A Hypothetical For Theists and Atheists - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

A Hypothetical For Theists and Atheists
in Religion

By SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
Let's say a modern city decided to build two new hospitals; one for theists and one for atheists.

The atheist hospital would have super hi-tech surgeries, the latest drugs, skilled surgeons and fully equipped laboratories.

The theist hospital, on the other hand, has only prayer rooms, natural remedies, chiropractors, naturopaths and priests.

Which hospital would have the largest morgue?
AlofRI
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • SandSand 213 Pts

    You assume that athiest are behind all those technologies.
    When the hospital institution and the majority of hospital technology was religious funded.
    Science was funded by religion.
    Atheism was developed in the 16th century.
    Hospitals were founded in the middle ages.

    So based on the atheist viewpoint and concept they would encourage more death and survival of the fittest.
    They might even kill you in the atheist hospital because you are not evolving.

    Where today's technology is actually a good example of a theist hospital.
    Hi-tech surgeries, the latest drugs, skilled surgeons, prayer rooms, natural remedies, chiropractors, naturopaths, and priests.
    Yes, there are chapels and priests in the hospital now.
    Yes, doctors do encourage holistic and natural remedies.
    Happy_KillbotAlofRIxlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfen
  • @Sand ;

    If you think that atheism was founded in the 16th century, then I challenge you to prove what religion our primate ancestors had.
    SandAlofRI
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    You might want to tell Michael Hunter and David Wootton that their book is wrong.
    Wootton is a pretty heavy historian. Tell him he forgot the primates. LOL.
  • @Sand ;
    At some point, religion didn't exist, because people didn't exist.

    People didn't invent atheism, atheism is the defacto nature of all things, if you have no concept of god you can't believe in it and are therefore an atheist.
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    "The world was created in six days and on the seventh, God rested from his great work."  Considering the size of the universe, and the much more massive planets, (as we know it/them, at this moment), God must spend most of his existence on vacation.

    I've been in several hospitals, some funded by religions. They all do a good job whether we happen to be theist OR atheist. You could die, or be saved, in any one of them. I'll just say you have a better chance TO be saved inside one of them than you have outside. JMO.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    I hear you, and good reasoning.
    But historically we have no documentation of any civilization without the concept of God.
    As far back as we have of speech, tradition, or culture there is always acceptance of religion.
    You right it makes sense to think that early development of conscious thought was unaware of the development of the viewpoint of God.
    Nevertheless, we have nothing showing such thinking, the further we go back religious views get stronger and stronger.

    So without so form of indication, it would be an assumption that atheism developed before religion.
  • @Sand
     hear you, and good reasoning.
    But historically we have no documentation of any civilization without the concept of God.
    As far back as we have of speech, tradition, or culture there is always acceptance of religion.
    You right it makes sense to think that early development of conscious thought was unaware of the development of the viewpoint of God.
    Nevertheless, we have nothing showing such thinking, the further we go back religious views get stronger and stronger.

    So without so form of indication, it would be an assumption that atheism developed before religion.
    Civilization is a relatively modern human invention, and again, there were primates who's existence pre-dates humans for which we have no evidence of religious activity and god beliefs in particular.

    This means that it is objective for me to say that religion is an invention of man.

    But this isn't even necessary for me to make my conclusion. At some point, there was no life in the universe, and thus there could be no religion. Hydrogen and Helium do not worship man-made entities.

    Religion, is by no means natural.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • rosendsrosends 46 Pts
    Swolliw said:
    Let's say a modern city decided to build two new hospitals; one for theists and one for atheists.

    The atheist hospital would have super hi-tech surgeries, the latest drugs, skilled surgeons and fully equipped laboratories.

    The theist hospital, on the other hand, has only prayer rooms, natural remedies, chiropractors, naturopaths and priests.

    Which hospital would have the largest morgue?
    I think you create a false binary, pitting thesim against science/modern medicine. I also think that you intimate that no chiropractors or natruropaths are atheists. Then you create a grammatical error by using the superlative when you only have two items being compared.

