Intelligence Debate > Creation/Evolution poll xD

[Asa]

What is the essence of concience then? Don't tell me you have never felt guilt?!

 

[AFK]

Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist?

Please remember that the burden of proof rests on the positive, not the negative. You're asking me to prove a negative, when in fact, it is Christians' responsibility to give us a reason to believe that these miracles exist(ed). It's really an invalid question.

You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...

If we can see them all the time, please show me one such case.This is also begs the questions "why doesn't this happen all the time?" and "what about the times that these incurable diseases aren't cured?"

 

[AFK]

I wasn't aware that philosophical wagers, like Pascal's, could be debunked.

I'm not sure if you're conceding, but yes, Pascal's Wager IS debunked. And quite thoroughly. It is just simply FUNDAMENTALLY flawed; the wager is built around a logical fallacy.

However, you have demonstrated the religious fervor and desperation that the religion of the evolutionist must adhere to.

Evolutionists do not adhere to a religion. There is no religion if there is no god. This is propaganda-ish use of semantics to rouse emotional/appeal to emotion (I point this out because it sounds like you are regurgitating what your Christian teachers taught you, as opposed to your own personal findings).

You claim the authors listed have been debunked, plesase site YOUR sources for your informed conclusion,

That's impossible to do without writing a novel. Cite any one claim of your authors, and I will attempt to debunk it.

Also note that my original objection was to highlight the "absurdity" of proving anything by simply posting a list of Christian apologetics. You get what you give.

...oh but wait, that would mean citing authority, sorry.

You do not understand what "appeal to authority" means. Appeal to authority is NOT arguing about authority. It's basing the veracity of your argument simply by the status of your source. Do not take this the wrong way, but you continue to confuse and misuse logic; if you know you are not apt in logic, please step down.

In fact, several of them were former evolutionists.

Now, this is an example of appeal to authority. The status of your source has no effect whatsoever on the argument's veracity.

I know that for the evolutionist, in this age of knowledge, that many evidences are now threatening your faith.

You keep repeating this assertion over and over again, but where are the examples/evidence?

But aside from this internet bantering, the question remains where will people spend their eternal destiny. As I have said earlier, you are going to have to face a holy and righteous God on judgement day, whether you believe in Him or not. If He judges you by His standard will you be innocent or guilty?

You conceded to Pascal's Wager being debunked at the top of your post, and yet you resume using it. STOP THE MADNESS.

The Bible says "the wages of sin is death", if you die in your sins you will spend an eternity in heck. But do you know what this God you deny did? He sent His son Jesus, to die to pay your fine for your sins and mine. If you believe in Him, confess your sins, and trust in Him to give you a new heart you will be saved.

You can not invoke the Bible to someone who doesn't accept it. To do so is circular reasoning.

The last authority I'm going to claim to you on this matter for now is again the Bible, who refers to atheism in saying "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Considering what you are placing your faith in to explain all things, please consider your cost.

Again, you conceded to Pascal's Wager being debunked at the top of your post, and yet you continue to use it. STOP THE MADNESS.

 

[AFK]

Before it's too late AFK. :wink: I'll feel like a failure if I don't see you in Heaven. You probably didn't get a very good religious background if you turned away from Christianity. An eternity in heck doesn't sound too pleasant if you know what I mean.

You're using Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread.

 

[Asa]

If a incurable sickness was not cured, it was because God thought it was necessary that that man's time on earth was done.

Also, there is also the question of exorcism. What do you think of that?

 

[AFK]

Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...

Which incurable diseases have been cured lately?

I don't keep up with current stuff anymore, but there was one instance in the case of cancer recently.

You need to be reasonably aware of the reasons and sources of your beliefs, otherwise, how can you be reasonable confident in them? Of course, you can't...without being reasonable. In other words, this is why I think theists are only able to believe in god because they are willing to be unreasonable when it comes to their faith.

And of course, AFK, what do you think of exorcism?

Exorcism is more of a paranormal subject than anything. For those who do believe in it, there are both religious and non-religious explanations. So there's two hurdles for religious people to overcome to cite exorcism as religious evidence:

1. That exorcism is real.

2. If #1 can be proven, then it must be proved that exorcism is religious in nature.

 

[AFK]

Why exactly do you think Saint's miracles do not exist? You can see them all the time. :? Curing of incurable diseases...

Which incurable diseases have been cured lately?

I don't keep up with current stuff anymore, but there was one instance in the case of cancer recently. And of course, AFK, what do you think of exorcism?

Cancer is not an incurable disease.

It is if you wait too long to get treatment. I should've been more clear.

I'd still like to read a case. Hearsay has little persuasive effect.

And EVEN if there is an unusual case, I've already addressed how prayer is NOT divine intervention. Please go back to my points regarding prayer and address them.

 

[Asa]

That does not answer my question. What do you think of exorcism?

 

[AFK]

What is the essence of concience then? Don't tell me you have never felt guilt?!

Coincidence is the fulfilling of statistics. I've ALREADY addressed this multiple times (especially regarding prayer). Coincidence MUST MUST MUST occur in order for statistics to be true.

Guilt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt#Causes_of_guilt

As I've said before, just because one doesn't understand something does not make it divine. That is the modern day equivalent of believing in magic to explain things one can't explain otherwise.

 

[AFK]

If a incurable sickness was not cured, it was because God thought it was necessary that that man's time on earth was done.

This is a cop out in the form of circular reasoning. Logically, the cop out MAY be true GIVEN that God exists, but the argument once again falls back on the question: What evidence is there that God exists in the first place.

 

[Asa]

No one is saying that. The Catholic Church practices exorcisms. And it does work. Obviously it has do with something more spiritual.

 

[AFK]

That does not answer my question. What do you think of exorcism?

It does answer the question.My thoughts on exorcism is that it is not evidence of God.

 

[AFK]

No one is saying that. The Catholic Church practices exorcisms. And it does work. Obviously it has do with something more spiritual.

Paranormal experts that explain exorcism scientifically abound. You saying that these scientific explanations do not exist sounds like an "argument from ignorance."

It works? I would like to see evidence.

 

[Asa]

Then please explain how the Church drives out demons from people with success?

 

[AFK]

Then please explain how the Church drives out demons from people with success?

This question assumes 2 things:

1. That demons exist.

2. If demons exist, then these people who were supposedly exorcised were acting crazy because of demons as opposed to psychological disorders, attention, or whatever other non-demonic/non-religious reason.

So in order for me to answer this question, you will have to prove #1, and then #2.

The question is also an example of CIRCULAR REASONING, as I've just detailed above (I did so, because given the reoccurring use of circular logic here, it seems like people don't understand what circular reasoning is).

 

[Johnald Chaffinch]

this idea of a loving god is very seductive, it can make people happy if they really start to believe in it.

it makes me sad to read people saying things about how a god will let them into heaven, when they've died. i wonder if that's 100% faith that it will really happen, or just a strong hope?

on the other hand the more rational atheism, comes pre-loaded with nihilism - you have to dig deep to find reasons for doing anything if it's really not going to matter to you when you're dead.

it's very sad that when people die they really are no more, but look on the bright side - at least they were born! in more cases than not life is a very harsh thing - we're the lucky ones! so make the most of it while you can.



regarding this debate please could you watch this video. it's one of my favourite talks ever and it's on the very subject of this debate :

http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-...ious-moderation

 

[OGIGA]

Wow, I left for about two days and this thread just got humongous. I don't think I'm going to analyze everything post-by-post so I'll leave it up to all of you guys. Anyway, looks like AFK isn't understanding his flawed logic but that's okay. As long as the rest of the world does, I'm satisfied.

 

[Asa]

Then please explain how the Church drives out demons from people with success?

This question assumes 2 things:

1. That demons exist.

2. If demons exist, then these people who were supposedly exorcised were acting crazy because of demons as opposed to psychological disorders, attention, or whatever other non-demonic/non-religious reason.

So in order for me to answer this question, you will have to prove #1, and then #2.

The question is also an example of CIRCULAR REASONING, as I've just detailed above (I did so, because given the reoccurring use of circular logic here, it seems like people don't understand what circular reasoning is).

Give me a @$#% break! You're just avoiding my questions, simply because you cannot answer them. By the Church driving demons out of a person, proves demons exist. No circular reasoning there buddy. If a person gets a demon thrown out of him by religious means, it means that there was either a demon, or that prayer truly does work, not coincedintly, which means that there truly is a God, completly disproving Atheism without using any blasted 'circular reasoning'!

 

[Orin]

AFK only attacks the weakest points and refuses to acknowledge important questions because he/she is just playing a game (sort of like Beavis and Butthead saying "uh, uh, he said hard" as though that was the original intent or context).

 

[Asa]

Well, I'm not playing anymore 8) .