Sixth Grader Demolishes Christian in a Debate

[Mal12345]

Its already been established that your opinion doesnt matter.

Although the fact you're compelled to supply it after the fact is pretty telling.

...Thus proving through example what I just said.

 

[kyuuei]

Well no, not crush. Just nicely put him in his place while setting a good example of valid reasoning skills. If you have a comeback for the 11-year-old's point, then this is a good time to state what that is. The point is that if Hovind requires absolute certainty to know anything, then, applying Hovind's own premise, he can't know that God exists.

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.

The kid's age puts him off his guard because he doesn't expect an 11-year-old to be capable of such reasoning.

He's put on guard from the very beginning. The kid pretty much tells him to his face after interrupting him, "There is no proof of God." Is there really anything else that can be said after that? The kid has no intentions of seeing if there is proof, or what kind of proof this guy is willing to offer.. the kid is wanting to just stick it to some Christian adult that he perceives to be ignorant for believing things as absolutely as he does.

And every adult in the room to include that kid's father has no qualms with lacking respect for the cultures and ideals of those not like him. It's a closed minded, ignorant way to be for a group of people that claim to take the higher moral ground when it comes to tolerance.

And yet you know that the kid's argument was not based in faith, but in logic, regardless of whether he has faith in logic or not.

The kid's logic is based on his father's logic. It is not his own. If his father is a logical figure or not, it does not matter. My point is the kid has faith that his father is right, and he feels like he sees that for himself. It is no different than the guy who was taught to say the things he is saying about Christianity and God.

Then what according to you is pure logic?

As I said, it is the same as altruism. It is a point on a sliding scale. Something we will never hit exactly because nothing is exact in science. We have to round up decimal points, put approximations on things, and theorize what we cannot have and know 100% for certain.

There is no such thing as pure logic. That is the trouble with all of this, people think there is a definite right and a definite wrong and it is never what the other person they are discussing with has. I am not even trying to discuss how wrong *I* think the Christian guy is... because that wasn't what I was trying to touch on here. What I am trying to touch on is that the kid is not going around pwning Christian dudes in the face.. he's just being overly absolute and you agree with what he's saying.. which makes it a lot easier for you to stomach how flawed his views are as well.

I'm not taking a stand in the debate, nothing you said there has validity.

You clearly have a stance. You clearly not only agree with what the kid is saying, but you are trying to exclude him as being in the same boat as the Christian dude and thus justifying the way he delivers his 'debate'.

You made a great point about practical/absolute thinking. Why ruin it?

This is how wishy washy you are. I make a point, one that you think is great, but I say something else and suddenly everything I say sucks to you. If this kid were to find God in 10 years and become a preacher, would you discredit everything he said the day of the video?

My points are simply that I don't see anyone demolished in that video. The kid had a clear advantage in social position being young and well defended by other adults, and every adult in that room was just there to completely try to smoke that guy for his perceived truth. No one was smoking them for their truth being just as perceived. That's all I saw.

 

[ygolo]

Why didn't the guy just answer "yes"?

That seemed like a simple enough answer to a rather straightforward and logical question.

 

[kyuuei]

Why didn't the guy just answer "yes"?

That seemed like a simple enough answer to a rather straightforward and logical question.

Which part are you talking about? The original question was whether he has evidence of God or not.. that God is just a piece of his mind talking to himself, and not a higher being.

(I haven't even gotten into how rude and narrow minded that last bit is..)

 

[Lark]

...Thus proving through example what I just said.

Interesting.

By all means carry on, I've never had anyone confirm my thinking about them so quickly, as representatives of atheism and atheist "thinking" goes you're just wonderful.

Do you consult sixth graders for anything else? Mortgage advice or health insurance maybe? Since they're a font of knowledge and all.

 

[Mal12345]

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.

So your comeback is that there is no comeback? Then I’d have to say that Hovind was implicitly in your camp here, as he had no comeback either.

