http://blogs.babble.com/famecrawler/files/2010/12/care-bears.jpg.gif

So have bad forum arguments/shit posting. And don't even give me that "FORUMS HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS" shit, cause you know what I mean. Plus, all them hieroglyphics and shit in them tombs? It's not like the Egyptian hierarchy proofread all of that shit, there was way too much. So it's not a stretch to imagine some slave being like "fuck deeeez niggaaaaaaaaaaas" and writing whatever the fuck he wanted instead of some shit about so and so being the best pharaoh.

Point being, there is a right place for this sort of argument, and also a right way to do it. This isn't it.

The place is on my stream, and the way to do it is battle rap.

Prep your bars, homie.

I was hoping that Bill would say, "What if an alien from outer space showed up on your front lawn. Would you still believe in your story?".

And who is giving them markers and pieces of paper to write on?

I'm still laughing at the smile he has on his face, it's as if he thinks that he just trumped the greatest scientists/public speakers/evolutionary spokespersons with that statement.

http://i.imgur.com/TJkFn2f.jpg

the only god i need is tee eff two

The only savior I need is the pipe jesus

These are severe examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect, to which this Ken Ham weirdo is also subject. (edit: lol just found out about the highlander team with this name, funny coincidence)

The amount of self-contradiction in Ham's argument is baffling. "Historical science is not observational science, and thus cannot be proven"? This basically means we cannot even begin to discuss history in any meaningful way, so why even debate? Ham escapes this deadlock by introducing a circulatory self-proving explanatory mechanism like a dogmatic scripture (we all know the jpeg, bible is the word of God and I know so because God created it blabla). Having your whole case be dependant on the foundation of a circulatory argument is pretty saddening.

What perhaps is the most disturbing is that there might actually be a real necessity for people like Bill Nye to engage in these debates, because there's a general public out there that sees nothing wrong with the reasoning of a person like Ken Ham, even though he constantly reasserts the dogmatic nature of his views ("if I were to be proven wrong about fact X I would still not change my viewpoints", or "fact X cannot even be hypothetically proven wrong since it is an absolute truth" - WAT) In an ideal world we would not even give these people the dignity of a debate where both standpoints seem to be on an initially equal level. Sadly however we have countless events, like the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, that show that there's a too large group of people that actually takes this stuff seriously to just ignore it as random nonsense.

Everytime the discussion goes a little more in depth and requires Ken Ham to define the terms and concepts that he uses, all that comes out is gibberish. How can he dichotomically oppose
"observational science" to "historical science" anyway (as this seems to be his main argument to discredit mainstream science)? As Nye pointed out, observational science is in principle always historical science, since we are always looking into the past. Ham should try adhering to the 7th proposition of Wittgenstein's Tractatus more often, as he's more often just using words without a real grasp of what he actually means by using those words.

So yeah, idiotic debate, but sadly a necessary debate. (A)Theistic debates become way more interesting when you take a theist that doesn't interpret his religion's scripture in a moronically literal way. Take William-Lane Craig, whos reasons for believing are arguments of a philosophical nature, and thereby takes a standpoint that is basically compatible with all of mainstream science. I saw someone mentioning and admiring Christopher Hitchens in here. Well, a man of his stature is made to look inarticulate and incoherent when opposed to WL Craig (and I say this as someone who's obviously more on Hitchens' side). Even when you can see flaws in the argumentation (which most of his opponents surprisingly fail to do), it's still an enjoyable demonstration of strong rhetoric.

Your last sentence makes it seem like you equate "belief" in science to the same level as belief in dogmatic scripture, even though before that you pose a way more nuanced view. In this example, I think that in a certain epistemological sense it's relatively safe to say that gravity is an objective truth. If you don't agree, then the disagreement probably stems from which definition of "objective" you use, a word that has been attributed a confusingly broad range of meanings. Obviously we cannot "know" anything objectively when you define objectivity in its purest philosophical sense, because "knowing" is an act done by the subject, which inherently presupposes a layer of subjectivity. This is basically just wordplay. I don't think it's useful to talk about objectivity and truth in this manner because these pure and abstract definitions bear no relation to us, since we are innate subjects. If you use objective in the pragmatic common sense of the word, then there is nothing problematic with stating that gravity is an objective thruth (although, Erik Verlinde would like to have a word), just like you wouldn't jump off a balcony because "if gravity occured in every instant before this instant, there still a probability that it won't occur in this instant" ... By this I mean to say that, I think, although shocka1 might be arrogant and without nuance in his wording and style, it's fair to say that still he's "right". Saying that gravity is an objective truth makes almost infinitely more sense than placing unquestioning faith in a book.

Mankeys?

http://www.dltk-kids.com/pokemon/adoptions/mankey26.gif

Saying "all beliefs are based on faith" is quite silly. You, along with Searchlight and many others, are questioning the very thing you use and trust on a daily basis. It's called "TRUST", not an "assumption". An assumption is more of a guess or hypothesis. Trust, confidence and good logic/reason are based on a solid foundation of evidence. So why do you take medicine? Drive a car? Use your phone or computer? Almost everything you encounter and use (trust) on a daily basis is based on scientific principles, and do you do this on faith? No. Do you use your car on faith that it is going to work properly? Or do you trust that your car has been built properly enough to work consistently, along with keeping up with automotive maintenance in which car "professionals" help you out with.

You and Searchlight might as well look into Solipsism. We could all just be in the matrix too, right? Me waking up and breathing and experiencing the world with all of my senses could be me just taking it on faith... This idea is quite absurd. Sure, I'll humor the idea and possibility of this being true, but so what? Until there is enough evidence to support that idea, it's a waste of time discussing it as more than science fiction.

you should have stopped here...

Ok, this is pointless to say. EVERYONE looks for purpose or reason in life, but this has NOTHING to do with atheism. It's like stating "even most vegetarians look for some purpose in life..." - And even the people who don't have a purpose to live, they still have a purpose to exist or die. So there will ALWAYS be a purpose in every way in regards to humanity.

Your words hurt my soul (no I don't believe in a soul, it is a figure of speech)... Order in the universe?... Order... Now you are tip-toeing on the "Fine-tuned universe" arguments that theist use. Are you sure you're an atheist? These people state that the universe is finely-tuned for life... Really? You realize that most of the universe is HIGHLY deadly to life. I'm glad god finely-tuned this vast universe of which we can't even explore a 0.0000000000001% of, and most of it has to be explored with extreme caution or it will kill you. Nice Fine-tuning there... Not to mention that we don't even have to explore outside of earth to experience how dangerous the universe actually is. Have you heard of meteors? Solar Flare? Sun expansion - Red Giant?

You should have stopped here...

"Faith" or an "assumption" are both awful things to based your decisions on. Faith is for people who do not have a good reason for what they believe, once you acquire good reasons, you don't need faith. Same with assumptions. Would you rather state A) I trust my girlfriend will not cheat on me --vs-- B) I assume my girlfriend will not cheat on me --- If you have to assume, you have no trust. And you build trust by gathering evidence.

I know this thread is probably gonna be packed with tensions, personal arguments and what not.

But took a look at this before posting...

http://i.imgur.com/eefBC4V.jpg?1

this sort of hit the nail on the head for me here - i don't think there is any inherent problem to the discussion we're having, the issue is just all of the angry condescension that turns up in all of the posts, which sucks and is not really conducive to having interesting debates.

i mean, regardless of whether or not shocka, or really anyone, is right here, there is still a whole bunch of pointless hostility that makes the whole conversation sound like nerds fighting over the internet instead of something that actually matters and is relevant to our lives.

if you are on the side of truth shocka, which, personally i think you probably are, then just say what you believe is true and don't be flippant and dismissive about the things that are contentious to your argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxc20saM8DA

I'm not sure why you're addressing me so abrasively and quoting snippets that make it seem that I disagree with you; I stated from the get-go I concur with you. However, I thought you didn't do his post justice. I still don't think you have. Philosophically, there is an argument against your "trust"; I outlined it above. Arguing semantics is quite silly but I'll humor you for a second here:

Trust: firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something [[url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/trust]oxford[/url]]

Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something [[url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/faith]oxford[/url]]

The point remains: Any belief you hold, philosophically, can be argued to be based off of a trust/assumption/faith you hold in your head.

As I stated before in my post (which you failed to quote), 'this argument cannot be used to argue for anything so it's probably irrelevant.'

This doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be thought about; the way you devalued it in your first post didn't do it justice, that's all I said.

how can i even have cousins

I love how Ken just has a presentation on the ready and Bill Nye's just like.
Bow ties

Like Nye said during the debate, " I just want to remind us all there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion, but these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old."

@sleej William Lane Craig is really dated (The bust of his modern arguments are still based on his cosmological argument from the late 70's early 80's) he dismisses the brute fact concept for the universe simply existing (within an Everett's MWI model or any multiverse model) yet when arguing from a "self-reliant" argument there usually just comes the question where does god come from. And if you dismiss the brute fact argument only to basically use a form of brute fact, it generally isn't a compelling argument.

And he doesn't really argue against a lot of atheistic models that use a MWI or multiverse point of view.
Nowadays the more common religious arguments aren't for the western attributed theistic god but a lot more vague higher power Gods.

Like I said: Even when you can see flaws in the argumentation (which most of his opponents surprisingly fail to do), it's still an enjoyable demonstration of strong rhetoric. The fact is just there that someone like Hitchens, out of many, can't deal with his argumentation properly.

Yes, there are many valid objections to the cosmological (and also the ontological) argument; yet many opponents of Craig fail to come up with a proper rebuttal. The problem is usually that they make it easy for Craig to marginalise their rebuttals by disproving his statements with recent discoveries and hypotheses from cosmology and (theoretical) physics, exactly like you are trying to do. An MWI just moves the first cause question a few turtles downward. And God doesn't come from anywhere because he is transcendant and eternal, duh.

The point is: he doesn't have to. Philosophical arguments for a God are inherently metaphysical, and metaphysics transcends empirical science by definition.

Because it's easier to do. Arguments in favor of a kind of deism are stronger than the arguments that try to make the jump from deism to theism (and eventually to specific religion like christianity).