Page 3 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

23 Apr 2014, 2:55 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPaWOvp0yw[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

23 Apr 2014, 3:04 am

Heres a 2 hour and 45 minute long debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugh5rZsRd1c[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

23 Apr 2014, 7:45 am

Food for thought.

In 2006, Richard Dawkins (based on advice from another world-renowned biologist, Stephen Jay Gould) made a claim about why he should not engage in debate with creationists:

Darwin's Rottweiler wrote:
Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

Source: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/ ... eationists

While I suppose that no-one on WP has the reputation of Gould or Dawkins, the above statement could nonetheless serve as a reminder that there may be little to be gained from engaging in genuine debate with creationists, even if their arguments are completely torn apart again and again and again and again and again.

Proverbs 26:4



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 86,995
Location: Queens, NYC

23 Apr 2014, 7:52 am

"Faith" is the Great Obstruscator. That's why one can't argue with Creationists.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

23 Apr 2014, 7:56 am

GGPViper wrote:
Food for thought.

In 2006, Richard Dawkins (based on advice from another world-renowned biologist, Stephen Jay Gould) made a claim about why he should not engage in debate with creationists:

Darwin's Rottweiler wrote:
Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

Source: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/ ... eationists

While I suppose that no-one on WP has the reputation of Gould or Dawkins, the above statement could nonetheless serve as a reminder that there may be little to be gained from engaging in genuine debate with creationists, even if their arguments are completely torn apart again and again and again and again and again.

Proverbs 26:4


There is something to that. But it could backfire as well: Creationist: "The scientists won't even debate this anymore"
Interesting if you could extend this to the fact-free people in politics.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

23 Apr 2014, 8:01 am

trollcatman wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Food for thought.

In 2006, Richard Dawkins (based on advice from another world-renowned biologist, Stephen Jay Gould) made a claim about why he should not engage in debate with creationists:

Darwin's Rottweiler wrote:
Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

Source: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/ ... eationists

While I suppose that no-one on WP has the reputation of Gould or Dawkins, the above statement could nonetheless serve as a reminder that there may be little to be gained from engaging in genuine debate with creationists, even if their arguments are completely torn apart again and again and again and again and again.

Proverbs 26:4


There is something to that. But it could backfire as well: Creationist: "The scientists won't even debate this anymore"
Interesting if you could extend this to the fact-free people in politics.


Sadly, I agree. That was excellent advice but it wasn't implemented at the time and now it won't work. The effect of never debating in the first place would have been to deny them legitimacy. But the effect of debating vigorously and then withdrawing looks like giving up in defeat.



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

23 Apr 2014, 10:09 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
"Faith" is the Great Obstruscator. That's why one can't argue with Creationists.


Pretty much. The debate Bill Nye participated in recently wasn't even a debate at all. The Answers in Genesis guy just delivered the exact same sermon he always did while ignoring all of Nye's rebuttals. The guy was arguing from a position where the scientific method and basic rules of logic don't matter. You might as well debate a party sub, for all the good it would do.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

23 Apr 2014, 11:18 am

Ken Ham: "Natural law may have been different 6,000 years ago".

Ken Ham: "Thus, the assumptions needed for radio-dating, and the fossil record cannot be made".

Ken Ham: "Therefore, I dismiss your evidence".

Ken Ham: "NEXT !"



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

23 Apr 2014, 11:22 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Ken Ham: "Natural law may have been different 6,000 years ago".

Ken Ham: "Thus, the assumptions needed for radio-dating, and the fossil record cannot be made".

Ken Ham: "Therefore, I dismiss your evidence".

Ken Ham: "NEXT !"


:lmao: He does sound like a clueless idiot.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Don_Pedro_Zamacona
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 78

23 Apr 2014, 1:17 pm

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

What many atheists seem to not comprehend is that the burden of proof falls on the person (or people) making the negative claim. They tell us to prove God exists when, philosophically, it is on them to prove that He does not.


:lmao:


Oh

Mah

Gawd





You don't understand the first thing about logic and the scientific method. So lemme enlighten you: The burden of proof ALWAYS rests upon the one making the positive claim. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, AND lack of evidence of absence does not constitute evidence.



The *argumentum ad ignorantiam* fallacy is bidirectional:

-"There isn't enough evidence to prove that A is true, therefore A is false"

-"There isn't enough evidence to prove that A is false, therefore A must be true".



You can prove a negative. But you cannot do it directly. You have to show that the existential positive leads to a contradiction of something that has already been proven and/or observational data.

I am an agnostic because at the present time there isn't evidence for God's existence nor is there any evidence to demonstrate the impossibility of God's existence. Funny thing is though, the assumption of God's nonexistence is consistent with centuries of scientific experimentation. That is, the Universe doesn't need a God to do what it does. Hope that helps. :wink:



Don_Pedro_Zamacona
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 78

23 Apr 2014, 1:22 pm

trollcatman wrote:
luanqibazao wrote:
DrHouseHasAspergers wrote:
What many atheists seem to not comprehend is that the burden of proof falls on the person (or people) making the negative claim. They tell us to prove God exists when, philosophically, it is on them to prove that He does not.