Furthermore, either an agnostic or another Christian could easily defeat Hovind’s argument precisely the same way. Therefore, the identity of their respective belief systems is irrelevant.

He's put on guard from the very beginning. The kid pretty much tells him to his face after interrupting him, "There is no proof of God." Is there really anything else that can be said after that? The kid has no intentions of seeing if there is proof, or what kind of proof this guy is willing to offer.. the kid is wanting to just stick it to some Christian adult that he perceives to be ignorant for believing things as absolutely as he does.

You don’t know what the kid’s motives are or whether or not he perceives Hovind to be ignorant. But I do credit you with great skill in projecting your own motives onto others.

And every adult in the room to include that kid's father has no qualms with lacking respect for the cultures and ideals of those not like him. It's a closed minded, ignorant way to be for a group of people that claim to take the higher moral ground when it comes to tolerance.

Now who’s taking the moral ground here?

The kid's logic is based on his father's logic. It is not his own. If his father is a logical figure or not, it does not matter. My point is the kid has faith that his father is right, and he feels like he sees that for himself. It is no different than the guy who was taught to say the things he is saying about Christianity and God.

There is no “father’s logic,” there is only logic

As I said, it is the same as altruism. It is a point on a sliding scale. Something we will never hit exactly because nothing is exact in science. We have to round up decimal points, put approximations on things, and theorize what we cannot have and know 100% for certain.

There is no such thing as pure logic. That is the trouble with all of this, people think there is a definite right and a definite wrong and it is never what the other person they are discussing with has. I am not even trying to discuss how wrong *I* think the Christian guy is... because that wasn't what I was trying to touch on here. What I am trying to touch on is that the kid is not only not going around pwning Christian dudes in the face.. he's just being overly absolute and you agree with what he's saying.. which makes it a lot easier for you to stomach how flawed his views are as well.

That’s a lot of absolutes cast in the context of relativity of values, for example, “There is no such thing as pure logic.”

You clearly have a stance. You clearly not only agree with what the kid is saying, but you are trying to exclude him as being in the same boat as the Christian dude and thus justifying the way he delivers his 'debate'.

I agree with his logic, and I observed that Hovind was roundly defeated by it, whether or not he wants to admit defeat to anybody.

This is how wishy washy you are. I make a point, one that you think is great, but I say something else and suddenly everything I say sucks to you.

There is no reason for you to get your claws out over this.

If this kid were to find God in 10 years and become a preacher, would you discredit everything he said the day of the video?

Not at all.

My points are simply that I don't see anyone demolished in that video. The kid had a clear advantage in social position being young and well defended by other adults, and every adult in that room was just there to completely try to smoke that guy for his perceived truth. No one was smoking them for their truth being just as perceived. That's all I saw.

I perceived Eric Hovind being demolished by a kid, as well as a few other things.

 

[Mal12345]

Interesting.

By all means carry on, I've never had anyone confirm my thinking about them so quickly, as representatives of atheism and atheist "thinking" goes you're just wonderful.

Do you consult sixth graders for anything else? Mortgage advice or health insurance maybe? Since they're a font of knowledge and all.

[MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION] has observed that it was the father's belief system passed on to his kid, so I have no issue with it so long as he's stating the father's belief properly.

And I'm not representing atheism here, I'm representing logic.

 

[Lark]

Which part are you talking about? The original question was whether he has evidence of God or not.. that God is just a piece of his mind talking to himself, and not a higher being.

(I haven't even gotten into how rude and narrow minded that last bit is..)

The whole question of whether or not God exists or is just "that voice inside" has been done to death, there's athiests who seize upon the whole bicameral mind idea with glee and think its one of their "final proofs" and its all ridiculous and very modern.

Too much is taken to be the product of human minds without any thinking about how absurd that actually is, if someone suggested that the weather or time of day or colour of the sky was a product of their mind everyone would think they're a bit touched or crazy because no matter how eschew their perception or sensation of the external world is there's no mistake than a external world exists quite independently of humankinds thinking about it.

