Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Good debates

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 7:37:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does anyone know any good video debates I could find on the existence of god? All the ones I have seen make the theist and atheist alike look like they don't know what they're talking about.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 10:15:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 7:37:06 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone know any good video debates I could find on the existence of god? All the ones I have seen make the theist and atheist alike look like they don't know what they're talking about.

I just recently watched Jonathan Miller's discussion with Denys Turner. It is excellent. Turner starts out very good but Miller has him in the end. Very civilized and intelligent discussion though...

You can find it on youtube.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 10:37:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 7:37:06 AM, socialpinko wrote:

Does anyone know any good video debates I could find on the existence of god?

William Craig Lane and Hugh Ross for Christianity, Zakir Naik for Islam. Naik has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of Christianity,Islam and Hinduism scripture. Note however there are some very impressive written debates on DDO, some of them by theists and some by non-theists defending a theist argument (Kenyon).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 12:21:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza

Sam Harris vs. Reza Aslan

Any Lane Craig debate
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 12:29:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 12:21:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza

You are impressed with Hitchen's on theism? He comes off as fairly shallow on the philosophy of religion most times I have seen him. I only really saw him do well when he went against David Berlinski who is just one step above Ray Comfort.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 12:51:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 12:29:31 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/4/2011 12:21:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza

You are impressed with Hitchen's on theism? He comes off as fairly shallow on the philosophy of religion most times I have seen him. I only really saw him do well when he went against David Berlinski who is just one step above Ray Comfort.

Well Hitchens did study philosophy at Cambridge and Oxford.

However, I think Hitchens is usually arguing from the societal impact of religion and demonstrates why religious paradigms are something undesirable that shouldnt want to believe in. He doesn't sit there and give 5 reasons why Gods existence is false like Craig would do because quite frankly, the popular refutations of God like those showing the logical contradictions of the omni-traits aren't that stellar or intriguing for an audience to hear, nor are they completely convincing.

I suppose he could make more effort to refute the common philosophical arguments for Theism, but I think his argument of the chaotic, bleak, imperfect, and cruelty of the Universe is quite a good argument that should be enough to shake any Theists faith in a loving God. I have yet to see a single Theist refute that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 1:00:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 12:51:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

I suppose he could make more effort to refute the common philosophical arguments for Theism, but I think his argument of the chaotic, bleak, imperfect, and cruelty of the Universe is quite a good argument that should be enough to shake any Theists faith in a loving God.

Why would that convince anyone, anyone who looks at he universe through the eyes of a scientist sees a beautiful landscape. I have never once at any time studying any aspects of physics saw the universe as bleak and cruel, it looks wonderful and beautiful to me. Hitchen's needs to actually spend some time in a lab and actually discover something and see the pleasure it brings to understand. I would not fault a God for giving me that opportunity.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 2:27:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 1:00:57 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/4/2011 12:51:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

I suppose he could make more effort to refute the common philosophical arguments for Theism, but I think his argument of the chaotic, bleak, imperfect, and cruelty of the Universe is quite a good argument that should be enough to shake any Theists faith in a loving God.

Why would that convince anyone, anyone who looks at he universe through the eyes of a scientist sees a beautiful landscape. I have never once at any time studying any aspects of physics saw the universe as bleak and cruel, it looks wonderful and beautiful to me. Hitchen's needs to actually spend some time in a lab and actually discover something and see the pleasure it brings to understand. I would not fault a God for giving me that opportunity.

Hitchens doesn't deny the beauty and wonder of the Universe, in fact, he asserts it. He just points out that it is not entirely good and that there are bleak and cruel aspects of it.

- 99% of Earths species have gone extinct and humans at one point almost became extinct. With a loving God, why would 99% of all species be obliterated rather than given the oppurtinity to flourish.

- Millions of babies die. Innocent children die. Women are being raped and held hostage for a lifetime. Why would God allow such cruelty and waste of life with no chance to experience actually living. Isn't life one of Gods most precious gifts? Why does he destroy it and let evil prevail?

- The Milky Way is going to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. What kind of design is that? Is simply incompetent? Not possible. Such a demonstration of incompetence disproves the idea of a perfect creator.

