Will Creationists Accept the Challenge? - 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 largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Will Creationists Accept the Challenge?

Debate Information

As an atheist, being soundly rational, rationally sound and neutral over religion hear the frequent whimpers of theists......"Prove that God does not exist".

So, I am holding out an olive branch on a level playing field to theists and creationists to rise to the following fair challenge:

Prove that evolution does not exist.
OakTownA
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • OakTownAOakTownA 348 Pts   -  
    Good luck with that! I'm still waiting for a definition of "kind."
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA
    Good luck with that! I'm still waiting for a definition of "kind."

    I presume you mean "kind" as in "alternative to species" as creationists try to spin. Their ridiculous strawman argument about species and/or kinds not inter-breeding has been long since overturned anyway. There is physical evidence that Neanderthal and Denisovans inter-bred some 55,000 years ago.



    OakTownA
  • OakTownAOakTownA 348 Pts   -  
    Exactly. According to 23 and Me, I have around 3% Neanderthal DNA.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    So is that you in the photo lol @OakTownA
  • OakTownAOakTownA 348 Pts   -  
    Nah, just two of my better looking cousins. LOL
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -   edited January 15
    @OakTownA
    Nah, just two of my better looking cousins. LOL

    Which raises a very valid point in that evolution is a very precarious process in that it will sometimes take ten steps back in order to move one step forward. In this case we can see that evolution hasn't quite perfected the mating process. Nor has evolution quite perfected the quality of water flowing through the Ozarks which obviously makes the kin folk down there attracted to each other.

    OakTownA
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 250 Pts   -  
    Religion Has No Earthly Purpose, So Why Do We Cling to It? | Reza Aslan | Big Think - YouTube

    Do any here think in the substance dualistic way, and if your physical has evolved over time, what has you soul/spirit side been doing, and is your spiritual side not what you would name as your highest ideal in spirit which is God, to you. 

    I say to you, because it is a Royal You I address.

    ------

    Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

    You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

    The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation and “I am”, represents the best rules and laws that we have found to live by.

    In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

    That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

    Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

    Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
       
    John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

    Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.  

    Alan Watts - On The Book of Eli - YouTube

    Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link. 

    On Becoming an Adult - YouTube


    The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

    Regards
    DL

     


  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian
    In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

    And, how many times have you been informed that all Christians say the same thing, namely that theirs is the best way. I realise that you did not directly say that here but don't all Christians claim "brethren" to Jesus?

    OakTownA
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 250 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Brethren to Jesus means picking up our crosses and following him.

    Most Christians plan to ride Jesus as their scapegoat and let him carry their load.

    What would you do to/with your brethren to show love; follow them or abuse them?

    Regards
    DL

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Why pick up any cross at all? This is such a strange notion in Christianity, even in the gnostic one: that life should somehow be about bearing some suffering for the sake of salvation or whatever else. Why cannot life just be about having a good time? Something all religions that I know frown upon strongly.

    Where are all the religions that promote happiness and cheerfulness? It is always somehow about doom and gloom.
    GnosticChristianOakTownA
  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -   edited January 16
    Swolliw said:
    @OakTownA
    Good luck with that! I'm still waiting for a definition of "kind."

    I presume you mean "kind" as in "alternative to species" as creationists try to spin. Their ridiculous strawman argument about species and/or kinds not inter-breeding has been long since overturned anyway. There is physical evidence that Neanderthal and Denisovans inter-bred some 55,000 years ago.



    If Neanderthal and Denisovans interbred, then they were the same species.  The fact that you want to call them different species is your mistake.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    If Neanderthal and Denisovans interbred, then they were the same species.  The fact that you want to call them different species is your mistake.

    You have no idea at all what it is like to experience evolution. You have to be a realist like me to accept Darwin into your life and have a relationship with the one true progenitor as to the origin of our species. And it is only through Richard Dawkins that one can ever hope to attain such true salvation.

