Login/Sign Up




Are debates involving the existance of religious concepts stupid?
Philosophy

ericcartman
Jul 09, 2010
10 votes
11 debaters
4
3
2
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

3
Yes, they are stupid.


ryvius
Jul 10, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

HA HA HA!

What are the flaws of macroevolution or what made you realize rather that macroevolution has flaws? I maybe questioning hastily as I could infer that, "now as a Christian" was the most conspicuous hint for your supposed realization, but hopefully it had nothing to do with conflicting your religious stance or beliefs.

 
ericcartman
Jul 09, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I see a lot of debates on convinceme over the existence of God, or whether Jesus is God, or creationism vs. evolutionism. One of these sides in every one of these debates lacks any form of proof and is impossible prove. Arguing that something 100% faith-based is scientifically real is almost always stupid. Arguing that you cannot prove the existence of something faith-based is a concept a 1st grader would understand. My statement to all who argue over the physical existence of a faith-based concept is that you are f**king retarded.

 
japangea
Jul 11, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theudas Show

I don't think one can have an argument about religion. Belief is almost never based in fact and I think it is a fallacy to say if one side gives the other proven facts that the other will accept it. I appreciate religion and science, but it is impossible to believe in either without the exclusion of the other; and the same is true with the array of religions. You can understand and appreciate other people's world views but many things go into belief (culture, upbringing etc) and an attack on your religious belief is guarded by itself through damnation etc. I don't think it is necessarily 'stupid' to debate religion--I just think you will never convince anyone who actually believes. The best thing debate can do is inure people to meeting many kinds of persons and accepting that different cultures think in different ways.
I'll tell you what is stupid, though--not checking your spelling before posting a debate topic.


 
frankiej4189
Jul 12, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Per usual, very well said

 
trickyconverse
Jul 13, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

It's not that I can't see it from the other side. I was a hardcore Catholic for 17 years, so I have an understanding the religious style of argument. The problem lies in the religious use of belief over reason.

Growing up, I was instructed that the noblest action of all is to maintain a strong faith without needing evidence: how else could we begin a path towards the afterlife? It's captured in the story of Thomas's doubt, and how he became a believer once he saw Jesus with his own eyes and felt the holes in his hands and feet; but Jesus said "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29) In the Catholic world, and I'm willing to extend the metaphor to religions of all types, a faith separated from evidence is the greatest knowledge of all.

If you listen to intelligent debates on science and religion, you'll see a common trend. One notable example is a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, on the topic of "Has Science Buried Religion" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlBocTZgS3o). The two men are very intelligent Oxford grads, Dawkins a militant atheist, Lennox a faithful Catholic. As the talk progresses past opening statements, a notable trend takes over the talk. Lennox places the burden of proof for evolution, the Big Bang, and the possibility on God's existence squarely on the shoulders of Dawkins. Despite Dawkins's best efforts and arguments, Lennox is unwilling to budge on his predetermined beliefs and contends that what Dawkins has to say is not enough to convince him. But when Lennox starts to argue from his point of view, he relies on the concept of Logos and the ideas of the Bible to make the matters more complex and in a realm that Dawkins is unable to agree with, since he denies the existence of God and Jesus as the Logos on its improbable premise and contends that the Bible is an imperfect human document of many millenia.

Despite the best efforts of two Oxford classmates to have an intelligent discussion, Lennox is unwilling to be open minded, and Dawkins is unable to defend his stance in a realm separated from faith. The two are arguing on separate planes, and their arguments are incompatible with one another. If this is the best efforts of two very intelligent men to debate science and religion, and it results in utter failure, what hope could we have of an intelligent debate?


 
ryvius
Jul 13, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

Oh, is that so? Well, if you don`t mind going out of your way by trying to convince actual scientists and critical thinkers alike in the following forum regarding macroevolution as a faith based statement, then that would be fantastic and who knows, you may be on to something.

