situation we're in. Your take on evolution is still slightly off. Evolution does not favor the most adaptable it favors the most fit for the situation, it happens that those who are most adaptable do well in many in many situations as they can weather many a storm thus have more chances to reproduce. Creatures that are highly specialized do much more amazingly than we can in their environment but cannot cope with large changes over short periods of time in their evolutionary forcings. Again you use non objective criteria is central to what being human is as your measure. If my why are men better argument is using subjective and flawed measures why isnt the other subjective and flawed? You assume these things were created for a purpose but in evolutionary terms they were left because they worked for our benefit. It may seem like semantics but semantics matter because it does change the meaning that is conveyed. When you're reading polls or apparently somebody's blog post you seem to read into some of the words more than what the authors suggest with their language. It is apparent in the polls that one is using more inclusive language and is no mystery to that poll had a slightly larger number with using said language. Again semantics matter. In the blog post the author said on average believers are happier in general. It also does not say anything about limiting a non believers happiness, a non-believer can you just happy or happier than a believer and vice versa, just as a believer can be as intelligent or even more intelligent than a non believer. You want to accept one but not the other you want to have your cake and eat it too. You are drawing conclusions that are not quite what the author suggest. We are going in circles I stated several times about your measures being inadequate you just say no then restate your measures. I am specific where I disagree and give examples you have not addressed. I am unsure if you are being academically honest with yourself with the reading in our conversation as well as others in this debate. For instance the polls have an obvious wording difference. Asking if you believe in God and then asking do you believe God or a higher power will net you different answers in population. I do not see why you turn a blind eye to this. Colleges offer classes in reading and designing polls as well as basic statistics, if you're going to do any postgraduate work these classes are a must. The difference in the word use can lead to the difference in the definitions of spiritual versus religious. You acknowledged a difference in those terms use earlier but you seem to lump the terms together in the reading of the poll. This would be similar to me lumping agnostics and atheists together and saying these people say there is no god, which would obviously misrepresnt one of the groups actual claim. Side: No
In context with the debate I jumped in to clarify things about evolution, not to claim there is no god. Like I said I am in the camp of I have no reason to believe. I am also not claiming that in general the more educated people get the less religious they are as a claim there is no god, I was just pointing out that your poll acknowledges the educated are generally less religious. But just to clarify as we may be wasting time on a point that doesnt matter, are you saying a higher portion of scientists believe in god than in 1800 is proof of a deity or to say these smart people believe? While I still maintain the comparison of the wording of the polls matter I find further objection if that claim is your aim. Saying more or less of a group doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god either. That measure is simply ad populum. The claim also does not let us evaluate their reasoning on the subject which reaks of an appeal to false authority and is too general to carry much weight. The claim does not take into account that specific areas of science have higher instances of atheistic views such as biology. People who specialize in specific areas greater knowledge on the subject. Your claim of evolution not working without a creator doesn't seem too phase these experts any more than it has me. Greater weight should be given to specific areas that show relevancy than general blocks of non specific anything. Because of these reasons I do not understand what role your evidence has for your argument. It seems to only work in vague or general terms but does not fit well under examination. My other post is a bit rambly so thought I pre clarify. Side: Yes
1
point
Your take on evolution is still slightly off. Evolution does not favor the most adaptable it favors the most fit for the situation, And we still havent made any progress. No matter how you look at it, the body of a human being should have been doomed to extinction. >no claws nor fangs >no strength >no speed >low birth rate And yet, here we are now; trying to conquer the vastness of space. If evolution happens as a way to simply adapt to the ever changing world, then I see no reason aswhy nature would allow us to be the only type of animal that can create technology and question philosophies. Unless it is intended by an intelligent being. You assume these things were created for a purpose but in evolutionary terms they were left because they worked for our benefit. That's practically synonymous. created for a purpose = worked for our benefit In the blog post the author said on average believers are happier in general In terms of happiness, yes. Everyone is on equal grounds. But when it comes to rising up after a fall, it is the religious ones who has the most advantage. The explanation is simple: A believer has someone/something to turn to "Asking if you believe in God and then asking do you believe God or a higher power will net you different answers in population" uhhh...what? Both words yield the same meaning. Correct me if im wrong, though. Side: Yes
We are just going in circles, it seems you haven't addressed any of my rebuttals you just restate your position. Evolutionary speaking there is no mystery why humans did so well. I gave explanations to how these things arose through natural selection but you havent addressed them. For instance you keep bringing things like humans lack of speed as one of your criteria but ignore that biologists and anthropologists note we were persistance hunters. Your position can be summed up with the idea of synchonicity or apophenia. That is your stance is based on sources of evolution you like and coincidences. I contest that they are not coincedences at all but explained through evolution. In science terminology matters and the wording of arguments is deliberate. Of course semantics matter when evaluating and interpreting; polls, blog posts and peer reviewed material. Semantics matter, if you cannot see the differences you may not be reading critically. Example, created for a purpose and left because it was beneficial are non synonymous despite you claiming they are. One implies creation and predetermined intent the other implies neither but that something is a result of something that was beneficial. The first statement deals in the pre tense of the occurance the second statement is post occurance. Further example is your wording with the claim from the blog post you gave. The author saying in general believers are happier than non believers is not supporting the claim of a non believer not being capable of as much happyness as a believer. Of course the wording on a poll would matter more than a blog post, polls should be held to a higher scrutiny. Polls must have a good design to help weed out liars and to better guage the error in responses. You state you dont see a difference in meaning between do you believe in god and do you believe in god or a higher power despite the second term using or which is an inclusive (in this usage)term. I still do not see the relevancy of this poll though in the terms of proving a higher power either. It is ad populum at best and too general for an appeal to authority. It is best to get your scientific information from scientific sources and your religious information from religious sources. Side: No
1
point
We are just going in circles, Precisely. I already told you; "It is impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested" I do not mind if you are willing to explore the debate. But bear in mind that it will be an exhausting adventure Evolutionary speaking there is no mystery why humans did so well. Oh, but there is mystery as to why other animals were unable to match us. For instance you keep bringing things like humans lack of speed as one of your criteria but ignore that biologists and anthropologists note we were persistance hunters Because being persistance hunters only lasted until we invented agriculture. T is to say; the birth of civilization and modern man. The Homo Erectus has met the extintion that is was meant to face, but the Homo Sapiens, didnt because it learned how to settle, make shelter and farm. Something that is unique in the animal kingdom. That is your stance is based on sources of evolution you like and coincidences. I contest that they are not coincedences at all but explained through evolution. Practically the same argument. Both of us believe that Evolution was the result of need to adapt. Only difference is that I believe that there is a divine being planning the future and you dont. Simple argument, isnt it? But then, since our stance cannot be tested, we will not be able to make any progress One implies creation and predetermined intent the other implies neither but that something is a result of something that was beneficial. So...both cases involves the same results. Its merely the background of belief that differs it. In the end, both speaks the same words of changing for the better good Of course the wording on a poll would matter more than a blog post, polls should be held to a higher scrutiny So...in what way is that any different? Side: Yes
Evolution is testable, creationism is not. To say our positions are untestable is innacurate. Creationism tries to stand with evolution but will never be considered a theory because unlike evolution, it cannot be observed or tested. I assure you the two ideas are not equal in terms of science or philosophy. If your goal was to say there is a god by showing a need for one with evolution your argument falls short. The argument you put forth depends on limited knowledge of evolution and innacurate framing of the scientific theory. To hold your stance yourself is fine but to convince someone else with it I think it falls short. Perhaphs I am not the target audience with my background and aim. My goal when debating is to find the best possible position, to do this you need to evalute all the evidence you can. You seem to be holding a position and are fine with it despite information at your disposal that says other than what you claim. Where you say there are mysteries there are evolutionary reasons to explain them. There is no need for divine intervention, evolution works without it. Not trying to be rude but your knowledge on evolution is limited and it hurts your argument. Having an untestable position is not strong, just untestable. Your continuation of neglecting the importance of semantics, especially in discussing scientific ideas, is problematic to your understanding of scientific theories. I noted the change in meaning the words conveyed but you insist the end result is the same. This ignores that only one of the statements is supported by evolution theory and thus evidence. Being designed or having predetermined intent is not supported by the theory of evolution. Creationism tries to piggyback on evolution but fails as unlike evolution it is neither testable or observable. Your statement does not hold true to what evolution claims. Framing creationism claims as the theory of evolutions does not lend credence to ID. It is best to evaluate claims using their specific wording or you run the chance of creating a strawman argument. Side: No
1
point
Evolution is testable, creationism is not. I agree. But that is not our argument. Our argument is Intelligent Design vs Natural Selection. It's an old debate that not once has ever made progress. And I doubt that it could ever be. No matter on which angle you look at, this debate will never amount to anything more than a play of words. I noted the change in meaning the words conveyed but you insist the end result is the same. So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result? Side: Yes
Our argument is Intelligent Design vs Natural Selection. Natural selection is a process in evolution that can be observed and tested. Now you are comparing an idea (ID) to part of a theory in evolution. I actually jumped in because I saw some of your claims misrepresent evolution 'seeking' things. Even in your last rebuttal you seem to not understand evolution as you now claim it 'favors' something. Evolution is an idea that you seem keen on anthropomorphizing. We started talking about evolution and you insisted on ID being a better choice. So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result? I noted it changes the 'how' part of why it works. I also noted the tense of the examples, one being pre change with intent involved one being post change with no intent. Only one of the statements is supported by evidence the other is just a assertion with no proof. This is an example of the Gettier problem (tangent, not associated with our discussion). You are asking questions to things I have already outlined of why I disagree. This is just a continuation of you showing me you haven't mulled anything I said over. I have been pretty explicit where I disagreed with you and why, to which you have said nothing. You have not read applied my rebuttals to your arguments or you would not have kept restating them without addressing my points. Example is you talked about how humans should not have been able to outdo animals, then you just say animals should have outdone humans. My refutation fits both of your assertions as it is just the same assertion. You can reread all of our discussion if you want but I really see no reason for me to participate based on your lack of understanding of the criteria and your lack of critical reading of the discussion. Side: No
1
point
Natural selection is a process in evolution that can be observed and tested. So is Intelligent Design. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. Only one of the statements is supported by evidence the other is just a assertion with no proof. Wait, are you still referring to the survey about the population of religious scientists or not? You are asking questions to things I have already outlined of why I disagree. This is just a continuation of you showing me you haven't mulled anything I said over. I can say the same thing I completely understand why you disagree. But your reasons does not carry enough weight to neutralize mine. And the same can be applied to my arguments I already told you thrice: Until we found a way to test our ideals, no progress will be achieved. Its up to you if you wish to prove me wrong, but be prepared to get exhausted Side: Yes
