Total posts: 104
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not cherry picking anything. I have simply used the terms and words you have provided.
Your not cherry picking? Are you serious? Do you even know the definition of cherry picking. The definitions is as follows.
the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available.
What you have done is ignored words such as "verifiable" and "can be tested."
Macroevolutionary study is itself a myth. It involves "inference" rather direct observation.
With this logic, I can side sweep the whole bible, as no one alive has been involved with any event in the bible. I can say that you religious folks are simply inferring what is said in the bible and that you cannot actually travel back in time to when Jesus roamed the world.
I actually take the view that the B. o P. is on the person who asserts something contrary to the default position. This makes more sense and is how legalists and historians understand it. When there is a general consensus about an idea or fact, then it is assumed to be correct until the new reviser of history or the idea can demonstrate otherwise. In this case, it would be the atheist who has the B. o P. Atheists however know that this is something that they can never do.
This is what I call jargon. How can you possibly believe the BoP is on atheists? Your logic is quite literally, "A lot of people have agreed for a long time so it must be right". The reason you have taken the BoP away from me is either a) you are insane and actually believe this to be true or b) you cannot provide any evidence for God. I'll give you an example. Imagine if there was an age old cult which believed in intangible, invisible and inaudible fairies (they cannot be detected in any way). According to your logic, it would have to be I who debunks these undetectable fairies, which is an impossible task. In this scenario, who do you think bears the BoP.
Nevertheless, I ask, what would be sufficient evidence provided by an atheists which will make you question religion. Since you believe the BoP is on me, what sort of evidence would you like to hear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You seem to have no issues dismissing religion which has a far longer history and following.
The truth is not a democracy.
Firstly, I am not dismissing evolution per se.
Wise. However, you go on to essentially dismiss all of my arguments, which is extremely disappointing. However, you have provided me with a great amount of joy with the following section.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.I have underlined some key words for you. Inference. Hypothesis. Predictions. Creationists make predictions based on their understanding as well. The problem is - it is not observable. the best is still a guess and a hope. It is faith. Hence it is a myth. and just because you really really want to believe it is fact - does not make it so. It is at best a myth and at worst a fabrication or fairy tale.
Hilarious! Absolutely comedic! You are a true cherry picker. Watch, just watch the following.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
The underline was your hilarious attempt to debunk science, followed by something called context underlines by me.
Reality check, Creationism is not science, it is ad hoc and embarrassing. If you wish me to debunk creationism as a whole, I'll do so in my next comment. As to your attempt to put the BoP on me regarding the Big Bang, that would be true. Since I am proposing the idea of the Big Bang I must prove it (I wish this was your attitude when we talked about religion). But no matters, this article should keep you occupied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
We meet again.
Every thing you have said about evolution is an estimation, nothing is verifiable. No one can go back millions of years ago. Estimations are not facts. Just probabilities based on jargon.
To call the biggest and most recognised biological study ever “jargon” is a bit of a stretch. Just because you do not believe it, does not mean it is not true. However, since I have some knowledge about Evolution, I will debunk your main claim which is as follows.
Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Where science is reliable is where it is observable. What happened millions of years ago is clearly not observable. Hence any story about the origin of the world is myth. Including the Big Bang. And is any notion of evolution - that suggests evolution of kinds.
The first bit I have already debunked. The second bit however, is a bit more comedic. What exactly do you support? The Bible, I would assume, a book of which no evidence supports.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a topic which I’ve gotten into some detail before, but I think deserves a forum to itself.
If you think about science and it’s origin, you can conclude that all science is observable in nature. Gravity is observable through day to day observation. Planets have been observed and calculations have been made to estimate the size of planets millions of years away. Evolution is observable through millions of years worth of evolutionary science and the interrelation between organisms.
What I’m getting at is that all scientific facts have come from nature and are observable. Science can be replicated by anyone. Given the right place to look, everyone can notice evolution. Given a good enough telescope and mathematics ability, anyone can calculate the size of Mars.
However, the same cannot be said for God and the Bible. I fail to see how nature proves the bible is correct in any way (like how nature proves evolution is right, or at least extremely plausible). When comparing the Bible to nature, there is almost as much correlation between the two than between an Aboriginal Dreamtime story and nature. Though the bible and Dreamtime stories mention nature, there is nothing testable within it’s pages. Take this as an example. The following is a quote from a Dreamtime story followed by a verse from the bible.