- Natural disasters occur which wipe out thousands of people, both innocent and wicked. Why would God let these natural disasters occur at all if they wipe out innocent children?

- Why are our bodies so flawed? We have useless organs and ineffeciently designed bodies. Poorly evolved teeth, feeding and breathing valve is the same hole. Birth shouldn't have to be that painful. Excreting waste out of sexual organs is absurd. Waste is unnecessarily unpleasant. Etc.

Refute that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 3:03:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 2:27:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hitchens doesn't deny the beauty and wonder of the Universe, in fact, he asserts it. He just points out that it is not entirely good and that there are bleak and cruel aspects of it.

- 99% of Earths species have gone extinct and humans at one point almost became extinct. With a loving God, why would 99% of all species be obliterated rather than given the oppurtinity to flourish.
God creates for a purpose. Even humankind will cease to exist on this planet. Why do you not ask, if everything were very simple and there were nothing to be explored, nothing to be mind-blown by when looking at the past, do you think that would be better for us? We have incredibly many fields of science today that even if every human on the planet were an expert on every field, then there would still be something mystical, and still something that nobody really understands. When God creates something, it is up for Him to judge when His creation should cease to exist. You do not know whether it is good or not that 99% of species became extinct. In fact, I think that is very fascinating, and makes me fascinated by God's power when I look at such occurrences and what they lead to. If dinosaurs remained existing, do you think that the world would be a more peaceful and flourishing place? Do you think humans would live in humility with dinosaurs? I do not think so.

- Millions of babies die. Innocent children die. Women are being raped and held hostage for a lifetime. Why would God allow such cruelty and waste of life with no chance to experience actually living. Isn't life one of Gods most precious gifts? Why does he destroy it and let evil prevail?
How do you know that it destroys life? Surely, God is all-knowing, and letting something like this happen might be because the outcome is better due to this than the outcome without it.

- The Milky Way is going to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. What kind of design is that? Is simply incompetent? Not possible. Such a demonstration of incompetence disproves the idea of a perfect creator.
Why is it incompetence? If God's plan is to let the galaxies collide, then what is wrong with that? You are totally assuming that you know what should be and what should not be, how things should happen, and why everything is as it is. And again, this gives humans an opportunity to explore the world and always have something to be amazed by and prosper with. If everything was simplistic, then nothing would amaze us, and that leads to nothing good.

- Natural disasters occur which wipe out thousands of people, both innocent and wicked. Why would God let these natural disasters occur at all if they wipe out innocent children?
Do you know how the lives of the children would be if they remained alive? Are you claiming omniscience?

- Why are our bodies so flawed? We have useless organs and ineffeciently designed bodies. Poorly evolved teeth, feeding and breathing valve is the same hole. Birth shouldn't have to be that painful. Excreting waste out of sexual organs is absurd. Waste is unnecessarily unpleasant. Etc.
Most of that is painfully absurd. Now, why do we have useless organs? Why don't you ask what is wrong with that? Maybe they are not useless anyway? It was thought that we only used 10% of our brain. Is that true? Not at all. We know that because we explored, we experimented, and were fascinating by the myth. Similarly, maybe every single cell in our body does something fascinating. We don't know for sure. But that is what is good about it - that we can spend our times on science and keep being fascinated by God's creation.

Refute that.
I think the weak points refute themselves.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 3:23:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 3:03:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/4/2011 2:27:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hitchens doesn't deny the beauty and wonder of the Universe, in fact, he asserts it. He just points out that it is not entirely good and that there are bleak and cruel aspects of it.

- 99% of Earths species have gone extinct and humans at one point almost became extinct. With a loving God, why would 99% of all species be obliterated rather than given the oppurtinity to flourish.
God creates for a purpose. Even humankind will cease to exist on this planet. Why do you not ask, if everything were very simple and there were nothing to be explored, nothing to be mind-blown by when looking at the past, do you think that would be better for us? We have incredibly many fields of science today that even if every human on the planet were an expert on every field, then there would still be something mystical, and still something that nobody really understands. When God creates something, it is up for Him to judge when His creation should cease to exist. You do not know whether it is good or not that 99% of species became extinct. In fact, I think that is very fascinating, and makes me fascinated by God's power when I look at such occurrences and what they lead to. If dinosaurs remained existing, do you think that the world would be a more peaceful and flourishing place? Do you think humans would live in humility with dinosaurs? I do not think so.