    Of course, I could also point out that there is no reason to believe that this phantom theist hospital would have a morgue. Deaths would not be studied nor dead bodies stored. Why create these extreme and imaginary situtations?
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    When was Civilization invented?
    When was Religion invented?
    When was there no life in the universe?

    These are things hard to prove, good assumptions, but nothing more than that.
  • @Sand ;

    I don't need to know the specific date, time, year and hour for any of these things to demonstrate that there was a time when they didn't exist.

    Are you to insist that civilization, religion, and life always existed? This is clearly false by all observable metrics, including the fossil record, geology, cosmology, and anthropology.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    I am not saying that they always existed, I am saying I have no proof of when they came into existence.
    You like to take Hypotheses and build conclusions on it.

  • @Sand ;
    I am not saying that they always existed, I am saying I have no proof of when they came into existence.
    You like to take Hypotheses and build conclusions on it.
    It's called deductive reasoning. Maybe try it out some time.

    Besides, you are a Christian. According even to the bible, Christianity came into existence, thus it was invented.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    Well, good deductive reasoning.
    Obviously plants were early on the life chart so they were atheists also.

    I agree that Christianity was invented.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    Sand said:
    Well, good deductive reasoning.
    Obviously plants were early on the life chart so they were atheists also.

    I agree that Christianity was invented.
    .......... And if Christianity was invented, wasn't "God"???  Humanity was here to "invent Christianity", so humanity was also here to invent "God".
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Yes God was invented by God.
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    Nevertheless,

    Happy_Killbot makes a good point, one I did not consider. To become an atheist is more about less thinking than more thinking.
    You could say it is more of a de-evolution. Humans take on the viewpoint of primates.
    They empty their minds and call it logic.

    This doesn't make Atheistism wrong. Belief in chance and time made life has no logical basis behind it. The idea depends on one's perspective.
    Now, based on Happy_Killbot, atheism is more about emptying personal thoughts. Much like conspiracy theorists claim everyone is lying. This, however, does not necessarily make it "false". But the same can be said about any conspiracy theorists. True we may have come from nothing. But also, physics may be a lie. Maybe scientist's evidence contradicts everything. Maybe there big bangs happening everywhere. Do these concepts matter? No.  

    While philosophy can be applied to any idea imaginable, it is important to distinguish mind emptying ideas from intellectual ideas. And the world is made from nothing, certainly is useless.

    It is easy in philosophy to go into ivory tower kind of thinking, where you give up in growing your intellect, that you think it would be better to empty your mind.

    Primates like Lassie and Bubbles the Chimp were philosophers of this kind: they emptied their minds so much they went deep into weird abstractions created by their imagination, that their conclusions were compatible with most primates we know around the world. And various atheistic philosophers have walked the same road, in many cases de-evolving putting Bubbles and Lassie to shame.

    After all, when it comes down to it, the idea of "evolution of the species", is functionally the same as the idea of "flat earth", "the earth is center of the universe", etc. Nobody should take those things seriously nowadays, and everybody laughs at the odd superstar who goes on TV stating it's true but still hasn't figured out that these concepts are made up.

    Yet applying the same reasoning to the idea of "evolution of the species" is rarely done. This demonstrates the power of conformism. It is often easier for people to accept a random claim just because everyone around them accepts it, than to think about it for a little bit, see it for lacking any connection to reality, and dismissing it as an aberration of human thinking. o:)

    Happy_Killbot
  • Sand said:

    Yes God was invented by God.
    Really? What do you mean bro? The concept of God was created by humans, by their believes.
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    What evidence do you have?
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited July 27
    @Sand

    . To become an atheist is more about less thinking than more thinking.
    You could say it is more of a de-evolution. Humans take on the viewpoint of primates. 
    They empty their minds and call it logic. 


    That makes no sense at all and your position remains faith based and nothing else.

