The God Debate

[Hermione]

Ok, fellow MH'ers. This is a total waste of energy and effort. Valkorn, you take care.

[Valkhorn]

eye witness testimony is a form of evidence.But it isn't much evidence at all. It has to be supported.

Especially when such reports are confirmed through replicated reports from other witnesses.No. That doesn't make it any more truthful. People are easily convinced. I forget where but somewhere in Europe about 70,000 people claimed to see the sun fall out of the sky or something like that. So how come they all believe it did that when the rest of the world never noticed that?

People can be deluded en masse.

And as I am sure you know, most science is based on eye witness testimony using the fancy term "observation."But visual observation isn't enough. You know this.

[endofthetrail]

dont you guys realize Valkhorn would argue with a brick wall if it would argue back. Nobody wins and it is a waste of time.:clap: :clap:

[Valkhorn]

dont you guys realize Valkhorn would argue with a brick wall if it would argue back. Nobody wins and it is a waste of time.

Last time I checked this was a 'debate'.

Debates aren't about patting yourself on the back all the time.

And no, I don't argue all the time - not if I agree with something.

[amanda]

Well, bless your heart, I do know one thing Mr. Valkhorn. You've gotten the art of the quotes down. Now if you could shorten things up - you may hold half of our attention.

[Valkhorn]

Well, bless your heart, I do know one thing Mr. Valkhorn. You've gotten the art of the quotes down. Now if you could shorten things up - you may hold half of our attention.

Now you know why I always fell asleep in sermons.

[Grengor]

And as I am sure you know, most science is based on eye witness testimony using the fancy term "observation."

Yes but the observations in science are backed up by repeatability and predictability. Something eye witness testimonies can't even touch.

[Valkhorn]

Actually this shows a fundamental misunderstanding between group design and single-subject design, which are both valid (and publishable) forms of research. With some variations of the single-subject design (feel free to look over Kazdin's classic text) you repeat the same observations by mutliple observers in order to predict human behavior. Try it sometime. It's fun! You and Valk can work it for fun.

Your source? This sounds like complete bullshit to me.

[XC9]

Valkhorn, do you believe in things that happen mysteriously are always just coincidences and not a message from someone or in the afterlife? If you have deceased loved ones do you never feel their presence around you? If you answer no to this wether you believe or not I have to say "God bless you" and you are really missing out on some awesome experiences. To each his own.

[Valkhorn]

http://www.yale.edu/psychology/FacInfo/Kazdin.html

I just looked this guy up. He's a Psychologist. He is not an Evolutionary Biologist - therefore he is not qualified to debate on Evolution. And, psychology is a far cry from the physical earth sciences.

Instead of trying to figure out if an eyewitness testimony is real or not, just try to see if it can be backed up by something other than "I said so". I'm sure even a Psychologist can tell you that.

Don't come crying to me because real science demands more than the "I said so" defense. Even if Gould or Dawkins says something they have to back it up with evidence. If not, the claim is vacuous - which your claims are when you don't back anything up.

[Valkhorn]

Valkhorn, do you believe in things that happen mysteriously are always just coincidences and not a message from someone or in the afterlife?

Things that are a mystery are just things that are a mystery - something that is not known. It's a bit of a stretch and a jump to conclusions to say that "I don't know something, therefore it is a message from the dead, or from fairies, or a god". Wouldn't you say?

It's pretty much like saying "I had a car wreck and the reason is because Jupiter was aligned with Mars and Jaxis on Krylar Beta IV was facing west" instead of "I had a car wreck because someone hit me or I wasn't paying attention."

They are either coincidences or something that was likely to happen considering the circumstance. In other words, if you don't pay attention on the road you will likely get into a car wreck and it won't be coincidence.

If you have deceased loved ones do you never feel their presence around you?

No I don't. I don't stop loving them or missing them or forget about them but that doesn't mean they are floating around somewhere. I don't know if they're gone forever or if they went somewhere because it is unimportant. What is important is to remember who they were and their impact on your life.

If you answer no to this wether you believe or not I have to say "God bless you" and you are really missing out on some awesome experiences. To each his own.

I know what it feels like to feel that way because I used to be Christian. It never made me happier and honestly I'm much happier this way.

[Valkhorn]

I gave you a source. I think SMTV nailed your comprehension problem.

No I don't think you even understand what the guy was talking about nor do you understand Science.

Also since then SMTV and I have talked things over and things are fine there.

And I see you figured that out a little after the fact. While it is true that the behavioral sciences have much fewer scientific laws from which to draw upon, the methods of quality scientific research are universal.

But they don't make stuff up and they don't just go by what people say. If that were the case then psychologists would never run medical tests or double blind experiments. Which. They. Do.

They don't just arbitrarily agree with what people say and that's it. Just as Grengor put it, they back up their claims.

Which, I might add, you have not. Go into the other thread and give me your real evidence against it. Or engage me in a formal written debate. I've challenged you this a dozen times now, and if you really had an argument you wouldn't be afraid to do it.

[Butterball]

ARGUMENT !!!!!! You can't argue FAITH - It is a personal opinion, just like the opinion you have in no greater power. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and ARGUEMENT serves NO GOOD.

If you have 'formal written debate', please take it elsewhere so the two (or more) of you can butt heads and leave the rest of us who just want to 'talk about life and how we feel' without attack for our personal beliefs to our daily walks of life. YOU ALL ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS - just leave the rest of us common folks to enjoy our space also.

[Valkhorn]

If you have 'formal written debate', please take it elsewhere so the two (or more) of you can butt heads and leave the rest of us who just want to 'talk about life and how we feel' without attack for our personal beliefs to our daily walks of life. YOU ALL ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS - just leave the rest of us common folks to enjoy our space also.

That is fine, the formal debate would be about Evolution. That is reality. Reality is not up for debate. We can't take a vote on gravity.

[the apathetic medic]

ARGUMENT !!!!!! You can't argue FAITH - It is a personal opinion, just like the opinion you have in no greater power. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and ARGUEMENT serves NO GOOD.

If you have 'formal written debate', please take it elsewhere so the two (or more) of you can butt heads and leave the rest of us who just want to 'talk about life and how we feel' without attack for our personal beliefs to our daily walks of life. YOU ALL ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS - just leave the rest of us common folks to enjoy our space also.


1) You can indeed argue FAITH - It is done every day between theists. Why not between theists and atheists.

2) This is the place on this forum to debate this issue. It is titled "The God Debate" after all. If you do not like this topic perhaps you should go to the 'talk about life and how we feel' thread.

3) You, unless I am much mistaken, have not been foced to view this thread. You are indeed being left 'to enjoy our space also'.

[the apathetic medic]

I have noticed that quite a few people in this thread have stated that they think debate on this topic is useless. That no person in either camp, theist or atheist, could be swayed by debate. I disagree as I used to be a non-denominational christian and was swayed to atheism over a period of years. As an atheist I am not closed minded. I fully support the notion of eternal bliss in a heaven where dead loved ones can all be reunited! What a GREAT idea! I see no compelling evidence for this or anything supernatural, however. PLEASE give me some.

I find belief in the supernatural confusing. Could some theists please attempt to explain WHY they believe what they do (but not what they believe) and exclude other beliefs?

[Valkhorn]

As an atheist I am not closed minded. I fully support the notion of eternal bliss in a heaven where dead loved ones can all be reunited! What a GREAT idea! I see no compelling evidence for this or anything supernatural, however. PLEASE give me some.

I find belief in the supernatural confusing. Could some theists please attempt to explain WHY they believe what they do (but not what they believe) and exclude other beliefs?

THANK YOU

I've been trying to explain this for a while and it is exactly how I feel.

[Quark]

Valkhorn, do you believe in things that happen mysteriously are always just coincidences and not a message from someone or in the afterlife? If you have deceased loved ones do you never feel their presence around you? If you answer no to this wether you believe or not I have to say "God bless you" and you are really missing out on some awesome experiences. To each his own.He XC,

There is a lot of data on the subject. These types of things are very well understood. I would recommend Dr. Susan Blackmore (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/). Dr. Blackmore had an out of body experience and spent much time researching the paranormal and the mind. Dr. Blackmore went from a believer in the paranormal to an atheist. It was the evidence that convinced her.

XC having been a Christian for the first half of my life and an atheist for the second I can tell you that life is wondrous and awesome without subscribing to the supernatural.

But even if it weren't I would rather embrace an ugly truth than a beautiful lie. That's a personal thing.

[dollfus46]

That is fine, the formal debate would be about Evolution. That is reality. Reality is not up for debate. We can't take a vote on gravity.
According to you, only Evolutionary Biologists are qualified to debate it. So why are you here? I'd bet you a gold guinea, you, I assume excluded, there isn't one evolutionary biologist here. Try www.I'm (http://www.I'm) the most arrogant asshole on the internet.com There should be a slew of folks just like you there.
Even Richard Dawkins admitted you don't know how it all started. "But we're working on it." Richard Dawkins April 23, 2007 on the O'Reilly Factor

[Quark]

Even Richard Dawkins admitted you don't know how it all started. "But we're working on it." Richard Dawkins April 23, 2007 on the O'Reilly FactorThis always amazes me. Why is that a problem?

God of the gaps.

For centuries humans have been plugging the gaps of our understanding with god and for centuries science has been plugging those gaps. There are not many places for god to hide.

To infer a conclusion from the lack of knowledge in a subject is called arguing from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).