Two quick articles on human evolution:

[Kylie]

Does it matter to you? If not, then it doesn't make any difference whether it matters to me or not.

Don't avoid the question please.

 

[Paul James]

Don't avoid the question please.

I am not avoiding the question. I have learned not to allow myself to be sucked into a fruitless exchange that will get neither you nor I anywhere. You are a fully committed atheist and nothing I could ever say will change that.

 

[Kylie]

I am not avoiding the question. I have learned not to allow myself to be sucked into a fruitless exchange that will get neither you nor I anywhere. You are a fully committed atheist and nothing I could ever say will change that.

Now, you're actually wrong there.

Evidence will change my mind.

That's something I've almost never seen a creationist say.

But I assure you, if you can give me evidence that I can test which supports your position, and it withstands that test, then I promise you my views on religion WILL change.

 

[Strathos]

Now, you're actually wrong there.

Evidence will change my mind.

That's something I've almost never seen a creationist say.

But I assure you, if you can give me evidence that I can test which supports your position, and it withstands that test, then I promise you my views on religion WILL change.

Reminds me of the flat earthers, who insist they'll listen once someone can 'show them the curve'. Of course they reject all evidence they receive.

 

[Kylie]

Reminds me of the flat earthers, who insist they'll listen once someone can 'show them the curve'. Of course they reject all evidence they receive.

I hope you're not suggesting that I'd refuse to listen to a well-reasoned argument for creationism that lacks logical fallacies.

I mean, trust me. If anyone can do that, you better believe I'll sit up and take notice.

 

[Strathos]

I hope you're not suggesting that I'd refuse to listen to a well-reasoned argument for creationism that lacks logical fallacies.

I mean, trust me. If anyone can do that, you better believe I'll sit up and take notice.

Of course you would say that, when you get to define 'well-reasoned'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reminds me of the flat earthers, who insist they'll listen once someone can 'show them the curve'. Of course they reject all evidence they receive.

Those that follow the scientific method are apt to do so. At one time I rejected AGW. But I read the articles presented against me. I investigated the claims of the opposition. I found the latter's arguments flawed. I changed my mind due to the evidence. Those that oppose evolution and Flat Earthers tend not to follow the scientific method. They don't even understand it. And though they like to claim that they are scientific in their beliefs they refuse to even discuss the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you would say that, when you get to define 'well-reasoned'.

One that holds up in a discussion using the scientific method.

 

[Strathos]

I'm not talking about evolution here. I'm talking about the existence of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not talking about evolution here. I'm talking about the existence of God.

Belief in God will likely always be a faith based belief since there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for his existence.

 

[Paul James]

Now, you're actually wrong there.

Evidence will change my mind.

That's something I've almost never seen a creationist say.

But I assure you, if you can give me evidence that I can test which supports your position, and it withstands that test, then I promise you my views on religion WILL change.

My mate in Auckland, who is a long standing member, when I asked him about joining the forum, said it is a good one, but don't get into long debates with atheists because every time he did he got nowhere and was flamedfor every evidence he presented and after two whole days he gave up. So he said get in say what you want to say and then get out of the discussion. And so that's what I do, without having to go into endless debates that go nowhere.

 

[Kylie]

Of course you would say that, when you get to define 'well-reasoned'.

I would define it as not including any logical fallacies. Since those can be defined ahead of time, there's no way I can change them afterwards to suit my own biases.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not talking about evolution here. I'm talking about the existence of God.

If it is impossible to present a case for God based on rational arguments, then doesn't that suggest that belief in God is inherently irrational?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My mate in Auckland, who is a long standing member, when I asked him about joining the forum, said it is a good one, but don't get into long debates with atheists because every time he did he got nowhere and was flamedfor every evidence he presented and after two whole days he gave up. So he said get in say what you want to say and then get out of the discussion. And so that's what I do, without having to go into endless debates that go nowhere.

That is because there is no proper evidence for creationism. And being corrected is not being flamed.

Has anyone accused you of lacking intelligence? Has anyone accused you of lying? Now you have used lying sources, but you do not know better yet. That is not flaming that is correcting. Flaming would be if you were personally attacked.

 

[Kylie]

My mate in Auckland, who is a long standing member, when I asked him about joining the forum, said it is a good one, but don't get into long debates with atheists because every time he did he got nowhere and was flamedfor every evidence he presented and after two whole days he gave up. So he said get in say what you want to say and then get out of the discussion. And so that's what I do, without having to go into endless debates that go nowhere.

So you aren't here to discuss, you're here to proselytize?

Thanks, but I'm not interested in listening to ads for Christianity if it's just going to be the same claims I've found flaws in before.

 

[Strathos]

Belief in God will likely always be a faith based belief since there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for his existence.

If it is impossible to present a case for God based on rational arguments, then doesn't that suggest that belief in God is inherently irrational?

The problem is allowing atheists to define what 'reliable' and 'rational' mean. They've already decided that such evidence doesn't exist, so they will obviously exclude any presented from those categories.

 

[Speedwell]

The problem is allowing atheists to define what 'reliable' and 'rational' mean. They've already decided that such evidence doesn't exist, so they will obviously exclude any presented from those categories.

Well, this is after all a science forum, so those terms have a certain meaning in the epistemology of science, which is context here. Further, this the evolution/creation debate forum, not the theism/atheism debate forum, so the existence of God is really not a relevant issue.

 

[MIDutch]

Reminds me of the flat earthers, who insist they'll listen once someone can 'show them the curve'. Of course they reject all evidence they receive.

Even when shown the curve they will merely claim it's fake.

Creationists are the exact same way.

 

[MIDutch]

The problem is allowing atheists to define what 'reliable' and 'rational' mean. They've already decided that such evidence doesn't exist, so they will obviously exclude any presented from those categories.

The definitions of 'reliable' and 'rational' are pretty clear cut independent of whether an atheist (or an agnostic) gives them.

My mother claims she saw and spoke with ghosts. On another thread a Christian asked me how I can still reject the supernatural when presented with the "evidence" of my mother having seen ghosts. The answer, of course, is that her claim is unverifiable, EVEN BY HER. Her stories about them were certainly detailed and fun to listen to and I have nothing against the existence of ghosts (heck, I hope they DO exist) but there is no, repeat, NO reliable and/or rational, empirical, objective EVIDENCE for their existence other than the unverifiable accounts of the people who claim to have seen them.

My mom believed in ghosts. We took her word for it because she was our mom. Being raised Catholic we grew up with the "reality" of a universe filled with supernatural beings, spirits, saints, angels, demons, etc., so the existence of ghosts wasn't out of the question, but there was never any reliable and/or rational evidence presented for the things she says she saw.

Personally, I don't think my definition of 'reliable' and 'rational' has changed any during my transition from Catholic to agnostic. I still use the definitions I find in the dictionary (which also haven't changed in my lifetime).

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is allowing atheists to define what 'reliable' and 'rational' mean. They've already decided that such evidence doesn't exist, so they will obviously exclude any presented from those categories.

No, no, no. We are confident that such evidence does not exist because not even the most ardent of believers cannot find any. All of the evidence presented is of the same sort that they themselves reject when presented to them by believers in other religions.