Debate Comments: Bible or Atheism

[Aught3]

This debate is between Inferno and TruthisLife7 over the topic "Biblicial Creationism is more rational than Atheistic evolution...ism.".

The debate participants are not allowed to post in this thread.

Discuss!

 

[Prolescum]

Re: Debate thread: Which has a better case the Bible or Athe

I'm going to support the blue team. COME ON YOU BLUES!

Good luck to both teams, though.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Debate thread: Which has a better case the Bible or Athe

Hmmm... so far, not off to an auspicious start.

TruthisLife7 wrote an awful many words that rambled all over the place without saying anything of value. He seems to plan on just shotgunning and Gish-galloping instead of picking a point and making a case. Further, I think he plans on redefining terms in ways that will make his arguments seem to work, which will actually invalidate his arguments entirely.

 

[Squawk]

I suspect this is going to annoy me. Only point I'm going to mention right now, for the sake of brevity, is the conflation of atheism with a world view. How the rejection of claims for the existence of a deity can be said to inform any action one takes is beyond me. If accuracy of definitions is required (and he stated it in his post, so clearly it is), it is surely worth considering exactly what a world view is, demonstrating that atheism doesn't fit that criteria, and then moving on past that straw man immediately.

Atheism is an aspect of a world view, not a world view. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I suspect this is going to annoy me. Only point I'm going to mention right now, for the sake of brevity, is the conflation of atheism with a world view. How the rejection of claims for the existence of a deity can be said to inform any action one takes is beyond me. If accuracy of definitions is required (and he stated it in his post, so clearly it is), it is surely worth considering exactly what a world view is, demonstrating that atheism doesn't fit that criteria, and then moving on past that straw man immediately.

Atheism is an aspect of a world view, not a world view. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

See, that's what I'm talking about. He's going to use non-standard definitions to make his case, where accurate definitions demolish his position.

 

[Prolescum]

Let's give him/her/it/them the benefit of the doubt, eh?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The only thing I am wondering is why dotoree created a new acount (I have been dying to ask that since the debate thread opened up). Perhaps he was trying to start fresh since he seemed to lose all his credibility in that other infamous thread. However, if that is the case, I do not understand why he would bring it up in this "debate".
I will write more about his actual comment when I have access to my computer again.

Oh yeah, of course dotoree will redefine terms to suit his needs. That is what he did in the other thread.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The only thing I am wondering is why dotoree.

Is that dotoree? Really? That explains the comments about AronRa?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The only thing I am wondering is why dotoree.

Is that dotoree? Really? That explains the comments about AronRa?

TruthisLife7 is the name of dotoree's other YouTube channel that he boasted about several times in that infamous thread. Furthermore, the style of his posting should have given it away to anyone who read that thread, even without the jab at AronRa.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

TruthisLife7 is the name of dotoree's other YouTube channel that he boasted about several times in that infamous thread. Furthermore, the style of his posting should have given it away to anyone who read that thread, even without the jab at AronRa.

Yeah, but that jab sent my spider-sense tingling. The style was definitely familiar... or at least seemed too familiar with us.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Whatever truth's identity might happen to be...

I have to say he gives me the awful impression of someone who has never heard the arguments against his position.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Whatever truth's identity might happen to be...

I have to say he gives me the awful impression of someone who has never heard the arguments against his position.

He sure did, even I did my best to give him as many arguments as possible against it myself so i am sure he did.. but if you are closing your eyes to reality and twist and stretch arguments and facts as much as needed to stick to your belief... you will most likely sound like you never heard them anyway.

Btw, I just watch a summary of Aronra's experience...and was astounded...if I had experienced the Christianity he had...I'd probably be an atheist too...it has almost NOTHING to do with Christianity I know and have experienced.

Quite simple if you ask me.. just open your eyes to reality and let the real truth sink in and replace the imaginary truth.

Is that dotoree? Really? That explains the comments about AronRa?

I was wondering about that too when i saw him talking about AronRa not letting him suck his own definitions out of his fingers. I thought they are 2 persons all the time.. although it was a weird coincidence that both are called Bryan and both have quite similar (or should i say the same) world views and use "lengthy argumentation" without actually saying anything really relevant.. to people who want facts.
That also explains him defending dotoree (aka himself) vehemently when i talked to him about "defending creationism honestly".
Darn you benefit of the doubt, you are screwing up my judgemental skills!
But to my defense, he never said that he is dotoree.. more the opposite, he talked about himself in 3d person, which in my opinion sure adds to dishonesty.

Dotoree didn't even begin to defend creation science AT ALL there. He didn't even begin to present the evidence he had (except 1 or 2 points). Why?

