Here's why atheists can't win this debate (and this is 100% true)

[Parogar]

In any real debate, you have something that looks like this:

Side 1: Makes a claim.

Side 2: Counters that claim.

Side 1: Counters that counter claim.

Side 2: Counters the counter that was countered

And so on...

Here's why atheists can never, will never, and have never beaten creationists.

When arguing with a creationist, the debate goes like this.

Person on the side of science: "Evolution is correct because ____"

Creationist: "No. You are wrong because I have this fact here (insert fact).

Person on the side of science: "No. That is not correct and was already debunked a hundred times here ____(insert proof)"

Creationist: "Okay, let's change the subject completely. Here is another reason why evolution is wrong."

"Wait! You didn't respond to my counter argument."

Creationist: "What counter argument?"

"I made a claim, you responded, then I responded to your response."

Creationist: "Oh. Well, here's another reason why--"

"Wait, wait! Before we move on to a different reason. Can't we at least resolve the one we already started? You still haven't disproven my original claim."

Creationist: "I see. Well, did you know that carbon dating isn't ever correct?"

"Oh God here we go. Fine! I'll take the bait. Carbon dating is correct because of ___ (insert reasons)____"

Creationist: "No. That's incorrect because of this thing I read on Answers in Genesis ___(insert link)___"

"Okay. I have read your link. Here is the scientific proof that what you linked is incorrect. How do you respond to that?"

Creationist: "Here is another reason why evolution is wrong."

^^ This is what it means to argue with a creationist. You cannot win, because the game is rigged. It's not about who is right or wrong. It's about who can deflect and melt their away out of any kind of intense questioning.

Creationists have a counter argument to every single evolution argument. But it is always something that is outdated and has been proven wrong. And they know this. but they don't care. Because they're inherently dishonest people people lacking in basic integrity.

Once you prove them wrong on that point, they will immediately move on to the next thing. It's like wheel of excuses.

 

[Parogar]

Another hugely flawed assumption that I myself have made thousands upon thousands of times is that if only they could understand basic science: if only they had even a trace of the ability to form intelligent thought, they would most certainly come around to what is as grounded in fact as adding 1 and 1 together to get 2.

Sadly, this isn't the case.

Creationists don't deny evolution because they don't understand it.

Rather, they don't understand it because they can't. Because they're actually not intelligent enough.

It's like trying to get a program that requires 2GB of memory to run on a PC from Windows 93 with 32mb.

Even though the concepts of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, mutation, etc, are so easily understood and so grounded in fact that it would be all-but impossible to disagree, they do disagree.

 

[Andy 998]

Their upbringing has obviously robbed them of their ability to choose, and to continue the computer analogy they can only see and understand what they have been programmed to see and understand, for them evolution does not compute.

 

[Radagast]

Here's why atheists can't win this debate (and this is 100% true)

It's interesting that you see the debate not as evolution vs creationism, but as atheists vs Christians.

 

[Andy 998]

It's interesting that you see the debate not as evolution vs creationism, but as atheists vs Christians.

It's like that because there is no such thing as "creation", we could just as easily say 'evolution vs magic', it is not even Atheist vs Christians because without Christians there would be no Atheists.

Unfounded and irrational claims and beliefs do not warrant a reply and as we all know people can and do believe whatever they want so it is not the unfounded and irrational beliefs that causes the opposition it's the actions caused by those unfounded and irrational beliefs that is opposed.

 

[Elendur]

It's like that because there is no such thing as "creation", we could just as easily say 'evolution vs magic', it is not even Atheist vs Christians because without Christians there would be no Atheists.
...

Untrue.
The definition of atheism is independent of the existence of christianity.

 

[Nithavela]

Other than the atheists vs. creationists thing (there are plenty of christians who believe in evolution), it looks just about right.

It's just one of the many strategies of creationists, though. There are others, like the "this is not evidence" strategy, wherein no matter the proof shown to the creationist, the creationist just refuses to accept it and then declares himself the winner because no proof was shown.

 

[Andy 998]

Untrue.
The definition of atheism is independent of the existence of christianity.

We are on a Christian forum so when we say atheists we mean Christian atheists, if you want to be pedantic then along with the usual atheists every believer on earth is an atheist when it comes to all other religions.