Pseudoscience. Intelligent design is not testable, observable or falsifiable. You cannot test if an object had a deity help design it, nor can you observe it. Your link seems to prey on those who are not science literate. The first discussion on there is someone equivocating on the word 'theory' by mixing common usage of the word with a specific usage of the word. Every peer reviewed reputable source denounces ID and creationism as science and note that proponents for ID and creationism misrepresent sciences. For instance from the National Academies of Science. http://www.nap.edu/ "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." The American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/ "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific “alternatives” to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one. The American Society of Agronomy http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ "Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter." I can literally flood this page with peer reviewed sources and scientific communities, from national and international sources, that discredit ID or creationism but I think it will be fruitless for reasons I will touch on later in this rebuttal. But back to your link. if a natural object was designed, Right here, this is an assumption not based on observation that is testable. It is also starting at a conclusion then it goes on to claim that the evidence supports it. it will contain high levels of CSI. Everything contains specific information, the premise predicts the conclusion...circular reasoning. Everything having specific information leads to everything having specific information, not being designed that is non sequitur. Also if everything is designed then saying one is special is flawed as it is like saying the Mona Lisa is the most beautiful painting because it is painted. But we don't need to go there because the term 'high levels of information' is hugely subjective and non scientific. What is 'high' levels to one species may not be to another. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, it does not take into account of how things can arise slowly, part by part, and then change over time. Irreducible complexity has been shown by sciences to fail even when using using very complex ideas such as blood clotting, the eye and flagellum. When ID has tried to get into schools the courts have even noted that ID and IR are not recognized as sciences. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a famous one, here are the findings from that case. "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Again, Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance. ...In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. More holes in ID. To hold its position it fails to address components of evolution. Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abrupt appearance. As I stated before, get your scientific research from science sources and get your religious research from religious sources. Actual scientists, biologists and anthropologists seem to debunk ID pretty easily because of the holes in ID. Making claims out of someones specialty is a major mistake. Wait, are you still referring to the survey about the population of religious scientists or not? I had lots of examples of your wording not being true to what was claimed by the authors or theories. I was speaking about your claim of 'being designed because it was beneficial' not being equal to the idea of evolution as things 'were left because of the benefits that arose'. The statements have different meanings. If you are speaking on your link to the poll, make a venn diagram of the words and there you can map out the differences yourself. You seem to say the statements are equal just as you did in the above examples. though so I doubt you will arrive at a similar conclusion as I did. You do not seem to value language. Not only is one term more inclusive I had questioned the nature of the claim as being ad populum and too vague a group for an appeal to authority. You seem to avoid any of my points. I can say the same thing Except for that I outlined exactly where I disagree with you and you have yet to basically even note I am writing anything at all. I had to 'mull' over your position to refute it. So sure you can make that claim, but it doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. But your reasons does not carry enough weight to neutralize mine. You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread. And like in those other claims you failed to address a single point your opponents made, you just assert that their claims do not work. Your opponents give great reason to disagree with you, you do not do so in turn. Your debate 'style' seems to hurt your credibility when making such claims. I am of the mind that no evidence that disagrees with your position is sufficient for you. I am not trying to 'prove' you wrong. I was attempting to clear up misconceptions about evolution that you were making. I see that is futile now. As I said I am ok with folks believing what they want, I just feel if someone has a belief though they should hold that belief on good information. Misrepresenting or ignoring claims in things like evolution is not good information to base a belief on. It is up to each person to inform themselves though, you can lead a horse to water and all. You can continue if you want, but I am backing out. I prefer an exchange to be mutual, ignoring flaws in an argument does not make it a strong argument. Science is open to scrutiny and welcomes questions, not so much with ID or creationism as it actively avoids things I and others have already pointed out. Side: No
1
point
Pseudoscience. Intelligent design is not testable, observable or falsifiable. Sums up what every Darwinist says. Your link seems to prey on those who are not science literate. You can get sued for what you just said. EvolutionNews is a credible source and quite famous in the world of science and faith. Or would you rather know them by their other channel:DiscoverInstitute Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, it does not take into account of how things can arise slowly, part by part, and then change over time Neither does Natural Selection solves the mysteries of what Evolution aims to be. When ID has tried to get into schools the courts have even noted that ID and IR are not recognized as sciences. You mean the criticism of ID? This are the people who forced Intelligent Design as a replacement to evolution and aimed to use it as a well-masked creationism. Not a surprising result if you ask me. sigh It takes only common sense to know that God cannot be proven nor disprove. Gaps in the scientific world does not prove a divine being but neither does explanations. I had lots of examples of your wording not being true to what was claimed by the authors or theories And so whats your point? All throughout the argument, youve been criticizing every word of my sources and claims that it will change meaning. So I asked you whats the new definition, but up until now, you still haven't given me anything that would change something in the poll. Its a simple question with simple answer. What's taking you so long? You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread 1. So where is the evidence that God does not exist? 2. I never mentioned the Guadalupe in our thread. But if you are gonna claim it as fake, you will need to provide me some evidence. I respects everyone's claim and I am open to change my position based on new information. There's nothing new to be found here, though Side: Yes