Forum: http://www.rationalskepticism.org

Just an example of what you might encounter if following the above suggestion, here is a diminutive review of a scientific paper,

De Novo Origination Of A New Protein-Coding Gene In Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Jing Cai, Ruoping Zhao, Huifeng Jiang and Wen Wang, Genetics, 179: 487-496 (May 2008) Downloadable Here: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/176/2/1131

Cai et al, 2008

"Origination of new genes is an important mechanism generating genetic novelties during the evolution of an organism. Processes of creating new genes using preexisting genes as the raw materials are well characterized, such as exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, gene fusion, and fission. However, the process of how a new gene is de novo created from noncoding sequence is largely unknown. On the basis of genome comparison among yeast species, we have identified a newde novo protein-coding gene, BSC4 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The BSC4 gene has an open reading frame (ORF) encoding a 132-aminoacid-long peptide, while there is no homologous ORF in all the sequenced genomes of other fungal species, including its closely related species such as S. paradoxus and S. mikatae. The functional protein-coding feature of the BSC4 gene in S. cerevisiae[/]i is supported by population genetics, expression, proteomics, and synthetic lethal data. The evidence suggests that [i]BSC4 may be involved in the DNA repair pathway during the stationary phase of S. cerevisiae and contribute to the robustness of [/i]S. cerevisiae[/i], when shifted to a nutrient-poor environment. Because the corresponding noncoding sequences in S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus also transcribe, we propose that a new de novo protein-coding gene may have evolved from a previously expressed noncoding sequence."

It continues,

"THE total number of different proteins in all organisms on earth is estimated to be 1010–1012 (Choi and Kim 2006). How the protein repertoire evolved to this giant diversity that underlies the evolution of the complexity of life is the basis of attracting many evolutionary biologists to the field. Discussions began 40 years ago (Perutz et al. 1965); however, with the accomplishment of complete genome sequences, we have begun to get a more comprehensive view of this complex issue. Comparative genomic study supports the notion that novel protein genes derive from preexisting genes or parts of them. For example, exon shuffling, gene duplication, retroposition, and gene fusion and fission all contribute to the origin of new genes (Long et al. 2003). But the de novo gene origination process that a whole protein-coding gene evolves from a fragment of noncoding sequence is considered seldom and receives little attention. A computational analysis of several archeal and proteobacterial species’ genomes suggests that at least 240 and 320 genes, respectively, originated de novo along the branches leading to the Archea and Proteobacteria. Furthermore, there are also many de novo origination events among the species within each of the lineages (Snel et al. 2002). On the basis of the analysis, the author ranked the de novo gene origination process quantitatively the second most important process after gene loss among gene loss, de novo origination, gene duplication, gene fusion/fission, and horizontal gene transfer. This study suggests that de novo evolution not only plays an important role in generating the initial common ancestral protein repertoire but also contributes to the subsequent evolution of an organism. However, it is nearly impossible to identify the noncoding origin of the initial ancestral proteins because of long-term accumulation of mutations. Recently evolved novel protein-coding genes provide us the opportunity to investigate the de novo evolution mechanism of protein-coding genes. This methodology on gene origination has been developed in Drosophila by Long et al. (Long and Langley 1993), which has led to many advances in understanding the mechanism of new gene origination, including gene duplication, retroposition, exon shuffling, and gene fission and fusion (Nurminsky et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2002, 2004; Arguello et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2008). However, only recently did Begun et al. (2006, 2007), Levine et al. (2006), and S. T. Chen et al. (2007) find cases of whole-gene de novo origination in Drosophila melanogaster, D. yakuba, and D. erecta. The de novo genes may be functional on the basis of the RNA expression analysis, although the protein-coding potential of those de novo ORFs still needs to be proven."

And with more detail,

"In this study, we identified a novel protein-coding gene BSC4 that completely evolved from a noncoding sequence in S. cerevisiae. This gene first caught our attention as a species-specific protein-coding gene in our genome comparison analysis among Saccharomyces species (H.-F. Jiang and W. Wang, unpublished data). Previously the BSC4 gene was found as one of the stop codon readthrough genes in baker’s yeast by Namy et al. (2003). They found that BSC4 has a typical readthrough nucleotide context around its stop codon and its readthrough frequency is 9% when cloned into a plasmid with reporter genes (Namy et al. 2003). Although the BSC4 gene has been included in many large-scale studies, no specific study has been done with an aim to
characterize it. The Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) (http://www.yeastgenome.org/) curates dozens of data sets, most of which were carried out using the gene chips of S. cerevisiae. In all the gene chips there are probes designed against the BSC4 gene along with other genes in S. cerevisiae. These data sets provide much expression information for BSC4 under different culture conditions. This gene was also included in the systematic gene deletion project in which ORFs of yeast genes were deleted and subsequent phenotypic analyses were carried out on those derived gene deletion strains (Saccharomyces Genome Deletion Project, http://www-sequence.stanford.edu/group/yeast_deletion_project/deletions3.html). On the basis of the panel of those gene deletion strains, whole-genome synthetic lethal analyses were carried out by Pan et al. (2006) that deleted two genes to see if that would be lethal to S. cerevisiae. Their result shows that deletion of gene DUN1 or RPN4 is lethal to S. cerevisiae if BSC4 is also deleted (Pan et al. 2006). In addition, there are multiple tandem mass-spectrometry analysis results of yeast protein samples deposited into the ‘‘Peptide Atlas’’ (http://www.peptideatlas.org/repository). Our analysis of these proteomics data supports the existence of the BSC4-coded peptides and our population genetic analysis suggests that the ORF of this novel protein-coding gene is under strong negative selection at the nonsynonymous sites. Our expression data show that its orthologous noncoding sequences have detectable expression at the RNA level, across the closely related species of baker’s yeast. On the basis of these data, we suggest that a novel protein gene can wholly evolve from a noncoding sequence."

And the author cites his results,

Results

"Origin of the de novo gene BSC4: BSC4 is a S. cerevisiae gene, which has an ORF of 132 amino acids, and with no apparent similarity to any previously characterized protein. BSC4 has no significant homolog when we used tBLASTN to search against genome sequences of S. bayanus, S. kudriavzevii, S. mikatae, and S. paradoxus under the standard parameters. Even if we use the putative translation product of the stop codon bypass event predicted by Namy et al. (2003), which is a peptide of 237 amino acids, there is still no significant homolog in these sibling species. The absence of homolog might be the false negative result due to incompleteness of the genomic databases of those species. However, the multiple-species search makes this possibility less likely, and the genome databases of Saccharomyces species are widely considered as the most reliable compared with genome databases of other species. These results suggest that BSC4 may be a newly evolved gene in S. cerevisiae. To further rule out possible spurious results caused by sequencing gaps in the outgroups, we conducted a genomic Southern blot with the probe designed against BSC4. The southern blot result shows that only the S. cerevisiae genome exhibits obvious hybridization signals (Figure 1). We also carried out a further tBLASTN search against genome sequences of other fungal species to exclude the probability of multiple-gene loss in the four outgroup species. The results showed that this ORF has no homolog in any other fungal species. However, the origination mechanism still remains to be clarified until we find its ancestral sequence because horizontal gene transfer or high divergence of sequences can both explain the above results.

In addition to sequence similarity, the chromosomal context–synteny relationship is another important piece of information for identification of gene relationships. A pair of sequence fragments in two related species can be supposed to be in orthologous relationship if they have weak homology and their flanking genes are in orthologous status, when they do not have BLAST hits of a higher score in other regions of the genome. The Synteny Viewer on the Saccharomyces Genome Database website indicates that the flanking genes of BSC4 have their orthologs in the same synteny blocks of S. bayanus, S. mikatae, and S. paradoxus (Kellis et al. 2003). We cut the intergenic region between the two flanking genes and manually aligned them with BSC4 of S. cerevisiae (Figure 2). Because S. kudriavzevii is not covered in the Synteny Viewer on the Saccharomyces Genome Database website, we did not include it in Figure 2, although we also found by genome comparison that the synteny relationship of the locus in this species is also conserved (data not shown). The alignment shows that there are tracts of homologous sequences and the overall identity across those four Saccharomyces species is 35.71%. Data on the UCSC genome browser also indicate the same orthologous relationship, which is consistent with our analysis. These orthologous regions in the sibling species of S. cerevisiae have very low probability to code for proteins even if we consider stop codon readthrough in those species, because of the existence of a number of premature stop codons (supplemental Figure 1).