    Tell me if I as an Atheist state , “ I cannot say for certain a god does not exist but I’ve seen no evidence so far to convince me of such and until then I suspend belief in such “ 

    Where is the lack of logic in that position ? The burden of proof remains with the one making the affirmative claim not one  believer has so far met that burden of proof and never will as it’s based on spiritual conviction and nothing else
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
  • @Sand
    Eh here you go buddy.
    I guess you know that even before John Lennon imagined “living life in peace,” he conjured “no heaven … / no hell below us …/ and no religion too.” Scientists have begun to unravel religion’s “DNA.” They have produced robust theories, backed by empirical evidence like imaging studies of the brain that supports the conclusion that it was humans who created God. 
    So now just like our physiological DNA, our psychological mechanisms behind faith have also evolved by natural selection over the years.These helped our ancestors to work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce. Traits as can be guessed developed long before recorded history, which roots  eep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past. 
    We humans experience a strong feeling of attachment right from birth. This strong sense of attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry. Thus we evolved and retained these neural networks completely dedicated to it. This inborn need of a protector is what led us to expand it into an authority named God. We did expand this into several other authorities but predominantly gods. Scientists have so far have identified about 20 hard-wired that show the building blocks of religion.

    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-jul-18-la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718-story.html
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfenDeeHappy_Killbot
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand
    (You assume that athiest are behind all those technologies.)

    I like that bit about the atheist bumping off those who don't evolve.
    In reality, though I think the atheists would have strong ethics and provide the best care for all patients.

    The atheist hospital, of course, would need to build a very large mortuary immediately adjoining the emergency department.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @rosends
    (Why create these extreme and imaginary situations?)

    Excellent question there.
    Of course though,"these extreme and imaginary situations" are nowhere near as extreme and imaginary as absurdly thinking that there is a God and that life was created. 
    It is reasonable to assume that all chiropractors and naturopaths are spiritual since their perceived arts of healing are spiritualistic and most of them would be religious.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    You are right. I was just playing with Happy_Killbot's line of thought.

    My stand is the logic of a creator, whether it is "God" or not, is not solely based on spiritual conviction.
    Everything we know has a cause.
    The complexity of life is too intricate and beyond our intelligence now for us to claim that the origin came from lesser intelligence, chance, or time.
    Where I understand your view and encourage you to wait until you have evidence for the correct decision.
    I feel that acknowledging that there is something credible behind the line of thought is necessary.

    For example:
    A person can deny string theory until they have inconclusive evidence, but it would be good to acknowledge there is something there to reference.

    Theists are unable to prove God, just as Evolutionists are unable to prove abiogenesis.
    As fictitious, made up, and crazy the idea of "God" seems.
    The basis of the concept is - Life comes from a designer or intelligence.
    It is miles ahead of the idea - The most intricate complex design known to man comes from nothing.

    So I personally feel the Atheist's viewpoint was developed because intellectuals are tired of the rhetoric that religion constantly gives off.

  • @Sand

    Theists claim much more than deists, they claim a lot more than the mere existence of a creator or prime mover as deists do... I cannot fault deists, to me deism is a reasonable position whereas theism definitely isn't... 
    AlofRIDee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @Sand

    My stand is the logic of a creator, whether it is "God" or not, is not solely based on spiritual conviction


    Of course it is , believers admit mostly it’s a faith based position otherwise they could prove it right ?


    Everything we know has a cause

    Why what do you ‘know ‘ regards the cosmos ? What about everything we don’t know ?

    The complexity of life is too intricate and beyond our intelligence now for us to claim that the origin came from lesser intelligence, chance, or time. 

    That’s illogical and fallacious it’s an argument from incredulity 
    I never made any claims I can reasonably say I don’t know , you make unfounded assumptions about origins 

    Where I understand your view and encourage you to wait until you have evidence for the correct decision.
    I feel that acknowledging that there is something credible behind the line of thought is necessary.

    No it’s actually not , you’re attempting to explain a mystery by introducing another mystery without justification 

    For example: 
    A person can deny string theory until they have inconclusive evidence, but it would be good to acknowledge there is something there to reference.

    That makes no sense a person can put forward a theory regards string theory and theorists can take that apart or not going on whats presented , it’s either accepted or rejected on the evidence presented 

    Theists are unable to prove God, just as Evolutionists are unable to prove abiogenesis.

    Evolution is fact 

    As fictitious, made up, and crazy the idea of "God" seems.
    The basis of the concept is - Life comes from a designer or intelligence.

    Asserting something without proof is irrational 


    It is miles ahead of the idea - The most intricate complex design known to man comes from nothing.

    Prove it 

    So I personally feel the Atheist's viewpoint was developed because intellectuals are tired of the rhetoric that religion constantly gives off.

    That’s your opinion , how do you know this regarding Atheists as you’re collectively applying an unjustified lable on them?
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    Swolliw said:
    Let's say a modern city decided to build two new hospitals; one for theists and one for atheists.

    The atheist hospital would have super hi-tech surgeries, the latest drugs, skilled surgeons and fully equipped laboratories.

    The theist hospital, on the other hand, has only prayer rooms, natural remedies, chiropractors, naturopaths and priests.

    Which hospital would have the largest morgue?
    Let's say an atheist wanted to mock good Christians for believing God.  He could subtly accuse them of opposing traditional healthcare in order to make them appear to be morons.  But the atheist overlooks the fact that Jesus said, "Those who are sick need a doctor."
  • K_MichaelK_Michael 109 Pts
    There is the point of people like Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions and the like, which I think is what the OP is trying to get at.
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @ScienceRules

    If there is no God and thoughts are nothing more than electrical or chemical forces on the natural mind, then beliefs in God are just as valid as beliefs in no God.  If evolution explains the human condition then there are no wrong beliefs since all beliefs are given hapless human creatures by their natural selection creator and master.
    Happy_Killbot
  • rosendsrosends 46 Pts
    @Swolliw
    You wrote "Of course though,"these extreme and imaginary situations" are nowhere near as extreme and imaginary as absurdly thinking that there is a God and that life was created. "

    But that's irrelevant. You created a false binary and an extreme hypothetical. Hiding behind the statement that something else is more extreme doesn't explain what the value is in YOUR doing it.

    You wrote, "It is reasonable to assume that all chiropractors and naturopaths are spiritual since their perceived arts of healing are spiritualistic and most of them would be religious."

    No, that is unreasonable at least as it applies to chiropractic medicine. In this thread, there seems to be a strong showing of atheists who don't share your position.

    The results of this study draw an interesting distinction between "religious" and "spiritual". Your hypothetical posited a theist position and an atheist one but that might not correlate to any question of spirituality.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @rosends
    "But that's irrelevant. You created a false binary and an extreme hypothetical. Hiding behind the statement that something else is more extreme doesn't explain what the value is in YOUR doing it."
    No, it does not explain, I suppose it would be like having to explain a joke really, but here goes:

    The purpose of the thread is to highlight the fact that prayer and natural medicine do not work and, as with satire (or, in this case, dark humour) hyperbole is a commonly used tool.

    Chiropractics is spiritual-based. It relies on the use of "subluxations" and is claimed by the American Chiropractics Association to be "beyond science". Chiropractics was founded by a quack named D. D. Palmer who was imprisoned over his practice of spiritual healing and the business was banned in the USA. Chiropractics has seen a resurgence in recent years however it is not recognised, nor certified by the AMA and in some places, it is still banned. Like naturopathy and acupuncture, chiropractic has proven to be no more than spiritual con-artistry.

     "In this thread, there seems to be a strong showing of atheists who don't share your position."
    There is not one atheist in this thread who does not share my stand.

    Religion is spiritual.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand
    "Yes, doctors do encourage holistic and natural remedies."