Further that external world is ordered and orderly, it is from that point possible to positively, rationally infer the legitimacy of such ideas as theism or a deity. Its not possible to infer anything about that deity, is it sentient in a sense which has any relationship to mankind or is its relationship to man kind the same as mankind's relationship to an ameba or atomic molecule for instance, but I think that's a different question, one more exclusively of philosophy and spirituality.

A lot of this bullshit began at the time of Descartes and debate steming from thinking about refraction and lenses, ie you put a stick in water, it appears "bent" from a particular angle but if you take it out again its perfectly straight so can you trust the senses? No you cant, that could have multipled and made plausible belief or multipled and made plausible doubt since many philosophers, ie Plato and Socrates, and religious sources have questioned the sense perception of mankind in reference to ultimate truths about existence but it seems to have been ploughed altogether into doubt.

The quote about knowledge has no relevence or baring upon that discussion, although that discussion isnt one which the OP wants to have, its not conducive to the sort of OMG yes! thread they had in mind. So instead you've got a pretty lousy debate, the sort you'd expect from a sixth grader, which adhere's to rules of argument but is not conducive to any real discovery of truth.

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION] has observed that it was the father's belief system passed on to his kid, so I have no issue with it so long as he's stating the father's belief properly.

And I'm not representing atheism here, I'm representing logic.

I wonder how logic feels about that.

 

[Mal12345]

I wonder how logic feels about that.

Logic doesn't feel.

 

[Mal12345]

The quote about knowledge has no relevence or baring upon that discussion, although that discussion isnt one which the OP wants to have, its not conducive to the sort of OMG yes! thread they had in mind. So instead you've got a pretty lousy debate, the sort you'd expect from a sixth grader, which adhere's to rules of argument but is not conducive to any real discovery of truth.

Is that what you're after here?

 

[Lark]

Logic doesn't feel.

Logic doesnt know or they'd get another representative.

 

[kyuuei]

You don’t know what the kid’s motives are or whether or not he perceives Hovind to be ignorant. But I do credit you with great skill in projecting your own motives onto others.

Please. I'm not in the kid's head or anything. But when you tell someone right off the bat they're not hearing their God but voices in their own head, there is little room for interpretation.

Now who’s taking the moral ground here?

I happen to find a comfort in higher moral grounds. I don't find it a bad thing.. Hence me complaining that atheists normally just claim it instead of actually being there. So you're not really jabbing at me with this little 'turn around' of words.

There is no “father’s logic,” there is only logic

There is absolutely father's logic. Just as my father taught me a certain logic, and any other father out there. They literally featured the father (not the son) as the atheist vs this guy even though it was the son talking.

That’s a lot of absolutes cast in the context of relativity of values, for example, “There is no such thing as pure logic.”

I know, you just love the semantics of language.. I'm not going to argue it around in circles. There is no such thing as pure logic *as humans themselves can grasp.* Logic is subjective by nature. It is based on society, societal views, ideas... these are not objective viewpoints. You don't say "It is logical that animals eat other animals for survival." You say "Animals eat other animals for survival." It is not the animal's idea to eat another animal. It is biological. Logic is something society made up. Just like all the other non-materialistic things in this world.

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.

I agree with his logic, and I observed that Hovind was roundly defeated by it, whether or not he wants to admit defeat to anybody.

And I said that I don't think he was really as defeated as you think he is. I think it is really impossible for this kid to 'defeat' him without defeating the reasons behind his own conclusions.

There is no reason for you to get your claws out over this.

Really. A joke referring to a woman as being catty because she doesn't agree with your thread's title.. That's where we're going with this?

 

[Lark]

I happen to find a comfort in higher moral grounds. I don't find it a bad thing.. Hence me complaining that atheists normally just claim it instead of actually being there. So you're not really jabbing at me with this little 'turn around' of words.

 

[ygolo]

Which part are you talking about? The original question was whether he has evidence of God or not.. that God is just a piece of his mind talking to himself, and not a higher being.

(I haven't even gotten into how rude and narrow minded that last bit is..)

I had posted that in response to Mal+'s text. The actual exchange happened in the middle of the video. I really dislike these debates because both sides are so narrowminded.

EDIT: To be clear. I am talking about the debate in the video, not this thread. I am not sure what shape the debate in this thread will take.

EDIT 2: Found the debate that preceded the exchange in the OP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEhyoW62XuQ

 

[Mal12345]

Please. I'm not in the kid's head or anything. But when you tell someone right off the bat they're not hearing their God but voices in their own head, there is little room for interpretation.

And yet, there is no objective way to prove whether someone is hearing God’s voice or a voice that comes from the self. It is all based on someone’s assertion that the voice they heard (assuming they did hear a voice) was God’s.

I happen to find a comfort in higher moral grounds. I don't find it a bad thing.. Hence me complaining that atheists normally just claim it instead of actually being there. So you're not really jabbing at me with this little 'turn around' of words.

You “actually being” on higher moral ground, lol. You don’t lack in humility, I’ll give you that.

There is absolutely father's logic. Just as my father taught me a certain logic, and any other father out there. They literally featured the father (not the son) as the atheist vs this guy even though it was the son talking.

The son literally made the statements he made. And there is no “father’s logic,” there is just logic. For example:
http://www.learninggamesforkids.com/logic_games.html
Did the father create that webpage? Did he create it for his son?

I know, you just love the semantics of language.. I'm not going to argue it around in circles. There is no such thing as pure logic *as humans themselves can grasp.* Logic is subjective by nature. It is based on society, societal views, ideas... these are not objective viewpoints. You don't say "It is logical that animals eat other animals for survival." You say "Animals eat other animals for survival." It is not the animal's idea to eat another animal. It is biological. Logic is something society made up. Just like all the other non-materialistic things in this world.

If a statement of logic was not based in the objective, material world, it is PURE logic – by definition OF pure logic.

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.

The statement about women having the same rights as men is not from logic, it is simply the case that, in 21st century USA, women have the same political rights as men.

It cannot exist in and of itself because there is no absolutes when it comes to relativity.

That’s an absolute.

And I said that I don't think he was really as defeated as you think he is. I think it is really impossible for this kid to 'defeat' him without defeating the reasons behind his own conclusions.

How so?

Really. A joke referring to a woman as being catty because she doesn't agree with your thread's title.. That's where we're going with this?

You called me wishy washy. Is that an example of your higher moral ground? Is that where we’re going with this? Yes, that was another “little” turn-around.

 

[Mal12345]

I had posted that in response to Mal+'s text. The actual exchange happened in the middle of the video. I really dislike these debates because both sides are so narrowminded.

Then please enlighten us with your broad-minded view of the subject. I know that you don't place value in such debates. But isn't there more to broad-mindedness than that?

 

[Lark]

I had posted that in response to Mal+'s text. The actual exchange happened in the middle of the video. I really dislike these debates because both sides are so narrowminded.

EDIT: To be clear. I am talking about the debate in the video, not this thread. I am not sure what shape the debate in this thread will take.

EDIT 2: Found the debate that preceded the exchange in the OP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEhyoW62XuQ

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.

 

[ygolo]

Then please enlighten us with your broad-minded view of the subject. I know that you don't place value in such debates. But isn't there more to broad-mindedness than that?

Actually, I am watching the actual debate. It is fairly broad minded so-far. The father has had many perspectives, including perspectives similar to his opponent. This is broad minded.

The problem I had was with the showboating/gotcha style of exchange in the original video. Where slogans and soundbites are what each person is trying to create. I think, for an 11 year-old it is more forgivable.

 

[Mal12345]

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.

If people would stop using the YOU word all the time, it wouldn't go that way!

Coincidentally, I'm reading an interesting book about taking ego out of arguments and debates.