The flanking genes of BSC4 in the S. cerevisiae genome, ALP1 and LYP1, are a pair of paralogs lined in an inverted direction. This gene order also remains conserved in the more distant yeast genomes of Ashbya gossypii, Kluyveromyces lactis, and S. castelli beyond Saccharomyces sensu stricto complex species (Figure 3). In addition, the length of this intergenic region does not change much across all those species (713 bp in A. gossypii and 889 bp in S. cerevisiae). From these results, we can make an estimate that the origin of the BSC4 ancestral sequence can be dated back at least to the last common ancestor of A. gossypii and S. cerevisiae, i.e., .100 million years ago (Dietrich et al. 2004) when an inverted gene duplication event formed the syntenic orthologs flanking the ancestor of BSC4. However, only after the divergence from S. paradoxus the ancestral noncoding sequence evolved into a protein-coding gene in S. cerevisiae. On the basis of these pieces of evidence, it is very likely that this is a real de novo origination case with clearly defined lineage."

 
ericcartman
Jul 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

You do not understand the debate. Debates about the concepts that a religion teaches is not stupid. Arguing whether those concepts are scientifically evident is.


 
trickyconverse
Jul 12, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

I think we need a redefinition on what it means to argue a scientific perspective and a religion perspective. The difference between modern science and modern religion is how each side's evidence modifies what is considered "true." Scientific theories develop temporary, logical hypothesis that are subject to the scientific method (preparation, experimentation, and analysis) to come to the best conclusion in the light of presented evidence. The key to any scientific theory is the testability of each hypothesis and modification in the light of contradictory, yet verifiable, evidence. There is no absolute in science: there is only what we can logically derive from all available evidence. Religious doctrines assert absolute, rhetorical dogma subject to new analyses from the best and brightest minds within the faith. There is no presentation of new evidence over time, since the doctrine is based on what happened many centuries, or even millenia, ago, and is only modified to address the needs of society when straying from the core concepts of the respective faiths. There is only absolute in religion: any argument or debate exists only within the personal interpretation by the faithful masses needing a guiding light in their lives. A debate between science and religion is often rendered moot by these two conflicting means of evaluating "truth": one relies on temporary conclusions based on available evidence and subject to change in the light of new experimental data; the other relies on permanent assertions based on generational teachings and dogmatic mindsets.

 
ryvius
Jul 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

If you`re in between layman and scientifically well-versed like me currently, I`d recommend this page dedicated to provide supporting evidence for macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

Jul 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Nicely put Thales =]

Eloquent and simple explanation!

 
trickyconverse
Jul 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

You raise a valid point, and there is a parallel in an Intelligent Squared debate between John Onaiyekan/Anne Widdecombe and Christopher Hitchens/Stephen Frye on the topic of "Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw).

If you've never seen an I^2 debate before, the set-up is such: a panel of experts on both sides of the motion discuss a topic through opening statements, Q&A sessions, and closing statements to make their case. The audience is polled before and after the debate to see if any changes are made on their opinions of the motion (for, against, undecided). The "winning" side of the motion is determined by the participants' ability to sway the audience to their position.

In this particular debate, the original poll determined that 1102 people were against the motion, 678 were in favour and 346 were undecided. As the debate went forward, both sides were unrelenting in their stances while making their cases and answering questions (as a predetermined participant, seeking to make a case, should), leaving the ultimate decision up to the listening audience. The final poll determined that 700 people voted differently, all moving to the side of "The Catholic Church is NOT a force for good."

The results of this debate, like you content, show that if intelligent individuals are participants in a polarizing debate, the results of the effort should not be dismissed as "stupid" or "futile" if the participants themselves do not change teams and opinions due to persuasive argument. The results should be judged by the participants' ability to persuade OTHER people to change their minds one way or another.

Now, what does this debate offer for members participating on this site itself? Does this mean that our debates should achieve the end of persuading our polarized adversaries of whether one side is superior or more correct than the other? Or does this mean that our persuasive efforts should be measured as successes or failures based on the opinions of other, unbiased participants in the voting process?