    OakTownA
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 250 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @GnosticChristian

    Why pick up any cross at all? This is such a strange notion in Christianity, even in the gnostic one: that life should somehow be about bearing some suffering for the sake of salvation or whatever else. Why cannot life just be about having a good time? Something all religions that I know frown upon strongly.

    Where are all the religions that promote happiness and cheerfulness? It is always somehow about doom and gloom.
    To pick up ones cross, is just accepting the burdens of life, and defeating them, so that the happiness you speak of can be had.

    Part of that burden is learning/schooling and thinking in a moral way.

    Doom and gloom. No.

    Think more dualistically, carrot or stick, --- as what is good for the in group and what is bad for those who do not work hard enough to get into the in group.

    It just happens that the people will pay more if they are afraid of the Christian boogie man.

    Regards
    DL


  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Sonofason
    If Neanderthal and Denisovans interbred, then they were the same species.  The fact that you want to call them different species is your mistake.

    You have no idea at all what it is like to experience evolution. You have to be a realist like me to accept Darwin into your life and have a relationship with the one true progenitor as to the origin of our species. And it is only through Richard Dawkins that one can ever hope to attain such true salvation.

    You may not know this, but if two individuals are capable of mating and producing viable, fertile offspring, they are in fact the same species.
    Swolliw
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    You may not know this, but if two individuals are capable of mating and producing viable, fertile offspring, they are in fact the same species.

    You mean I don't know this because the fact is that different species interbreed as I have so mentioned...look it up...you are totally wrong. All creationists are wrong. Unless you are going to play with the word "they"/

    OakTownA
  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Sonofason
    You may not know this, but if two individuals are capable of mating and producing viable, fertile offspring, they are in fact the same species.

    You mean I don't know this because the fact is that different species interbreed as I have so mentioned...look it up...you are totally wrong. All creationists are wrong. Unless you are going to play with the word "they"/


    Please see below copied and pasted from (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/formation-of-new-species/)

    Explain the biological species concept

    KEY TAKEAWAYS

    Key Points

    • Members of the same species are similar both in their external appearance and their internal physiology; the closer the relationship between two organisms, the more similar they will be in these features.
    • Some species can look very dissimilar, such as two very different breeds of dogs, but can still mate and produce viable offspring, which signifies that they belong to the same species.
    • Some species may look very similar externally, but can be dissimilar enough in their genetic makeup that they cannot produce viable offspring and are, therefore, different species.
    • Mutations can occur in any cell of the body, but if a change does not occur in a sperm or egg cell, it cannot be passed on to the organism’s offspring.

    Key Terms

    • species: a group of organsms that, in nature, are capable of mating and producing viable, fertile offspring
  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    You may not have noticed, but I am never wrong.
    OakTownA
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -   edited January 17
    GnosticChristian said:

    To pick up ones cross, is just accepting the burdens of life, and defeating them, so that the happiness you speak of can be had.

    Part of that burden is learning/schooling and thinking in a moral way.

    Doom and gloom. No.

    Think more dualistically, carrot or stick, --- as what is good for the in group and what is bad for those who do not work hard enough to get into the in group.

    It just happens that the people will pay more if they are afraid of the Christian boogie man.

    Regards
    DL


    I understand; it is just a strange way to formulate it. This seems to be common for virtually all ideologies, even non-religious ones, that I have encountered: they all start with the premise that life is hard, brutish and full of suffering, and that the only way to mitigate these is to make serious sacrifices. Even the more positive ideologies, such as stoicism, objectivism or epicureanism, while glorifying happiness, see the pathway to is as full of suffering and abstinence.

    It would be nice to have an ideology, even if religious, for a change that starts with a fundamentally different premise: that life is awesome, that happiness is quite easily achievable (it is), and that there are specific ways to make it even more awesome and full of happiness. And, instead of a guy dying on a cross, that has this kind of characteristic image instead:


  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 250 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    GnosticChristian said:

    To pick up ones cross, is just accepting the burdens of life, and defeating them, so that the happiness you speak of can be had.