- Millions of babies die. Innocent children die. Women are being raped and held hostage for a lifetime. Why would God allow such cruelty and waste of life with no chance to experience actually living. Isn't life one of Gods most precious gifts? Why does he destroy it and let evil prevail?
How do you know that it destroys life? Surely, God is all-knowing, and letting something like this happen might be because the outcome is better due to this than the outcome without it.

- The Milky Way is going to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. What kind of design is that? Is simply incompetent? Not possible. Such a demonstration of incompetence disproves the idea of a perfect creator.
Why is it incompetence? If God's plan is to let the galaxies collide, then what is wrong with that? You are totally assuming that you know what should be and what should not be, how things should happen, and why everything is as it is. And again, this gives humans an opportunity to explore the world and always have something to be amazed by and prosper with. If everything was simplistic, then nothing would amaze us, and that leads to nothing good.

- Natural disasters occur which wipe out thousands of people, both innocent and wicked. Why would God let these natural disasters occur at all if they wipe out innocent children?
Do you know how the lives of the children would be if they remained alive? Are you claiming omniscience?

- Why are our bodies so flawed? We have useless organs and ineffeciently designed bodies. Poorly evolved teeth, feeding and breathing valve is the same hole. Birth shouldn't have to be that painful. Excreting waste out of sexual organs is absurd. Waste is unnecessarily unpleasant. Etc.
Most of that is painfully absurd. Now, why do we have useless organs? Why don't you ask what is wrong with that? Maybe they are not useless anyway? It was thought that we only used 10% of our brain. Is that true? Not at all. We know that because we explored, we experimented, and were fascinating by the myth. Similarly, maybe every single cell in our body does something fascinating. We don't know for sure. But that is what is good about it - that we can spend our times on science and keep being fascinated by God's creation.

Refute that.
I think the weak points refute themselves.

The main issue here is, Mirza has a preset filter that everything happens for a purpose and is happening because of God.

Because of this filter, anything and everything can be explained by saying that "How do you know that whatever bad/evil/wasteful/senseless thing happened was not for some good reason?" Any points made to explain as to how it is actually bad/evil/wasteful/senseless will be discarded for the unknown and unexplainable "ultimately good" reason.

For the doubters, they have a preset filter of viewing everything that happens as a fact that needs to be explained. Hence, science.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 3:28:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 3:23:12 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/4/2011 3:03:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/4/2011 2:27:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hitchens doesn't deny the beauty and wonder of the Universe, in fact, he asserts it. He just points out that it is not entirely good and that there are bleak and cruel aspects of it.

- 99% of Earths species have gone extinct and humans at one point almost became extinct. With a loving God, why would 99% of all species be obliterated rather than given the oppurtinity to flourish.
God creates for a purpose. Even humankind will cease to exist on this planet. Why do you not ask, if everything were very simple and there were nothing to be explored, nothing to be mind-blown by when looking at the past, do you think that would be better for us? We have incredibly many fields of science today that even if every human on the planet were an expert on every field, then there would still be something mystical, and still something that nobody really understands. When God creates something, it is up for Him to judge when His creation should cease to exist. You do not know whether it is good or not that 99% of species became extinct. In fact, I think that is very fascinating, and makes me fascinated by God's power when I look at such occurrences and what they lead to. If dinosaurs remained existing, do you think that the world would be a more peaceful and flourishing place? Do you think humans would live in humility with dinosaurs? I do not think so.

- Millions of babies die. Innocent children die. Women are being raped and held hostage for a lifetime. Why would God allow such cruelty and waste of life with no chance to experience actually living. Isn't life one of Gods most precious gifts? Why does he destroy it and let evil prevail?
How do you know that it destroys life? Surely, God is all-knowing, and letting something like this happen might be because the outcome is better due to this than the outcome without it.