Now long, long time ago of course, in the beginning, when there was no people, no trees, no plants whatever on this land, “Guthi-guthi”, the spirit of our ancestral being, he lived up in the sky.So he came down and he wanted to create the special land for people and animals and birds to live in.So Guthi-guthi came down and he went on creating the land for the people-after he’d set the borders in place and the sacred sights, the birthing places of all the Dreamings, where all our Dreamings were to come out of.Guthi-guthi put one foot on Gunderbooka Mountain and another one at Mount Grenfell.And he looked out over the land and he could see that the land was bare. There was no water in sight, there was nothing growing. So Guthi-guthi knew that trapped in a mountain-Mount Minara-the water serpent, Weowie, he was trapped in the mountain. So Guthi-guthi called out to him, “Weowie, Weowie”, but because Weowie was trapped right in the middle of the mountain, he couldn’t hear him.
Followed by Genesis 1.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
It is clear that there are correlations between the two. Both of them include some mythical being coming down and creating parts of nature. However, neither of these accounts provide evidence. Essentially, an Aboriginal Dream Time is as testable as God. Neither are observable in nature. Neither provide facts, and neither are replicable. So I ask the religious readers, what makes God more evident than these Dreamtime stories? In fact, what makes Christianity more plausible than the Islamic faith? If you got a Christina and an Islam man together to discuss their religion, it would not be a debate, but a battle of blind faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I believe that there is a non-supernatural origin to the universe which is recognised as the Big Bang.
Created:
Posted in:
Since you are proposing the idea of God, just like how I propose the claim of fairies, you must defend this claim.Neither TS or I have refused to defend our claim. You have refused to defend your claim.
I will defend my claim.
You are also proposing an Idea. If you will not defend it, it will be dismissed.
You are terribly misled. I have already debunked this with my fairy analogy twice. If I propose an idea, I must provide evidence that what I say is true. If I cannot, then I may be dismissed. Since you do not understand, I'll give you a question. Give me evidence that there are no fairies. Remember, you can't hear, see or touch these fairies.
Yet you are the one inexplicably babbling about fairies in a conversation about your God claims. Your claim has been dismissed
Personally, I view both fairies and God as just sad people's hope that there is more in life than can be observed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Very embarrassing that you refused to respond to the fruit of my comment. Here it is in case you missed it.
Since you are proposing the idea of God, just like how I propose the claim of fairies, you must defend this claim. Surely, if I challenged you to a debate about garden fairies, it would not be good conduct to hand the BoP to you and say "find evidence that these things aren't real". You can't just say "well, you are the one proposing that these aren't real, so you bear the BoP", which is actually exactly what you have done.
Evidently, you are confused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
According to Princetone.edu, life begins "when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote". Therefore, ending the life of a fetus, which has already gone through this stage and is alive, can be considered killing a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sure there is. You have a positive claim that God does not exist. You should be able to defend that.
I can certainly defend that claim.
But you are the one proposing the idea that a supernatural God does not exist.
You are confused. There is a difference between proposing an idea and refuting an idea.
Those are 2 different things. You defend your claim by presenting logical support for it. You refute his claim by showing how his claim is illogical.
And that's what I will do, given the opportunity.
You, because you have made a positive claim. If you proposed the idea that there were not inaudible, intangible and invisible sub-atomic particles in your garden bed, you would still hold the BoP. The trick of choosing fairies, is just that, a trick. Whomever proposes an idea must defend that idea.
Agreed. Whoever proposes an idea must defend that idea. Since you are proposing the idea of God, just like how I propose the claim of fairies, you must defend this claim. Surely, if I challenged you to a debate about garden fairies, it would not be good conduct to hand the BoP to you and say "find evidence that these things aren't real". You can't just say "well, you are the one proposing that these aren't real, so you bear the BoP", which is actually exactly what you have done.
We object to the unfair condition where you get to attack our claim but never have to defend yours.
Okay, perhaps I didn't articulate myself clearly. The following is what I want. I want to have a debate purely about God, and weather he exists. As agreed by you and stated in the Hitchens Razor, since religious people are proposing an idea, they will have to back it up with evidence, or risk being dismissed without evidence.
TS did not refuse to defend, he wanted you to defend also. Of the 2 of you, the one acting afraid and unable to defend his position is you.
It is clear that my opponent fears they cannot defend their position, thus requiring them to put some responsibility on me. The reason I want a debate purely about God is because that is the subject I am the most well acquainted with. Take this as an example. Though I believe the earth is round, I would not be running head first into a flat-earth debate, as I have not conducted enough research on the topic to debate someone. Does this mean I am uncertain? No, I just simply have not read through the necessary papers which would give me a good argument.