Bwahaha, same thing you do to everyone. I am not surprised. One last rebuttal, just for old times sake I guess. First off by 'in this thread' I meant this debate, not just ours. LilMisfit (among others) destroyed your claim about the Lady of Guadalupe, you just assert they are all wrong with no line of reasoning other than 'christians laugh at those claims'. You do not refute hardly any of your opponents points with any stout evidence or lines or reasoning. As for your poll I did answer it and any reasonable person would see the difference. But hey, you do not accept my breakdown of it so here is a a bigger poll than yours that delineates the difference between the terms. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/ Data from six General Social Surveys conducted by the National Opinion Research Center from 1988 to 2000 actually show that 8 percent of the nation's adults opt for the statement "I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind." Don't like that poll? How about a Gallup poll that delineates the difference between the terms that you say are equal and it is within the same margin as the other poll. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/ However, past Gallup surveys have shown that not all Americans are absolutely certain in their beliefs about God. Given the ability to express doubts about their beliefs, the percentage who stick to a certain belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range. Additionally, when Americans are given the option of saying they believe in a universal spirit or higher power instead of in "God," about 12% choose the former. Still, the May 2011 poll reveals that when given only the choice between believing and not believing in God, more than 9 in 10 Americans say they do believe. The Gallup poll even notes when given a limited choice it affects the outcome, last sentence of the above poll in case you missed it. Seems professionals deem the wordings of your claim to differ despite you saying they do not. The findings between these polls are in line with my claim of the amount of people making up near the difference you claim is not there. Huh, not only did I note where your poll differs and these polls back up my claim it is within the amount I said as well. It is as if I have experience or education in reading things like this... Professional polls noting the difference described not enough? There are people in this debate (not between us, in the whole debate) making claims of they don't believe in a god but they do believe in a higher power. Heck AA uses the term 'higher power' as it includes other forms besides god, some religious groups even made comments trying to get their wording changed! It seems you are not seeing the difference for whatever reason but others clearly do. This is just another example of you being incredibly unreasonable with your opponents evidence and reasoning but so slack about your own. All throughout this debate (not just ours) you have been called out on this behavior. Your lack of self reflection is why I am backing out, as I said I like to have mutual discussions. Oh, and your questions at the end of your last rebuttal...already answered them in our...conversation. I have no reason to believe in a god, it is not up to me to disprove something that hasn't been proven, that is shifting the onus. Side: No
1
point
First off by 'in this thread' I meant this debate, not just ours. LilMisfit destroyed your claim about the Lady of Guadalupe, you just assert they are all wrong with no line of reasoning other than 'christians laugh at those claims'. sigh You do realize that you are being biased, right? I enumerated all the reasons why it became a laughing stock and gave him a chance to refine his answer. But instead, he end up using a research done by Dr. Callahan- a supporter of the Guadalupe. Its self explanatory. But hey, you do not accept my breakdown of it so here is a a bigger poll than yours that delineates the difference between the terms. The poll is about Americans who have a strong belief in God and those who have a shaken faith. What happened to the poll about religious scientists? I do not mind if you will jump on the bandwagon and say that those "who believe in a divine power" are not Christians. But in this case, are you saying that they are automatically atheists? I have no reason to believe in a god, it is not up to me to disprove something that hasn't been proven, that is shifting the onus. Actually, the proof lies on the one making the claim. I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. From here, it will be your responsibility to prove it. P.S what happened to our ID vs Natural Selection? Also, stop trying to act like a villain. It does not suit you. Side: Yes
Now you are completely straw manning my claims. My claim was the terms were not synonymous and that could lead to a larger number due to one term being more inclusive. You claimed the terms were the same and there is no difference. I stated the difference in wording matters, you said it didn't. You sad the end result would be the same, my polls prove that to be wrong, my original rebuttals were all directed at this, not saying anyone is an atheist. So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result? Here is one exchange to back this up (also called evidence!). http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg544031 Another... http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg543590 And another... http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg545012 I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. Complete falsehood. I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing. Here is one of our exchanges to show this. First line even. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg543633 And another... http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg543298 How about a different debate where I hold the same position? http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Actually, the proof lies on the one making the claim. Yup. I do not see any evidence that there is a god. You do not cite negatives, for instance to answer 'what is America?' You do not start by lining out things it is not, like europe for instance. People say X is evidence for a god, and then people weigh it to see if the conclusion follows. Now should I link all the instances that you were not in the neutral zone but instead making claims that 'there is too much unexplained for their not to be a god."? You are either mistaken, dishonest or having issues such as extreme dissonance. Do not play the martyr, it doesn't fit. Side: No
Seems the many people here have debunked your claims despite you claiming they haven't. Kaveri, Zephry, Lil Misfit. Really, last word is yours. There is no pulling out of this downward spiral you are in as you do not even seem to be reading what I write let alone your sources. You cited proof for your side a site that was actually satire mocking your side of the debate, either you do not read what you are using for evidence or you do not understand what you are reading. Have fun, thanks for the exchange. Side: No
1
point