- The Milky Way is going to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. What kind of design is that? Is simply incompetent? Not possible. Such a demonstration of incompetence disproves the idea of a perfect creator.
Why is it incompetence? If God's plan is to let the galaxies collide, then what is wrong with that? You are totally assuming that you know what should be and what should not be, how things should happen, and why everything is as it is. And again, this gives humans an opportunity to explore the world and always have something to be amazed by and prosper with. If everything was simplistic, then nothing would amaze us, and that leads to nothing good.

- Natural disasters occur which wipe out thousands of people, both innocent and wicked. Why would God let these natural disasters occur at all if they wipe out innocent children?
Do you know how the lives of the children would be if they remained alive? Are you claiming omniscience?

- Why are our bodies so flawed? We have useless organs and ineffeciently designed bodies. Poorly evolved teeth, feeding and breathing valve is the same hole. Birth shouldn't have to be that painful. Excreting waste out of sexual organs is absurd. Waste is unnecessarily unpleasant. Etc.
Most of that is painfully absurd. Now, why do we have useless organs? Why don't you ask what is wrong with that? Maybe they are not useless anyway? It was thought that we only used 10% of our brain. Is that true? Not at all. We know that because we explored, we experimented, and were fascinating by the myth. Similarly, maybe every single cell in our body does something fascinating. We don't know for sure. But that is what is good about it - that we can spend our times on science and keep being fascinated by God's creation.

Refute that.
I think the weak points refute themselves.

The main issue here is, Mirza has a preset filter that everything happens for a purpose and is happening because of God.

Because of this filter, anything and everything can be explained by saying that "How do you know that whatever bad/evil/wasteful/senseless thing happened was not for some good reason?" Any points made to explain as to how it is actually bad/evil/wasteful/senseless will be discarded for the unknown and unexplainable "ultimately good" reason.

For the doubters, they have a preset filter of viewing everything that happens as a fact that needs to be explained. Hence, science.
When someone points out flaws by subjective viewpoints, then I point toward the excellence of the highest being.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 3:34:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 3:28:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/4/2011 3:23:12 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/4/2011 3:03:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/4/2011 2:27:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hitchens doesn't deny the beauty and wonder of the Universe, in fact, he asserts it. He just points out that it is not entirely good and that there are bleak and cruel aspects of it.

- 99% of Earths species have gone extinct and humans at one point almost became extinct. With a loving God, why would 99% of all species be obliterated rather than given the oppurtinity to flourish.
God creates for a purpose. Even humankind will cease to exist on this planet. Why do you not ask, if everything were very simple and there were nothing to be explored, nothing to be mind-blown by when looking at the past, do you think that would be better for us? We have incredibly many fields of science today that even if every human on the planet were an expert on every field, then there would still be something mystical, and still something that nobody really understands. When God creates something, it is up for Him to judge when His creation should cease to exist. You do not know whether it is good or not that 99% of species became extinct. In fact, I think that is very fascinating, and makes me fascinated by God's power when I look at such occurrences and what they lead to. If dinosaurs remained existing, do you think that the world would be a more peaceful and flourishing place? Do you think humans would live in humility with dinosaurs? I do not think so.

- Millions of babies die. Innocent children die. Women are being raped and held hostage for a lifetime. Why would God allow such cruelty and waste of life with no chance to experience actually living. Isn't life one of Gods most precious gifts? Why does he destroy it and let evil prevail?
How do you know that it destroys life? Surely, God is all-knowing, and letting something like this happen might be because the outcome is better due to this than the outcome without it.

- The Milky Way is going to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. What kind of design is that? Is simply incompetent? Not possible. Such a demonstration of incompetence disproves the idea of a perfect creator.
Why is it incompetence? If God's plan is to let the galaxies collide, then what is wrong with that? You are totally assuming that you know what should be and what should not be, how things should happen, and why everything is as it is. And again, this gives humans an opportunity to explore the world and always have something to be amazed by and prosper with. If everything was simplistic, then nothing would amaze us, and that leads to nothing good.

- Natural disasters occur which wipe out thousands of people, both innocent and wicked. Why would God let these natural disasters occur at all if they wipe out innocent children?
Do you know how the lives of the children would be if they remained alive? Are you claiming omniscience?

