Sixth Grader Demolishes Christian in a Debate

[Sniffles]

I agree with you, they're not generally a place to find any sense what so ever, Mark Vernon writes brilliantly about the court room debate about creationism and darwinism in the US, it was made into the film Inherit The Wind, and describes how before that science and religion had been considered to be harmonious but the debate set two equally incompatible alternatives against one another and the majority of the people in the US from that day have given careful consideration as to what hostile "camp" they belong to, a lot of the time deciding on the basis of which is most replusive to them, and not whether the dichotomy per se is a legitimate one.

So is the way of debates, they arent discussions and they quickly descend into disputes.

"Inherit the Wind" often obscured the nuances that were actually involved in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Bryan is portrayed as an irrational fundamentalist who opposed science in any form, yet that's not the case at all. He actually was willing to acknowledge evolution before man. And many of the early religious critics of evolutionary theory did so based on the science of the time. Also much criticism was directed against atheistic interpretations of evolutionary theory, not evolutionary theory per se.

 

[ygolo]

I just finished watching the actual debate (not just the little exchange between an 11 year old and an idiot). Talk about reason vs. rhyme. Computer programmer vs. used car salesman. I think Bernie Dehler won that debate hands down. But it would not surprise that people thought Eric Hovind dominated that debate. The body-language, the voice projection, the hand gestures, the power point (which is usually bad form in these sorts of debates) were all appeals to get people watching on his side in an unthinking and unquestioning manner. Granted, I think Dehler could benefit his cause by learning some theater techniques, but that is all Hovind was doing--theatre.

At the end of the formal hour of debate, I have to say that Dehler had the patience of a monk. I was incredibly annoyed at the broken-record, irrelevant recounting of the lack of absolute knowledge of his oppenent, and striking a pose that Hovind did. The script was this: 1) opponent raises a logical point 2) Say "but do you know that for sure" 3) strike a pose (get audience response). At the end of that, I get the feeling the son (who did not have the patience of his father) wanted to get some licks in for revenge.

I am not an atheist, by the way. But requiring absolute knowledge from your opponent to even listen to him is the attitude of a moron--the worst form of moron.

 

[Sniffles]

For those interested in a decent discussion about religion vs science, here's Richard Dawkins and Fr. George Coyne:

Seriously, you get the impression that Dawkins is about to have a conversion experience of some sorts throughout this.

[MENTION=5789]Beorn[/MENTION] might have something to say.

 

[Beorn]

[MENTION=5789]Beorn[/MENTION] might have something to say.

Lol. No, staying out of this one so far.

Looking forward to watching the vid though.

 

[ygolo]

For those interested in a decent discussion about religion vs science, here's Richard Dawkins and Fr. George Coyne:

Seriously, you get the impression that Dawkins is about to have a conversion experience of some sorts throughout this.

[MENTION=5789]Beorn[/MENTION] might have something to say.

George Coyne just made my "to read" list. Excellent video. Thanks for this. Still watching.

Edit: Amazingly insightful point made at ~28:27

Essentially, that the intelligent design movement creates a God that is nothing like the God that most people believe in. (At least not George Coyne, nor me). I've been a designer. I like think that God is much more that this.

 

[SD45T-2]

whatever Jews read,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

I never thought I'd actually have a chance to use that smiley.

 

[Coriolis]

You really don't. There are experts in philosophy, geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. that are Christians, Islamic, Hindu, etc. Complete experts in their fields--the very STEM fields that try so hard to argue for Atheism--and they still maintain their faith. There is still not enough evidence to completely discount the religion itself, albeit many discount the WAY it is taught and the translations used.

STEM fields do not argue for atheism. Specific individuals do, some of whom work in STEM fields.

I have to say though, for atheists to rely so heavily on science, they are WAY too certain that everything is not connected by something. At the end of the day, if an atheist does not believe that no proof is not a sign of non-existence, they are being just as blind as the Christians can be.

Atheists are not the only ones who rely on science. Moreover, scientists do recognize the interconnections among all things, we just often describe it in much different terms from those speaking from a religious perspective. Atheism is based just as much on belief as is any religion. Agnosticism is the only logically defensible perspective, but a perspective need not be 100% logically defensible to be worthwhile and useful.

That boy said with 100% certainty that there is no proof of God. And he may be right. But I cannot say that without saying maybe. And no one else should be able to either. And still, no one can say that no proof of something does not discount its existence.

There is no proof of God, but as you say, that is not the same thing as proving there is no god. This is why atheism (the claim that there is no god) is just another belief.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if you can or can't prove God exists. I believe God exists. If I'm right, I have everything to gain. If I'm wrong then I have little to lose. If you you don't believe God exists and if God does exist then you have everything to lose.

This is a well-known argument. Can you really make yourself believe in something based on a logical argument like this?

I have stated my come back time, and time, again in here. My comeback is that the kid has all the of the SAME absolute certainty that the guy he is debating with has. There is no difference between the two on that. There is no comeback. The kid just cannot see that he is in the exact same position from the opposite view.

Their positions are in no way equivalent. The boy is pointing out a logical inconsistency in the man's statement. "Reasonable" answers would be to explain how it is not logically inconsistent and the boy is therefore in error; or to explain that faith statements do not require logical consistency. This man did not have the mental wherewithal to do either.

Now-a-days, it is 'logical' for women to have the same rights as men, whether people see it or not. But this is NOT pure logic. It cannot be pure because it is based on subjectivity and changes with time and people's thoughts. We just use 'pure logic' as this idea to push other ideas towards. It cannot exist in and of itself because there is no absolutes when it comes to relativity.

Logic is a process. Provide different inputs to the process, and it will deliver a different outcome. This is not subjectivity, but rather using the facts relevant to the problem.

 

[highlander]

This is a well-known argument. Can you really make yourself believe in something based on a logical argument like this?

No. However, it makes having faith in something that can't be proven much more rational/logical. It should cause anyone with half a brain to take pause.

 

[Coriolis]

No. However, it makes having faith in something that can't be proven much more rational/logical. It should cause anyone with half a brain to take pause.

Would faith be enough to secure the positive benefits of "winning" the wager? I realize this gets into different religious interpretations of how people should live. I mention it because I have heard the argument presented in terms of acting as if God exists, meaning one needn't actually believe it. I do see merit in this, as many people are motivated to live a more virtuous life by the idea of God.

 

[highlander]

Would faith be enough to secure the positive benefits of "winning" the wager? I realize this gets into different religious interpretations of how people should live. I mention it because I have heard the argument presented in terms of acting as if God exists, meaning one needn't actually believe it. I do see merit in this, as many people are motivated to live a more virtuous life by the idea of God.

Maybe it is ore nuanced than what I described. If you are a Christian, you are absolved of your sins through the sacrifice Jesus made for us. As you grow in faith, the expectation that God has for us increases. It's not just enough to believe in God but you have to do something about it and that doesn't mean doing good things. It has to do with having faith in God and listening to the direction he imparts on our lives. You do that through reading his word (i.e., reading the bible), seeking his guidance (prayer) and things like that. Other religions are different though. Christianity is differentiated by this concept of "grace" - you don't make your way into heaven by good deeds. You make your way into heaven through faith.

 

[Lark]

Lol. No, staying out of this one so far.

Looking forward to watching the vid though.

Tag, you're it

 

[Mole]

Christianity is differentiated by this concept of "grace" - you don't make your way into heaven by good deeds. You make your way into heaven through faith.

The doctrine of Salvation through Faith Alone is a Protestant Doctrine.

The Catholic doctrine of Salvation is by Faith and Good Works.

But how revealing that the Protestant doctrine of Salvation is naively presented here as the Christian doctrine of Salvation.

The reality is that both Protestant and Catholic doctrines are weapons of religious hatred in the war of religion.

 

[highlander]

The doctrine of Salvation through Faith Alone is a Protestant Doctrine.

The Catholic doctrine of Salvation is by Faith and Good Works.

But how revealing that the Protestant doctrine of Salvation is naively presented here as the Christian doctrine of Salvation.

The reality is that both Protestant and Catholic doctrines are weapons of religious hatred in the war of religion.

So funny because I grew up Catholic and I was never taught that. I think Catholics do a very poor job of communicating such things. Either that or I'm not even sure I believe you.

 

[Coriolis]

So funny because I grew up Catholic . I think Catholics do a very poor job of communicating such things. Either that or I'm not even sure I believe you.

I grew up Catholic, too, and we always associated good works with the protestants. We had our prayers and rituals and traditions, but they were out in the world actually doing good for people. I realize the reality is much more mixed, that there are many effective Catholic charities, and strains of protestantism that stress belief above all else. If someone is "believing" just to win the bet, however, which path do they take? In my estimation, the path of good works is the one that helps make the world a better place, regardless of the individual's belief or the reality of God's existence.

You are right, though, that Catholics often do a poor job of communicating their own teachings to the faithful. I learned more about the Catholic faith in a couple courses at a very secular college than I did in many years of attending church and "Sunday school".

 

[kyuuei]

STEM fields do not argue for atheism. Specific individuals do, some of whom work in STEM fields.

Jeezus is everyone going to pick on my way with words... I do not mean that STEM fields argue for atheism. I mean these are the fields people turn to when they are atheists. Atheists want to credit science all the time as being an absolute truth and I was saying there are experts in STEM fields that are not even convinced.. so to take science with a grain of salt. Most science that once was has changed, and it will continue to change.

Atheists are not the only ones who rely on science. Moreover, scientists do recognize the interconnections among all things, we just often describe it in much different terms from those speaking from a religious perspective. Atheism is based just as much on belief as is any religion. Agnosticism is the only logically defensible perspective, but a perspective need not be 100% logically defensible to be worthwhile and useful.

This is my point entirely. The kid is telling this guy absolutes like "But there is no God" and "You hear voices in your head, not God's voice" but this is a belief based on faith in what they feel to be true just like any religion. This is why I think (regardless of what the Christian dude said) I felt the need to comment that the kid seems a little too self-entitled and cocky during the debate. I didn't get into what the Christian dude said because that's a whole other pile of worms. But I also think he was at a disadvantage in the way he was pitted up against a kid of the guy he was debating, and that he probably was chosen for his inability to speak under pressure. I think debates are sort of set up that way when it comes to religion. It is never a discussion, always a dick-measuring contest of who's right and who's stupid.

Instead of complaining about what the Christian dude said, I focused on something else. What the Christian dude is saying is not shocking or new to anyone that knows Christians.

Their positions are in no way equivalent. The boy is pointing out a logical inconsistency in the man's statement. "Reasonable" answers would be to explain how it is not logically inconsistent and the boy is therefore in error; or to explain that faith statements do not require logical consistency. This man did not have the mental wherewithal to do either.

The boy's position is that he is an atheist asking the question to a Christian about where his evidence is for God existing. Immediately he says the man is hearing voices in his head, not God's voice. The boy is not looking for evidence--he is already confident that it does not exist. He is just waiting for whatever Christian thing the Christian would bring out, and then he'll parrot whatever his dad's been teaching him his whole life in return.

They both have positions based on faith. That is why I feel they are in the same position. The boy has a blind-faith approach to this the same way he feels the Christian man does about his faith. Refusing to 'see the truth' as it were. They are no different to me.. except one was in a really bad social position and clearly is not used to debate, and the other was well scripted.

Logic is a process. Provide different inputs to the process, and it will deliver a different outcome. This is not subjectivity, but rather using the facts relevant to the problem.

It is still a construct of humanity, and thus it will be subjective in nature. Logic changes as humanity changes, it grows, shrinks, gets focus, or gets scoffed at as culture changes. Logic is different for everyone. What is logical to one group of people is not for another. Even if something is logical to all of us in the whole world, it does not mean it will stay logical for all of time. It isn't an algorithm of thought process. It is very relative and full of subjectivity.. it's not as calculated and precise as people give it credit for being.

That is not to discount its usefulness or credibility.. I'm an ENFP, we tend to not want to invalidate anything if we can help it. I am just saying that it is overly emphasized as this end-all show stopper and it really isn't as precise and scientific as people want to give it credit for, to take the example of this thread. "It is just logic." But it really isn't just logic. It is logic constructed by beliefs and faith and nurturing of one's surroundings and culture.. it is a belief, and it is just as prone to change and subjectivity.

Logic is molded by our society like anything else. It is an idea, and a concept. It is not a hard fast, absolute construct.

 

[Lark]

The doctrine of Salvation through Faith Alone is a Protestant Doctrine.

The Catholic doctrine of Salvation is by Faith and Good Works.

But how revealing that the Protestant doctrine of Salvation is naively presented here as the Christian doctrine of Salvation.

The reality is that both Protestant and Catholic doctrines are weapons of religious hatred in the war of religion.

The first two lines are wrong, which can only indicate that the rest are all wrong too.

 

[Lark]

So funny because I grew up Catholic and I was never taught that. I think Catholics do a very poor job of communicating such things. Either that or I'm not even sure I believe you.

Or Victor's just wrong.

This is a muddled and athiest view of the history of the schism/reformation, if it was ever an accurate description of the differences, and I know some protestant evangelicals who would suggest it is, it isnt any longer since the Roman Catholic Church issued a consensus document with the Lutheran Church.

At the time I really disagreed with it because I believe there's certain serious flaws in the thinking surrounding pre-destination or justification by faith, its a feeder movement for capitalism if you believe Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, its got potential to spawn unconscienable acts as highlighted in James Hogg's novel Confessions of A Justified Sinner. I still have major concerns, I've always erred on the side of Matthew and James' Christianity rather than Paul's and their version involved making more of a testamony of your life, performing what might be called "works", in my view.

On the other hand there's reasons why believing that eternal life can be earned through human action or personal sacrifices is seriously problematic too, maybe more so.

I've read views expressed by Kolakowski that Erasmus represents a "third position" and that interests me.

 

[Lark]

I grew up Catholic, too, and we always associated good works with the protestants. We had our prayers and rituals and traditions, but they were out in the world actually doing good for people. I realize the reality is much more mixed, that there are many effective Catholic charities, and strains of protestantism that stress belief above all else. If someone is "believing" just to win the bet, however, which path do they take? In my estimation, the path of good works is the one that helps make the world a better place, regardless of the individual's belief or the reality of God's existence.

You are right, though, that Catholics often do a poor job of communicating their own teachings to the faithful. I learned more about the Catholic faith in a couple courses at a very secular college than I did in many years of attending church and "Sunday school".

You're kidding right?

Wow, er, dont know what to say about this.

 

[Lark]

I tend to think that what's most important isnt really what you believe but is what you do, they have an important reciprocal relationship though and toxic thinking leads to toxic action and, I believe, vice versa.

Although discussions like this are all academic to me unless anyone can evidence that they are not simply intellectual exercises, if either doctrine is a lived reality and can be shown to have benefits both to the individual professing it and their neighbours, over generations, then I'm willing to hear it out. Otherwise its like a serious argument over which character from Pokemon or Yu Gi Ho is the "best", probably important enough to the people who like to engage with those kinds of things but not really to myself.

To be honest I think most people feel this way too, perhaps unconsicously or unawares, do you want to rely upon an amoral athiest, if they are consistent with their beliefs, or a Christian, if they are consistent with their beliefs? There's a great, great deal about the new athiests, despite their movements towards naturalism, humanism and other positive positions, which remains negative, purely an intellectualised exercise or game.

 

[Lark]

For those interested in a decent discussion about religion vs science, here's Richard Dawkins and Fr. George Coyne:

Seriously, you get the impression that Dawkins is about to have a conversion experience of some sorts throughout this.

[MENTION=5789]Beorn[/MENTION] might have something to say.

That's probably the best discussion of faith and spirituality that I've encountered in ten or twelve years, I'd never have found that because I've got a strong aversion to all things Dawkins and I agree with what you said about him appearing to be on the verge of a conversion experience, I'm aware though that it appears as though the complete conversation is not featured here, that its edited, would that be right?

The shameful thing about this is that decent religious views like this dont get an airing now, especially not within the UK, unless in contra distinction or as a counterpoint to atheism and I'll bet that whatever TV show this was a part of that the conversation itself was framed and contextualised by Dawkins in order that it would be in step with the overall view he would be presenting, which would be one which would consider what the priest had to say as ultimately unpersuasive.

I mean, I've heard that, I'm not sure if it was Bertand Russell, archetypical athiest, who said that from time to time they may have been swayed by one or another individual's presentation of theism but after a spell decided that it was the personal charisma of the individual, their presentation skills, "the singer, not the song" which was influencing them.

Its a shame that religion and religious thinking does not receive the airing it ought to, its very easy to dismiss, deride and debunk what does get an airing that's for sure. There's obviously a huge difference between this clip and the one in the OP, I bet the one in the OP gets circulated quicker, to a wider audience and shapes minds more than this one, unfortunately.