    Show me one doctor who has ever encouraged holistic and natural remedies and I will show you a doctor who has been struck off the medical register.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    "  ..........the fact that Jesus said, "Those who are sick need a doctor."

    Jesus was also alleged to have healed patients by "spiritual" means and there are many who strongly believe that they can pray or go to a quack to get cured.

    For example, Steve Jobs was diagnosed with cancer and shunned conventional medicine in favour of a number of "alternative" spiritual-based procedures. He soon succumbed to his disease and experts have agreed that Jobs may still be leading a healthy, productive life.
  • marke said:
    @ScienceRules

    If there is no God and thoughts are nothing more than electrical or chemical forces on the natural mind, then beliefs in God are just as valid as beliefs in no God.  If evolution explains the human condition then there are no wrong beliefs since all beliefs are given hapless human creatures by their natural selection creator and master.
    What we call "thought" can be viewed as an internal behaviour that generates and transforms transient beliefs and potential actions into new beliefs and new potential actions. Of course the belief in God is just as valid as beliefs in no God. Cause theists can't definitely prove that God exists and created everything. Also atheists can't explain every single thing that is happening in the universe till date scientifically, so theists often associate such things with God. So until and unless one of the sides can prove their stand definitely the other side's belief can't be called invalid. Eh buddy again you missed one of my points. Human brain is complex and we humans are susceptible to manipulation.
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @ScienceRules
    "Also atheists can't explain every single thing that is happening in the universe till date scientifically, so theists often associate such things with God. So until and unless one of the sides can prove their stand definitely the other side's belief can't be called invalid."

    Whoa, there a minute.
    When CSI (in real life) investigates a murder they are able to gather enough evidence to prove that an accused committed the crime, even without themselves witnessing the murder and certainly without "explaining every single thing". 
    If a jigsaw puzzle of say, the Eiffel Tower has a few pieces missing we can still definitely conclude that the puzzle depicts the Eiffel Tower.

    Already scientists have overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that life is a result of evolution through natural selection which completely puts the lid on any idea of creation.

    Yes, there are many theories as to what caused the universe to exist but one theory we can definitely rule out is God and creation.

  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @ScienceRules

    You say the brain is susceptible to manipulation.  The question then is what causes the brain to emit thoughts and what manipulates the brain to emit certain thoughts?  I believe the brain operates on a level some people call the 6th dimension, or spiritual dimension, which is a dimension outside the bounds of current natural scientific observation.  That does not mean the spiritual dimension does not exist.  It simply means science as we currently know it has limitations and is unable to accurately measure and record matters in the spiritual dimension.

    I believe the human brain can be manipulated by human argument, reasoning , propaganda, and spiritual forces such as God or the devil or unseen messengers from God or the devil.
  • rosendsrosends 46 Pts
    @Swolliw

    You wrote, "No, it does not explain, I suppose it would be like having to explain a joke really, but here goes:"
    Well, no, it is like trying explain the premises for an experiment. Jokes are funny.

    You wrote, "The purpose of the thread is to highlight the fact that prayer and natural medicine do not work and, as with satire (or, in this case, dark humour) hyperbole is a commonly used tool."

    You did not use hyperbole. You created a hypothetical situation predicated on false statements and then asked a question about drawing a conclusion from your fact pattern. The fact that prayer's efficacy cannot be tested and that non-Western medicine exists seem to escape your schema.

    You wrote, "Chiropractics is spiritual-based. It relies on the use of "subluxations" and is claimed by the American Chiropractics Association to be "beyond science". Chiropractics was founded by a quack named D. D. Palmer who was imprisoned over his practice of spiritual healing and the business was banned in the USA. Chiropractics has seen a resurgence in recent years however it is not recognised, nor certified by the AMA and in some places, it is still banned. Like naturopathy and acupuncture, chiropractic has proven to be no more than spiritual con-artistry."