My claim was the terms were not synonymous and that could lead to a larger number due to one term being more inclusive. All of them leads to the same play of words. You simply scrutinized the poll but have you not realize that no matter how much effort you give, its will still lead to the same question of "Are you an atheist of not?" From there, there are three choices: Yes, No, and Agnostic. And it should have end there. But instead, you made it more complicated and divided the "No" into: "I believe in God" vs "I believe in a Higher Power" sigh Stop scrambling the results, it will never be in your favor. No matter on which angle you look at, there are still more scientist who believes than those who dont. I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing. Indeed, you started with a neutral view but your new argument: "You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread." Challenges mine as saying that there is an evidence that God does not exists and the Guadalupe is a hoax. Or have I misunderstood? Please correct me if I am wrong Yup. I do not see any evidence that there is a god. So do I. But the problem here is how you act like explaining a process can disprove an intelligent being. Do not be fooled I believe in one but I allow myself to be swayed by good reasoning. Or have you forgotten how many times I told you that God cannot be proven nor disproved? Side: Yes
Hey I figured it out, if I threaten to leave the debate you make actual claims! No matter on which angle you look at, there are still more scientist who believes than those who dont. This shows you keep misrepresenting what I say or do not understand what I am saying. You are arguing against points I am not making in the last rebuttal again. Here is some links to you claiming that by your poll there is more religious scientists now than in Darwin's time, and then claim the wording could not be responsible for the different numbers. I am not saying there is more atheist scientists than before, I am refuting there are more religious scientists (percentage wise as that is what we have to work with)than before. Your points keep moving it seems... http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg543228 Me More religious scientists now than Darwins time? Not by the link you gave...it stated the percentage is roughly the same. (should have ended here as the poll actually says this!) You >In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. >According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Me The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared. You I cant see much differences. There are still more religious scientists today than there were a few decades years ago I then showed you polls that differentiate between the wordings as they do matter and even account for the roughly 10 % difference in the wordings! I can link these to to show you but really it is just a few rebuttals up from this one. I have outlined this several times for you but you still keep avoiding my claims and seem to make up your own claims for me. This happens so frequently I am beginning to doubt it is by accident. Me I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing. You Indeed, you started with a neutral view but your new argument: Me "You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread." You Challenges mine as saying that there is an evidence that God does not exists and the Guadalupe is a hoax. Or have I misunderstood? It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle. It makes no claims of a god existing or not but just says this is not the proof you say it is. Again this is you reading more into what is written than really is. I have outlines several places you have done this throughout this whole debate! But the problem here is how you act like explaining a process can disprove an intelligent being. Same as above, my claim is that ID is not scientific as well as evolution explaining how we got here without a deity needed, not that it disproves a god or not.
You consistently misrepresent my stances, misrepresent your sources stances, avoid any refutations I make or others make (unless you are constructing a straw man as I shown above). Heck I can quote your...'refutations'... to people like Lil Misfit if want to prove this even further. really though I already know this is fruitless as you are either mistaken, dishonest or experiencing dissonance. 100% now I am out of this debate. No take backsies, crossed fingers etc. Oh, and your claim that there are more religious scientists than atheistic ones? Ad populum as well as an appeal to false authority (too vague a group to see their reasoning as to why). Good day ma'am ;P Side: No
Ah heck..here is the support for the polls that say there is a difference in the wording as it matters. Thought I would put it here too as you keep ignoring these things. The last poll specifically backs my position even. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/ Data from six General Social Surveys conducted by the National Opinion Research Center from 1988 to 2000 actually show that 8 percent of the nation's adults opt for the statement "I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind." Don't like that poll? How about a Gallup poll that delineates the difference between the terms that you say are equal and it is within the same margin as the other poll. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/ However, past Gallup surveys have shown that not all Americans are absolutely certain in their beliefs about God. Given the ability to express doubts about their beliefs, the percentage who stick to a certain belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range. Additionally, when Americans are given the option of saying they believe in a universal spirit or higher power instead of in "God," about 12% choose the former. Still, the May 2011 poll reveals that when given only the choice between believing and not believing in God, more than 9 in 10 Americans say they do believe. Side: No
0
points
Dont abuse bold face-it is meant only for dividing discussion. Italics would do just fine in quoting. I then showed you polls that differentiate between the wordings as they do matter and even account for the roughly 10 % difference in the wordings! uhh....what? a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not Means that 51% are believers, 41% are atheist and 8% are agnostics. Even if you combine atheists and agnostics, the percentage of believers would still be superior. How was that supposed to change anything? It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle. So...are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal? You consistently misrepresent my stances, misrepresent your sources stances, avoid any refutations I make or others make Citation needed. Side: Yes
Citation needed. I quoted and linked many in the last 2 rebuttals and a few in the middle of the debate. In fact I just showed where you state I am claiming there is no god, then I show you my claim is actually 'I have not seen any evidence there is a god' with a few quotes of our exchanges and even me holding that position in other debates. But really we don't need to go any further than your last post to me to show how you do not understand and misrepresent what your opponents say. It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle. So...are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal? To challenge an idea is to oppose it. To oppose that the Lady of Guadalupe is a legitimate miracle is to say no, it is not or I highly doubt it is a miracle. How do you get "are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal?" out of that? I think this shows enough that you are not critically reading much of anything. I have outlined where you did exactly this action as outlined above several times in our debate with me and your own sources. To ask for a citation when half a dozen examples have been used already in several places is poor form. You can use those other examples. See...If I claim I am leaving you respond to something I said....neat. But really this time. I am out. Side: No
