Bad Arguments

[JayFern]

I can't though.

Not to you guys.

You're too educated.

OK.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They can start with using the correct terminology.

Saying "magic" instead of "miracle," while expecting us to make sure we keep abiogenesis separate from evolution, is rather ... well ... ironic.

There's no irony, just willful ignorance on your part. This should help clear things up for you:

Magic: "an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source" (Magic)
vs
Miracle: "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" (Miracle)

Miracles are a subset of magic, but magic that can only be performed by divine agents. So although "magic" is not as precise as "miracle", it is still correct.

Abiogenesis: "the origin of life from nonliving matter" (Abiogenesis)
vs
Evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations" (Evolution)

Abiogenesis is not a subset of evolution. Conflating the two is incorrect and really needs to stop now.

 

[EternalDragon]

There's no irony, just willful ignorance on your part. This should help clear things up for you:

Magic: "an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source" (Magic)
vs
Miracle: "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" (Miracle)

Miracles are a subset of magic, but magic that can only be performed by divine agents. So although "magic" is not as precise as "miracle", it is still correct.

Abiogenesis: "the origin of life from nonliving matter" (Abiogenesis)
vs
Evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations" (Evolution)

Abiogenesis is not a subset of evolution. Conflating the two is incorrect and really needs to stop now.

Then the God of the bible does not really fit the definition of supernatural as he is a living entity within and part of our universe.

 

[juvenissun]

I have to ask, what about geology with an old world?

What about astronomy with a very old universe and a heliocentric solar system?

Another small point
Then why did Christians understand the solar system to be geocentric until the 16 century and it took quite a bit of struggle after that to get them to accept it?

Dizredux

Either old earth or young earth does not negate creation. Evolution does. This makes all the differences.

The flat earth idea is only an example of contemporary knowledge. It is the same to all other scientific knowledge. The wisdom in the Scripture surpasses all that. Scientific knowledge changes all the time. The (scientific) message in the Scripture does not. The Scripture is true for flat earthers. It is also true for spherical earthers. It will still be true to any future scientific knowledge discovered 100 years from now. Modern science does not negate A SINGLE WORD in the Scripture written a few thousands years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Magic: "an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source" (Magic)
vs
Miracle: "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" (Miracle)

Miracles are a subset of magic, but magic that can only be performed by divine agents. So although "magic" is not as precise as "miracle", it is still correct.

How can miracles be a subset of magic, when your definition of magic says "seemingly"; yet "miracle" doesn't water it down?

In addition, notice "magic" says 'an extraordinary power', but "miracle" says 'divine intervention'?

No wonder you used it -- it's as clear as mud; and about as confusing as scientific terminology.

 

[JayFern]

No wonder you used it -- it's as clear as mud; and about as confusing as scientific terminology.

It's as clear as mud because we are talking about words that have no meaning, magic and miracles are nothing but fluff, they are fluff because the words themselves tell us nothing, they are words that were designed for fairy stories and to explain the unknown to the ignorant [which was all of us at one time and just some of us now].

 

[AV1611VET]

... and to explain the unknown to the ignorant ...

That's why I use them ("miracle" and "creatio ex nihilo")?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How can miracles be a subset of magic, when your definition of magic says "seemingly"; yet "miracle" doesn't water it down?

It's not my fault if your grasp of English is sub-optimal. If you do not understand "seemingly" or "manifesting" why not go look them up instead of complaining?

In addition, notice "magic" says 'an extraordinary power', but "miracle" says 'divine intervention'?

"miracle" says "an extraordinary event". You even highlighted it

No wonder you used it -- it's as clear as mud; and about as confusing as scientific terminology.

You are easily confused, aren't you?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No wonder you used it -- it's as clear as mud; and about as confusing as scientific terminology.

One last thing - those definitions are from an American dictionary and you still don't understand. Go figure.....

 

[AV1611VET]

One last thing - those definitions are from an American dictionary and you still don't understand. Go figure.....

It's your mental block, not mine.

 

[Tzaousios]

Then the God of the bible does not really fit the definition of supernatural as he is a living entity within and part of our universe.

Just an observation: Doesn't this position concerning God's immanence and transcendence tread dangerously close to a type of pantheism?

 

[Dizredux]

ED

Then the God of the bible does not really fit the definition of supernatural as he is a living entity within and part of our universe

Just an observation: Doesn't this position concerning God's immanence and transcendence tread dangerously close to a type of pantheism?

I can see that and have run into this before.

The question is then is God just part of the universe which might indicate a local god or is God equivalent to the universe which would be pantheism?

I suspect that ED doesn't think these things through before he posts which would explain some of the ideas he presents.

Dizredux

 

[JayFern]

The question is then is God just part of the universe which might indicate a local god or is God equivalent to the universe which would be pantheism?

Gods are simply human inventions designed and produced to explain things humanity could not explain for themselves, humanity didn't even have the knowledge to realise that the Gods they invented explained and accounted for absolutely nothing, all it did was pass their uncertainty onto an even bigger uncertainty that told them nothing and gave them no answers at all, all their Gods did was console them just as they do today.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It's your mental block, not mine.

And there's a perfect example of another, otf-used bad argument. I present you with evidence, make it as user friendly as possible and you insist your lack of understanding is my problem.

 

[Dizredux]

Gods are simply human inventions designed and produced to explain things humanity could not explain for themselves, humanity didn't even have the knowledge to realise that the Gods they invented explained and accounted for absolutely nothing, all it did was pass their uncertainty onto an even bigger uncertainty that told them nothing and gave them no answers at all, all their Gods did was console them just as they do today.