Atheism is simply a rejection of theistic claims, Christians make claims and Atheists do not agree, other theists make claims and both Christians and Atheists do not agree.

 

[Euler]

Another hugely flawed assumption that I myself have made thousands upon thousands of times is that if only they could understand basic science: if only they had even a trace of the ability to form intelligent thought, they wold most certainly come around to what is as grounded in fact as adding 1 and 1 together to get 2.

Sadly, this isn't the case.

Creationists don't deny evolution because they don't understand it.

Rather, they don't understand it because they can't. Because they're actually not intelligent enough.

It's like trying to get a program that requires 2GB of memory to run on a PC from Windows 93 with 32mb.

Even though the concepts of natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, mutation, etc, are so easily understood and so grounded in fact that it would be all-but impossible to disagree, they do disagree.

If they understood basic science, they wouldn't be creationists.

 

[Andy 998]

If they understood basic science, they wouldn't be creationists.

A lot of them understand basic science it's evolution they make a point of keeping away from,
evolution scares them to death because it keeps reminding them that the myth they want to believe is just a myth.

 

[Elendur]

We are on a Christian forum so when we say atheists we mean Christian atheists, if you want to be pedantic then along with the usual atheists every believer on earth is an atheist when it comes to all other religions.

I'm not pedantic when I'm referencing to the definition to point out that you were wrong.

If you want pedantic, I can comment on how, after correcting the term christians to theists, the removal of the theistic population does not affect the population of atheists (not including analysis of continuation of said hypothetical scenario).

Also, who're we?

Atheism is simply a rejection of theistic claims, Christians make claims and Atheists do not agree, other theists make claims and both Christians and Atheists do not agree.

The atheist/theist status is just the stance on the binary question of belief in a (implicitly including several) deity.
Nothing to do with claims or anything.

Though I agree with the general sense that most atheists I've observed have rejected/disagreed upon claims that groups of theists have presented.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once you prove them wrong on that point, they will immediately move on to the next thing. It's like wheel of excuses.

Would it help you guys if we just said GOD DID IT and let it go at that?

 

[Nithavela]

Would it help you guys if we just said GOD DID IT and let it go at that?

Only if you develope a cure for ebola with GOD DID IT.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only if you develope a cure for ebola with GOD DID IT.

I see.

A quid pro quo then, eh?

Well ... then I guess you'll just have to put up with explanations you think are [insert your own personal bias here].

It's you guys' fault we give our best answers to your questions, anyway.

Who looks stupider in the eyes of a third person?

Those who give dumb answers to good questions, or those who ask good questions, get dumb answers, complain about it, then ask good questions again?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Who looks stupider in the eyes of a third person?

Those who give dumb answers to good questions, or those who ask good questions, get dumb answers, complain about it, then ask good questions again?

You've just described the average secondary school teacher trying to teach a class of vacant 14 year olds. Which is apt I suppose.

 

[AV1611VET]

You've just described the average secondary school teacher trying to teach a class of vacant 14 year olds. Which is apt I suppose.

Yup -- which looks dumber:

A teacher standing there trying to teach vacants, or the vacants themselves?

 

[Andy 998]

I'm not pedantic when I'm referencing to the definition to point out that you were wrong.

If you want pedantic, I can comment on how, after correcting the term christians to theists, the removal of the theistic population does not affect the population of atheists (not including analysis of continuation of said hypothetical scenario).

I explained why I wrote Christians and not theists.

Also, who're we?

'We' are the atheists and agnostics who reject all theistic claims not just some.

The atheist/theist status is just the stance on the binary question of belief in a (implicitly including several) deity.
Nothing to do with claims or anything.

If there were no theists making claims their ideas would not even cross our minds or enter into our lives.

 

[RickG]

Would it help you guys if we just said GOD DID IT and let it go at that?

Works for me. Now, when are you going to recognize God's work? The EARTH and its magnificent wonders.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yup -- which looks dumber:

A teacher standing there trying to teach vacants, or the vacants themselves?

To everyone except a creationist, the vacant pupils look dumber.

 

[AV1611VET]

Works for me.

I seriously doubt that -- very seriously doubt that.

Now, when are you going to recognize God's work? The EARTH and its magnificent wonders.

When are you going to recognize God's work? The BIBLE and Its magnificent wonders.