    Part of that burden is learning/schooling and thinking in a moral way.

    Doom and gloom. No.

    Think more dualistically, carrot or stick, --- as what is good for the in group and what is bad for those who do not work hard enough to get into the in group.

    It just happens that the people will pay more if they are afraid of the Christian boogie man.

    Regards
    DL


    I understand; it is just a strange way to formulate it. This seems to be common for virtually all ideologies, even non-religious ones, that I have encountered: they all start with the premise that life is hard, brutish and full of suffering, and that the only way to mitigate these is to make serious sacrifices. Even the more positive ideologies, such as stoicism, objectivism or epicureanism, while glorifying happiness, see the pathway to is as full of suffering and abstinence.

    It would be nice to have an ideology, even if religious, for a change that starts with a fundamentally different premise: that life is awesome, that happiness is quite easily achievable (it is), and that there are specific ways to make it even more awesome and full of happiness. And, instead of a guy dying on a cross, that has this kind of characteristic image instead:

    ==============
    Hi MayCeasar

    Most religions say they are there to fix things with truth and that truth begins with us thinking we are lowly evil people.

    What you seek, a higher true without lies, I have found in Gnostic Christianity.

    The thing about what you want in a theology, is that the religious com men have found more profit in raising the low thinkers and gullible. The high thinkers and intelligent know they are liars.

    Christianity began as a good naturalist religion that was ruined by supernatural and immoral beliefs. The liars took over.

    Nature, and Christianity bible, if you read it like a Gnostic Christian, holds all the answers.

    Gnostic Christian see evolving perfection in all things. I takes time and thinking to get there.

    Are you up for a mental exercise buddy?

    This Gnostic Christian, given that I am a perpetual seekers, and not idol worshipers, always am.

    -----------

    The Gnostic Christian reality.

    Gnostic Christian Jesus said,  "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.

    [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

    "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

    If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

    Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

    [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

    But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

    As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

    Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

    Candide.

    "It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

     That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

    Regards

    DL








  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    ".......artificially intervene and fertilize the egg of a bald eagle with the sperm of an African fish....." is an example of two different species not inter-breeding, so what and when was that great piece of enlightening, up-to-the-minute lesson published, let alone researched?.....1960 maybe?  Neanderthal and Denisovans were two different species and there is evidence from discoveries made in 2018 that they inter-bred:
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201229
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06004-0/

    But even then so what?......creationists use the no inter-breeding of species as a strawman to detract from the real argument of evolution of the species and, if I were to be cynical, a vain excuse to shoo away creationists' nutty belief that each and every animal that we have was somehow modelled on a lump of clay by some mysterious being.

    So, even without inter-breeding of species we know that lateral development of species not only took place but still take place to the tune of 15,000 new species each year. Now, are evolutions going to say that this mysterious being pops out from behind a tree 15,000 times each year with a piece of clay and knocks out a couple of a new species...he's pretty smart, knowing that incest is the way to go since he somehow thinks his new species won't mate with another, don't you reckon?

  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Sonofason
    ".......artificially intervene and fertilize the egg of a bald eagle with the sperm of an African fish....." is an example of two different species not inter-breeding, so what and when was that great piece of enlightening, up-to-the-minute lesson published, let alone researched?.....1960 maybe?  Neanderthal and Denisovans were two different species and there is evidence from discoveries made in 2018 that they inter-bred:
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201229
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06004-0/

    But even then so what?......creationists use the no inter-breeding of species as a strawman to detract from the real argument of evolution of the species and, if I were to be cynical, a vain excuse to shoo away creationists' nutty belief that each and every animal that we have was somehow modelled on a lump of clay by some mysterious being.

    So, even without inter-breeding of species we know that lateral development of species not only took place but still take place to the tune of 15,000 new species each year. Now, are evolutions going to say that this mysterious being pops out from behind a tree 15,000 times each year with a piece of clay and knocks out a couple of a new species...he's pretty smart, knowing that incest is the way to go since he somehow thinks his new species won't mate with another, don't you reckon?

    No sir, we follow the science, and so should you.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -   edited January 20
    @Sonofason
    No sir, we follow the science, and so should you.

    Good to hear, after all, "knowledge is king."

    So, I take it then that you are following the latest reports? You know, the scientific reports that confirm the mating between two different species of human?

    I mean to say, it is only ignoamuses who dig up well outdated (or not dated) scientific reports then claim, "see that's what it says"

  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Sonofason
    No sir, we follow the science, and so should you.

    Good to hear, after all, "knowledge is king."

    So, I take it then that you are following the latest reports? You know, the scientific reports that confirm the mating between two different species of human?

    I mean to say, it is only ignoamuses who dig up well outdated (or not dated) scientific reports then claim, "see that's what it says"

    Sorry different species cannot produce viable offspring that are capable of reproduction.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -   edited January 21
    @Sonofason
    Sorry different species cannot produce viable offspring that are capable of reproduction.

    Sorry (I'm not really) but you have been proven wrong, refuse to accept the properly researched compelling evidence and make your assertion without any reason or evidence.

    But then we both know the motivation for keeping such a ridiculous non-argument going, don't we?

    Yes, ye good ole deceptive diversion tactic. Take the heat off the real argument by arguing endlessly on something that means diddly squat anyway.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    Fair enough, that is much better. I still do not understand the need to hang on to an old book, but, I suppose, it is much more practical than vilification of happiness and preaching about eternal suffering while also hanging on to an old book.

    <- This truth seeker has a very different approach still. He enjoys life and considers himself a very happy person, the world an awesome place, and people in it the gems of it. He enjoys both simple things, like going out to the nature and looking at beautiful flowers, and complex things, such as wild mathematical constructs defying intuition.
    He sees no reason to ever adopt any ideology, let alone religion, gnostic or otherwise. He enjoys the process of applying logic and reason to everything and seeing where it leads, frequently interrupted by periods of just having chaotic and pointless (yet intentional) fun.

    He wonders where other people like this are, who just enjoy life with no strings attached. With most people, it is as if they are constantly fighting something: inner demons, outer demons, real enemies, imaginary enemies... Hard to say what is the causal chain here: bad ideas leading to this vision, or this vision leading to bad ideas - or both.
  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Sonofason
    Sorry different species cannot produce viable offspring that are capable of reproduction.

    Sorry (I'm not really) but you have been proven wrong, refuse to accept the properly researched compelling evidence and make your assertion without any reason or evidence.

    But then we both know the motivation for keeping such a ridiculous non-argument going, don't we?

    Yes, ye good ole deceptive diversion tactic. Take the heat off the real argument by arguing endlessly on something that means diddly squat anyway.

    I have never been proven wrong, and I never will be.  Different species cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring that are also capable of reproduction.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    Different species cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring that are also capable of reproduction.

    And your point being?

  • Sonofason said:
    You may not have noticed, but I am never wrong.

    @Sonofason. Well, that isn't exactly hard with @Swolliw tbh.



  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
     Well, that isn't exactly hard with @Swolliw tbh.
    How about being constructive and see if you can get your nut around some Aussie vernacular?
    https://debateisland.com/discussion/7975/are-you-well-and-truly-rooted

  • Swolliw said:
    @ZeusAres42
     Well, that isn't exactly hard with @Swolliw tbh.
    How about being constructive and see if you can get your nut around some Aussie vernacular?
    https://debateisland.com/discussion/7975/are-you-well-and-truly-rooted




  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    Yessss riiiiight, ummm that is er well quite something of a statement isn't it?

    I know.....I know....they've changed the medication again, haven't they?
  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Sonofason
    Different species cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring that are also capable of reproduction.

    And your point being?

    You said @OakTownA

    "I presume you mean "kind" as in "alternative to species" as creationists try to spin. Their ridiculous strawman argument about species and/or kinds not inter-breeding has been long since overturned anyway. There is physical evidence that Neanderthal and Denisovans inter-bred some 55,000 years ago."