I originally stood on the side of success measured by persuading opponents to come on to my side of the issue. But in this forum, and likewise for other debates, we come here and post arguments with predetermined biases and jump through hoops to establish our side as right and the other as wrong. But where does this leave us? With heated arguments, rambling posts (such as mine), and unresolved conflict. The only way to truly determine success in persuasion is through the voting metric, but we can still debate these topics in an intelligent and dignified manner.

I'm willing to concede that a debate over religious topics is not stupid, so long as it is done intelligently, with both sides providing their arguments in an uninterrupted manner, and leaving it up to the listeners to determine how persuasive our arguments are on these topics that are impossible to determine as absolutely right and absolutely wrong.

 
ryvius
Jul 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

Oh, once again is that how it is in your perspective? Well, I hope you do not mind me next time reacting to such extraordinary claims that were yet to be substantiated by you such as particular scientific disciplines asserted as remotely tawdry as your creationism. Please, please, spare me the, "I`m not your average da-da-da." The treatment would have been tantamount for any other person positing the same things. I do know you said you are a biology minor or something of that sort, so would you do me the favor of registering on the given forum? It`s not everyday we come across biology minors and or majors that finds creationism more appealing (and or is a Christian).

 
lenodarkshine
Jul 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Yes, because arguing about something that cannot be proven and is therefore open to any amount of interpretation is a waste of energy and breath. It still makes me feel good though to really wind up religious people. Is that wrong? Hang on...how can it be wrong - Im not religious! Woohoo! - I can wind them up.

 
shinbum
Jul 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Taking a new approach to how this debate came to pass, consider this: Which side really started the debates between religions? I watched one (sorry for my hasty generalization) debate between an atheist and a creationist one day and saw that both the plaintiff and the defendant were quite distinct. I saw that Christians, or Creationists on debating grounds, just defend their faith while atheists, although they have no reason to prove that there is no god, cannot keep quiet on themselves in what they believe in but verbally attack the religious. I find this mysterious because if you believe in no-god world, what's your complaint about others? Live your life, and move on...

 
ryvius
Jul 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

Are you perhaps willhud9? If so, did they scare you off? Of course, I`ll take into account your business as a biology minor, but I`d also take into account how much you love getting challenged according to your convinceme page.



 
ryvius
Jul 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

[1] If you would like a different layout, I suggest you go to User Control Panel Board Preferences My Board Style to change it into Prosilver. It`s honestly a more clean look than the beige scheme.

[2] To save you from bothersome and redundant replies, it`s important to use the quote function if you are directing a response to someone. It will always be located on the immediate left of their avatar and alias, assuming they have an avatar image uploaded.

[3] If you haven`t yet read or at least skimmed the Forum User`s Agreement, I suggest you do so, just so you don`t feel troubled for having been insulted or have insulted someone else. Beside the quote function is the rotated triangle symbol button with an exclamation point signifying a report to moderators. This report button is solely for receiving the moderator`s attention due to a violation of the FUA.

If that`s not the tips you were hoping for, specify them.

 
+ Add Argument

7
No, they can be inteligently debated.


thales
Jul 12, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

Goodness, let's think this through.

To you, science is unquestionable. To others, religious teachings carry the same kind of weight. By dismissing every argument that relies on unscientific premises, you're dismissing the entire other side of a fairly major divide. So basically you're suggesting that everyone who doesn't share your initial "givens" is wasting your time by debating.

Do you understand why debate exists? It's because people disagree on things as fundamental as what is true, and what "true" means. Otherwise we'd all just be standing around agreeing...and that would be pretty stupid.

 

Jul 09, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
religious debates help each other learn about the differences in religions. Things that were unknown or not generally known are also revealed. So no, religious debates are not stupid. The point of debate is to learn and grow as well as give the stronger argument. If those goals are accomplished, it is not stupid.

 

Jul 10, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

But still, science is every changing. I know when I was skeptical atheist I believed in macroevolution as if it was law. But now as a Christian I realize the many flaws with the hypothesis of macroevolution that I would never have realized without having 1) first been an advocate for it and 2) debating Christians who knew how to debate the subject. So know they are not stupid and yes they can be intelligently debated.

 
thales
Jul 11, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: japangea Show

I disagree that science and religion are necessarily mutually exclusive...although that seems to be the way that it works out most of the time, sadly enough. Still, you get a convince for the rest of the post, and most especially for the end. :-)

 
thales
Jul 13, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: trickyconverse Show

I agree with you...so we'd be unlikely to debate about the merits of science versus religion. Still, though, can't you see it from the other side at all?

Science doesn't "know," but my spiritual leader does. Science can change its mind, but my religion is constant. Science is fickle; God is always there. Science has told us in the past that the Earth is flat, that Pluto is a planet, that formula is healthier than breast milk, that the evidence of our senses is paramount but can lie, and that there are untold things that We Just Don't Know.

Doctrine has a certain psychological advantage, for a lot of people, and they're out there. It makes no sense not to engage with them because their fundamental beliefs contradict ours; if anything, that's a reason for opening the dialogue.

 
theudas
Jul 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

I’d definitely agree that many debates involving religion can lead to the same stupid sayings Such as “Evolutions just a theory” “you need just as much faith as us” Or “Your just believe in a silly fairytale” Etc.

I do believe that with an open mind (on both camps) one might be able to have an intellectual conversation about religion and some of its concepts and gain understanding for another belief... So long as those who are not religious are patient and those who are actually consider proven facts and are open minded.

 
goodevil
Jul 12, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

Hey there, it’s the guy who calls others stupid and retarded… come on man, that’s not only impolite but it’s rude and ‘stupid’, you can’t judge people according to their opinions, you don’t even know them, there are a lot of smart guys around here, and calling people stupid and retarded doesn’t put you in the same rank as smart people you know. Anyway, back to your meaningless debate, Albert Einstein said “I want to hear god’s thoughts the rest is just details” or something like that, so unless you are calling the smartest guy ever ‘stupid’ I don’t see any logic in your debate, religion, creation vs evolution, existence of god… are some of the most controversial topics in the history of mankind, so it’s totally worth debating and exchanging ideas, but if you don’t want to it’s ok, you can debate on other subjects if you like, and I’m sure that a guy like you who calls other stupid would really go for topics that were proven by science and not topics that are worth to spend time to really think about.

 

Jul 12, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

The fact that as a science it is neither experimentable nor observable, 2 key components to the scientific method. Granted, I do not presuppose creationism as a science. It is not for the above stated reason. But Macroevolution is a faith based statement just the same as creationism.

Anyways, I used to believe in macroevolution but I realized it could not be defended using exact science but rather an assumption(hypothesis) based off of microevolution(which is indeed a very sound theory). Creationism fits the laws of thermodynamics whereas macroevolution does not and makes more logical sense.

 
thales
Jul 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: trickyconverse Show

Let's put it another way: if these two very intelligent men decided that it was worth their time to debate science and religion, then should we really be dismissing the effort as "stupid"?

The fact that neither of them reconsidered his stance certainly doesn't mean that no one here ever will. You certainly can't mean to argue that the results from a sample of two--and two public figures, no less, with reputations to consider--should be broadly applied to a semi-anonymous internet forum.

 

Jul 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

First of all ryvius, please stop with the vehemency. It is unbecoming, you could simply tell me oh well here is evidence supporting macroevolution to which I would be like oh cool and actually read it. I do not like any debates argued out of anger. Ryvius, I am not your average Bible-thumping Christian. I respect science and constantly yearn to learn the most I can.

Also thank you for the information. It is very enlightening and I shall have to do further research on the topic. =]

 

Jul 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

I am Willhud9 and no they did not scare me, I enjoy reading the posts. However I am confused on how the site functions.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

debate equality god wins life love love wins personal belief philosophy religion straight together abortion actions america animal animals atheism Atheist belief chicken Christianity Death debate deontology ethics evil evolution existence Faith freedom god good happiness happy hope human humanity Humans justice Kill knowledge law lgbtq life logic Love meaning men mind morality morals murder peace people perception philosophy politics punishment reality religion rights science Sex Smart society suicide theism think time truth war world wrong