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

[AirPo]

It does explain everything, do you think we would be better off if 80% of us believed in a magic man in the sky?

Yes

 

[bhsmte]

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

To take it a step further, if they were "willing" to understand the evidence, they wouldn't be biblical creationists.

If there was scientific evidence to support creationism, creationists would understand that evidence quite well and talk about it as if it were gold. When you interject, a psychological need to believe in a certain story, that need does and can get in the way of how one views reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

For the vast majority of creationists, you are right.

However, Kurt Wise is a very interesting study. He got his graduate degree studying under Stephen Jay Gould, of all people. Gould had very positive things to say about Wise, other than his bewilderment as to why Wise continued to be a creationist. What is interesting is that Kurt Wise fully admits that the evidence is solidly in favor of evolution, but he remains a creationist because his beliefs demand it. That is why I consider Wise to be one of the few honest creationists.

 

[CabVet]

What is interesting is that Kurt Wise fully admits that the evidence is solidly in favor of evolution, but he remains a creationist because his beliefs demand it. That is why I consider Wise to be one of the few honest creationists.

I was unaware that one existed until you pointed this out. Thanks!

 

[Andy 998]

What is interesting is that Kurt Wise fully admits that the evidence is solidly in favor of evolution, but he remains a creationist because his beliefs demand it.

What chance do the normal mortals have if someone like him can be made to believe as he does?
That has got to be classed as child abuse because it shows they could have raised him to believe anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

What chance do the normal mortals have if someone like him can be made to believe as he does?
That has got to be classed as child abuse because it shows they could have raised him to believe anything.

Another consol sockpuppet?

 

[rich1540]

Yup -- which looks dumber:

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

Hi AV, I just noticed you have over 3 million posts and post 1028 posts a day pushing your creationist agenda. That is just so awesome or is it a mistake? My brain hurts with the sheer awesomeness of it. Well done. You Sir are a legend.

 

[AirPo]

Hi AV, I just noticed you have over 3 million posts and post 1028 posts a day pushing your creationist agenda. That is just so awesome or is it a mistake? My brain hurts with the sheer awesomeness of it. Well done. You Sir are a legend.

Check out his counting threads.

 

[Andy 998]

What chance do the normal mortals have if someone like him can be made to believe as he does?
That has got to be classed as child abuse because it shows they could have raised him to believe anything.

Another consol sockpuppet?

Am I stepping on your toes or something?

What did I say that was so offensive to you as an agnostic? you are an agnostic are you not? It is my opinion that creationism is nothing short of child abuse because it is detrimental to the child, you can't possibly think it's beneficial to the child, can you?

 

[MerlinJ]

It is my opinion that creationism is nothing short of child abuse because it is detrimental to the child, you can't possibly think it's beneficial to the child, can you?

Forced labor, trafficking, CREATIONISM! Right.

Children are verbally, physically, psychologically, and sexually abused, and comparing that to teaching them creationism is just trivializing the real thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Am I stepping on your toes or something?

What did I say that was so offensive to you as an agnostic? you are an agnostic are you not? It is my opinion that creationism is nothing short of child abuse because it is detrimental to the child, you can't possibly think it's beneficial to the child, can you?

Have you posted here before under the moniker "consol"?

 

[Andy 998]

Have you posted here before under the moniker "consol"?

No I haven't but I don't understand what that has got to do with anything, why would you even care what someone called themselves? that's why I asked if I had stepped on your toes.

 

[Loudmouth]

No I haven't but I don't understand what that has got to do with anything, why would you even care what someone called themselves? that's why I asked if I had stepped on your toes.

Consol had a long history of using abusive language, and being a general troll. You are bordering on the same behavior, and remind me of how consol used to act. Also, consol has been caught using new accounts to try and get around his ban on CF.

My advice to you is to turn it down a few notches, take a few deep breaths, and realize why comparing creationism and child abuse is probably not the best way to approach the subject.

 

[Andy 998]

Forced labor, trafficking, CREATIONISM! Right.

Children are verbally, physically, psychologically, and sexually abused, and comparing that to teaching them creationism is just trivializing the real thing.

Any damage done to a child is child abuse and something that affects a child for the rest of it's life has surly got to be one of the worst kinds of child abuse.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any damage done to a child is child abuse and something that affects a child for the rest of it's life has surly got to be one of the worst kinds of child abuse.

I, for one, support the rights of parents to teach their children creationism. It isn't child abuse, however unfortunate it is. Sorry, but you are wrong on this one.

 

[Messy]

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.

I really had such a debate once with an atheist. LOL I looked things up on Answers in Genesis or the movie from Carl Baugh from years ago and then he came with another site that debunked it. Finally I realized this was useless. Oh and we both didn't even know what we were talking about, we just posted links of the sites. Then another atheist debunked so much that I stepped over to GAP theory/ old earth, but now they found soft tissue in a dinosaur and the sun and the moon were created on day 4 so I'm a YEC again, LOL.

 

[MerlinJ]

Any damage done to a child is child abuse and something that affects a child for the rest of it's life has surly got to be one of the worst kinds of child abuse.

Really? Where are all these creationism survivors?

Give me a break.

 

[Messy]

Really? Where are all these creationism survivors?

Give me a break.

Recently two people on a Dutch forum said that that was the main reason they lost their faith, so I teach my kid all options. If someone can't believe young earth I rather have they believe old earth and keep believing in God.

 

[Andy 998]

Consol had a long history of using abusive language, and being a general troll. You are bordering on the same behavior, and remind me of how consol used to act. Also, consol has been caught using new accounts to try and get around his ban on CF.

My advice to you is to turn it down a few notches, take a few deep breaths, and realize why comparing creationism and child abuse is probably not the best way to approach the subject.

Do you mean I should pander to creationists and not say anything that might offend them? you are American so you live with them around you all the time I don't, I admit I don't know how to speak to people who believe such crazy things as creationism because we don't see many if any in the UK, we have more than our fair share of crazy people but not on the same scale as the US.

I do realise we are on a Christian forum so perhaps I should read more say less and just enjoy the show, it will be hard.

 

[Loudmouth]

Recently two people on a Dutch forum said that that was the main reason they lost their faith, so I teach my kid all options. If someone can't believe young earth I rather have they believe old earth and keep believing in God.

As Saint Augustine put it . . .

"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."