- Why are our bodies so flawed? We have useless organs and ineffeciently designed bodies. Poorly evolved teeth, feeding and breathing valve is the same hole. Birth shouldn't have to be that painful. Excreting waste out of sexual organs is absurd. Waste is unnecessarily unpleasant. Etc.
Most of that is painfully absurd. Now, why do we have useless organs? Why don't you ask what is wrong with that? Maybe they are not useless anyway? It was thought that we only used 10% of our brain. Is that true? Not at all. We know that because we explored, we experimented, and were fascinating by the myth. Similarly, maybe every single cell in our body does something fascinating. We don't know for sure. But that is what is good about it - that we can spend our times on science and keep being fascinated by God's creation.

Refute that.
I think the weak points refute themselves.

The main issue here is, Mirza has a preset filter that everything happens for a purpose and is happening because of God.

Because of this filter, anything and everything can be explained by saying that "How do you know that whatever bad/evil/wasteful/senseless thing happened was not for some good reason?" Any points made to explain as to how it is actually bad/evil/wasteful/senseless will be discarded for the unknown and unexplainable "ultimately good" reason.

For the doubters, they have a preset filter of viewing everything that happens as a fact that needs to be explained. Hence, science.
When someone points out flaws by subjective viewpoints, then I point toward the excellence of the highest being.

But this can be continued ad-infinitum. Doesn't make that necessarily true.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 5:32:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 2:27:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

- 99% of Earths species have gone extinct and humans at one point almost became extinct. With a loving God, why would 99% of all species be obliterated rather than given the oppurtinity to flourish.

If you really think any of these are either strong arguments or not addressed by theism then issue a debate challenge on it. This one in particular shows a complete ignorance of biology I would be ashamed if even a junior high school student I had taught would make that as an assertion. And, here is the funny part, the world it would take to make that possible is exactly opposite the world that Hitchen's wants. This just shows how little he understands biology, which is not unexpected as he has no background in it at all.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 6:08:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 5:32:09 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/4/2011 2:27:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

- 99% of Earths species have gone extinct and humans at one point almost became extinct. With a loving God, why would 99% of all species be obliterated rather than given the oppurtinity to flourish.

If you really think any of these are either strong arguments or not addressed by theism then issue a debate challenge on it.

No thanks. The forums are an acceptable and sufficient debate platform, thank you very much.

This one in particular shows a complete ignorance of biology I would be ashamed if even a junior high school student I had taught would make that as an assertion. And, here is the funny part, the world it would take to make that possible is exactly opposite the world that Hitchen's wants. This just shows how little he understands biology, which is not unexpected as he has no background in it at all.

Um, I don't see how a knowledge of biology would matter when it comes down to one simple fact. That "fact" may be either true or false, but whatever the case, a comprehensive knowledge of biology is not necessary.

Btw, thanks for addressing the argument you identified as weakest and simply ignored all the rest of the other potent points. Good job. You failed at a refutation.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 6:29:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 6:08:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Btw, thanks for addressing the argument you identified as weakest and simply ignored all the rest of the other potent points. Good job. You failed at a refutation.

The rest are just as bad, that is why none of them are actually used by academics, they are all croco-duck arguments. The first one just shows complete ignorance of biology and it is actually really just silly which would be obvious if Hitchen's undertood even basic cladistics and how "speciation" actually happens and what it really means. But again, if you think any of them are actually valid then make a challenge and defend it, just only make it 3-4 rounds as there is no actual argument there to defend.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 6:30:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 3:23:12 PM, Indophile wrote:

For the doubters, they have a preset filter of viewing everything that happens as a fact that needs to be explained. Hence, science.

I don't have his filter and those arguments are nonsense, what strikes you as valid about any of them.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 6:33:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 6:29:06 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/4/2011 6:08:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Btw, thanks for addressing the argument you identified as weakest and simply ignored all the rest of the other potent points. Good job. You failed at a refutation.

The rest are just as bad, that is why none of them are actually used by academics, they are all croco-duck arguments.

Ridiculing the arguments is not a valid argument. If they're so terrible, then you should have no problem refuting them easily here in the forums.

The first one just shows complete ignorance of biology and it is actually really just silly which would be obvious if Hitchen's undertood even basic cladistics and how "speciation" actually happens and what it really means.

Again, another instance of ridicule void of any actual valid refutation.

But again, if you think any of them are actually valid then make a challenge and defend it, just only make it 3-4 rounds as there is no actual argument there to defend.

I repeat. The forums are an acceptable and sufficient platform for debate.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 8:46:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 6:33:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Ridiculing the arguments is not a valid argument. If they're so terrible, then you should have no problem refuting them easily here in the forums.

Noting they are not used in the literature is not ridicule and is obviously valid, it is a statement of representation as a academic position. This would be no different than when Cameron keeps citing a croco-duck and it was noted that is not a valid problem in evolution, no academic cites that and it is no where in the literature.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 8:46:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 6:30:58 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/4/2011 3:23:12 PM, Indophile wrote:

For the doubters, they have a preset filter of viewing everything that happens as a fact that needs to be explained. Hence, science.

I don't have his filter and those arguments are nonsense, what strikes you as valid about any of them.

I was talking about the original argument that when natural disasters wipe out innocent children, the reply back was "Do you know how the lives of the children would be if they remained alive?"

If this argument is true, that means all those children would have had really bad lives. How one can be sure of this, is hard for me to comprehend.

And only one who has this preset filter will try to find design and meaning in this random natural disaster, instead of viewing it just as a random natural disaster.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 8:50:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 6:08:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Um, I don't see how a knowledge of biology would matter when it comes down to one simple fact.

Yeah, that is the problem.

That "fact" may be either true or false, but whatever the case, a comprehensive knowledge of biology is not necessary.

Facts can not be true or false, that is like saying a circle may be round or square. A fact is an objectively verified observation. If it is not verified then it isn't a fact, it only becomes a fact after verification similar to how a hypothesis becomes a theory after verification.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 8:56:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 8:46:35 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/4/2011 6:33:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Ridiculing the arguments is not a valid argument. If they're so terrible, then you should have no problem refuting them easily here in the forums.

Noting they are not used in the literature is not ridicule and is obviously valid, it is a statement of representation as a academic position. This would be no different than when Cameron keeps citing a croco-duck and it was noted that is not a valid problem in evolution, no academic cites that and it is no where in the literature.

Amazing! After several attempt of me trying to get you to provide an actual refutation, you have managed to evade and evade the argument over and over again!

And true as it may be that your post wasn't a form of ridicule, it is STILL IRRELEVANT and does NOT refute the initial argument.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 8:58:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 8:50:48 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/4/2011 6:08:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Um, I don't see how a knowledge of biology would matter when it comes down to one simple fact.

Yeah, that is the problem.

That "fact" may be either true or false, but whatever the case, a comprehensive knowledge of biology is not necessary.

Facts can not be true or false, that is like saying a circle may be round or square. A fact is an objectively verified observation. If it is not verified then it isn't a fact, it only becomes a fact after verification similar to how a hypothesis becomes a theory after verification.

Wow! Once again, you are evading the actual issue at by getting side-tracked with semantics. Notice that I put QUOTES around the word "fact." That means I obviously acknowledge that I am only using it in the colliquial sense, not the technical sense. Haven't you heard the phrase "check your facts"?

So let me rephrase my point so you don't try to sidetrack me with irrelevant semantic bullsh!t.

"That "assertion" may be either true or false, but whatever the case, a comprehensive knowledge of biology is not necessary."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 9:00:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 8:56:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

And true as it may be that your post wasn't a form of ridicule, it is STILL IRRELEVANT and does NOT refute the initial argument.

Academics journals are not relevant in regards to the validity of an academic position? That is an interesting assertion, what exactly then is your metric for academic validity - do you just ask the lizard shapeshifters?

(that was ridicule)
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 9:05:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 8:58:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

So let me rephrase my point so you don't try to sidetrack me with irrelevant semantic bullsh!t.

It is central to the argument, Hitchen's attempts to use science but mixes up lay and science and it ends up being gibberish. It is similar when someone argues evolution is not random because of natural selection. That is a gibberish statement because it is mixing up lay and scientific terms in the same sentence. Hitchen's will say that as well.