You have that precisely backwards.


No, he is correct. If someone make a negative claim (There is no God), they have to provide evidence for it. In the same way someone who makes a positive claim (There is a God) will also have to provide evidence. The point many religous people do not understand though is that most atheists are weak atheists: they take the non-existance of things as the default position until evidence comes along (I currently hold no belief in a God because I have not yet seen evidence). That is completely different from strong atheist who makes a negative claim.

Also, in most religions it is very difficult to be a weak theist (I currently believe in this God, but I'll consider the Gods/no God of other religions too if evidence comes along).



Weak atheists? Erm, we're called AGNOSTICS. However, the assumption of God's existence as an omipotent being has some logical problems: Can God make a stone so big he could not lift it?




As for creationists, I give them the shoebox test challenge: Take a shoebox filled with dirt, pour holy water onto the dirt, then say a few prayers and have God tranform that dirt into a live jackrabbit.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

23 Apr 2014, 1:26 pm

TallyMan wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Ken Ham: "Natural law may have been different 6,000 years ago".

Ken Ham: "Thus, the assumptions needed for radio-dating, and the fossil record cannot be made".

Ken Ham: "Therefore, I dismiss your evidence".

Ken Ham: "NEXT !"


:lmao: He does sound like a clueless idiot.
Correction he is a clueless idiot! Just like all creationists when losing a debate they go in loops repeating the same thing over again and not accepting that they lost the debate long ago. Basicly this guy lost and just kept saying "you werent there" for the past 2 hours. :lol: Kinda reminds me of a thread involving an argument with a creationist going in loops then being locked.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

23 Apr 2014, 2:40 pm

Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
Weak atheists? Erm, we're called AGNOSTICS. However, the assumption of God's existence as an omipotent being has some logical problems: Can God make a stone so big he could not lift it?


No, atheism and agnosticism are about different questions. I consider myself a weak atheist (I currently hold no belief in God/gods) and an agnostic (I do not have enough knowledge to have certainty about the existence of God/gods). Atheism for me is not explicit denial but simply the default position. I was not born with a belief in gods, dragons or gnomes. And since I have not found evidence for any of them, I don't believe in them. About omnipotent gods, there have also been religions with gods who are not all knowing and all powerful. Gods such as Odin were powerful and wise, but not in the way of the Abrahamic God.



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

23 Apr 2014, 2:53 pm

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

What many atheists seem to not comprehend is that the burden of proof falls on the person (or people) making the negative claim. They tell us to prove God exists when, philosophically, it is on them to prove that He does not.


:lmao:


Oh

Mah

Gawd





You don't understand the first thing about logic and the scientific method. So lemme enlighten you: The burden of proof ALWAYS rests upon the one making the positive claim. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, AND lack of evidence of absence does not constitute evidence.



The *argumentum ad ignorantiam* fallacy is bidirectional:

-"There isn't enough evidence to prove that A is true, therefore A is false"

-"There isn't enough evidence to prove that A is false, therefore A must be true".



You can prove a negative. But you cannot do it directly. You have to show that the existential positive leads to a contradiction of something that has already been proven and/or observational data.

I am an agnostic because at the present time there isn't evidence for God's existence nor is there any evidence to demonstrate the impossibility of God's existence. Funny thing is though, the assumption of God's nonexistence is consistent with centuries of scientific experimentation. That is, the Universe doesn't need a God to do what it does. Hope that helps. :wink:


Exactly. It seems that these people attended a first course in philosophy and think they know everything.

A scientific theory cannot be proven to be true. Ever. We never know when it is true, or if we need to know more about the world to end up knowing that it is false. Therefore we turn to the other aspect. We put theories to test and find which of them cannot be true due to experimental evidence. And the theories that survive this elimination process are the acceptable theories to explain an aspect of reality. So the only theories acceptable to be scientific are the ones that are susceptible of being disproven by experimental evidence. The existence of god cannot be disproved by experimental evidence, just like the boogey man, big foot, unicorns, etc. And that's what the evolution of religion has been since the renaiscence: bending its beliefs to what has been proved to be false.

There are just people who live in the dark ages.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,643
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Apr 2014, 5:17 pm

I fail to understand why so many of my fellow Christians are dead set against the evidence of science. I have never had any problem reconciling evolution, the big bang, the immense age of the universe, etc, with my religion, as I see this as evidence of God's glory and creativity. There is nothing wrong with theistic evolution.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

23 Apr 2014, 5:59 pm

Yes. I do kind of the same with buddhism. I believe some things to be true. But if there is scientific proof against my beliefs, I will drop them. Buddhism also has a creation myth. And it creeps me out when I meet a (fortunately very rare) buddhist who believes in that myth.