"What if you're wrong?" - Richard Dawkins

[JackFinfan]

No, you used a movie quote to avoid having to address my arguments, which makes you the one who is “dodging”, ironic huh?




Considering that sarcasm is a tonal quality I don’t really blame myself for missing it in writing.




Which point are you referring to? If it’s a logically fallacious point all I am obligated to do is point out your error, which I did. Debating a point that is not logically valid to begin with is a waste of both of our time.



As I already pointed out, I don’t have to, scripture supports my position and until you can provide any reason to doubt scripture then I am completely justified in accepting its timeline. If someone told me, “Yeah my son is 15 years old”, without any evidence to the contrary I have no reason to doubt them that their son is really 15, and neither do you. Nor would you ask me to provide any additional evidence to believe he’s 15. Now say that the parent who claims their son is 15 years old is infallible, well then I would be completely irrational to then doubt the age of their son. So from where I stand you look completely irrational because you doubt the Biblical account without any evidence to support your skepticism. Being skeptical for the sake of skepticism is not rational behavior.




I already did, if they can’t date rocks of known age then there is no basis at all to believe they can date rocks of unknown age; method debunked.



It wasn’t a problem.




Not worth another post? That seems a bit harsh :-P




Running from debates isn’t usually a successful strategy for winning debates, but it is a play out of Dawkins’ playbook so I at least know where you learned it.





Rob ran from the debate before we even started; kudos for having the stones to stick it out longer than he did though.




I don’t debate to put notches in my belt, I debate to defend my position and to poke holes in the opposition’s position.



Are you saying you’re a Christian then? Now’s your chance to identify yourself.



The majority of Christians I know believe it is young, maybe you just need to meet more Christians.



I never said they were all atheists, I believe they are completely inconsistent though. An atheist who is worth his weight in salt can poke holes in an Old Earth Christian so easily, where as a Young Earth Christian holds to a much more consistent position when it comes to their views of reality, so they are far tougher in debates in my opinion. This is exactly why Dawkins will not debate the young earth guys but has no problem debating the old earth ones; even though I don’t think he fairs too well against even those guys (see his debate against Lennox, it’s hilarious).

Like I predicted, a sentence by sentence breakdown, and yet you contributed absolutely nothing to the debate.


The only thing I wanted to respond to was your comment about meeting more Christians. I was in a youth group all throughout middle school and high school. Went on 3 Christian retreats, taught vacation Bible school in the summers, and volunteered at a Christian led soup kitchen. My wife, parents and half my friends including my best man are all devout Christians. So, no I think I know plenty of Christians. Neither my 2 pastor's, nor my youth group leader, nor anyone that I ever talked to ever mentioned that they thought the Earth was only 4000 years old. Now, In my senior year of high school I did attend a bunch of different churches (my parents were trying to find a new one), and I believe a person or 2 talked about a young Earth. Now granted it's not like I go to every Christian I meet and ask them how old the Earth is, but the topic of whether or not to take the story of Adam and Eve literally does come up quite often.

Also, you said that non-young Earth Christians are inconsistent. Inconsistent with what? I'm sure you realize that the Bible contains both documented history and metaphors. Who are you to decide what is story and what is real. You don't have special powers, it is only your belief that the story of Adam and Eve took less than a week. To say that any Christian who doesn't believe the Bible to be exactly how you interpret it is being inconsistent is just comical. In your world it is only black and white. "Christianity is the only true religion, why...because that's what I believe", "Young Earth is the only consistent Christian belief, why....because that's what I believe." My guess is if you were born in Pakistan, you'd be saying, "Islam is the only true religion."

[Statler Waldorf]

Like I predicted, a sentence by sentence breakdown, and yet you contributed

I like to keep things simple for you, you’re welcome.

The only thing I wanted to respond to was your comment about meeting more Christians. I was in a youth group all throughout middle school and high school. Went on 3 Christian retreats, taught vacation Bible school in the summers, and volunteered at a Christian led soup kitchen. My wife, parents and half my friends including my best man are all devout Christians. So, no I think I know plenty of Christians.

According to Gallup the huge majority of Christians reject evolution, which would by default make them young earth. So maybe you just needed to interview them all a bit more on the age of the earth.

Neither my 2 pastor's, nor my youth group leader, nor anyone that I ever talked to ever mentioned that they thought the Earth was only 4000 years old.

Good because scripture doesn’t support it being 4,000 years old, it has to be at least 6,000.

Also, you said that non-young Earth Christians are inconsistent. Inconsistent with what? I'm sure you realize that the Bible contains both documented history and metaphors.

Yes it does, but the metaphors come in the poetic and apocalyptic portions of the Bible (i.e. Job, Revelation, and Psalms) and the Hebrew in Genesis is not poetic, it’s written in a historical style. Additionally, if you open the door up for Genesis being mere metaphor, then you can just arbitrarily declare any portion of the Bible as metaphor. Perhaps Christ’s death was merely metaphoric? So you have to interpret scripture in its literal context or else it becomes impossible to know what any of it means. A Christian who has no way of knowing what scripture means isn’t exactly a very consistent Christian, or one who is going to do very well in a debate.

Who are you to decide what is story and what is real. You don't have special powers, it is only your belief that the story of Adam and Eve took less than a week.

I don’t need special powers, in Hebrew it is very obvious when something is being described as a historical event and when something is figurative; the entire book of Genesis is written in a historical narrative. Stylistically it is far different than Job and Psalms, and very similar to the other historical narratives such as Exodus and Kings.