Interesting opinion but you cannot support the idea that God doesn't exist.


Dizredux

 

[JayFern]

Interesting opinion but you cannot support the idea that God doesn't exist.

I honestly laughed out load when I read that, that has got to be the most pathetic reason for believing anything.
I would not have believe that anyone could use that excuse to believe something, that just blows my mind.

I wish you the very best of luck with your life and I'm sure you will understand when I say I'm glad I don't think like that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are many flawed arguments seen on both sides of the creationism vs evolution debate, but these in particular annoy me not only with how flawed they are, but in how often I see them as well. Yes, I will be addressing both bad evolution support and bad creationism support, no mercy for those who happen to generally agree with me.

Creationism:

1. Humans/life/the universe exist, therefore god- Just because these or any number of other things exist doesn't mean any deities, let alone the specific one you worship, exist. Even if that existence seems really improbable, to be frank, how probable the existence of these items are is impossible to actually measure; most estimates are at best educated guesses by various experts, and at worst they are numbers some blogger pulls out of their butt.

2. Well, scripture says...- So? Obviously I don't view that source as having the weight you think it does. You might as well be saying "well, Green Eggs and Ham says", because a person who doesn't consider scripture to be written or influenced by an existing deity such as myself is never going to be convinced on anything based on what it says, unless perhaps I missed something big when I read it.

3. Evolution claims- This is in regards to the sheer amount of ignorance I see posted about the theory itself. Oh yes, your argument would absolutely make perfect and reasonable sense, if you were actually talking about what the theory says. Just a thought people, don't learn about evolution solely from apologists and other sources which stand to gain from making the theory look ridiculous and stupid.

Evolution:

1. General defense of abiogenesis, universal common ancestor, etc- What are you even doing? People group all of these as being a part of the theory of evolution badly enough as it is. If creationists bring them up, and you feel the need to respond, then please, please, please, mention that what you are defending is not a part of evolution. Do not perpetuate the idea that evolution covers all this stuff when it doesn't. It makes future debates that much harder.

2. You have to believe the scripture word for word, or not believe any of it- Ridiculous, many ancient languages used symbolism and allegory extensively in order to make up for limited vocabularies. Heck, it seems to me nearly half of the OT characters have name puns. Worse, this is an attack aimed at the more moderate believers, who tend to be more open to different positions than strictly fundamentalist believers. Doing this shuts down any hope of decent discourse with them and makes you look terrible.

3. Defending atheism itself- I'd say pretty much every atheist, including myself, gets goaded into doing this to some extent on this subforum. We need to just not, evolution is a secular theory, just like any other scientific theory. You aren't doing it any favors by putting an explicitly naturalistic spin on it, and the more we fall into the pattern of defending atheism specifically, the less we actually defend evolution itself. I am going to try harder, and we all should try harder, to not let philosophy take over the scientific debate. I am super guilty of it, and perhaps even one of the worst offenders, but I think we should just collectively try to reduce the derailing.

Both:

Subtle and not so subtle insults- this ruins any chance at civil and productive conversation, both sides of the debate do it, and it can get really bad. And the no flaming rule on this site has just made all of us better at making implied insults rather than making us more polite. Yes, even be polite to the people who are rude to you, honestly, kill them with kindness. And when you show a willingness to listen to ideas, even if privately you find them ridiculous, and be tactful when you express any flaws you perceive, it makes for a far better debate all around. We might not all agree on every issue, but we are all still human. We have more in common than not, the opposing sides of debates need not be emotionally set as enemies.

That's because most people ignore 95% of the evidence - and handpick what they want from the other 5%.

 

[Dizredux]

I honestly laughed out load when I read that, that has got to be the most pathetic reason for believing anything.
I would not have believe that anyone could use that excuse to believe something, that just blows my mind.

I wish you the very best of luck with your life and I'm sure you will understand when I say I'm glad I don't think like that.

I never said it was a reason to believe. It is simply that one cannot rule out the existence of God. As for thinking like me, your village would miss you if you did.

Oh yes, you sound awfully familiar, is this the doppelganger of an oft banned militant anti theist?

Dizredux

 

[JayFern]

I never said it was a reason to believe. It is simply that one cannot rule out the existence of God. As for thinking like me, your village would miss you if you did.

One can not rule out the possibility that anything you can imagine might exist but does that mean it has to be believed until it's shown not to exist? that's the most [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-eyed brain damaged thinking I have ever come across.

Oh yes, you sound awfully familiar, is this the doppelganger of an oft banned militant anti theist?

I am not an anti-theist I'm an anti-crazy thinkingist.
It's been known for a very long time that the best form of defence is attack.
For a theist if your back is against the wall either answer a question with a question or attack the questioner.

 

[Tzaousios]

I am not an anti-theist I'm an anti-crazy thinkingist.
It's been known for a very long time that the best form of defence is attack.
For a theist if your back is against the wall either answer a question with a question or attack the questioner.

Indeed, this does happen more often than not in discussions between atheists and theists.

However, there is a common trend at CF, especially with atheists who do not last long as members, where atheists are not forthcoming about their intentions and presuppositions.

For the more strident atheists, such as the evangelical ones who imitate Hitchens and Dawkins, there is no common epistemological ground from the get-go for them to have a fruitful, honest dialogue with theists.

Thus it becomes a denigration game where those atheists try to get theists to condone every egregious act they can dredge up from the Old Testament, categorically reject every possible source that cannot be scientifically tested, and finally hastily generalize all Christians into the most nutty, solipsist fundamentalist box they can create.