This is similar to the situation we have in hand. I am certain I know how the universe began, but I have not conducted the complicated and tedious research required to make me an expert on the subject.
I am however, willing to debate purely about God, something which no one seems to want to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well no.
The usual pro-choice individuals believes murder is wrong but simply believes that abortion is not murder. There's a difference. I can debunk people who think abortion is not murder and also that murder is wrong, but I cannot speak to a person who believes murder is right and abortion is right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Then why don't the both of you share the BoP of your own claims, his being that God exists, and yours being that God does not?
But the problem is that there is nothing for me to defend. I am not the one proposing the idea of a supernatural God, I am simply refuting a claim and defending my position. Take this as an example. If I proposed the idea that there were inaudible, intangible and invisible fairies dancing in my garden bed, who would bear the BoP? Obviously, as I am the one proposing this idea, I will have to defend it.
You seem to be asking to be on attack, never defense. Why would any sensible person agree to such a rigged debate? Are you afraid of being on defense?
You as a religious folk seem to get very tense and aggressive when being asked to prove your point. Calling me afraid and rigged to deflect your own inability to defend an ideology will hardly get you anywhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I was banking on normal people, who think murder is wrong, to reply to me. I guess you can conclude that abortion is right if you also believe murder is right. However, I can say that the average pro-choice believes murder is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I didn't say life, I said human life. I feel have made a forum about meat eating which may interest you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I care about all human lives if that's what you were wondering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Wow! a person who admits that they will only debate on strong topic of their own.
Well, yes?
What a sad way to conduct debates. My view is that debates are about truth - not finding out who is the best debater.
Which is why I invite you to enlighten me about why God is real, something you seem keen to dodge.
I think people should not be debating just to find out who has the biggest ????
The biggest? Yes? Go on.
no wonder the world is having a hard time with truth - no one actually wants the truth - they just want to be the best story teller.
I want the truth. I want to know whether God is real. I believe that God is not real and you believe that God is real. Why can we not have a civil discussion about this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But surely telling a kid they will burn in a pit of fire forever for lying is a bit extreme, especially since their is no evidence about a physical Hell.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it right to tell their child that they will burn for eternity if they do not believe a God for which there is no evidence to? Even if God was real, is it right to tell them that they will burn in fire forever for lying, something that all of us have done before?
I do not think it is right to enforce this ideology, especially since it’s so morbid, on a small child simply because you believe in it and want to pass it on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I can most certainly defend my claim that God is almost certainly not real. What I do not wish to do is make this a debate about the universe, as that is not my strong suit as I am not a scientist. Sure, if I invested hours into researching the cause of the universe, I will be able to answer all critiques against scientifically recognised facts, however, I am not prepared nor the right person to write a paper about the origin of the universe. What I am equipped to do is debunk reasons religious people think make a good cause for the existence of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well we have much bigger issues in hand if you believe murder is right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Unless you want to question murder itself, which is a whole other discussion, abortion involves ending a human life, which is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Have you thought in the women’s perspectives?
I honestly don't care what goes on in a baby killers mind.
They abort because they HAVE A PROBLEM in their body that they cannot afford to solve by not aborting.
But I don't care about the context of one having an abortion, what I do care is the implication of their actions, which results in the loss of human life. Don't want to have an abortion? Don't have sex. Want to lower the chances of needing an abortion? Use conraception.
Should prisons focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment if they want prisoners to become a functioning member of society again?
I fail to see how this is relevant. I personally believe in punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You're missing the point. The main issue is not providing alternatives, that should be the second priority. The issue is the killing of human lives. Honestly, if you can't afford 50 cent rubber or birth control for 50 bucks month, then you've got some serious financial issues which you should be worrying about more than having sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I cannot say the same. I tend to enjoy bashing baby killers.
Created:
Posted in:
The following are very summarised responses to common arguments Pro-Choice individuals use.
I have no obligation to them. You can say that about your 3 year old child.
The unborn are clump of cells. So are you, you're reducible to cellular structures. Also, this does not excuse 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, which involve much more than an unrecognisable clump of cells.
The unborn don't feel pain. Does this mean painlessly gassing people to death is moral?
Women have a right to comfort. Does this mean a murder is allowed to burn a village down for their personal comfort?
They are dependent on the mother to live. Babies are dependent on their mothers outside of the womb. The elderly are dependent on their caretakers outside of the womb.
Abortion is deeply personal. Murder can also be deeply personal.
I can't afford them or I don't think they will have a good life without me. Does this mean I will be doing good if I murder starving African children? Does this mean I will be doing good if I murder homeless people?