Lemme guess.. because it is impossible to do so honestly and with relevant data?

Why? Aronra refused to let him define creation science based on court definitions and the Bible and he also used red herrings to try to force him to defend creationists the world over..something dotoree had never claimed he would do at any time. Aronra used fallacies and numerous straw men. If Aronra had the right to define and straw man dotoree's position, then by consistent standards, dotoree had the same right to do that to Aronra..but Aronra insisted on a double standard and fixed playing field..thus no debate happened and almost none of dotoree's evidence was presented.
...
Dotoree did not twist dictionary terms. What was twisted was the definition of Christianity. Aronra kept on wanting to define it and creation science as magical, etc. That's a straw man and dotoree exposed that. Aronra wanted to set up a fixed playing field by defining Christianity as magical and an a priori assumption with no facts, etc. from the start. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON why dotoree didn't present the information he had.

Heck.. after 48 pages i expected to see something at least.. I mean something that would count as evidence for a rationally thinking person.
Some of the terms used by dotoree were chosen from dubious dictionaries from what i could see and many common definitions were left away and dismissed.
What i think was his biggest problem (well the above quote suggests so as well), Aron defined miracles or creation as magic.. But how is magic different from creation? "abracadabra" or "let there be light" are the same concept if you ask me. Saying that god is not doing "magic" when he speaks things into existence is ridiculous. God is the biggest magician of all the imaginary magicians (as magician i define somebody who does real magic, suspending laws of nature and not somebody doing tricks with cards or whatever so yes, i say they are all imaginary if you believe they exist, and god is just one of them).
If somebody would achieve growing back a limb of an amputee through a prayer, that would count as magic in my book, as simple as that.
And then i have to add that a "wrong" definition of whateveryouliketocallit shouldn't prevent you from presenting your evidence anyway, at least if you say that it is something never seen before and so convincing that it should definitely change people's mind!
Whether we call it bullshit or magic, delusional babble, lies, hallucinations or eye wittnes testimony doesn't change the fact that you have no proof for it ever happening in reality, and doesn't change the fact that hearsay and old books are not sufficient evidence for such extraordinary claims like the ones that creationists or believers in general are making.

Dotoree was not dishonest. Mistakes he like all can make..and if you notice he apologized for them in certain cases. But, dishonest? No. Many people misuse that word. It only means that someone is intentionally trying to deceive...it does not mean to make a mistake or be in error on something.

Being dishonest also includes lying to oneself, and then trying to make others believe it and that is what you have to do if you "try to defend creationism honestly" without realising that you are fighting windmills with a toothpick. Even more important to realise for somebody who is shaping the minds of young people as teacher/minister/missionary..
Also editing old posts definitely shows lack of honesty, one would expect people to stick to their words or when they edit it to only correct typos etc or explain what and why they edited it.
And another thing that really got on my nerves.. saying that you don't have the time to post much but talking about your private life and problems in pretty much all posts instead of actually doing what you came to do.. defend creationism or "creation science" honestly, is another form of dishonest behavior, as far as i am concerned.
Not that i don't have sympathy, but it has nothing to do with the topic so mentioning it once would be more than enough.

Dotoree was promised a 1 on 1 discussion with Aronra and Aronra broke that promise. HE was the dishonest one. You can see it still in the posts.

Guys help me out please, can you see somebody promising anything in the thread? Actually what i saw in there was both of them saying they don't have enough time for a debate so it would be an informal discussion. And did anybody count how many times people suggested them to move the discussion to the debate forum? Alternatively adding 2 each people to the discussion? Without debate rules, just to keep others from butting in. Although i don't understand why it is a problem when others ask you about what you write and comment on it, if you are really honestly trying to defend your position.. you should welcome any (constructive) critic and questions. How often was he asked to finally show his stuff and get over with it? I mean if you are honest about it, and have so much groundshaking evidence to present, it would be great if you start with something other than "bible makes you live longer" and such things.. after such a long discussion loaded with unnecessary links and empty talk, i would fire my best shot(s) and watch the people convert and storm the churches like ants storming the picnic blanket.
Well actually i would have done that INSTEAD of 48 pages loaded with "nothing".


On a different note, i think Bryan is a great guy and i basically really like him, but i am sick of pseudo truth and pseudo morality and people ignoring reality and desperately trying to defend indefensible concepts and presenting ancient books and superstition and idiocy as something that everybody has to embrace for a better life and especially afterlife.. while ignoring clear facts against what they are proposing.


Well lets see how he defends the Bible vs atheism.. which has a better case? Whatever that is supposed to mean.. I mean atheism is simply the rejection of their belief (along with any other theistic belief).
However, after wasting lots of time reading the Bible, i will always stay behind atheism because it encourages you to read other books and use your own logic and morality instead of sticking to some book written by inhumane slave drivers and murdering pedophiles who thought that the earth is flat and that god is sending hornets to help them fight HIS wars lol.

And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you. I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land.

That guy creates the universe out of less than thin air, makes mammuts dinosaurs dragons and giants.. but instead of well.. fighting his enemies on his own, he sends me to do the job, and then instead of letting his powerful creations help me he sends few hornets :roll:
Just that one tiny example (out of thousands more, even more ridiculous ones) shows me that such a book has no potential to be a guide for life and definitely can't be accepted as a proof for some supernatural Sky Daddy :facepalm:
Even less when you consider that the Bible is the reason why the Qur'an was written, Islam and some other religions are just a mutated version of the Christian virus.

 

[Prolescum]

Dotoree was a fallacy-felating-fool, and you hardly need multiple paragraphs to explain that.

If this guy is dotoree, his wife, lawyers, children, school, charities and other sundry responsibilities will recall him whenever he's cornered, and we'll know for certain. Until then, we'd be better off focusing on the lengthy introductory post itself, lest dotoree TruthisLife7 spend 3,000 words complaining in the debate thread about the unfair comments here...

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Was more of a thinking process after i figured out that he is dotoree.. guess i was bored enough to turn it into a post spam, sorry guys!
But whatever we say here is no reason to screw up the debate, he better focus on the Bible.. defending it should be problematic enough :lol:

 

[DepricatedZero]

The entire introductory post is a 2,553 word appeal to emotion. It's not based on facts or even trying to argue a sound position within the bounds of reality. The underlying message is "this FEELS BETTER so it must be true."

Incoming examples:

His opening statement:

First, Inferno and I agreed to discuss atheism vs. the Biblical worldview including creation vs. universal common descent and which is more rational/beneficial/has the better case.

His first point of topic:

--What view has contributed the most to benefiting and improving society & how can it help your life now?

In addition to being a ginormous run-on sentence...

While I love questions, esp. hard ones, since they are the thing that has helped me learn more than many years of education in university, I think that the sooner we can weigh the evidence fairly and follow what we understand to be truth, while still keeping an open mind that there could be something better, the more benefits we can gain NOW as well as saving money, time, etc.

This next one seems to imply that something that offers to explain more is automatically correct, and that something is true because it would be nice if it were. Wishful thinking at its best.

THIS is a foundational position of rational thinking, not to give up something you have which has good evidence and has proven beneficial and explains much of reality until you find something that has MORE evidence and is MORE beneficial and can explain more of the phenomena in the world around us.

And I can't believe he slipped this in with apparent sincerity, considering:

But, those who are rational will prudently investigate the establishment's claims much more seriously to see whether the emperor is actually naked or not.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

The only thing I am wondering is why dotoree created a new acount (I have been dying to ask that since the debate thread opened up). Perhaps he was trying to start fresh since he seemed to lose all his credibility in that other infamous thread. However, if that is the case, I do not understand why he would bring it up in this "debate".
I will write more about his actual comment when I have access to my computer again.

Oh yeah, of course dotoree will redefine terms to suit his needs. That is what he did in the other thread.

I actually liked his new definition of "Winning" I think it shows there might FINALLY be another Intellectually honest creationist. The sad thing about those it that those traits are bin violent conflict causing one of them to always die

Though, given how you talk of him, and given that you have more experience with this creationist than I do, I might be wrong.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah, this "debate" is going to be a giant waste of time. If dotoree/TruthisLife7 had any evidence for anything, he would just present it. Instead, he spews out thousands of words of nothing over and over again and I guess expects Inferno to wade through his stupidity and find the tiny bits of relevant discussion hidden somewhere in that word salad.

Maybe a moderator should step in early, like now!, and insist that dotoree make actual points in a coherent manner.

 

[Gnug215]

Yeah, this "debate" is going to be a giant waste of time. If dotoree/TruthisLife7 had any evidence for anything, he would just present it. Instead, he spews out thousands of words of nothing over and over again and I guess expects Inferno to wade through his stupidity and find the tiny bits of relevant discussion hidden somewhere in that word salad.

Maybe a moderator should step in early, like now!, and insist that dotoree make actual points in a coherent manner.

I suggest Inferno just respond to the (very, very, very few) points relevant to the debate and summarily ignore the rest.

Now... if dotoree/TruthisLife7 has points that are muddled up in between oodles of verbiage, I say Inferno also ignore those and assume no points have been made.

I also suggest that dotoree/TruthisLife7 gets a word maximum of 1,000 per post... and that every time dotoree/TruthisLife7 mentions something about his private life, he loses 10% of his 1,000 word privelege.

Hmm.. what does that bring him down to by now?

 

[Thomas Doubting]

The posts will sure get shorter later (well, would be terrible if they wouldn't).
If i had a free wish i would wish TruthisLife7 to understand (what i tried to explain him few times myself), that the empty talk doesn't bring him any further, in this case slows down the debate and certainly doesn't help the Bible's case.. more the opposite if you ask me. As far as I am concerned, there were (very) few interesting points hidden in the chinese wall of text but they lost on importance because of the nonsensical and irrelevant (numerous) things that he thought he was urged to mention.. I really hope they will get to the evidence before November.. 2015.
If you can't prove God, more important the Christian God, the Bible has no more weight than any other fairy tale collection and then there is nothing to discuss. Personally i prefere fairy tales by the Grimm brothers or 1001 nights over the morbid fiction from the Bible.

However, lets see if they can get over the definitions within the next few weeks somehow.. I'd suggest Inferno to stay away from terms like "blind faith" and "magic" in order to get over with that asap :roll:
Bryan is obviously very allergic when it comes to that :lol:
Although i couldn't agree more about the words and have a hard time to not ridicule religious belief systems myself when talking about that, i think one can make their point without describing faith as blind and without refering to God as magical etc. Just saying... would hate to see another ~50+ pages full of nothing..

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I suggest Inferno just respond to the (very, very, very few) points relevant to the debate and summarily ignore the rest.

Now... if dotoree/TruthisLife7 has points that are muddled up in between oodles of verbiage, I say Inferno also ignore those and assume no points have been made.

Seconded.

I also suggest that dotoree/TruthisLife7 gets a word maximum of 1,000 per post... and that every time dotoree/TruthisLife7 mentions something about his private life, he loses 10% of his 1,000 word privelege.

Hmm.. what does that bring him down to by now?

I cannot second this suggestion, because of the losing of 10% of this 1,000 word limit. I could second the 1,000 word limit though.

EDIT: Just wanted to add something else.

1) INTEGRITY: Aronra committed to a debate and broke his word. I didn't care whether it was formal or whatever. I frankly dislike formality. That was NEVER the issue with me. The sole and only issue for me from the start was that I didn't have time to answer 20 people and so wanted it limited to 1 on 1 or 2 on 2, etc. I had told him I was very busy long before I came to youtube and he insensitively put me in a place with 20+ people asking all sorts of questions I just had no time to answer (here I WILL do that).

"Hey mods, if my opponent still dares to engage me, move us to private debate forum."
{The rules of formal debate} ""¦won't allow you to change your opponent's mind."
"But we've all already seen everything you've got, and you haven't got anything."
/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6201 (page 17)

I agreed quickly to a private debate forum. But, Aronra refused to honor his commitment and said some very nasty and untrue things about me.

AronRa never committed to a debate with you. And this can be plainly seen from the paragraph before the sentence you so love to quote from him.

AronRa[/url]"]I would love to throw your own words back at you by re-posting the exact quote where you gave the bogus percentage of faith which you said atheism required, but I see that you went back and edited your post from November 1st, and replaced it with the one you wrote last night, thus defeating the purpose of even having this discussion in the first place.

Hey mods, if my opponent still dares to engage me, move us to private debate forum -where the option to edit our comments will be disabled twenty minutes after each post. But please don't hold us to the rule of having to post every day, because we simply can't do that. I won't bore you will all the reasons i can't do that, and if I did, you'd all think I was bragging or trying to garner sympathy.

Emphasis mine.

As can plainly be seen, the only reason AronRa wanted the discussion to be moved to the debate forum is because you would not be able to edit your posts after your nonsense was exposed. It was not to have a debate, only to keep an unchanging record of your posts. If you would not have edit your posts the way you had, AronRa would have never brought up moving the discussion into the debate forum.

Dotoree, you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

EDIT2: Just another point.

It's nearly impossible to separate atheism and methodological naturalism. They're like conjoined twins. An atheist is almost always an advocate of methodological naturalism (however the reverse is not as true). Atheism being a worldview depends to some extent on the definitions of atheism and worldview. See definitions here:

Except for all those atheistic religions, such as Buddhism, Shamanism, etc...

Atheism has been around a lot longer than methodological naturalism, so stating something as foolish as "they're like conjoined twins" only exposes your ignorance or your biases. Furthermore, methodological naturalism is more of a tool that has been used by theists and atheists alike. The great "Christian scientists" you always speak of, owe their greatness in science to methodological naturalism.