    Not only isn't it not banned in the US, but to practice it requires schooling and licensure. The fact that it developed through someone's spiritual belief (which is still distinct from theism) isn't relevant to its practice now. Of course, one might not subscribe to the theories it works through (I know I don't) but they aren't related to theism (there is a difference between acute chiropractic care which helps relieve pain and other symptoms through methods similar to physical therapy, and chronic care which is the more holistic approach). In a curriculum for licensure, I see nothing about theism. Do you think of Yoga as necessarily theistic because of its origins? SOme people do.

     You wrote, "There is not one atheist in this thread who does not share my stand."
    Start with the user named "Oliver" and go from there. 

    You wrote, "Religion is spiritual."

    But "spiritual" isn't always religious. Your hypothetical was based in theism  vs. atheism, not spiritual vs. non-spiritual.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    edited July 28
    Removed
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    >>>Of course it is, believers admit mostly it’s a faith-based position otherwise they could prove it right?<<<
    Most believers say that but it doesn't make it true.

    >>>Why what do you ‘know ‘ regards the cosmos ? What about everything we don’t know ?<<<
    Are you stating that physics does not apply to the cosmos?
    It sounds like you are trying to say if we do not know something it is ok if it breaks rules of physics.
    Is that what you are trying to say?

    >>>That’s illogical and fallacious it’s an argument from incredulity
    I never made any claims I can reasonably say I don’t know , you make unfounded assumptions about origins<<<
    Lets put this to the test, I have an example at the bottom.

    >>>No, it’s actually not, you’re attempting to explain a mystery by introducing another mystery without justification<<<
    Lets put this to the test, I have an example at the bottom.

    >>>That makes no sense a person can put forward a theory regards string theory and theorists can take that apart or not going on whats presented , it’s either accepted or rejected on the evidence presented<<<
    Tell me if it is logical to say  “I cannot say for certain that string theory does not exist but I’ve seen no evidence so far to convince me of such and until then I suspend belief in such “

    >>>Evolution is fact.<<<
    Yes. But Abiogenesis is not.

    >>>Asserting something without proof is irrational<<<
    I have proof, I will demonstrate my proof starting with the example at the bottom.

    >>>Prove it <<<
    OK, I have an example at the bottom.

    >>>That’s your opinion , how do you know this regarding Atheists as you’re collectively applying an unjustified lable on them?<<<
    That is why I said, "I personally feel" it is my opinion.

    Here is my example:
    Please explain was the Tudor mansion of Wollaton Hall, Nottinghamshire, was it made or came about through abiogenesis?
    Please do not use the "Man" to fill in the gaps theory.
    Or do not use fictitious internet information or "Man" invented books and stories.
    Please tell me the more logical answer, and why.

    If you refuse to answer, it plays into your first question, that your viewpoint is faith-based position otherwise you could prove it right?
    If you do not know, then why do you attack those who choose either option?

  • @marke
    If there is no God and thoughts are nothing more than electrical or chemical forces on the natural mind, then beliefs in God are just as valid as beliefs in no God.  If evolution explains the human condition then there are no wrong beliefs since all beliefs are given hapless human creatures by their natural selection creator and master.
    This is a complete non-sequitur.

    The logic is self refuting. Consider:

    Assumption:
    1) All beliefs are just as valid, there are no wrong beliefs
    2) The human mind is a product of natural forces (electrical/chemical processes) (this assumption can be substituted with any claim about objective reality)

    Proof by contradiction:
    Someone could believe the human mind is not a product of evolution or natural forces. (fundamentalists do)
    If one believes as above their belief is wrong by our 2nd assumption
    Therefore, either some beliefs are wrong and not valid, or some assumptions are false.

    I can do one better though:

    For any belief, there is at least one contradictory belief. (I believe the earth is flat Vs. I believe the earth is an oblique spheroid)
    If we assume that logic is valid, then both contradictory beliefs can not be true.
    Therefore, at most only 1 can be true and at least 0 are true and not all beliefs are equally valid.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @Sand

    Most believers say that but it doesn't make it true.