They will be born with terrible disabilities. Does this mean I can go to a disability learning center mow all the disabled kids down?
They are not alive yet. Not according to the science of embryology. Nevertheless, when do you believe human life begins then?
Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists. That’s like saying “banning cocaine means I have to get impure cocaine of the streets, you should legalise it so I can get access to the real and pure columiun stuff.
Women have a right to abort their baby to reach their full potential. Abortion is not something which happens spontaniously, you don’t wake up with a baby in your womb. If a women really cares about reaching their full potential, maybe they should use contraception or just walk away from sex.
Men cannot have opinions of a womanly matter. Does this mean doctors cannot have opinions on womanly matters? Does this mean a commentator cannot have an opinion on a game which he is not playing? Does this mean I am not allowed to intervene when my neighbor kicks their dog, which doesn’t affect me what so ever?
Women have a right to their bodies. This is completely true. However, the fetus is a different body unless you believe a pregnant woman has 20 fingers and 2 brains.
So there you have it. All the arguments I have heard in favour of abortion. Please feel free to add more to the list for me to debunk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If you really were an atheist - you would defend your position.
I'm most willing to this by refuting any claims you make about the existence of God.
I offered you an opportunity to discuss your position and you chose to run away.
I offered you an opportunity to discuss your position on God and you chose to run away.
I will be making a debate about the existence of God in the near future. You may wish to keep your eyes on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If you really believed in this all-powerful God, you should be pouncing to defend him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The Hitchens razor states that
What can be asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence.
As you are the asserting the idea of God, you are the one who needs to provide evidence. I will need to rebut all your claims about God. I don't see the issue with this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But why should the burden be on me? You are the one proposing the idea of this all powerful God, not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I do not wish to discuss the best explanation for the origin of the universe. I wish to discuss the existence of God. I would enjoy a debate where you propose your case for God and I rebut it.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
That's just cherry-picking. I can name at least 10 atheist scientists from the top of my head.
Created:
-->
@Utanity
Are you religious because your really proving my point here.
Created:
-->
@Utanity
I love how your vocabulary consists of insults I used when I was 6
Created:
-->
@Utanity
Maybe you could try to expand your vocabulary outside of the word "dumb".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Peter Hitchens, the man who could have learnt a bit from his brother.
Created:
Something funny I would like to share.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There’s something about your snarky attitude and sense of self importance which annoys me. Would you like to debate with me about the existence of God? I would rather not entangle myself in an endless comment war. Also, I think I’ll enjoy beating you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
This is another debate which included Sam Harris and Dr Craig.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Created:
Posted in:
^A strong case against religion. I give all religious people the opportunity to address this.
Created:
Posted in:
To all, this is the video which planted the seed of doubt in my mind when considering the ethics behind meat-eating.
Created:
Posted in:
Hm, my answer would be that stealing is wrong because it involves the unconsented taking of anothers possession, but one could argue that this answer is not an answer, it is simply just describing what stealing is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well it is important for me to state that I have a normal view on murder besides my rational interpretation. I believe murder is wrong. I will not murder anyone because I think it's wrong and if someone was killing my family member, I would stop them. But this is me being ignoring my rational side. Rationally, I cannot justify my strong believe that murder is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, but why is it wrong? Why is killing a homo sapien wrong as opposed to killing a pigeon, which is right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well, when posting this forum, I really couldn't think about a possible answer. Why is murder wrong? To me, there is no answer so I wasn't shocked to find out that everyone was the same as me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm actually decently surprised, to tell the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a follow on to my last forum "Is meat eating morally justifiable", to which raised more questioned than answered. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5147-is-meat-eating-morally-justifiable
What is actually wrong about murder? There are four foreseeable answers which I will cover.
Subjectivism
According to subjectivism, to say that something is wrong is to claim that you personally disapprove of it. The problems with this is that murders would technically be justified as they believed what they did was right.
Inter-subjectivism
According to inter-subjectivism, to say something is wrong is to claim your community disapproves of it. The problem with this is that communities may be wrong, as the Roman Catholics endorsed slavery, an unacceptable practice in todays world.
Emotivism (My personal go-to)
According to emotivism, to say something is wrong is not to make a claim at all. It is simply express personal disapproval. The problem with this is that it essentially eradicates the idea of morality as a whole.
Religion
Personally, I view this standpoint un-kindly, as it simply just postpones the mystery and is the "lazy way out" of what would be a fruitful discussion. To those who go to religion as an answer, I have one question. Are things wrong because they are wrong, or are they wrong because God says they are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
That's the conclusion I came to. I was hoping for something more constructive.
Created: