frame

Another Question for Anti-Science Atheists

Opening Argument

Assume you are sitting on a jury in a criminal trial with a man accused of bank robbery.  Assume further this man was caught with the stolen money in his apartment.  He claims that the money just appeared out of nothing the moments before the police arrived.  Would you acquit this man?  Why or why not?

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Assume you are sitting on a jury in a criminal trial with a man accused of bank robbery.  Assume further this man was caught with the stolen money in his apartment.  He claims that the money just appeared out of nothing the moments before the police arrived.  Would you acquit this man?  Why or why not?

    If the police already tracked him down to his apartment, they must have had enough evidence to get them there, right? The rest is easy, the money was right there.
  • There is no evidence of what the police did.  My Q?
  • @ViceRegent said: There is no evidence of what the police did.  My Q?

    Well then who "caught him with the stolen money"? His mom, .. his wife, .. who? Why did they think it was the money stolen from that bank robbery, did the serial numbers match or something? Was the exact amount that was stolen all there? Does he have teen aged kids?
    NonCredenti
  • Does not matter.  Would you exonerate him based on this defense?  Why or why not?  You run again, I will dismiss you as intellectually dishonest.
    uzairmahmud
  • We cannot debate with you as you are creating a trap. You give us a statement yet when you received an accurate answer you refused to accept it. Any atheist (and I would hope any decent human) would look at the evidence first. You say there was no evidence yet you say "He was caught with the stolen money." You are contradicting yourself and giving us a situation we cannot answer. Also is is not legal to pass judgement on someone with no evidence, if there is no evidence the judge is forced to dismiss before it goes before a Jury anyway. So your question is mute.

    The only answer I could get close to would be if your question was "The evidence was not clear that it was him for certain." Then I would answer if the evidence does not support the claim that he is guilty then no. I would vote not guilty.
    NonCredentiEvidenceuzairmahmud
  • @Schnuupi

    What "accurate" answer was given and how to you know it was "accurate"?
    WilliamSchulz
  • There is evidence.  He was caught with THE money.  He denies it is THE money and says identical money spontaneously appeared out of nothing.  Would you buy this defense.
  • SchnuupiSchnuupi 19 Pts
    edited November 2017
    NVM Edit saw wrong username on posts.
  • No atheist will answer this, for it demonstrates the absurdity of their ontology.
  • No atheist will answer this, for it demonstrates the absurdity of their ontology.

    No 'theist' could answer this properly either.

    Biblically speaking, and having come to know who our Creator God Is scientifically and philosophically, 'miracles' do happen all the time as I have witnessed it many times throughout my life, and continue to do so. So with that in mind, IMHO your question wreaks of deception, starts off asking us to "assume" something, then you go into "criminal law", telling us that the man was caught with the "stolen money"!?

    @ViceRegent said:  Assume you are sitting on a jury in a criminal trial with a man accused of bank robberyAssume further this man was caught with the stolen money in his apartment.  He claims that the money just appeared out of nothing the moments before the police arrived.  Would you acquit this man?  Why or why not?

    My answer is: "Why"
  • I'm a little confused on the title, what in the world is an Anti-Science Atheist?  Are you suggesting that there are people out there with an Atheistic worldview that don't believe in Science or are inherently against it?
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Evidence

    Prove it.

  • @Vaulk

    Yes, the atheist worldview is anti-science.  This, to the degree they engage in empirical study, they are acting inconsistently with their own worldview and stealing from mine.  This is why Christians have us modern science and atheists are taking us back to mysticism.
  • @Vaulk

    Yes, the atheist worldview is anti-science.  This, to the degree they engage in empirical study, they are acting inconsistently with their own worldview and stealing from mine.  This is why Christians have us modern science and atheists are taking us back to mysticism.
    Actually, I would argue something a little different. I am a Catholic, not an Athiest, but I will try to share some views on this discussion. Athiests value imperialism, in that you have to see it to believe it. That is why they say God does not exist, because they don't see him, and they haven't seen a miracle strong enough to believe such. Mysticism is a loose undefined term, I would more argue that Christians believe in faith, in that good is coming and even though we can't see god, we know he's there. Atheists would be defined as above, imperialists.

    For your actual question, you can't bring the divine as an excuse for being caught with money, so you should convict the person based on your assumptions, though you fail to discuss any reasons for why he has the money in the first place. Was there a second hitman, or was it because of the divine?
  • Assume you are sitting on a jury in a criminal trial with a man accused of bank robbery.  Assume further this man was caught with the stolen money in his apartment.  He claims that the money just appeared out of nothing the moments before the police arrived.  Would you acquit this man?  Why or why not?
    This hypothetical is ridiculous. If a man was being tried for bank robbery, and up for acquittal, there would be much more evidence and variables than what you have presented. If you ever have seen a moc trial take place, you would surly laugh, imaging this hypothetical situation as being the complete bases for a case.

    Furthermore in the acquittal process it is the duty of the jury to consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. By giving this vague, short, unspecific hypothetical, and then asking us to make a judgment on weather a made up man, committed a made up crime, with no evidence presented, aside from one claim the defendant has maid, which is that the money appeared from no where.
  • I did not ask for your worthless opinion about my Q.  Put aside the irrational red herring and answer or shut up.
  • @WilliamSchulz

    The Q stands on its own, you inferences notwithstanding.
  • @Evidence

    Prove it.



    @ViceRegent prove what, that miracles happen and I witnessed it and was part of it many times in my life? Or that I can define our Creator?
  • So you're saying that the question is retorical and nothing will sway you? Prove that my inferences are red herrings, and that my opinions are worthless. I did not ask for personal attack, I just merely made a comment based off experience being a Catholic. If you don't like it, please state why or respond in a way that doesn't sound insensitive. Thanks!
    EvidenceNope
  • @WilliamSchulz

    Stop trying to change the subject and answer the Q.  Thus is hilarious how irrational these people are.
  • I answered your question up above in my first argument. I said that because the divine can not be an excuse for money magically appearing, you should convict the person. The alternative question I asked was if there was a second hitman or divine was just the excuse. I ask this because earthly judgement is different than divine judgement. If the man did steal, but got away, he would escape earthly judgement, but face later divine judgement. On the other hand, he could be convicted of earthly judgement when he didn't steal it, and avoid future divine judgement. Finally, he could have stolen it, been convicted, and face earthly and divine judgement. However, you don't make this clear, which is why I ask the question of which it is.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch