The Instigator
Speedrace
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
killshot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is Christianity Anti-Scientific?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,740 times Debate No: 120521
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (203)
Votes (0)

 

Speedrace

Con

Please start your argument in the next round.

I am NOT arguing that Christianity is scientific, But rather that it is NOT anti-scientific. I will respond to my opponent's arguments.

The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that it is.

Have fun!
killshot

Pro

Thanks for the challenge @speed, I look forward to another fun debate!

I will be arguing that Christianity is anti-scientific.

That being said, Let's jump into this!

1) The Bible makes non-scientific proclamations about our reality, And Christians interpret non-scientific "facts" from the Bible via interpretation.

1a) God speaks things into existence (Genesis 1) by the use of magic.

1b) God created light (Genesis 1:3) before he made stars (Genesis 1:16).

1c) God created the entire universe and all life (including homo sapiens) in 7 days (Genesis 1).

1d) Christians, By summing the ages of the characters in the Bible, Interpret the age of the universe to be approximately 6 thousand years old (give or take). It's actually nearly 14 billion.

1e) The Bible refers to miracles, Talking snakes and resurrections, None of which hold any basis in known science.

1f) Catholics believe consuming a cracker will literally turn into the body of Christ.

I could go on, But I will stop here and give my opponent the opportunity to refute the above.

2) Historically and even presently, Christianity has been an obstruction to science.

2a) Further back in history, The Catholic Church persecuted scientists for blasphemy as it proliferated it's nonsense as divinely inspired fact. The Illuminati groups were formed in reaction to this, So individuals could practice science in secret and evade the Church. Others such as Galileo, Found themselves in direct confrontation with the Church.

2b) Currently, Christian apologetics use their religious values to obstruct and protest some progressions of science, Such as stem cell research. These forms of oppression are obstructing or, At the least, Interfering with the progression of science.

2c) Currently, Christian apologetics raise their indoctrinated children in an anti-science world view by teaching them things like evolution is false, Creationism is true, Etc. These views are not supported by science and therefore are anti-scientific.

2d) People like Ken Ham make a living by intentionally deceiving and parading young vulnerable kids through his Ark and teaching them that man and dinosaurs co-existed a couple thousand years ago. He even has saddles on some.

I could go on, But I will stop here and give my opponent the opportunity to refute the above.

I look forward to your rebuttals :).

Debate Round No. 1
Speedrace

Con

1) The Bible makes non-scientific proclamations about our reality, And Christians interpret non-scientific "facts" from the Bible via interpretation.

"1a) God speaks things into existence (Genesis 1) by the use of magic. "

I don't see how this is anti-scientific. God is the one doing it, And magic is defined as supernatural forces, So I don't see what other force he would use. The Bible never says that this can happen of its own accord, Only that God can do it because he is omnipotent.

"1b) God created light (Genesis 1:3) before he made stars (Genesis 1:16). "

And? Again, This is something God did, And he is omnipotent, So he can do anything. Besides this, Light has been observed coming out of black holes, Which is empty space.

"The radiation being described here is not coming out of any kind of matter-the usual source of light energy. The region around the black hole is quite empty of matter Instead, This radiation is coming out of empty space itself! (P. C. Davies, Uncensoring the Universe, The Sciences, March/April 1977, P. 7). "

https://www. Blueletterbible. Org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_684. Cfm


"1c) God created the entire universe and all life (including homo sapiens) in 7 days (Genesis 1). "

Again, Seeing as God is omnipotent, I don't see why this is anti-scientific.

"1d) Christians, By summing the ages of the characters in the Bible, Interpret the age of the universe to be approximately 6 thousand years old (give or take). It's actually nearly 14 billion. "

It's actually not.

"The moon is receding from the Earth due to tidal forces. The gravity of the moon pulls on Earth’s oceans, Inducing two tidal bulges on Earth – one on the moon-facing side, And one on the opposite side (as the Earth is pulled away from that ocean). The Earth rotates faster than the moon revolves around it. So, The tidal bulges are always a bit ahead of the moon and therefore pull forward on it. A forward force applied on an orbiting object increases the object’s energy, Causing it to move outward in its orbit. So, The moon’s orbit gradually enlarges. We can measure the distance to the moon very precisely by bouncing laser beams off reflectors left on its surface during the Apollo missions. Science confirms that the moon moves about an inch and a half farther away from the Earth every year.

In the past, The moon would have been closer to the Earth, Which means the tidal bulges would have been much larger, Producing a much greater forward thrust on the moon, And the rate of recession would be faster. From first principles of physics, The rate of recession is inversely proportional to the sixth power of distance. The uniformitarian assumption here is that this would always have been the case. Using calculus, We can compute the maximum possible age of the Earth-moon system, By integrating lunar recession back to a time when the Earth and moon would have been in the same place at the same time. Obviously, This is an upper limit because they cannot be closer than that, But they could have started farther away. We find the answer is 1. 45 billion years.

That may sound like a long time. But, Remember that (1) it is based on the secular assumptions, And (2) the 1. 45 billion years is an upper limit. It represents a maximum possible age because the Earth and moon cannot be closer than a distance of zero! But the secular age is supposedly 4. 5 billion years, Which is much greater than the maximum possible age. "

"The Earth’s magnetic field is not the only one that is a problem fordeeptime. Many of the planets have magnetic fields consistent with the biblical age of about 6000 years. Magnetic fields just don’t last very long. Therefore, The abundance of strong magnetic fields in the solar system is very strong support forrecentcreation.

Basically, There are two factors that determine how long a planet can maintain a magnetic field: size and composition. Larger planets are like larger batteries – they take longer to run down. Unsurprisingly Jupiter, The largest planet in the solar system, Has the strongest magnetic field. Furthermore, Conductive materials will maintain electrical current (and the resulting magnetic field) better than insulating materials. Hence, The tiny planet Mercury still has a weak magnetic field due to its iron core, But the slightly larger Mars does not. Mars does have remanent magnetism; the rocks have traces of magnetism although the dipole field of the planet is gone. Remanent magnetism indicates that the planet once had a global magnetic field, But in 6000 years it has decayed away. The moon also has remanent magnetism. The evidence is very consistent with the biblical timescale of about 6000 years.

In fact, Creationists successfully predicted the magnetic fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune before these fields were measured by the Voyager II spacecraft. Dr. Russ Humphreys predicted the amount of decay based ona biblicalage of 6000 years. His predictions were consistent with the measurements. The secular predictions were wrong.

Technology has now advanced to the point that we can detect some planets orbiting other stars. My prediction is that some of these planets will show evidence of strong magnetic field activity. This would be further confirmation of their biblical age of a few thousand years. "

That is just two of many arguments for the young age of the earth.

https://biblicalscienceinstitute. Com/astronomy/science-and-the-age-of-the-universe/

"1e) The Bible refers to miracles, Talking snakes and resurrections, None of which hold any basis in known science. "

Again, All of these were caused either by God himself, Or someone who was empowered by him.

"1f) Catholics believe consuming a cracker will literally turn into the body of Christ. "

I can say with absolute certainty that that claim is not true. However, This is an example of a CHRISTIAN/group of Christians who is/are believing something that has no base evidence in the Bible. This is not proof of Christianity being anti-scientific, Just the ignorance of some people.


2) Historically and even presently, Christianity has been an obstruction to science.

"2a) Further back in history, The Catholic Church persecuted scientists for blasphemy as it proliferated it's nonsense as divinely inspired fact. The Illuminati groups were formed in reaction to this, So individuals could practice science in secret and evade the Church. Others such as Galileo, Found themselves in direct confrontation with the Church. "

Again, This is an example of people being ignorant. The Bible itself did not support these claims. I'd also like to point out that Galileo was a Christian, Even though he was one of the supposed "opposing" scientists. He opposed the Church, Not Christianity.

"2b) Currently, Christian apologetics use their religious values to obstruct and protest some progressions of science, Such as stem cell research. These forms of oppression are obstructing or, At the least, Interfering with the progression of science. "

What do you mean by obstruct? Do you mean simply profess their views about it? In that case, That is not interfering with the progression of science, That is simply the right of free speech. The Constitution guarantees both it and the right to protesting, So that is not obstruction unless they are literally raiding labs.

"2c) Currently, Christian apologetics raise their indoctrinated children in an anti-science world view by teaching them things like evolution is false, Creationism is true, Etc. These views are not supported by science and therefore are anti-scientific. "

No one teaches that evolution is false, Merely that God was the one who originally made man.



"2d) People like Ken Ham make a living by intentionally deceiving and parading young vulnerable kids through his Ark and teaching them that man and dinosaurs co-existed a couple thousand years ago. He even has saddles on some. "

I am not familiar with Ken Ham at all, But I've heard bad things about him from many, Both Christians and Atheists. If he is intentionally deceiving people, Then that is against the Bible and he is doing it for selfish reasons. The Bible does not support that.

Proverbs 12:22:

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who act faithfully are his delight.

People who have anti-scientific views doubt that science can reveal facts about the universe. The Bible does not do this, It simply disagrees with science on some points. It has won more than one debate with science before:


"When the Bible first mentioned a round Earth, It was right and the secular experts of the day were wrong. When the Bible first mentioned the fact that Earth hangs in space, It was right and the secular experts of the day were wrong. The Bible teaches that the number of stars is a humanly uncountable number. Yet, Most secular astronomers up until the 1600s believed that there were just over 1000 stars. The Bible was right and they were wrong. When the Bible first mentioned the stretching out of the heavens, It was right and the secularists of the day were wrong. Today, Secular astronomers would have to admit that the Bible was right about all these astronomical facts. Have we learned the lesson of history? "

https://biblicalscienceinstitute. Com/astronomy/science-and-the-age-of-the-universe/

This is NOT evidence or a claim, But simply something I'd like you to think about. :D

Back to you!
killshot

Pro

1a) If God is omnipotent, Can he create something so heavy even he cannot lift it? I borrowed that from somewhere, But I can't recall where at the moment. Saying that God is omnipotent in response to an unexplainable argument is a non sequitur.

Science works within the natural realm to explain natural phenomena and make predictions about future natural phenomena. And it works. Something that is supernatural, Is not within the realm of the natural, Thus the name supernatural. To the best of our understanding, There is nothing outside the natural world. No evidence suggests otherwise, And all events (that we're aware of) that happen within our natural world have a natural cause. If God is performing supernatural miracles (cause), It would have a measurable natural effect in our universe. For example, If someone instantly grows a limb back or gets resurrected, That's objectively verifiable and we could analyze that from a natural standpoint. The only "miracles" ever reported are anecdotal speculations or assumptions that are always subjective. There is no evidence to suggest magic is real, Therefore, There is no reason to take it seriously. Magic, By definition, Is nonscientific, Because it has no measurable existence in our natural world. God commanding things into existing with incantations is not scientific, In fact it's delusional by definition. I don't mean that insultingly, I'm just using the word in its proper usage. A delusion is a belief that is not based in reality and held against contradicting logic or evidence.

1b) Can you explain what you mean here better? I'm not following. Also, Can you show your sources where that verse means what you say it does? Light is energy being released in the form of photons.

1c) See 1a.

1d) Rather than getting into a young earth debate, Which I'm happy to do with you in separate debate, I will just say the general scientific consensus is that the earth is not 6 thousand years old, Or anywhere close to it. Since this is the general scientific consensus and what is taught in science class, Anything else is nonscientific as it denies demonstrable scientific facts and does not stand up to peer review.

1e) see 1a.

1f) I agree, This is absurd and not true; however, It is believed by Christians. Catholics are the originals of the Christian denominations and they are also the largest. Their belief is based on scripture and divinely inspired revelation from God. Whether you like it or not, This is an example of nonscientific Christian rituals/beliefs.

2a) We are not talking about the Bible here, We are talking about Christianity. Christianity goes beyond the Bible. The Church, At the time, Was the dominant Christian authority.

2b) I am referring to them proclaiming their religious rights are being violated as Christians and using their views/beliefs to protest, Petition, Etc to obstruct its enactment. In addition to this, Christian politicians notoriously let their personal religious beliefs bleed into their politics. It is their right to free speech, I'm not arguing that. They should have the right to protest. That being said, It's still obstructive. It's an obstruction that wouldn't exist without the Christian religion. There may be other religions or causes that would obstruct it, But they wouldn't be Christian based. That was my point.

2c) Creationism teaches that evolution is false. They cannot co-exist, They are contradicting arguments. Ken Ham is a perfect example of this. He actively teaches evolution is false, Creationism is true, And humans used to ride dinosaurs as pets a few thousand years ago.

2d) I could not agree more. You should really look him up sometime. He's an embarrassment to all Christians. Many of the Christians I am friends with also hate him, We all tend to share that view lol. That being said, He is well respected by many Christians and has a lot of followers and support. He is one of the main figures for Creationism and Christian apologetics.

Re young earth:
I have thought about it many times and I've researched it and debated it. No young earth claims hold up to peer review and have no demonstrable/testable predictions. All of our current world, The age of technology, Runs off our understanding of science - and it works. The very computers young earthers use to post this absurd stuff with would not work with their world view. They live in a world where science provides, Yet they deny science and pretend it's wrong because it disagrees with an old book. I don't mean that insultingly, By the way - just a figure of speech. I will look at the link you provided, But I can't make any promises lol.

I'll give you something in return as well, If you're open to it. A simple thought experiment.

You believe in the Bible and its creation story. Other religions have their own creation stories and there have been thousands of religions in our history. If you were born during those times or in a different part of the world, Under different circumstances, You would likely believe those creation myths and disbelieve or even not know about your current one. From a third person perspective, How is yours any different? Why should you take it seriously? Pretend I handed you a book and said "this is the word of God", Believe it. I assume you wouldn't, I wouldn't either. What can you do to authenticate the book? Have to authenticated any of the other religious texts?

I look forward to your reply!

Debate Round No. 2
Speedrace

Con

Before we go forward, I would like to define both Christianity and science for the purposes of this debate. Please let me know if you disagree with them.

Christianity: The sum of the beliefs outlined and supported by the Bible (mainly the KJV)
Science: The method of collecting evidence to prove natural phenomena; the collection of scientifically proven facts

I will first respond to 1 (a - c & e) all at once, And then respond to your individual comments for each of them:

I would like to clarify what I was saying in response to these arguments. I was simply saying that the Bible does not teach that these things can happen via the laws of physics but rather that God himself did them, And he can since he is omnipotent. I meant to show that those things are not in conflict with science because the Bible never said that they happened because of science.

"If God is omnipotent, Can he create something so heavy even he cannot lift it? "

This is a very weak argument. No, He cannot, Because, By definition, This is logically impossible. Omnipotent does not mean that one can do anything, It means that one can do anything that is logically possible. If I was to ask a math genius if he can make two equal to three, He would say he could not. Does that mean he isn't a math genius? No, It simply means that he can't do that which is logically impossible. The same goes for God.

"Science works within the natural realm to explain natural phenomena and make predictions about future natural phenomena. And it works. Something that is supernatural, Is not within the realm of the natural, Thus the name supernatural. To the best of our understanding, There is nothing outside the natural world. No evidence suggests otherwise"

Of course, Science has not found anything outside of the natural world, Because as you explain, Science works within the natural realm.

"The only "miracles" ever reported are anecdotal speculations or assumptions that are always subjective. "

Historians assume that historical documents written in the past are true. What if those people wrote lies just to purposefully trick us? Yet we still take those documents at face value. I'm not a historian, And I'm not versed in ancient text finding. However, The Bible never says that those miracles were caused by the natural realm, So, Therefore, It does not conflict with science.

"I will just say the general scientific consensus is that the earth is not 6 thousand years old, Or anywhere close to it. Since this is the general scientific consensus and what is taught in science class. "

The general historical consensus is that Jesus existed, And that is taught in history class. Yet you don't believe that he is real. Hmmm. . .

Also, The general scientific consensus is irrelevant. I gave you two verifiable examples of the young age of the earth, Both of which make perfect sense. Both of those examples are grounded in science itself, No matter what the "consensus" says.

"Anything else is nonscientific as it denies demonstrable scientific facts and does not stand up to peer review. "

You didn't even respond to the examples I gave.

". . . However, It is believed by Christians. Catholics are the originals of the Christian denominations and they are also the largest. Their belief is based on scripture and divinely inspired revelation from God. Whether you like it or not, This is an example of nonscientific Christian rituals/beliefs. "

If those beliefs are not grounded in the Bible, Then they are completely irrelevant to this debate, Per the definition of Christianity that I stated above. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that this is true.

"We are not talking about the Bible here, We are talking about Christianity. . . Goes beyond the Bible. The Church, At the time, Was the dominant Christian authority. "

No, The Bible was, Is, And always will be the dominant Christian authority short of God himself. The Church was simply an attempt to gain political power from a religious pulpit. They defended preposterous claims because they were afraid of losing their grip on society.

"I am referring to them proclaiming their religious rights are being violated as Christians"

If atheists are trying to take away those rights, Then they are being violated.

"using their views/beliefs to protest, Petition, Etc to obstruct its enactment. In addition to this, Christian politicians notoriously let their personal religious beliefs bleed into their politics. It is their right to free speech, I'm not arguing that. They should have the right to protest. That being said, It's still obstructive. It's an obstruction that wouldn't exist without the Christian religion. "

No, It is blocking what you believe should go through. As you said, They are using their rights that are protected in the Constitution, So until those rights stop being protective, They are not obstructing.

By that same logic, Being a Republican is obstructive to all Democrats, And vice versa. So should we get rid of one so that it stops obstructing the other? No.

"Creationism teaches that evolution is false. They cannot co-exist, They are contradicting arguments. "

Creationism says that. Christianity specifically says that macro-evolution did not happen. And like you said, Evolution is an argument, Not a fact. Until it is, Christianity is not opposing it, But rather offering its own argument for the origins of the human species.

"He is well respected by many Christians and has a lot of followers and support. He is one of the main figures for Creationism and Christian apologetics. "

That is argumentum ad verecundiam. You can't say that Ken Ham speaks for all Christians and/or for Christianity simply because he is "well respected. "

"No young earth claims hold up to peer review and have no demonstrable/testable predictions. "

If that is the case, Then you should have no problem disproving the two examples I gave.

"All of our current world, The age of technology, Runs off our understanding of science - and it works. The very computers young earthers use to post this absurd stuff with would not work with their world view. They live in a world where science provides, "

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that technology does not work. I'm not exactly sure where you got this from. . .

"I'll give you something in return as well, If you're open to it. A simple thought experiment. "

That's a bit off-topic, But I'll bite.

"If you were born during those times or in a different part of the world, Under different circumstances, You would likely believe those creation myths and disbelieve or even not know about your current one. "

Can you prove this?

"From a third person perspective, How is yours any different? Why should you take it seriously? "

As to how it's different, Christianity teaches that Jesus is divine, Judaism teaches that he is not, Hinduism teaches that there are many gods, And Buddhism is agnostic about God. Christianity is the only religion to actually have verifiable proof and evidence of its claims. Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies made before his birth. Take a look at this humorous quote:

"1 person fulfilling 8 prophecies: 1 in [quadrillion] 1 person fulfilling 48 prophecies: 1 chance in 10 to the 157th power 1 person fulfilling 300+ prophecies: Only Jesus! "

No other religion has accomplished anything even remotely close to this.

"The Old Testament is the part of the Bible written before Jesus was born. Its writings were completed in 450 B. C. The Old Testament, Written hundreds of years before Jesus" birth, Contains over 300 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled through His life, Death andresurrection. "

"Pretend I handed you a book and said "this is the word of God", Believe it. I assume you wouldn't, I wouldn't either. "

No, I would not, Because that book would have no evidence of its claims. The Bible does.

Since we're kind of going back and forth here, I'll leave you with this.

How did just an "old book" possibly know that the Earth was round, Was hanging in space, That the stars were uncountable by humans, And that the universe was expanding ALL before scientists could observe and prove those facts?

This is getting pretty interesting!
killshot

Pro

I’m not sure I’d agree that Christianity is the sum of beliefs outlined and sanctioned by the Bible since the largest domination, Catholicism, Does not rely entirely on scripture. There are many contradicting statements and derivatives that can be extrapolated from the Bible, And therefore, Christian belief is generally a cherry-picked subset of the entire doctrine or a divinely inspired reading of it. There are also numerous denominations of Christianity with different interpretations, Which blurs the waters further. Even Christians cannot find common beliefs in their own religion. This is a hard thing to quantify, And not all of them use the KJ Bible.

I mostly agree with your definition of science, Except I would add one thing. Science creates and uses models to define the natural phenomena in reality and it uses those models to make testable and falsifiable predictions about our reality.

1a-c & e

The Bible talks about things that happen in our reality and universe, Therefore it falls into the natural realm. If we were talking about a God who sits outside the universe & time (whatever that even means) and twiddles its metaphorical thumbs, I have no contentions against that. It’s ridiculous and irrational, But it’s also not falsifiable. Things change when we are discussing a God who actively takes part in our reality, Via miracles or what not. When things occur in our reality, They are measurable by science. They may not be explainable by science, But they would be measureable. Our best understanding of science shows us that all life did not pop into existence simultaneously, Day/night cannot exist without stars and planetary revolutions, There are no confirmed miracles, Resurrections or talking snakes and magical incantations are not possible. Saying God can do anything because he is omnipotent has no bearing in fact. A God would need to be demonstrated first, Then his omnipotence would need demonstrated, Otherwise it’s just words in a book. I’ll touch more on this below. My point here is, We have a God who allegedly created our universe and everything in it, And the story does not match up with known facts in science. We do not see homo sapiens remains in the Paleozoic Era geo strata, For example. God leaves the metaphysical safety net when he interacts with our physical reality.

Omnipotence

I was only using it to show how weak the argument of omnipotence is. When confronted, All a theist has to say is “I don’t know, But God can do anything you can imagine so it’s perfectly explained. Done. ”. That’s a weak argument and a cop out for a real explanation. We have explained God out of so many gaps during the evolutions of science, There is no reason to suppose he should fill any more of them. Your definition of omnipotence is not the generally accepted definition. A quick Google search will show you omnipotence has nothing to do with “logical statements”. Omnipotence is having unlimited power; able to do anything; God. This is absurd, Obviously, Which was why I was using my last example to point it out. If God is all powerful, Can he create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it?



Of course, Science has not found anything outside of the natural world, Because as you explain, Science works within the natural realm.

Yes, Science works within the natural word, But it could detect a God’s interaction within our physicality, As I mentioned above.

Historians assume that historical documents written in the past are true. What if those people wrote lies just to purposefully trick us? Yet we still take those documents at face value. I'm not a historian, And I'm not versed in ancient text finding. However, The Bible never says that those miracles were caused by the natural realm, So, Therefore, It does not conflict with science.

Well, My Bible over here says something different – now what? There are many conflicting religions and creation stories, How do we know which one, If any, Are right? We cannot take an old books text at face value, It’s incredulously dishonest of us to ignore demonstrable testable repeatable predictable facts science has modeled, Because an old book says something contrary.

The general historical consensus is that Jesus existed, And that is taught in history class. Yet you don't believe that he is real. Hmmm. . .

My previous statement was that the world is not 6 thousand years old. This would be a straw man, But I’m happy to have that debate with you too, Because you’re right, I am a Jesus Mythicist.

Also, The general scientific consensus is irrelevant. I gave you two verifiable examples of the young age of the earth, Both of which make perfect sense. Both of those examples are grounded in science itself, No matter what the "consensus" says.

Your first sentence here is enough. I don’t even need to rebut this. There is no authority in science, But we tend to rely on the consensus of our experts, And peer review as a checks and balances system.

You didn't even respond to the examples I gave.

Which examples? I must have missed them.

No, The Bible was, Is, And always will be the dominant Christian authority short of God himself. The Church was simply an attempt to gain political power from a religious pulpit. They defended preposterous claims because they were afraid of losing their grip on society.

We agree here, But that doesn’t negate the fact that the largest and oldest denomination of Christianity disagrees with you.

If atheists are trying to take away those rights, Then they are being violated.

I agree. My argument was not about rights. It was simply demonstrating that science is being obstructed because of the Christian belief system. Christians have the right to protest or disagree with anything they want, That doesn’t mean they aren’t obstructive. I would never argue to supress their rights as individuals.

Creationism says that. Christianity specifically says that macro-evolution did not happen. And like you said, Evolution is an argument, Not a fact. Until it is, Christianity is not opposing it, But rather offering its own argument for the origins of the human species.

Evolution is a theory, Composed by facts. It’s possibly one of the strongest scientific theories out there with the most supporting evidence. Christianity is not offering a counter argument, It’s offering stone age sand fiction that has failed in every attempt to hold up to peer review and has no scientific backing. The scientific consensus disagrees with Creationism and agrees that micro/macro evolution is fact.

That is argumentum ad verecundiam. You can't say that Ken Ham speaks for all Christians and/or for Christianity simply because he is "well respected. "

I never said he spoke for all Christians.

If that is the case, Then you should have no problem disproving the two examples I gave.

Sure, In another debate. Let’s stay on topic.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that technology does not work. I'm not exactly sure where you got this from. . .

I got this from the fact that the Bible explains our universe was created in 7 literal days. Science disagrees and all our technology is based on the findings of science. If our universe was formed in 7 days, That would have detrimental reprocussions to all of our known science. If the speeds of light and other constants are incorrect, Science would not work and we would not have technology. We have technology and science works. That was my point.

Re Thought experiment

You are only scoping your response to the current mainstream religions. I was referring to all religions of all time: Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Egyptian, Greek etc. I was saying if you were born in those times, Places or conditions, You would likely believe in those God(s) and use those books. Christianity was not even invented yet in most cases. They all believed with the same veracity and conviction as you, And they were all equally wrong.

You mentioned prophecies, I’d love to have that debate with you. I do not believe any prophecies have ever been fulfilled. Subject for a different debate though, I don’t want to straw man this one.

How did just an "old book" possibly know that the Earth was round, Was hanging in space, That the stars were uncountable by humans, And that the universe was expanding ALL before scientists could observe and prove those facts?

It didn’t. The Bible said the earth was flat and referred to its four corners, It described the heavens as being in the clouds, It described a liquid fillament surrounding the earth as well as a liquid (water) core, Heliocentric theory was a huge debacle with the Church and the Bible thinks the stars were just lights on a canvas. It never mentioned an expanding universe, That fact wasn’t even known until Hubble.

I look forward to your replies :)

Debate Round No. 3
Speedrace

Con


"I’m not sure I’d agree that Christianity is the sum of beliefs outlined and sanctioned by the Bible since the largest domination, Catholicism, Does not rely entirely on scripture. "


And? Now you're using argumentum ad populum. Basing the beliefs of Christianity on the Bible is the most concrete way to handle this debate. If you want to debate whether Catholicism is anti-scientific or not, Please do that elsewhere.

"There are many contradicting statements and derivatives that can be extrapolated from the Bible, And therefore, Christian belief is generally a cherry-picked subset of the entire doctrine or a divinely inspired reading of it. "

This is a red herring, Whether or not the Bible is contradicting has nothing to do with whether it is anti-scientific or not.

"This is a hard thing to quantify, And not all of them use the KJ Bible. "

If you simply base it off of the Bible, It becomes extremely easy, Actually. The KJV is the most popular version, Combined with the commentary of AMP.

"I mostly agree with your definition of science, Except I would add one thing. Science creates and uses models to define the natural phenomena in reality and it uses those models to make testable and falsifiable predictions about our reality. "

That's fine with me.

"Our best understanding of science shows us that all life did not pop into existence simultaneously, "

Back in the day, The best understanding of science showed that the earth was the center of the universe, Yet that was wrong. What's stopping science from being wrong now?

"Saying God can do anything because he is omnipotent has no bearing in fact. "

Then you should have made this your contention. If you want me to argue that God can resurrect people, I can most certainly do that, But while you will do it from a scientific standpoint, I will do it from a biblical standpoint, Because that is simply the nature of the debate.

"A God would need to be demonstrated first, Then his omnipotence would need demonstrated, Otherwise it’s just words in a book. "

Again, You cannot say "God created light. . . Before he made stars" as your contention and then expect me not only to prove that he can make light without stars, But that he exists in the first place. Your question can only be valid if it assumes he exists.

"All a theist has to say is “I don’t know, But God can do anything you can imagine so it’s perfectly explained. Done. ”. That’s a weak argument and a cop out for a real explanation. "

If your question assumes that God of the Bible exists and questions the actions he took in that same Bible, It must, Therefore, Assume all traits he had in that Bible; it's called context.

"A quick Google search will show you omnipotence has nothing to do with “logical statements”. Omnipotence is having unlimited power; able to do anything; God. This is absurd, Obviously, Which was why I was using my last example to point it out. If God is all powerful, Can he create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it? "

The logic is implied, Because that goes against the very nature of that power. Again, If someone is a math genius and can do any math at any given time, And I asked him if he could make 2 equal to 3, He would say no. Yet he is still a math genius.

"Yes, Science works within the natural word, But it could detect a God’s interaction within our physicality, As I mentioned above. "

That would be if those things are happening now; they are not.

"Well, My Bible over here says something different – now what? There are many conflicting religions and creation stories, How do we know which one, If any, Are right? "

This is another red herring; other religions and/or creation stories do not pertain to this debate.

"We cannot take an old books text at face value, "

Yet, As I said, Historians do it all the time.

"It’s incredulously dishonest of us to ignore demonstrable testable repeatable predictable facts science has modeled, Because an old book says something contrary. "

No one said to believe it simply because the Bible said it. However, If the Bible says it AND it is proved by science (like the young age of the earth via the examples I gave in my first response), Then why wouldn't one believe it?

"My previous statement was that the world is not 6 thousand years old. This would be a straw man, "

No, You are missing the point. I was showing the hypocrisy of your statement when you said that you believe the earth is not 6 thousand years old, And then cited the general scientific consensus as well as the scientific curicculum as proof of that. My response was then that you must therefore believe all general consenses (is that a word? ) and curicculums, Yet you don't.

"Which examples? I must have missed them. "

The two proofs that I gave in my first response which demonstrated scientific evidence of a young earth.

"We agree here, But that doesn’t negate the fact that the largest and oldest denomination of Christianity disagrees with you. "

If we agree here, Then whatever Catholicism agrees or disagrees with me on is irrelevant.

"It was simply demonstrating that science is being obstructed because of the Christian belief system. Christians have the right to protest or disagree with anything they want, That doesn’t mean they aren’t obstructive"

Allow me to rephrase. This argument is non-unique because literally every single belief system, News outlet, form of media, And celebrity follower is subject to obstruct other beliefs/followings because of what they have been influenced by. Therefore, There is no significance to Christianity doing the same.

"Evolution is a theory, Composed by facts. It’s possibly one of the strongest scientific theories out there with the most supporting evidence. Christianity is not offering a counter argument, It’s offering stone age sand fiction that has failed in every attempt to hold up to peer review and has no scientific backing. The scientific consensus disagrees with Creationism and agrees that micro/macro evolution is fact.

"I never said he spoke for all Christians. "

It was implied. Otherwise, Why did you dedicate a whole contention just to him?

"Sure, In another debate. Let’s stay on topic. "

No, You need to respond. YOU made the original claim that the earth is about 14 billion years old, And it is my job to refute that. You can't simply drop that contention because you don't want to respond to what I said.

"I got this from the fact that the Bible explains our universe was created in 7 literal days. Science disagrees and all our technology is based on the findings of science. If our universe was formed in 7 days, That would have detrimental reprocussions to all of our known science.

"If the speeds of light and other constants are incorrect, "

Can you please provide scriptures stating that constants are incorrect?

"Science would not work and we would not have technology. We have technology and science works. That was my point. "

My point is that the Bible has never said that science is wrong or that technology doesn't work. You have yet to provide scriptures where it says such. Just because the Bible disagrees with a few points does not mean that it disagrees with science on EVERYTHING. That's a hasty generalization.

"You are only scoping your response to the current mainstream religions. I was referring to all religions of all time: Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Egyptian, Greek etc. I was saying if you were born in those times, Places or conditions, You would likely believe in those God(s) and use those books. Christianity was not even invented yet in most cases. They all believed with the same veracity and conviction as you, And they were all equally wrong. "

Yes, Because out of all of them, Christianity is the only one to back up those claims. But as you said, Let's not digress.


"The Bible said the earth was flat and referred to its four corners, "

Can you provide scriptures of this? I can of the opposite.

Isaiah 40:22:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth. . . "

"‘circle’ comes from the Hebrew word chug, Which more correctly means ‘sphere’"

As to Isaiah 11:12, I don't see how corners is indicative of any shape. Corners are used all the time in vernacular speech.


"It described the heavens as being in the clouds, "

Can you provide a scripture of this?

"It described aliquidfillament surrounding the earth as well as a liquid (water) core, "

Scripture pls

"Heliocentric theory was a huge debacle with the Church. . . "

Yes, With the Church, Not the Bible.

"the Bible thinks the stars were just lights on a canvas. "

I mean, Do I even need to ask at this point (I need the scripture)

"It never mentioned an expanding universe, That fact wasn’t even known until Hubble. "

Isaiah 40:22:

"he stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain. . . "

Psalms 104:2

". . . spreadeth the heavens like a curtain. . . "

Isaiah 42:5

". . . He that created the heavens and spread them abroad. . . "

Job 9:8

"He himself alone spreadeth out the heavens. . . "

Sources:

In the comments, I couldn't put them here :/

killshot

Pro

And? Now you're using argumentum ad populum. Basing the beliefs of Christianity on the Bible is the most concrete way to handle this debate. If you want to debate whether Catholicism is anti-scientific or not, Please do that elsewhere.

This is not an ad populum argument just because the majority of Christians are Catholic. Catholicism IS Christianity and this debate is about Christianity, Not a particular denomination or sect of it. Just because you disagree with it, Doesn't mean it's not Christianity. In fact, It's the oldest denomination of Christianity.

This is a red herring, Whether or not the Bible is contradicting has nothing to do with whether it is anti-scientific or not.

You misread. I meant it has contradictions to science (young earth, Evolution). The Bible clearly articulates a young earth and archetype phylogeny, Which contradicts known scientific facts.

Back in the day, The best understanding of science showed that the earth was the center of the universe, Yet that was wrong. What's stopping science from being wrong now?

Nothing is prohibiting science from being wrong, It's constantly evolving as we learn new things, Contrary to the Bible which is absolute, Authoritative and inconsistent with reality. That being said, Science makes the most accurate models possible with the information available, And has predictions that are testable and falsifiable - and it works.

Then you should have made this your contention. If you want me to argue that God can resurrect people, I can most certainly do that, But while you will do it from a scientific standpoint, I will do it from a biblical standpoint, Because that is simply the nature of the debate.

Sure, But that doesn't make it scientific. Scientifically speaking, Resurrections are not possible and neither is magic. A resurrection would manifest itself in our reality and defy known biological science. Science understands biology and how things decay and break down after death. Resurrections are simply not possible, Without magic.

That would be if those things are happening now; they are not.

Many Christians would disagree with you. Many of them have witnessed miracles, Demonic possessions and had conversations with spirits first hand. Of course, None of this is real, But if it were, It would be detectable by science.

Yet, As I said, Historians do it all the time.

Not when it's of mythical nature. Sure, We can take an account of Napoleon at face value, Because if it didn't actually happen, No one will burn in hell. Jesus, Magic and other ideas are extraordinary proclamations, Which requires a heavier standard for evidence.

No one said to believe it simply because the Bible said it. However, If the Bible says it AND it is proved by science (like the young age of the earth via the examples I gave in my first response), Then why wouldn't one believe it?

Again, The scientific consensus disagrees with the young earth idea.

If we agree here, Then whatever Catholicism agrees or disagrees with me on is irrelevant.

We agree that Catholicism's beliefs are incorrect, But they are Christian based beliefs and we are discussing Christianity. This are totally relevant because they are unscientific. Wine and crackers do not turn into Christ when swallowed.

It was implied. Otherwise, Why did you dedicate a whole contention just to him?

Because he is a Christian who makes non-scientific proclamations and has numerous followers. We are discussing Christianity and whether or not it's scientific. This was relevant to my point.

No, You need to respond. YOU made the original claim that the earth is about 14 billion years old, And it is my job to refute that. You can't simply drop that contention because you don't want to respond to what I said.

I told you I am happy to debate it with you, Just not in this debate because it would straw man it. I'm not hiding from it, Just protecting the integrity of our current discussion. The scientific consensus agrees the earth is not young, Therefore I am using it as a point in my debate. If you want to argue that point, We can have another debate on it.


Flat earth

1) Revelations 7:1 - four corners
2) Job 28:24 - You cannot see an end on a sphere
3) Matthew 4:8 - You cannot see the whole world from a high mountain on a sphere
4) Psalm 75:3, Psalm 104:5 - refers to the earth being on pillars

In addition to this, It was common belief that the world was flat prior to later discoveries. Sailors, For example, Many of whom were Christian, Were afraid of falling off the earth. If Christians knew it was spherical, Why did they fear falling off of it?

Heavens as clouds
Psalm 18:9 - He parted the skies and came down

There are many references to things coming down, Ascending up, Etc.

Firmament
Genesis 1:7-9

Heliocentric Theory was not in the Bible - It was between Galileo and the Church. The Church was the authority at the time. Again, I do not believe Christianity is entirely based off the Bible, Like you proclaim. I would argue it’s most certainly not and many Christians would disagree with you as well. There are numerous other scriptures that didn't make it into the Bible, That were equally “credible”. The Bible is just a compilation of "some" of the stories. It’s not an all inclusive source for the entirety of Christian theology, Even theological studies include other sources.


Debate Round No. 4
Speedrace

Con

"This is not an ad populum argument just because the majority of Christians are Catholic. Catholicism IS Christianity and this debate is about Christianity, Not a particular denomination or sect of it. Just because you disagree with it, Doesn't mean it's not Christianity. In fact, It's the oldest denomination of Christianity. "

You literally just said that it is a DENOMINATION, And right before that you said it is not about a particular denomination or sect of it. So yes, The Bible is the authority here.

"You misread. I meant it has contradictions to science (young earth, Evolution). The Bible clearly articulates a young earth and archetype phylogeny, Which contradicts known scientific facts. "

You never made the phylogeny claim your contention, And I disproved the old earth one.

"Nothing is prohibiting science from being wrong, It's constantly evolving as we learn new things, Contrary to the Bible which is absolute, Authoritative and inconsistent with reality. That being said, Science makes the most accurate models possible with the information available, And has predictions that are testable and falsifiable - and it works. "

Again, Your reality is grounded in science, Yet you just admitted that it has been wrong before. The Bible has been absolute, Yes, And so far it has won many debates with scientists.

"Sure, But that doesn't make it scientific. Scientifically speaking, Resurrections are not possible and neither is magic. A resurrection would manifest itself in our reality and defy known biological science. Science understands biology and how things decay and break down after death. Resurrections are simply not possible, Without magic. "

Again, This was caused by the hand of God himself, So magic is kind of in the definition.

"Many Christians would disagree with you. Many of them have witnessed miracles, Demonic possessions and had conversations with spirits first hand. Of course, None of this is real, But if it were, It would be detectable by science. "

https://www. Charismanews. Com/world/50329-proof-of-resurrection

That's definitely measurable. If I told you that I had talked to Brad Pitt today, You might say that that is measurable by science. But can you measure it? No, Because you weren't there. God himself says not to tempt nor test him, And you can't simply stand by with your instruments waiting to find something. However, The proof of such observations is out there.


"Not when it's of mythical nature. Sure, We can take an account of Napoleon at face value, Because if it didn't actually happen, No one will burn in hell. Jesus, Magic and other ideas are extraordinary proclamations, Which requires a heavier standard for evidence. "

You're saying that the motivaton for not taking "mythical" documents at face value is a fear of hell? That makes no sense. But again, This is not proof of Christianity being anti-scientific.

"Again, The scientific consensus disagrees with the young earth idea. "

And again, I have proved it correct. Besides that, We both agreed on what science is, And the scientific consensus was nowhere in that definition, So this does not make Christianity anti-scientific.

"We agree that Catholicism's beliefs are incorrect, But they are Christian based beliefs and we are discussing Christianity. This are totally relevant because they are unscientific. Wine and crackers do not turn into Christ when swallowed. "

So if I was to argue that black people aren't anti-society, You're saying you could just pull up statistics showing that over 50% of black children grow up without a father and that proves that black people are anti-society?

Once again, YOU said that we are not debating any particular denomination or sect, But Christianity as a whole. Christianity as a whole can only be chalked up to the Word of God. There is no proof of claim of this in the Bible, So it therefore becomes irrelevant.

"Because he is a Christian who makes non-scientific proclamations and has numerous followers. We are discussing Christianity and whether or not it's scientific. This was relevant to my point. "

Trump is ignorant and he's a Republican. Does that mean that Republicanism is ignorant? No. Likewise, Christianity is not anti-scientific just because one Christian man is.

"I told you I am happy to debate it with you, Just not in this debate because it would straw man it. I'm not hiding from it, Just protecting the integrity of our current discussion. The scientific consensus agrees the earth is not young, Therefore I am using it as a point in my debate. If you want to argue that point, We can have another debate on it. "

Ok then, You must drop that contention then. It is completely unfair to make a claim which you then disallow me from responding to it, So the claim that Christianity is anti-scientific because it shows a young earth is now irrelevant and considered void. I will please ask you not to elaborate on this now because it would be unfair to me since I cannot respond to that.


"1) Revelations 7:1 - four corners"

"The Hebrew term translated 'corners' or 'ends' seems to be an idiom based on the word for “wings. ” According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 'because the wing of a bird is used as a covering for its young, [this Hebrew term] acquires the meaning of the extremity of anything stretched out. ' The same reference work adds that at Job 37:3 and Isaiah 11:12, 'the term means the coasts, Boundaries, Or extremities of the land surface of the earth. '"

https://www. Jw. Org/en/bible-teachings/questions/flat-earth/

"2) Job 28:24 - You cannot see an end on a sphere"

See the above explanation.

3) Matthew 4:8 - You cannot see the whole world from a high mountain on a sphere

You could not see the whole world from a high mountain if it was flat either. It would simply be too large. This is quite obviously referring to something other than human sight.

"4) Psalm 75:3, Psalm 104:5 - refers to the earth being on pillars"

Again, This is

"In addition to this, It was common belief that the world was flat prior to later discoveries. Sailors, For example, Many of whom were Christian, Were afraid of falling off the earth. If Christians knew it was spherical, Why did they fear falling off of it? "

Just because it was in the Bible doesn't mean that Christians knew it. Most sailors weren't biblical scholars, And the tools needed to study the Bible weren't as readily available as they are right now.

"Heavens as clouds
Psalm 18:9 - He parted the skies and came down"

That's what the heavens are. . . But ok

There are many references to things coming down, Ascending up, Etc.

Because the skies are referred to as the heavens frequently

"Firmament
Genesis 1:7-9"

Many sources conclude that this was likely referring to a cloud canopy.

https://www. Blueletterbible. Org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_685. Cfm

"Heliocentric Theory was not in the Bible - It was between Galileo and the Church. "

I never said it was?

"The Church was the authority at the time. Again, I do not believe Christianity is entirely based off the Bible, Like you proclaim. I would argue it’s most certainly not and many Christians would disagree with you as well. "

No offense, But you say that because it would immensely help your position. Also, I don't believe the Christian disagreeing with me thing, I'd have to see numbers.

"There are numerous other scriptures that didn't make it into the Bible, Thatwere equally “credible”. The Bible is just a compilation of "some" of the stories. It’snotanall inclusive source for the entirety of Christian theology, Even theological studies include other sources. "

I never said that sources outside of the Bible aren't credible, But simply that the Bible itself is the most important source and should be relied on first before turning to any other. That's not a question of the credibility of other sources.

To conclude, I have refuted all of your arguments that Christianity is anti-scientific.

This was a fun debate! :D
killshot

Pro

You literally just said that it is a DENOMINATION, And right before that you said it is not about a particular denomination or sect of it. So yes, The Bible is the authority here.

I said Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity, Meaning Catholics are Christians. Not all Christians are Catholics, But all Catholics are Christians. Catholics also happen to make up the largest majority of Christians, And they are the oldest denomination of Christianity to date. Because Christianity is the subject's debate, We have to look at ALL Christian beliefs that would fall under that domain. The majority of Christians, Catholics, Believe the consumption of some wine and crackers will turn into the body of Christ. That is non-scientific and that is the point I was addressing. Just because you do not believe that does not mean it's outside the debate's scope. The majority of Christians DO believe that.

You never made the phylogeny claim your contention, And I disproved the old earth one.

I didn't say you did, I said the Bible articulates a young earth and archetype phylogeny, Which contradicts known scientific facts.

Again, Your reality is grounded in science, Yet you just admitted that it has been wrong before. The Bible has been absolute, Yes, And so far it has won many debates with scientists.

The Bible has not helped us advance anything in science. It only retards science with delusional proclamations about our reality that does not contort with science. Science can be wrong, But it is actively working to get more accurate. The Bible is static and consistently remains incorrect.

That's definitely measurable. If I told you that I had talked to Brad Pitt today, You might say that that is measurable by science. But can you measure it? No, Because you weren't there. God himself says not to tempt nor test him, And you can't simply stand by with your instruments waiting to find something. However, The proof of such observations is out there.

Any interactions manifested in our reality by God should be at the very minimum detectable by science. There is no reason to even think a God exists, Let alone a magical Christian God that acts as a thought police to it's servants. There is no evidence for God, And there is ample evidence against God.

You're saying that the motivaton for not taking "mythical" documents at face value is a fear of hell? That makes no sense. But again, This is not proof of Christianity being anti-scientific.

No, In a nutshell I'm saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And again, I have proved it correct. Besides that, We both agreed on what science is, And the scientific consensus was nowhere in that definition, So this does not make Christianity anti-scientific.

The model’s science uses to map reality is in the definition. Those models are created by scientific consensus.

Once again, YOU said that we are not debating any particular denomination or sect, But Christianity as a whole. Christianity as a whole can only be chalked up to the Word of God. There is no proof of claim of this in the Bible, So it therefore becomes irrelevant.

Once again, The majority of Christians disagree with you. Christianity is not just "your beliefs".

Trump is ignorant and he's a Republican. Does that mean that Republicanism is ignorant? No. Likewise, Christianity is not anti-scientific just because one Christian man is.

I too dislike Trump haha, But you misunderstood my point. Ken Ham, As diluted and nonsensical as his views are, Is a Biblical literalist who only uses the Bible as his source (like you keep wanting to do in this debate). He is by all means "correct" in his Biblical assertions, They are just delusional and nonscientific in every way.

Ok then, You must drop that contention then. It is completely unfair to make a claim which you then disallow me from responding to it, So the claim that Christianity is anti-scientific because it shows a young earth is now irrelevant and considered void. I will please ask you not to elaborate on this now because it would be unfair to me since I cannot respond to that.

You are free to make any response you want. I just don't want to derail this debate into a different subject. I have to assume we are in agreement on scientific consensus. If you do not even agree there, We have no common ground. You are telling me magic is real and all of science is wrong, While using a product of science to debate me (technology).

"The Hebrew term translated 'corners' or 'ends' seems to be an idiom based on the word for “wings. ” According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 'because the wing of a bird is used as a covering for its young, [this Hebrew term] acquires the meaning of the extremity of anything stretched out. ' The same reference work adds that at Job 37:3 and Isaiah 11:12, 'the term means the coasts, Boundaries, Or extremities of the land surface of the earth. '"

Exactly, The Bible proclaims the earth has boundaries. There are no boundaries on a sphere.

I never said that sources outside of the Bible aren't credible, But simply that the Bible itself is the most important source and should be relied on first before turning to any other. That's not a question of the credibility of other sources.

The Bible itself is not a credible source. Historians do not know the authors, It's origins, It's redactions, Interpolations, Etc. It's just a compilation of old doctrines written by unknown authors.





I would like to thank you for another fun debate. Thanks for being a fun sport! I look forward to our next debate :)

Debate Round No. 5
203 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Speedrace

I did that on purpose. I didn't even know where he/she got that from. Don't really remember calling him/her a centrist. Oh wait I think I do. You filthy centrist.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Ralph called it XD
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Ralph called it XD
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"an impulse is basically a desire forcing itself to become an action. Impulses are beyond logic and even people without tumors fall prey to them. That's all I had to say on the matter. "
Don't you think the brain tumour damaging in the prefrontal cortex hindered his decision making which resulted him not caring about what his actions might have an impact on others, Only caring about if he fulfil his desires?
You are a filthy centrist.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Omar is going to call me a centrist on this, I promise I'm not. I just have one critique on each side and not an actual position on this matter, Mostly cause I didn't read enough of it. In the article about the man with the brain tumor, The man did actually attest that he could feel his conscience telling him it was wrong. . The more important critique is that these were impulses and even speedrace admitted as much. Impulses happen apart from one's beliefs. An impulse is basically a desire forcing itself to become an action. Impulses are beyond logic and even people without tumors fall prey to them. That's all I had to say on the matter.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Speedrace

Okay then.

Type this in and click the first link on YouTube. Do tell me if this works.

1st one :Why we don't have Free Will & Why that's OK
(Should show a picture of someone looking up and in front of it the words free will)
2nd one: Sam Harris on Free Will (Joe Rogan Experience #543)
(You will see some guy with a shirt on and sitting on the chair and red curtains in the back) Should be the second link not the first one where these two of them hugging.
3rd one: Sam Harris - Taking the Redpill on Freewill | Joe Rogan
(should be the first link that is the same guy in the 2nd one but with a blue shirt on this time)

You can miss the 2nd one or watch it at a later date.
Do tell me if you can find the videos.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@omar2345

Sure, We can agree to disagree.

The videos wouldn't play and they won't open in YouTube itself -_- :/
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Speedrace

Do you want to agree to disagree?
I can't have those go on for 3 days without anyone losing ground.
Say agree.
If you do say that here is 3 videos to watch.
Feel free to challenge your beliefs on free will.
Sorry about the 55 minute one. You can skip that if you want to.

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=o0GN4urbA_c
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=aAnlBW5INYg
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=OFazP2nBIqQ

I urge if it can be played here. Just click the youtube video to watch it on Youtube. It is better.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
"The tumour made him more carefree and do things which he wouldn't do before. He doesn't care about small things like the health of his stepdaughter when he is too focused on fulfilling something more important his desires. "

I'm talking about HIS health, Not his stepdaughters. He knew that the impulses were caused by the tumor yet he chose to not tell ANYONE that he had the impulses.

"Any proof he hid the porn?
"his wife discovered child pornography on his computer. " This does not say she hacked the computer or used it when he was in the bathroom or something. "

Because it said SHE discovered it on his computer, Not that he told her it was there. That's hiding it.

"See the word began. Meaning he didn't do it before. In order to have porn to watch in school he would have needed to bring some in. In order to begin watching it at school. "

Lol you made my point for me, I'm the one arguing that he didn't watch it before >:D
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Because that's money being wasted. Duh. Also, I didn't realize you were British xD"
Pound was a cover up. No because you have something more important on your mind so you care little about something like that. That is what happened to the man. The tumour made him more carefree and do things which he wouldn't do before. He doesn't care about small things like the health of his stepdaughter when he is too focused on fulfilling something more important his desires.

"She would be annoyed both times. "
Addressed below.

"Why would he hide the porn if he apparently saw nothing wrong with it? "
Any proof he hid the porn?
"his wife discovered child pornography on his computer. " This does not say she hacked the computer or used it when he was in the bathroom or something.

"There is no evidence that he was watching porn beforehand. "
Quote from the source: "He became uncharacteristically aggressive with his wife and began taking pornography to school" See the word began. Meaning he didn't do it before. In order to have porn to watch in school he would have needed to bring some in. In order to begin watching it at school.

https://repository. Upenn. Edu/cgi/viewcontent. Cgi? Referer=https://scholar. Google. Com/&httpsredir=1&article=1124&context=neuroethics_pubs
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.