To say that any Christian who doesn't believe the Bible to be exactly how you interpret it is being inconsistent is just comical. In your world it is only black and white. "Christianity is the only true religion, why...because that's what I believe", "Young Earth is the only consistent Christian belief, why....because that's what I believe."

I find it interesting that you keep claiming I don’t have any reasons for believing what I believe but then when I provide you with very clear, concise, and logical reasons you simply ignore them in your next post. There is no reason to believe that Genesis isn’t literal, even if a person accepts those dating methods you spoke of they still do not have a reason for rejecting Genesis. After all, if they are Christians they still believe that a virgin gave birth and that a man rose from the dead three days after being killed, and there is infinitely more scientific evidence suggesting those things don’t happen than there is for an old earth. So why reject one portion of the Bible because of science but not the other parts? You see? It’s just inconsistent all the way around.

[JackFinfan]

According to Gallup the huge majority of Christians reject evolution, which would by default make them young earth. So maybe you just needed to interview them all a bit more on the age of the earth.

Evolution and the Earth's age are not the same topic. Sorry try again.

[JackFinfan]

I find it interesting that you keep claiming I don’t have any reasons for believing what I believe but then when I provide you with very clear, concise, and logical reasons you simply ignore them in your next post. There is no reason to believe that Genesis isn’t literal, even if a person accepts those dating methods you spoke of they still do not have a reason for rejecting Genesis. After all, if they are Christians they still believe that a virgin gave birth and that a man rose from the dead three days after being killed, and there is infinitely more scientific evidence suggesting those things don’t happen than there is for an old earth. So why reject one portion of the Bible because of science but not the other parts? You see? It’s just inconsistent all the way around.

very clear, concise, and logical to you. There is no reason to believe that Genesis isn't literal in your opinion. Also, I know Christians who don't believe in many of the stories in the Bible. The only important thing for a Christian is that they believe that Jesus died for their sins. All the other stuff is debatable. But like I said before, in your mind whatever you believe in is right and whatever everyone else believes in is wrong....why, well because it makes sense to you.​

[Statler Waldorf]

Evolution and the Earth's age are not the same topic. Sorry try again.

Where did I say they were? They are interdependent though, you’re not going to believe the earth is old if you don’t believe in evolution, and you’re not going to believe in common descent if you believe the earth is young.

very clear, concise, and logical to you. There is no reason to believe that Genesis isn't literal in your opinion.

My opinion has nothing to do with it, something it either logical or it isn’t, and my arguments have been both logically valid and sound.

Also, I know Christians who don't believe in many of the stories in the Bible. The only important thing for a Christian is that they believe that Jesus died for their sins. All the other stuff is debatable.

Wait, how do you know that’s all a Christian must believe?

But like I said before, in your mind whatever you believe in is right and whatever everyone else believes in is wrong....

Of course! That’s why I believe it silly. Are you suggesting you have beliefs that you think are wrong and reject beliefs that you think are right?

why, well because it makes sense to you.​

No, because I can logically demonstrate them to be true.

[JackFinfan]

Of course! That’s why I believe it silly. Are you suggesting you have beliefs that you think are wrong and reject beliefs that you think are right?

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen. I couldn't have made my point any better. You think since you believe something that it makes it right. There's a major difference between a belief and certainty (well in everyone else's mind but yours). I believe in evolution because I've looked at the evidence and I personally think it is the best explanation for many things. Unlike you however, I can entertain the idea that evolution could be false. I also believe that many of the stories in the Bible are metaphors, but I acknowledge that I may be wrong about all or some of the stories. You see, belief doesn't have to equal right or wrong. But like I said a million times on here, to you there is no maybe. If you believe it, it must be true. So, debating an individual who is not open to the fact that he may be wrong is pointless. Thus, I will stop acknowledging your posts. I hope one day you'll learn that the everything doesn't need to be black or white.

[Statler Waldorf]

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen. I couldn't have made my point any better. You think since you believe something that it makes it right.

Whoa! How could you have gotten that anymore wrong? I hope it was not intentional, I said I believe something because it is true or right, do you have beliefs that you think are wrong?

There's a major difference between a belief and certainty (well in everyone else's mind but yours). I believe in evolution because I've looked at the evidence and I personally think it is the best explanation for many things. Unlike you however, I can entertain the idea that evolution could be false.

Yet you still believe in evolution? So you must believe in evolution because you actually think it is the correct answer right? That’s exactly what I do.

I also believe that many of the stories in the Bible are metaphors, but I acknowledge that I may be wrong about all or some of the stories. You see, belief doesn't have to equal right or wrong.

I never said belief equals right or wrong; you believe things because they are right and not wrong.

But like I said a million times on here, to you there is no maybe. If you believe it, it must be true.

Depends on which issue we are talking about, when it comes to whether God exists you’re right there is no maybe because the very act of questioning whether He exists or not assumes He does.

So, debating an individual who is not open to the fact that he may be wrong is pointless.

I never said cannot be wrong, I have changed my beliefs on a whole host of issues, but merely because the opposing view could logically lay out and prove their position. I have seen nothing even close to that on here, not saying it couldn’t happen but it’s going to take a lot more than what I have seen thus far.

Thus, I will stop acknowledging your posts. I hope one day you'll learn that the everything doesn't need to be black or white.

So are you saying that if I believe everything is either black or white then that position is always wrong to hold? So you are making a “black or white” argument against me believing everything is either black or white? You’re just not very consistent in your views, it’s unfortunate.