    You implied that different species can interbreed and produce offspring capable of reproduction.  And you are wrong.  That's my point...to show that your statement is false and misdirected.

    The word kind may not be an exact alternative to species, as the word species was a creation of men who lived long after those humans who differentiated between animals using the word kind.  It is however possible that these two words are in fact interchangeable.  

    The fact is, when the earth and the waters brought forth life, over centuries that life evolved, and every new creature born into the world was the same kind...yes, the same species as it's immediate predecessor.  In other words, no offspring is ever a different species than its parents.  

    So I return the question to you...What is your point?

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:

    I have never been proven wrong, and I never will be.  Different species cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring that are also capable of reproduction.
    But you have to prove that you have never been proven wrong and never will be. And that proof itself may be wrong, so you need to prove that your prove is not wrong... So you are in a bit of a predicament here.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 250 Pts   -   edited January 22
    MayCaesar said:
    @GnosticChristian

    Fair enough, that is much better. I still do not understand the need to hang on to an old book, but, I suppose, it is much more practical than vilification of happiness and preaching about eternal suffering while also hanging on to an old book.

    <- This truth seeker has a very different approach still. He enjoys life and considers himself a very happy person, the world an awesome place, and people in it the gems of it. He enjoys both simple things, like going out to the nature and looking at beautiful flowers, and complex things, such as wild mathematical constructs defying intuition.
    He sees no reason to ever adopt any ideology, let alone religion, gnostic or otherwise. He enjoys the process of applying logic and reason to everything and seeing where it leads, frequently interrupted by periods of just having chaotic and pointless (yet intentional) fun.

    He wonders where other people like this are, who just enjoy life with no strings attached. With most people, it is as if they are constantly fighting something: inner demons, outer demons, real enemies, imaginary enemies... Hard to say what is the causal chain here: bad ideas leading to this vision, or this vision leading to bad ideas - or both.
    Fair enough, that is much better. I still do not understand the need to hang on to an old book, but, I suppose, it is much more practical than vilification of happiness and preaching about eternal suffering while also hanging on to an old book.

    Knowing that Chrestianity from Greece was the core of Christianity, before Christians became ill with supernatural beliefs.

    Chrestianity, which is about the only good in the Roman bible, comes out via the Gnostic Christian Jesus.

    Chrestianity will eventually retake all the Abrahamic cults as it is compatible with freedom and democracy while the fascist mainstream religions are not.

    If I throw the book away, I lose the God War.

    Better to show the better Gnostic Jesus that Rome could not erase.

    Greeks created the West and we should remember their better religion.

    "He sees no reason to ever adopt any ideology,"

    Every one who lives has an ideology.

    It is built into our DNA.

    If you need proof, google babies knowing good and evil.

    The fact that they do shows that they have an ideology that is based on insecurity and selfishness that defaults to love as the best survival technique. 

    Regards
    DL
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar @Sonofason
    But you have to prove that you have never been proven wrong and never will be.

    Uh uh, you can't do that. That Sonofabi....I mean, son, is going to jump down your throat on that one....that's if he can put the mirror down for a second and muster up some logic.

    Demanding proof of nothing, apart from being futile, is absurd and illogical and simply a cheap way of trying to win points...it doesn't work. I have in fact initiated a thread that addresses this very issue.

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/7982/can-we-please-have-a-moratorium




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    When it comes to Rome and Greece, there are amazing philosophies such as stoicism or epicureanism which are focused on living a happy and virtuous life and do not involve any supernatural concepts. Would it not be better to embrace one of those philosophies, instead of Chrestianity which features a lot of unnecessary baggage?

    As far as ideologies go, I do not think that you need to follow an ideology to classify various things as "good" and "evil". You just need to have a rational approach and a system of values developed based on it. Ideologies blind people and put them on the rails of their limited present thinking, cluttering it with all kinds of biases.
    GnosticChristian
  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Sonofason said:

    I have never been proven wrong, and I never will be.  Different species cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring that are also capable of reproduction.
    But you have to prove that you have never been proven wrong and never will be. And that proof itself may be wrong, so you need to prove that your prove is not wrong... So you are in a bit of a predicament here.
    You know as well as me that it is practically impossible to prove a negative.  Prove there is no God.  Prove there are no leprechauns.  No, no...prove the affirmative statement that I am wrong, and I will be waiting for that proof for a very long time.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -   edited January 23
    @Sonofason

    The difference is, I do not make claims that have not been demonstrated to be right or wrong. It is possible that there is god (now, it is metaphysically impossible for there to be a god with properties commonly prescribed to it, but I will let it slide for the sake of the argument), and it is possible that there are leprechauns. It is just unreasonable to assume that there are.

    When you make a factual claim, you do have to prove it. Making an epistemological claim does not pose the same burden on you. When I say that it is unreasonable to assume that there are leprechauns, I do not make a statement about the reality - I make a statement about a proper interpretation of reality.
    OakTownA
  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Sonofason

    The difference is, I do not make claims that have not been demonstrated to be right or wrong. It is possible that there is god (now, it is metaphysically impossible for there to be a god with properties commonly prescribed to it, but I will let it slide for the sake of the argument), and it is possible that there are leprechauns. It is just unreasonable to assume that there are.

    When you make a factual claim, you do have to prove it. Making an epistemological claim does not pose the same burden on you. When I say that it is unreasonable to assume that there are leprechauns, I do not make a statement about the reality - I make a statement about a proper interpretation of reality.
    What is unreasonable when you lack evidence is making any assumptions at all.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason

    It is not an assumption, but a position. I do not assume that there are no leprechauns, I simply do not include leprechauns in my model of the world, as there is no evidence of their existence. They might very well exist, but given that their existence so far has not been needed in order for my model to work, I do not give it any consideration.

    If you seriously do not have any position on leprechauns or the infinity of other similar things, then I honestly struggle to understand how you can navigate this world.
  • SonofasonSonofason 407 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Sonofason

    It is not an assumption, but a position. I do not assume that there are no leprechauns, I simply do not include leprechauns in my model of the world, as there is no evidence of their existence. They might very well exist, but given that their existence so far has not been needed in order for my model to work, I do not give it any consideration.

    If you seriously do not have any position on leprechauns or the infinity of other similar things, then I honestly struggle to understand how you can navigate this world.
    I believe with regard to leprechauns we are in the same camp.  Whether or not leprechauns exist does not seem to affect my life.  I have had no cause to believe in their existence.  And were it not for this particular discussion, I'd no cause to mention them at all.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason

    That is the case with everything though, is it not? If something does not affect your life, then it is not worth considering - and if something does, then evidence for or against its existence is available (which is precisely the presence or absence of the expected effect of it on your life).

    One cannot prove that leprechauns do not exist period. However, one can prove that leprechauns as described in the old English literature are made up, for had they not been made up, the effects of their activities would be observable and measurable - which they are not.

    It seems to me that the only version of god reconcilable with evidence is some sort of a vague, metaphorical, abstract god found, for example, in deistic writings. Abrahamic, Islamic, Hinduist and other religions make claims about observable effects of god's existence which simply do not match the evidence. And the deistic abstract god does not affect anyone's life, thus is not worth considering either.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar @Sonofason
    I do not make claims that have not been demonstrated to be right or wrong. It is possible that there is god.....

    You see what I mean? For once in his life, Sonofa was right about the ridiculous idea of proving nothing. 

    And you see what happens now? Let's wriggle my way out of the corner and try the even older and thrashed to death stu-pid tactic of "not ruling anything out". And you couldn't have chosen a more perfect way by displaying such a "derrrr" expression. 