    That’s incorrect and you well know , it is a purely faith based opinion regards a god as it I s a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.....if I’m wrong present the proof?

    Are you stating that physics does not apply to the cosmos?

    No I never stated that re -read what I actually said 


    It sounds like you are trying to say if we do not know something it is ok if it breaks rules of physics.

    Is that what you are trying to say?


    No I never stated that , you really need to try and read what I said an not what you keep thinking I said 


    Tell me if it is logical to say  “I cannot say for certain that string theory does not exist but I’ve seen no evidence so far to convince me of such and until then I suspend belief in such 


    You have this totally wrong theories exist about string theory is the evidence for such validated by Science if not then it’s reasonable to reject it 



    Yes. But Abiogenesis is not.

    So what? . The rungs of the ladder are mostly there, but we don’t know the details so does that prove a god if so how ?


    Here is my example:

    Please explain was the Tudor mansion of Wollaton Hall, Nottinghamshire, was it made or came about through abiogenesis?

    Please do not use the "Man" to fill in the gaps theory.

    Or do not use fictitious internet information or "Man" invented books and stories.

    Please tell me the more logical answer, and why.


    I cannot make head nor tail of what you’re trying to say 



    If you refuse to answer, it plays into your first question, that your viewpoint is faith-based position otherwise you could prove it right?


    I’m not refusing I haven’t a clue what you’re trying to say. 


    How is my viewpoint faith based as I clearly stated “I cannot say for certain god does not exist “ what have I tried to prove ?

    No offense but your comprehension skills are dreadful 



    If you do not know, then why do you attack those who choose either option?

    You have not been ‘attacked ‘ why are you playing the victim ? If you do not wish to engage don’t , you’re in for a very uncomfortable life if every time your beliefs are questioned you dishonestly claim you were attacked ,if you claim to be a Christian can you at least attempt to act on the principles you profess?

  • markemarke 334 Pts
     @Happy_Killbot

    At the time of the Scopes Monkey trial evolutionists believed the Piltdown man was scientific proof of a missing link fossil, which was a real joy to them after searching in vain for 50 years in failed efforts to uncover a missing link fossil somewhere.  Sadly for them, they were proven wrong by better science in future examionations of the faked evidence.  Just because millions pin all their hopes on evolutionary theories being true does not prove the flawed theories true.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @marke ;
    Sounds like you are moving the goal posts and trying to deliberately change the subject.

    My argument against your assertion:

    "If there is no God and thoughts are nothing more than electrical or chemical forces on the natural mind, then beliefs in God are just as valid as beliefs in no God"

    Do you have anything to defend this claim or do you insist on making completely irrelevant remarks?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    I don't understand your objection.  If thoughts are attributable to forces outside mere ignorant chemical and electrical reactions in our bodies, then they must be the product of influences from unseen spiritual and not natural forces.  Just because humans may agree in huge mobs that certain views are valid does not make those views valid.  Truth is not negotiable.  Truth is not subject to majority opinion.  Truth is not dependent on peer review.  Truth is true because it is, and nothing else.  God is truth whether men wish to accept that fact or not.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @marke ;

    If you accept that truth is not negotiable, then how are you reaching the conclusion that if our thoughts are the result of natural forces that all beliefs must be valid?

    That makes no sense. My objection is that this is illogical.

    It is possible that the truth is our thoughts are "mere ignorant chemical and electrical reactions in our bodies" is it not?

    Why don't you lay out your line of reasoning for us then?


    If our minds are a product of "mere ignorant chemical and electrical reactions in our bodies" then it is possible that we reach god beliefs regardless of if there is a god or not.

    What evidence do you have to suggest " God is truth whether men wish to accept that fact or not."? 

    How are you reaching these conclusions?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    @Dee

    >>>That’s incorrect and you well know , it is a purely faith based opinion regards a god as it I s a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.....if I’m wrong present the proof?<<<
    Not true. If it was purely faith-based then we would not be having this discussion.
    Obviously, there is validity to religious claims for so many people to research the information.

    >>>No I never stated that re -read what I actually said<<<
    I reread them, I still do not know you're trying to convey.

    >>>Is that what you are trying to say?<<<
    No.

    >>>No I never stated that , you really need to try and read what I said an not what you keep thinking I said<<<
    Please explain.

    >>>You have this totally wrong theories exist about string theory is the evidence for such validated by Science if not then it’s reasonable to reject it<<<<
    Then I think it is illogical for you to make the opposing statement.

    >>>So what? . The rungs of the ladder are mostly there, but we don’t know the details so does that prove a god if so how ?<<<
    I will explain when you answer my question with the example.

    >>>I cannot make head nor tail of what you’re trying to say <<<
    I will make a new topic for you to understand.

    >>>I’m not refusing I haven’t a clue what you’re trying to say. <<<
    I will make a new topic for you to understand.

    >>>How is my viewpoint faith based as I clearly stated “I cannot say for certain god does not exist “ what have I tried to prove ?<<<
    That is because you have not tried to answer the example.

    >>>You have not been ‘attacked ‘ why are you playing the victim ? If you do not wish to engage don’t , you’re in for a very uncomfortable life if every time your beliefs are questioned you dishonestly claim you were attacked ,if you claim to be a Christian can you at least attempt to act on the principles you profess?<<<
    I feel you are assuming I am talking about myself.

  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @Sand


    Your dishonesty is appalling , here is my original post and you stated that I’m right ..... . 


    To become an atheist is more about less thinking than more thinking.
    You could say it is more of a de-evolution. Humans take on the viewpoint of primates. 
    They empty their minds and call it logic. 


    That makes no sense at all and your position remains faith based and nothing else.

    Tell me if I as an Atheist state , “ I cannot say for certain a god does not exist but I’ve seen no evidence so far to convince me of such and until then I suspend belief in such “ 

    Where is the lack of logic in that position ? The burden of proof remains with the one making the affirmative claim not one  believer has so far met that burden of proof and never will as it’s based on spiritual conviction and nothing else


    So instead of attempting  to set up new scenarios tell where is your proof for your assertions as you totally eluded providing them  my position is perfectly rational yours is irrational and you know it 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @rosends

    "Not only isn't it not banned in the US, but to practice it requires schooling and licensure."

    Come on. The Chiropractics Association is self-governing and issues its own (bogus) licenses. It is refused membership of the AMA and allied health practitioners.
    In Australia, many local governments refuse permits for Chiropractics to set up a business. Such charlatans get away with working from the premises of bona fide practitioners such as physiotherapists.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke

    "At the time of the Scopes Monkey trial evolutionists believed the Piltdown man was scientific proof of a missing link fossil, which was a real joy to them after searching in vain for 50 years in failed efforts to uncover a missing link fossil somewhere.  Sadly for them, they were proven wrong by better science in future examionations of the faked evidence.  Just because millions pin all their hopes on evolutionary theories being true does not prove the flawed theories true."

    Just to set the record straight......the Piltdown man episode was a hoax set up by creationists and there was no such thing as a missing link, it was a term coined by creationists.

    There are always pieces missing in every puzzle of science but that does not mean that the entire finding is compromised.
    A jigsaw puzzle of say, the Eiffel Tower may have several pieces missing but one can still determine that the puzzle irrefutably is of the Eiffel Tower.

    Scientists have gathered overwhelming amounts of evidence to irrefutably prove evolution through natural selection, even without fossilized evidence. 

  • rosendsrosends 46 Pts
    @Swolliw

    You seem to be missing certain facts about chiropractors in the US:
    "Chiropractic is licensed and regulated in every State (Lamm, 1995). State statutes and regulations determine the scope of clinical procedures chiropractors may legally perform in their respective jurisdictions. " from here.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    You can dishonestly blame the cretionists for faking the Piltdown fossil but it was not creationists in the Scopes Monkey trial who believed the Piltdown was a genuine missing link.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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