1
point
1
point
I quoted and linked many in the last 2 rebuttals and a few in the middle of the debate You are pointing out your statements that says you are open minded. But you left the parts where you insists that the results of the poll would change depending on the usage of word. If my memories are to be exact, it is also the part where you kept on saying that I am wrong. Now, why did you skip it? To challenge an idea is to oppose it. But if you plan to challenge the divinity of the Guadalupe, please provide the reasons why you think its flawed so we can move the argument forward. Side: Yes
Italics mine, bold yours. I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. From here, it will be your responsibility to prove it. This one is a twofer! 1 You were never in the neutral zone, plenty of your arguments are on the other side of this debate claiming "there are too many unexplained things for their not to be a god." 2 I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position isI have not been shown evidence that a god exists then summed it up again after all my links showing my stance to not be what you say it is. I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing. Indeed, you started with a neutral view but your new argument: "You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread." Challenges mine as saying that there is an evidence that God does not exists and the Guadalupe is a hoax. Or have I misunderstood? You tried to use this to say this was me "bursting out that god does not exist"? I noted that the statement only challenges the painting and not god, another example of you making a claim that is unsupported by what is written by your opponents. I then brought issue with your continuation of this behavior of misrepresenting the stances of others. You consistently misrepresent my stances, misrepresent your sources stances, avoid any refutations I make or others make. Citation needed. Right after I showed where you did this exactly you ask for citations. Really! So then I show you, in the post you ask for citations even, that you do not understand what is written again and misrepresent what is written by your opponents. It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle. So...are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal? Wow, you certainly do not read things well. I clearly did not imply what you say I did at all. Hey... you only use the part where I note about the Lady of Guadalupe and not the sentence after where I note it does not say 'there is no god' as you claimed...wonder why you did that. Seems you are skipping any part that shows you misrepresent my stance even after asking for citations of that behavior being done by you. Heck you also claim I am missing things that I already answered. But you left the parts where you insists that the results of the poll would change depending on the usage of word. If my memories are to be exact, it is also the part where you kept on saying that I am wrong. Now, why did you skip it? Four posts up from yours I proved the wording changes results in the Gallup poll that states this explicitly, using the same terms even. Seems I didn't skip it you just keep ignoring it as it was the second time I posted it. One post up from there I linked where you claimed "there are more religious scientists now then Darwin's time". This is the third time I am telling you that claim is what I am refuting (Really we need go no further than your poll though that states this number is the same today as it was then!) but you keep straw manning my point to something different. I have shown your claim of 'more scientists now then Darwin's time believe in a god or higher power' to be in err, your own poll states explicitly that this is about the same now as it was then even and I pointed this out to you 3 x now. I have shown you clearly misrepresent my stances. I have shown you do not understand what I have written when it is clear. I have shown that a Gallup poll notes that using the terms 'higher power' and 'god' are not synonymous as you claim and in polls it changes the results (superfluous information as your claim was already debunked by your own poll used). Now you want to leave all that and 'discuss' something different? After about our 4th exchange read your other arguments with the other debaters and saw you misrepresent many of their claims as well. Same behavior you did with me and my claims you continued on them. If you are not being honest with your opponents positions you are not being honest with your own positions. I think I have done my job here. With how often you misinterpret the claims of me as well as others you are either; dishonest, mistaken or have a reading disorder. No reason for me to continue here. (Really this time, you are free to make up whatever you want without fear of me pointing it out again). I was here discussing evolution not your debate tactics. Side: No
1
point
1 You were never in the neutral zone, plenty of your arguments are on the other side of this debate claiming "there are too many unexplained things for their not to be a god." Being a part of the neutral zone does not mean I should be barren of my personal opinions. True neutral are the ones who stands with the voice of reason. Or should I remind you again of how I kept on saying that "God cannot be proven nor disproved?" 2 I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position isI have not been shown evidence that a god exists then summed it up again after all my links showing my stance to not be what you say it is But you did not include the parts where you insisted that God does not exist in an event that can be explained. I noted that the statement only challenges the painting and not god, So, where is your evidence that the Guadalupe is flawed? Right after I showed where you did this exactly you ask for citations You were claiming that a change of words will change the poll. I showed how it does not, then you skipped it. And yet, you are still saying that it is I who is at fault. Why? Wow, you certainly do not read things well The question remains: Do you accept the Guadalupe or not? Four posts up from yours I proved the wording changes results in the Gallup poll that states this explicitly, using the same terms even. sigh And would you mind explaining why you no longer argued against my response? >"a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not" Means that 51% are believers, 41% are atheist and 8% are agnostics. Even if you combine atheists and agnostics, the percentage of believers would still be superior. How was that supposed to change anything? Stop digging the past already! It is unrelated and uneducational. The topic at hand is completely laid bare. Use it Side: Yes
More of you misrepresenting what is written. Italics mine, bold yours. Between numbers are important, since you seem to skip things otherwise. I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. From here, it will be your responsibility to prove it. I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position is "I have not been shown evidence that a god exists" then summed it up again after all my links showing my stance to not be what you say it is. I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing. 111111 But you did not include the parts where you insisted that God does not exist in an event that can be explained. I said Evolution works without needing a god to explain it. This is clearly not me doing as you said"burst out and say that God does not exist". This is not claiming a god does not exist as you claim, it is saying evolution does not need god to explain how it works. Straw man arguments seem to be your specialty. This is dishonest of you at worst and mistaken at best. I doubt this is an accident though as you keep moving this claim trying to make it fit somewhere using poor logic. 111111 On to the next bit. You were claiming that a change of words will change the poll. I showed how it does not, then you skipped it. And yet, you are still saying that it is I who is at fault. Link to your proof? I didn't skip it. I linked many times where I provided evidence that changing the words would affect the poll in the last 3 posts. The Gallup poll that states this explicitly. With the exact terms we were discussing even! I also noted that this line of reasoning was against your claim that "there is more religious scientists now than Darwin's time" and not what you strawmanned me to claim several times. Your newer claim (you moved away from there being more religious scientists now than darwin's time as I showed you that your own poll debunks that claim) is that more scientists are religious than not. Yup. I questioned what you are inferring with this though. 3 times even, (you seem to keep ignoring it, so 4 times now). If you just simply repeat the statement and ignore the rebuttal why would I keep doing the same? But since you seem to insist I will indulge you one last time with the same rebuttal as the last 3. It is either ad populum (there are more believers than non believers does not give legitimacy to an idea) or an appeal to false authority (too general a group, unable to view their reasonings). Couple that with the fact that this group believes less than the general public even (stated explicitly in the poll you linked even). You had no response, I assumed because it was pretty clear your attempt was fallacious. And would you mind explaining why you no longer argued against my response? My responses were sufficient but you ignored them. Every time. Without any rebuttals to any responses you just repeat your claim. I could just ask you why you skip about 90% of your opponents responses, lots of people have brought this up to you. This is the other thing you do besides constructing straw men. I think you will skip it again and it is right above the bold above this portion of my response. Now why did I put the numbers around the beginning? To use your favorite saying, It is the elephant in the room. I put the numbers around the straw men portion because I find this behavior to be your mainstay when addressing your opponents. Your continued twisting of my words in this instance to support your claim of me taking the action to burst out and say that God does not exist shows me that you are extremely likely to be dishonest in this matter. I am not sure who you think you are fooling. Many people have called you out on this behavior. Heck, I really am done now as I feel you are just trolling or are just extremely delusional. (I am sure here you will sum up some response where you claim yourself the victor and butcher another claim made by someone). Side: No
0
points
I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position is "I have not been shown evidence that a god exists" I said Evolution works without needing a god to explain it. This is clearly not me doing as you said"burst out and say that God does not exist". How long do you plan to dwell in the past? sigh I do not mind it as reference but seriously, you know that denials can only get you so far, right? Link to your proof? My responses were sufficient but you ignored them. You're not even trying, aren't you? You ignored this You avoid talking about the Guadalupe You kept on bringing up the past instead of leading the debate forward You corrupted the our argument into a worthless flamewar P.S Stop lying about your goodbyes. It is good as a joke, but it has overstayed its welcome Side: Yes
Every quote you had of me clearly shows you misrepresented what I said on this portion of the debate. This time you just assert it without any quotes so I am not left with anything to defend against but an assertion. You failed to back up your statement, defend it nor admit you were mistaken...just claim you are right when all else fails. Hey, didn't I say you would do that... Your two links are to the same post. My links showed an additional 10% difference though when the wording changes. In my last post I said you would probably skip my evidence of this...and you did. That is two things in a row I predicted you would do. I can predict the future!! Proof of the supernatural!! Or your behavior is predictable based on evidence from the past. You avoid talking about the Guadalupe What about it? It is just a painting. You begin by explaining something by what it is not by what it isn't. It makes no logical sense to start describing a person for instance by saying, they are not a pineapple, they are not a rock, they are not a dog. You begin with what they are. You corrupted the our argument into a worthless flamewar You mean by asking you to back up a comment you said I said, then you failed to show I said it. Every instance you claimed supports your claim actually doesn't as I shown. You kept tacking things onto another claim. If I say I like pepsi it doesn't mean I like coke. According to your logic it does though. If I say evolution doesn't need a god to explain how it works you say that is me claiming there is no god. Me doubting the painting is a miracle is me saying there is no god by your logic. After all this you say I am to blame for the flame war...but no blame to yourself. Now thats childish, obviously we both share that burden but you seem to not claim any fault. Stop lying about your goodbyes. It is good as a joke, but it has overstayed its welcome It is the only way you will address anything I say is when you think you don't have to fear a rebuttal. Seems you are keen on my trick now though. Don't like me debating in this style? I don't like you debating by lying about my actual position. I been asking you to not strawman me but you continue long past me showing where you have done it, long after you failed to provide evidence of your claim. I think I will keep doing my goodbyes in the same fashion. Really though nothing will change your mind. You say I am in denial? We both know what was said, it is written above all this. Your theatrics must be for an audience because you can't fool me on what I said and vice versa. Anyone who reads our exchanges critically though will see your claims seem to fall short where you straw man my position, heck others have called you out on this when you were dealing with them. You have a reputation. Well your internet persona does. Hell I know I am blunt and a bit jerky at times. No denial here. I just do it to people who try to get one by me. I call them on it. Again if you are to hold a belief I believe it must be on solid information which means you should not misrepresent your opponents stances. I am guessing we are here for different reasons though, yours is not to explore an idea but to pad your beliefs with evidence that only supports it. Otherwise why would you misrepresent someones stance? That must be your tactic for the audience too, hoping they are too lazy to read what was written. I will give you this though, you are probably right. Probably why you continue it. You are starting to bore me so I will take off now this time. Really! buh by. Side: No
0
points
sigh My links showed an additional 10% difference though when the wording changes. 41% said they are atheist 8% are agnostic What 10% difference are you talking about? Like what I said, the no matter how you put it, there would still be more scientists who believes than those who dont What about it? It is just a painting. Its not just a painting. Its the Tilma of the Guadalupe Hundreds of scientists- NASA included- dared to explain its miracles. And they all failed. You mean by asking you to back up a comment you said I said, then you failed to show I said it. It is the only way you will address anything I say is when you think you don't have to fear a rebuttal. Seems you are keen on my trick now though. I reply as long as the conversation is open. Lying about your words will devalue it. Keep it honest Side: Yes
So same stuff I already refuted...but you don't address? You continue to press a dishonest representation of conclusions of others and the evidence presented. The NASA claim is another example of this behavior of yours. Another poster has already shown that to be a falsehood, yet you still use that framing of the evidence. An engineer who did contract work for NASA is hardly qualified to assess artwork, nor does that equal NASA having anything to do with the claim. If you were at all concerned with the truth, you would move away from that position. Buh by. Really this time. Side: No
1
point
It was not done by a small engineer, but was inspected and tested by qualified professors and scientists-including Nobel prize winners. All confirmed that it is beyond any explanation. The documents are readily available online. Why not try it? Funny thing here is that despite all the emphirical evidence of NASA's attempt, they will still refuse to give any mention of it, and would rather keep their silence. Gee, I wonder why? Side: Yes
All of Darwin's statements were myths not fact. Did you know that Darwin originally believed in God, but was mad at Him. He prayed that his daughter would live,she physically died. Afterwards he came to the conclusion that God wasn't real, & thus came up with the story of evolution of man evolving from apes. Will it take another so million years for an ape to turn into a human,if the earth was that old? Last time I checked apes were apes when they died. That also is true for every other animal including humans as well. Which makes me say that Darwin's calculations were incorrect. Side: Yes
2
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
Well we argue against the idea of a god existing with "passion" because the belief effects people. We are not arguing against something that doesn't exist, we are arguing with the claim that this character in this story, being a hero. If someone said Loki was a good guy, or Joker was a hero whom deserved to be looked up to in society, I'd be like "what the fuck have you been smoking" but I would be ten times more involved, when they believe the story is actually true, and they support the bad guy. Side: No
1
point
As 4 real said,you can't argue with evil fictional characters,nor can you blame them for the disasters in your lifes,because they don't exist. However that's what athiest do all the time. They blame God for all the destruction that humanity has caused & have NOT told the entire story of the Bible. They claim that Hitler was a Christian,because of his Catholic routes. However,they've never studied the differences between Catholicism &,Christianity. He only used his so called Catholic routes to get in power & where he did 90% of the books he burned were bibles & killed over 11 million Jews,which the Christian bible was written by. However,athiest do NOT like to mention guys like Joseph Stalin,Mao Zedong,Than Shwe,Pol Pot,Benito Mussolini,Jeffrey Dahamer, etc. I God didn't cause those.messes, we did. Side: Yes
non Everybody knows that in Marvel & DC that villains like Brainiac & Dr Doom don't exist & blame them for the problems in their lives. If they did influence people, they could just stop watching the TV show & watch something else. However, it's different with Go,now isn't it? The reason why is, people blame a so called non-existent being for real live causes. Now you say the bible contradicts itself,but isn't saying God doesn't exist & blame Him for the troubles in their lives contradicting? I think so,because when people say there's no God,they usually say it in anger don't they? So how can you be angry at something that doesn't exist? You can't,it's impossible. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I think the problem with this question is that when it comes down to it, it's a matter of belief. It can't be altered with sources, or even logic to some degree. It's almost impossible to debate the existence of anything omnipotent, because you can always use the argument "that's how God chose it to be." There certainly may be a God, but at this point in my life, I'd probably say that there isn't one. But I have no way to prove this, and no way to try and convince anyone else of this fact. If you don't agree, fine. I don't want to change your belief. I just think this is a silly debate. Side: No
Over time, concepts of God are naturally exposed as myths. We know, for example, that the Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse gods are myths. Eventually people will probably stop believing in our gods and call them myths too. If any evidence appeared I'd say yes, but in the absence. of evidence for God and the surfeit of evidence against God, the pragmatic answer would have to be "no". Side: No
To be fair, I have no problem with people who believe in any god. As long as they don't try to drag me into it. But at the same time i can't believe in a god. Because really, the only thing that religions have in proving that there is a god, is some old books. News flash, anyone can write a book about that creation of humans. But then again people could have planted millions of dinosaur skeletons all over the planet, but lets be honest, that is so unrealistic that it is funny. Science proves a lot and it also disproves a lot, in which case it proves that evolution happened. It doesn't say that there is a god, but if there was/is then he/she/it doesn't do anything for or against the human race. This is my opinion and it might be a little harsh against Religion in general and that is also why I usually keep this to myself. It can hurt people feelings and really i believe that there are more important things that to prove that there is no God. WE have the right to believe and do so. I will talk my opinion when it is needed to be heard. Not just to be an ass. Side: No
1
point
No, I don't believe in a God. But I think that there is something out there. Maybe whatever it is is looking over us... or maybe it's not. I don't think that's something we can test. But I can't shake the feeling that there is something. I'm not quite sure if it's a human, a creature, an energy, or one of the countless deities in the world, but it seems so depressing to just to live a life completely alone. Maybe it's just because I'm one of those people who needs something to believe in. I don't really care all that much if I'm wrong (in the end, it won't matter anyways), all I know is that it makes me feel better to think that there's someone watching over us. But whatever, to each his own, right? Side: No
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/ Might help. Side: Yes
This is a good one too: http://www.youtube.com/ Side: Yes
No problem! There are a ton of videos with his lectures. I made a debate about one: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Another person with similar ideas was Aldous Huxley. You've probably heard of him. He was the author of Brave New World. Side: No
|