    Geeziz, this is getting so entertaining, even though it's old hat....let's predict the next tactic shall we? Ummmmmm errrrrr, I know, how about the "in another place that's not covered by science" excuse. Yep, that's got to be the next one. 

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    I am not sure if I deciphered your comment correctly, but you seem to have a problem with the claim I made that it is possible that there is god. I think you are a little overzealous when it comes to these things. ;)

    The fact that some people will use my statement as an excuse to promote their agenda does not make the statement wrong. The merit of a statement is based on its internal logical consistency, not on how some cunning people can exploit said statement.

    My statement is not a concession of anything to religionists. That they might see it that way is their mistake, not mine.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    but you seem to have a problem with the claim I made that it is possible that there is god. 
    No problem at all. You said it, not me...those were your words.
    So....on with the next diversion then eh? The good ole gaslight trick. After diverting from a diversion, lets now divert from that by blaming the other guy.
    Obviously, you weren't going to use the "God beyond science" crap since I just alerted you to it.
    Now, which diversionary tactic will we see next I wonder.
    Ah, I've got it.....the good ole "wear em down" tactic. In fact, I see the pattern already. So far, there are four diversions....."Derrr like, I'll just keep on throwing plenty distractions at Swolliw" and he will eventually give up".
    Not going to happen.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Diversion from what? You seem to be talking to a person you made up in your mind, and not to me.
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 250 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @GnosticChristian

    When it comes to Rome and Greece, there are amazing philosophies such as stoicism or epicureanism which are focused on living a happy and virtuous life and do not involve any supernatural concepts. Would it not be better to embrace one of those philosophies, instead of Chrestianity which features a lot of unnecessary baggage?

    As far as ideologies go, I do not think that you need to follow an ideology to classify various things as "good" and "evil". You just need to have a rational approach and a system of values developed based on it. Ideologies blind people and put them on the rails of their limited present thinking, cluttering it with all kinds of biases.
    Buddy, your saying you have no ideology, while you follow your own ideology, as you have explained.

    You might want to rethink on just what an ideology is.

    It is a thinking system and you just explained a component of yours.

    Rationality points to good and evil and duality, and you have to have that, as we all do, in our thinking systems.

    Regards
    DL

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4665 Pts   -  
    @GnosticChristian

    If you want to define it this way, then fine. I by "ideology" mean some sort of an organized system; my system is seriously disorganized and only exists in my mind, and I do not promote it in any way and do not recruit followers (although I am happy to teach my method of thinking to those who are interested in learning it).

    I do not need to listen to any moral philosophy to tell what, in my view, is "good" and what is "evil", aside from my own - which, again, only exists in my mind and will die with it eventually (assuming I do not live forever, which is very much a possibility).
    GnosticChristian
  • GnosticChristianGnosticChristian 250 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @GnosticChristian

    If you want to define it this way, then fine. I by "ideology" mean some sort of an organized system; my system is seriously disorganized and only exists in my mind, and I do not promote it in any way and do not recruit followers (although I am happy to teach my method of thinking to those who are interested in learning it).

    I do not need to listen to any moral philosophy to tell what, in my view, is "good" and what is "evil", aside from my own - which, again, only exists in my mind and will die with it eventually (assuming I do not live forever, which is very much a possibility).
    I spoke of a system, not the quality of a system.

    As an esoteric ecumenist, I am all over such moral renderings as I think morals are superior to religions of all brands.

    I am pleased you approve with my definition. I like to KIS.

    Regards
    DL
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    Diversion from what? You seem to be talking to a person you made up in your mind, and not to me.

    Let me refresh your memory..... (make this the fifth now, shall we?) A diversion from your nutty assertion about the possibility of there being a God.

    (Now, keep watching this space folks for the next diversion in the continuing series of "Let's hide from the nonsensical blunder I made and refuse to address". What amazing deception will our intrepid hero try next. He must be running out since this is the second gaslighting in a row....nevertheless, as predicted he is still trying for the "wear em down and he might go away" tactic. Stay tuned)

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch