Who was in the wrong here?

>>84891632
Can i say both of them

>>84891632
anyone who watches this shit

Both, God is real and so is evolution. If you think otherwise you have the iq of a 15 year old

I'm sure I'll get memed at for this but how can a guy like Ken Ham even enter a debate?

He literally just chooses what he believes based on what he wants to be true.

>>84891632
kek did bill nye really do this? did he just spout off some tired, rehearsed talking points? he looks more retarded than the creationist for even doing something like this as if he is qualified. how bloated is his ego?

>>84891632
I don't get what new athiest think they have to gain by debating someone like Ken Ham, who's religious views are not representative of what most people think about god. It's like if I was to discredit conservatives by debating Alex Jones.

>>84891682
>the IQ of a 15 year old
That varies quite a bit.

>>84891748
Reposting because I don't like proofreading until after I post

When you take right and wrong out of it and judge the debate traditionally, as in how well the one side presented their arguments compared to other and how persuasive the arguments are to a truly neutral perspective then Ken Ham dominated that debate. It's amazing how well Bill Nye has tricked so many people into thinking he knows what he's talking about. He is such a jackass.

>>84891761
New Atheists literally only attack strawmen or weirdos like Ham. Give The God Delusion a quick read to see this. Do they ever actually engage in legitimate theological/philosophical/scientific debate? Nope. Do they spout memes at other memers? Yep.

>>84891699
That's how everyone chooses what they believe, just some do it under the guise of "science"

>>84891965
wow really flutters my amygdala

>>84892008

He's not wrong. All information requires at the very least a degree of faith to be regarded as truth.

>>84892068
But the degree is hugely different between science and what Ham does

>>84892068
No

>>84892099

Whilst that is true, the degree doesn't really matter to what I'm saying. Certain knowledge is impossible.

Creationism is completely retarded, but bill nye is a fucking meme that needs to die.

if god isnt real who wrote the bible idiots

>>84892184
1 + 1 = 2

>>84892164

Good point

>>84891807
This actually, same takeaway I had. I came in thinking
>I'm Christian myself but even I wouldn't argue human life literally is as old as described in the bible
But he wiped the floor with Nye. Bill used carbon dating as evidence, Ken pointed out that there is no definitive way to prove carbon dating can accurately measure millions of years of age if we haven't verified this side by side for a million years, or something. Bill had no response, other than "how dare you question this?" and at least three times deflected towards the cameras, asking people to continue funding science programs, in order to gain moral high ground.

this just in, empirical observations require "faith" in the sense that they require us to believe there is an external and that it is governed by consistent laws. yeah, that's a huge amount of faith required for sure

>>84892204

Prove to me that's true.

>>84891632
Neither of them should be listened to by serious minded people. With that said, Nye was the "good" guy in this scenario...if you made me choose.

>>84892239
I already did.

>>84892209
because carbon dating methods are based on the consistent radioactive decay of certain particles. it is a known variable, but ken hamm says "BUT HAVE YOU SEEN IT DECAY AT THAT RATE OVER A MILLION YEARS". honestly it's hilarious to see him argue that from the position he is in. we haven't seen it decay over a million years but we have seen something exactly consistent with that (i.e. things that require very short times to decay)

File: 500px-Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png (19KB, 500x208px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x208px

>>84892239

>>84892254

That's circular reasoning. You're saying something is true because you think it is true.

>>84891632
neckbeard for being retarded and/or leeching off of other retards, science dude for debating him giving his retarded view credibility, me for watching it for almost an hour.

>>84892294
BTFO

>>84892294

>when arithmetical addition has been defined

>>84892281
I haven't seem the debate but is his argument that because we didn't see it with our own eyes we have no proof that it happened?
Then the bible is null as well. Were you there when god willed the world into existence? No? Then god didn't do it.

You can't argue with people of faith just like you can't argue with leftists; they operate on emotions and feelings and so by default they already win because they 'feel' that they're right.

>>84891632
Creationism is fucking retarded and so is the false dichotomy of science & religion that americans and atheists love to have, even the pope believes in evolution.

>>84892281
See, way better response than Bill. He came in thinking he was arguing with a creationist strawman, not someone anticipating his high school arguments. Quite a lot of people could have bested Ken in a debate Tbh

>>84891699

Read the Closing of the Muslim Mind by Robert Reilly. The short of it is that Guys like Ken believe that revelation is the only way to know true truth. This necessarily leads to the rejection of philosophy and science since the world is almost arbitrary in the sense that God can instantly change the laws of physics and stuff so we can't really know anything by way of reason. This book is about Muslims but it's perfectly applicable to certain voluntaristic protestant groups like the one Ken is a part of.

How could anyone see themselves beating an Australian shitposter?

File: For_you__97b2c8495c0b1a4c491e3fda235808ce.jpg (73KB, 700x701px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x701px

>>84891765

>>84892304
No, you asked for proof. I merely pointed to the proof that was already there.

>>84892357
Yup, it's completely based on a prior assumption of a relative system of definition created by humans for The purpose of understanding our world.

>>84892446

And how is that proof?

File: atheists.gif (7KB, 273x537px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 273x537px

>atheism

>>84892454

That's faith

>>84891632
Bill Nye raped Hamm in the ass and mouth....

But in all fairness you could have a high school debator do the same. Hamm is a jackass. Creationism is a very weak position that's hard to defend on any rational/factual grounds, even if the debator is good...

And even just a few years ago, Nye was still coasting off the strength of his kid's show which most of us grew up on. Nye gained some points with me for besting one of the lead proponents of creationism..... but he lost all his coolness points with his new show where he just shills liberal causes in an obnoxiously preachy manner.

I'd say him besting Ken Hamm could have jumpstarted his ailing career if he coasted off it properly. He could simply had a modernized version of his old show (without all the political preachiness) or he could have done something a bit more like John Oliver's show if he wanted to get preachy (but he'd need some good writers).... but the current show is a septic tank fire that has siphoned away any respectability he may have once had. I'm amazed they've greenlit a second season.

>>84892561
That's libertarianism

>>84892574
That's a definition.

>>84892561
Basic morals have been ingrained in our DNA since we were cavemen travelling in small groups. You don't need a God to tell you that killing other people and generally acting like a shitbag is bad.

>>84892709

Based on what?

>>84892597
>>>reddit

>>84892574
Not just faith, but all belief in general. We conclude from this that objectivity, therefore, is the most logical standpoint because it doesn't require believing based on unproven predispositions.

However, an enlightened individual will realize that objectivity isnt pragmatic because it inevitably leads to, nihilism, which leads to the downfall of society.

The most logical thing, therefore, is to adopt faith in a God, despite your understanding that it can't be proven. This is why high iq individuals (Einstein, Alex Jones,etc) are often religious.

>>84892723
>Basic morals have been ingrained in our DNA since we were cavemen travelling in small groups
Explain China, faggot

>>84892763
It's useful to define it that way.

>>84892723

Evolution or DNA may explain why we act a certain way but it doesn't explain why we should or should not act a certain way. If moral truths are the product of evolution, they are not commandments we are bound to obey but merely helpful suggestions that can assist our "herd" in survival. In other words, science has no way to bridge the gap between "is" and "ought." In other words, science can show us what helps us but it can't tell us why we should.

>>84892763
Based on a system created by humans you fucking idiot.

File: 1460322897385.jpg (57KB, 500x369px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x369px

>>84892822
>Alex Jones
Other than that you don't have to believe in a God to not be a nihilist

>>84892822

Humans are incapable of objectivity. All knowledge is predicated upon some degree of faith.

Alex Jones is not a clever man and should not be trusted.

>>84891765
Most people refer to averages when they say such things

>>84892854
Cultural differences and leftover communist practicise

>>84892885

Whilst I agree that it is useful, it isn't proof of anything. We believe that because it is easier that way.

>>84892994
What do you mean it's not proof?

We defined it, therefore it's true.

>>84892854
Chinks aren't human

>>84892900

Humans are incapable of objectivity and thus certain knowledge. Everything we claim to know is predicated ypon belief of some description.

>>84892854
kek,
unironically this

>>84893030

It's predicated upon subjective on human understanding and thus not a certain fact because we are incapable of obtaining necessary truth.

>>84893110
okay

Define truth and fact.

>>84893166

Definitions do not equal truth. I can tell you my definition of truth but like all definitions it would not equal truth.

>>84893044
>Humans are incapable of objectivity and thus certain knowledge

Source?

>>84893208
So then what are you going on about?

>>84893208
Fuck off with your postmodern trash you retarded new age hippie.

>>84893257

All of what we call truth and knowledge requires a subscription to a belief. We can't know anything.

>>84893305
define truth

>>84893284

Wrong on all counts. But please feel free to continue with your pop-psychology

>>84891729
>science is the belief that you can do something

Bill Nye should have faded into obscurity, dude is just embarrassing at this point

>>84893326

It doesn't matter it doesn't change what I'm arguing

>>84893254

Logic

>>84893110

Is it your belief that truth doesn't exist?

>>84893375
This is some really poor quality trolling, dude. At least be a little bit worth someone's time.

>>84893418

Yes, to humans at least

>>84893375

your arguing semantics in what is not a semantic argument, your essentially straw manning the word true. gravity exists whether or not you believe in it. laws of thermodynamics exists regardless of faith. this is objectively true.

>>84893436

Good argument

>>84893338
Says the guy who's literally spewing pop-psychology garbage.

>>84893469
How can you know truth doesn't exist if you can't define it?

>>84893469

Is the belief that truth doesn't exist a true belief?

>>84893496

Prove that these laws exist in all parts of reality

The point Bill kept returning to was that belief in a young earth is harmful to scientific progress. Ken pointed out that it doesn't matter what you think of origins, because you all have the same objective facts in front of you, and you can make technology and cure diseases no matter what you think of evolution. He even played a clip of the guy who invented the MRI machine, who believes the world was created by God 6,000 years ago. Bill never gave a real reason why it matters how old someone thinks the world is.

>>84893497
It's hard to have an argument with someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

>>84893513

>what is truth
>pop-psychology

Pick one

>>84893601
>postmodern new age hippie shit
>not pop-psychology

Educate yourself my underage friend.

>>84893558

Tell me about it

>>84893541

i dont see how thats relevant to creationism, you cant in science ask for proof that a negative is not true, this kind of logic is nonsensical.

>>84893537


this is a little better, your right and we also cant be certain our senses are giving us true data but this is not an effective method of living.

>>84893628

>what is truth
>postmodern new age hippie shit

I'm sorry things have gotten so bad for you, perhaps read a book from time to time? It might help

>>84893701

I'm not arguing that creationism is true. In fact, its logically very weak. In spite of this, however, all information requires some degree of faith to be held as knowledge. The degrees however are important, because this helps to dictate what is most likely to be the case, though we can never be sure. What I'm saying is that it can never be empirically verified that the laws we perceive to be true here are true anywhere else. Such an assumption is just that: an assumption. To hold this as truth requires belief.

>>84893556
It is misinformation. Why lie to people that the world is 6,000 years old?

>>84893529

It is not necessarily true, but it's perhaps the most valid belief in this thread.

Where the fuck did all these christfags come from? Is it the 4chan contrarianism?

>>84892281
I thought another big part of his argument was also that if you tried to date the same piece of evidence or material with different "established and reliable" methods that you would get drastically different ranges in age

>>84893907
The question is what's the harm in believing it?

File: 1493523085791.gif (1MB, 290x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x189px

>>84891632
> post-90s Bill Nye
> Right about anything

>>84893852

ok and while that may be true it is pointless. your essentially saying that proof or no proof doesnt effect the validity of a statement which is not true, while i agree you cant technically prove anything that make it untrue either, and that doesnt make any belief equally as valid there are still more and less true regardless, again what your arguing is totally semantics and irrelevant to life, one must most past that logic to literally have any thought

>>84893931

So it's not true that truth doesn't exist? A contradictory view isn't valid.

>>84893939

well by misinterpreting the history of our planet it would be easy to be misleading on the future of it. the way we live and treat our environment is effected by our beliefs in this realm.

>>84893948
what made 90s Bill Nye right? his tv show you liked?

>>84891632
people should listen to some of Fr. Robert Spitzer's stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqn-QjdEKg

Very knowledgeable guy, learned in physics, and uses logic unlike creationists.

Bill Nye not a scientist guy would have his ass handed to him in a debate with him, seeing as Stephen Hawking was.

>>84893934
Either that or LARPers

>>84891647
I really want to say both of them as well, but I know it's the not nye guy.

Ham isn't lying to people, he's just very badly mistaken. It's best to engage guys like him on their own ground for the reasons this post pointed out >>84892424

Hams position is not biblical sound because Christians who believe the creation is only a few thousand years old come to that conclusion by counting the years included in the genealogies of the old testament. However the genealogies in the bible cannot be used to date the age of the universe because they were not meant to be exact chronicles of history. In some cases generations were omitted in order to make a symbolic point. In other cases the ages themselves may be symbolic and not literal. The genealogies in scripture were primarily focused on showing how different people were related to one another, not how long ago they lived. Nye is completely retarded so hes totally unaware of just how weak Hams position is from a Christian perspective.

>>84893852
so all beliefs are equally valid?

>>84894098
>Ham isn't lying to people
He speaks as if the bible is true so, yeah. He's lying to people.

>>84893985

Exactly, we believe in truth to make life easier. This does not mean we actually know anything. Plus, I agree that whilst things can be more or less true, none can become truth, because we cannot know truth.

>>84894133
*tips fedora*

>>84894133

Do you have reason to believe it's not a genuine belief?

>>84892961
100 then I guess

>>84894082
>>84894098

this. If Bill Nye debated with an actually good Christian theologian he'd hang himself with that bowtie

>>84892201
Checkmate atheists
/thread
Case closed

Bill for being retarded enough to debate creationists.

>>84894114

Equally unable to claim to be true based on the logical deduction that all proof requires subsequent proof (reductio ad absurdum) or something that is self-evident (logically weak). I'm not saying that everything is false, just that nothing is true.

>>84894163
if it is a genuine belief then more power to him.

>not adhering to an evolutionary pragmatic view of truth

>>84891682
perhaps, but christianity is wrong

If there is a God, then it created everything. Every single bit of physics that's so complicated only 5 humans can begin to understand how it works, a universe so vast we cannot even imagine it's size.
And you're expecting me to believe a friggin jewish carpenter understood such a being completely? Not a bloody chance.

>>84894311

Yeah sure. but the point is that if it's a genuine belief then he's not lying to people. He's just wrong.

>>84893987

It's perhaps the most logically valid statement of this thread, but its not necessary truth.

>>84894144

yea were agreeing on that, but i dont understand how this affects the original argument

>>84894357
>And you're expecting me to believe a friggin jewish carpenter understood such a being completely? Not a bloody chance.
Well there's your problem. You think he was just some random guy. He was God in human form.

>>84894039
He was fun on almost live
Probably the only watchable part of that trash show

>>84894401

I was more making an observation than offering an argument friend. I didn't intend to cause such a long-winded debate, to be honest.

>>84894433
>taking such stupid bait

>>84894467

lol at least were both not assholes and we can see that were agreeing this is how conversation should work

>>84894467
>y-yeah, i wasn't even trying
Embarrassing.

>>84894357

If instead of being really big the universe was really small would you then take this is evidence for the existence of God? If not then I don't see how you can take the universe being big as being evidence against the existence of God. If God created something out of nothing then that would make him the most powerful thing imaginable, all-powerful in fact. I don't see how a complex creation (to our relative perspective) excludes the possibility of such an all-powerful force or being.

File: 1406510198790.jpg (16KB, 231x244px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 231x244px

>>84891632
>at the Creation Museum

>>84894499

I agree, its nice to have an actual conversation once in a while haha

>>84894516

I was simply proposing my view, it wasn't never intended as an argument. Sorry you feel differently.

>>84894433
Humans are incapable of understanding an entity so advanced, so completely and utterly beyond us
at least not in our current form and capacity

if we find God, it will be through science, not belief

File: 1493974471404.jpg (52KB, 639x489px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 639x489px

Reminder.

>>84892574
Reliability and continued retest is not "faith"...

>>84894639
How Dexter Holland can be so damn smart but make such dumb music boggles me.

Like imagine if Oppenheimer drew Garfield comics in his spare time.

>>84894542
you get me wrong
I don't say God is real or unreal, I'm merely saying that if it is real, it is to advanced, to majestic to be understood in such a crude form as our current religions
whatever God is, it is not explained by some desert cult

>>84892950
>All knowledge is predicated upon some degree of faith.
"Faith" isn't the word you are looking for, mate.

>>84894671

It is, each retest is based on an admission of unreliability

>>84894630
and we did.
physics proves God to be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqn-QjdEKg

File: 1380697092809.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>>84891682
>God is real

>>84894719

What word would you rather I used?

>>84891632
Bill Nye for giving this faggot the time of day, and for pretending that he speaks for Atheists in general

>>84892561
try a little harder dear

>>84894728
...no? That's literally not how that works.

File: 1455711230110.png (242KB, 409x407px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 409x407px

>>84894762
>God is not real

>>84894703
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB4GsuZq-AM

>>84894765
Reliance or expectancy of an outcome. I don't "have faith" in gravity, I believe it based on reliance.

>>84894850

Why retest then? If a test led to certain knowledge then surely a retest would be superfluous

>>84894890
you have faith that the future will resemble the past

>>84894730
our current understanding of physics doesn't even adequately explain how gravity works
how could it possibly explain the entity that CREATED gravity, that doesn't just understand it, but produced it.

And perhaps one day we will find proof of God, though if we do, we'll achieve it with tools unimaginably more sophisticated than our crude brains.
But what we will never find is proof of any religion, because they are all wrong. They are all fabrications made by men, some with good intentions, some with less than benevolent ones trying to sate our need for purpose and explanations with cheap lies.

Tell me this, have you ever heard even a single argument for any religion, that cannot be applied to an arbitrary number of incompatible religions?

>>84894869
exactly

File: 1484264419177.gif (3MB, 280x358px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 280x358px

>>84894730
>we don't know ____ about the universe
>its has to be God!

>>84894890

>I believe it

Belief then, which is essentially synonymous with expectancy. In any case, this does not effect what I have suggested.

Kevin Ham for fucking Bill Nye so hard in the ass.

>>84894956
and don't forget the next jump
>god exists
>therefor my religion is right and I know exactly what god wants

>>84894922
No I don't. When did I say that of myself?

>>84895034
You have to have faith in the church, in what the pope says.

/tv/ - epistemology

>>84894910
You retest it to continue to prove that something is true, hence reliable. That isn't faith. That isn't even remotely what faith is.

I've never seen a liberal not get BTFO in a debate

>>84895093
why?
what makes christianity right and islam wrong?
how are you so sure god demands or even values faith?

if the universe has a creator it is beyond our current capacity to understand it, and like it or not: the pope is just another human and like your or me incapable of understanding god

>>84894967
Faith is a belief without evidence, anything with evidence of reliability or continued proof through expected results is not a belief based on faith. So no, faith is the wrong word choice to use.

Ken Ham taught me that humans walked the earth with the dinosaurs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYKupOsaJmk

>>84895085
so then you know as a certain objective fact that the future always resembles the past?

>>84891632
Magical sky fairy man vs gender spectrum man. A battle for the ages.

>>84895136

>to continue to prove that something is true

If it was true it would remain truth

>>84895156
Then you are lying to yourself or haven't debated anyone ever. Want to talk climate change or how pizzagate is retarded?

File: 1492726136759.jpg (177KB, 1446x1462px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1446x1462px

>movie thread makes 10 posts
>atheism post makes 1000 posts
wtf

>>84895212
>Magical sky fairy man

He is the children riding dinosaurs man.
Most christians dont agree with his retarded shit

>>84895213
It does remain true...you retesting something you know to be true, doesn't insuniate LESS truth unless your retest changes the result.

Ex. Gravity.

>>84895176

As I said, that's faith. Its the belief in something that cannot proved as true.

>>84895259
Right, he also believes a fucking magic man in the sky poofed the universe into existence with literally zero evidence to back it up.

>>84895267
Buddy, you are being retarded. That is literally not faith. Please open up a dictionary.

>>84895267
>. Its the belief in something that cannot proved as true.

No it's not.

>>84893934
See>>84891807

>>84895264

So why retest then? Equally, this proof does not equal truth because it is tainted by human subjectivity.

>>84895198
When did I say that? What are you on about, bud?

>>84893044
How do you explain math then? Do you honestly believe that we created these things and did not merely discover them?

I understand what you are getting at but you are incorrect, there are so many things that exist without us discovering them, to say that we have to put our faith in them to be true is a very flawed argument.>>84893050

>>84893411
Are you saying logic is your source? Or that your argument is based on logic. Because you are a retard.

File: 1475434158688.png (125KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 785x757px

>>84895267
>Faith is confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief,[1] in which faith may equate to confidence based on some perceived degree of warrant.[2][3]

>>84895321
>>84895293

Sorry fellas, I don't know what to say. Faith is a belief in something in the absence of proof. Precisely what I've been saying through this thread is that proof as a method of approaching truth doesn't exist, thus all knowledge requires faith.

>>84895379

Argument is based on logic retard

>>84895335
Oh, you're retarded.

>>84895343
you mentioned reliance or the expectancy of an outcome. I took this to mean that you find believe in something like gravity because you expectancy of the outcome to remain the same is reliable. If that is the case then that means that you expect the outcome to resemble past outcomes. And that this expectation of the outcome to resemble past outcomes has proven reliable. Unless I understand your notion of reliance wrong, if so then please clarify

>>84895355

Mathematics, like any other faced of human knowledge cannot be proven as necessary truth. I agree that it is most likely true, but I can't prove that it certainly is, divorced from my perception.

>>84895546

Good argument

>>84895572
>Mathematics, like any other faced of human knowledge cannot be proven as necessary truth
>what is literally anything that is proven a priori

This board is such a cesspit it can't even discuss movies anymore.

>>84895547
Yes...that is generally what reliable means.

>>84895633

A priori does not equal necessary truth

>>84892446
You're a faggot

That's a fact

>>84895547
>I took this to mean that you find believe in something like gravity because you expectancy of the outcome to remain the same is reliable
Yes, and the outcome for testing gravity has literally always been the same. The results dictate what I believe to be true. In centuries, the fundamental concept of gravity has never changed.

>>84895672
will then my original question remains. your expectation is based on past outcomes. What reason do you have to believe the future will resemble the past? Keep in mind that just because the future has resembled the past before, does not mean it will always do so, and will do so in the future.

>>84891632
is that dr Zaius?

>>84895677
It literally does. It's in the definition of the word.

>>84895745
just because they have not changed in the past does not necessarily mean they will not change in the future.

>>84895776
based

>>84895768
Because if retesing shows the same outcome each time, I have no reason to think the opposite of the result is true? Why is this hard for you?

>>84895834
This is just wishy washy "if if if" bullshit. If I retest gravity and get a different result tomorrow, then my opinion will change only after, not before that has happened.

Reliance and repetition is the only thing to base beliefs on.

>>84892008
Facts change all the fucking time, just look at the history of the atom.

I am an atheist.

>>84896092
Nothing about atoms themselves have changed, we just know more about them now.

>>84891682
Lol wut? I get that you can't deny evolution, but saying god is real and anybody that does not believe that he is, is as dumb as a 15 year old, when there is 0 evidence supporting that claim, is just retarded.
For all I know there might be a god, but if there is, there is no evidence supporting it. Believing is fine, but acting like people that don't believe are intelectually dishonest when you are the one bending facts is beyond hypocritical.

>>84896166
Exactly

File: 19655798.png (125KB, 500x544px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 500x544px

>>84894039
>what made 90s Bill Nye right?

Proper question is: What makes current Bill Nye so shitty?

'muh sex junk

>>84895964
It isn't about thinking that the opposite outcome is "true" but rather possible. You do not have absolute, necessary certainty what the future outcome will be. The best you can do is refer to past experiences and hope, believe, have faith, and expect the future outcomes to resemble the past ones. The main point is that you cannot justify the usefulness of past experiences by referring to past experiences

>>84896350
>It isn't about thinking that the opposite outcome is "true" but rather possible
It can be as possible as I pretend to be, that doesn't change what the outcomes are. I'm "expecting" future outcomes to stay the same, but what decides that is the result.

This is autistic. Nothing I am saying is based on any faith. You must be baiting me.

>>84896350
>The main point is that you cannot justify the usefulness of past experiences by referring to past experiences
Yes you can, and you sound stupid.

>>84896436
you are "expecting" future outcomes to remain the same as opposed to "knowing" that future outcomes will remain the same. So your belief in gravity is based on this expectation. If you don't want to use the word faith, then we'll just say you do not have certainty or truth to justify your expectation. Without that, what is the justification for your expectation?

>>84896467
It is the same as trying to justify the bible by referring to the bible. You can't justify the reliability of past experiences by referring to past experiences. Just because the future resembled the past, in the past, does not necessarily mean that the future will resemble the past, in the future.

>>84896717
>you are "expecting" future outcomes to remain the same as opposed to "knowing" that future outcomes will remain the same.
It's based on the results...

You are aggravating in how dumb you are.

>>84896774
This is tue dumbest shit I ever read. What moron compares past experiences with claiming the Bible is true?

>>84896436
>>84896467
You guys do know David Hume went over this centuries ago, right?

>>84895255
non whites get out

do you also say remember in place of reminds?

Bill Nye doesn't even believe in evolution though.

>>84896825
the point is you can't justify something by referring to the thing you are trying to justify. You need to find some outside measure or justification.

I liked the end bit, where they ask, what would change your mind. Ken takes all his time saying just how much evidence he would need to over come his faith, while bill says "just one thing. Just one fossil on the wrong sediment layer, just one inconsistency with out dating system etc."

ITT /tv/ rehashes arguments that are 3-4 hundred years old because they are woefully unread

>>84892708
just fucking kill yourself

im a libertarian and unlike leftists, we actually care about other people

you're thinking of stirnerfags

>>84892854
the state is anti social

>>84896886
Saying I am judging future experiences by past experiences is not circular you retarded dipshit.

>>84896774

I think what you're essentially saying is that without making certain philosophical assumptions like the universe being consistent then science falls apart, right? I would agree with that.

>>84896969
>im a libertarian and unlike leftists, we actually care about other people
Just not when it comes to fair business practices and anti-discrimination laws, eh libertarian fag? I once had a libertarian argue why it was okay to post a "no nuggets" sign outside his business.

ITT people who have never read Kant and don't understand synthetic a priori judgements

basically read this and think about it you stupid fucks

stop arguing metaphysics when you have literally read 0 philosophy on the subject

>>84897074
*niggers

The sign was "no niggers"

>>84897100
Kant is retarded and so is metaphysics, /lit/. It's brainlet "baby's first philosophy" and literally pseudo-science.

Low intellect trash: Atheism
High intellect ascendant: Christianity

This is probably the simplest form I could explain it to retarded atheists.

>>84897074
>Just not when it comes to fair business practices and anti-discrimination laws
what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

I'm nice to other people.
I want people to have MORE options when voluntarily interacting with other people.
If people don't like a shitty deal they can go elsewhere.

>BAWWWWWWWW ALL BUSINESSES SHOULD BE FORCED TO SERVE ANYONE

Gay bar owners should allow neo-nazis inside their bars?

Discrimination is literally peace. Voluntarily human interaction is a good thing, you violent scum.

>>84897242
Good goyim.

>>84897181
>literally pseudo-science.
so is marxism, marxism is far more retarded than kant

>introduce problem of induction as low hanging fruit expecting everyone to just say "lol we know about that already" and move on
>turns out people legitimately seem to never have heard of, encountered, or thought of the problem of induction before
>if they have, they don't offer potential rebuttals such as>>84897100, since Kant was directly responding to Hume and thus his notion of synthetic a priori judgements actually addresses the issue and gives way to actual potential debate

>>84897243
>Discrimination is literally peace
>so I'd be okay preventing blacks from entering my store. Business segregation is a good thing!
>Don't you see that I care about people?
The delusion is astounding, mate. I bet you literally see nothing wrong with denying certain minorities service and the economic implication of that.

Libertarians always sound like shit people trying to mask racism under a party belief.

>>84897243
>Gay bar owners should allow neo-nazis inside their bars?
Yes, it's called free enterprise retard. When the neo-Nazi starts to kick up shit and being belligerent, kick him out.

>>84897313

Yeah the people on the /tv/ board aren't versed in philosophy. What a bunch of losers am I right? ha ha. Good greentext by the way bro, that's how I can tell you're a top mind.

>>84897281
Nice whataboutism

File: 1499310973338.jpg (61KB, 820x820px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 820x820px

>>84897243
If you are so autistic to the point where you can't handle interacting with other people in the marketplace, so the only answer you can come up with is segregation, you have issues.

>>84897390
problem of induction is babby intro 101 meme philosophy, not something obscure that you would only know by studying philosophy and being well versed in it. It is allegory of the cave tier

File: 14235634734.png (136KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 306x306px

>>84891632
>Bill Nye calls Ken Ham delusional
>calls him out for believing in dumb shit without evidence
>In the next breath perpetuates the global warming hoax

Really makes you think

>>84891896
That's because Catholicism for example is okay with and supports evolution. So all you have is the protestant wackos to argue against.

>>84897531
Or you know, global warming isn't a hoax?

>>84897584
the notion that the only reason the earth's climate is changing is human intervention is a hoax

>>84897509

But why would you expect anyone on a television board to know anything at all about philosophy? If I started making fun of everyone here for not knowing the basics of electrical engineering people would rightfully think I was autistic because there's no reasonable expectation that people would know about it.

>>84897625
>only reason
Nobody says that, they say "primary" reason "now".

Shit bait though. It takes someone ten seconds of research to figure out global warming is real.

>>84897637
because it is a thread about a philosophical/epistemological theme

>>84891699
Same way a guy with a bachelors in mechanical engineering can.

Bill Nye is an actor, not a scientist.

>>84897354
>>Don't you see that I care about people?
I personally do.
I don't support forcing other people to think the way I think.

Am I the person not letting specific groups of people in my store?

Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?

>I bet you literally see nothing wrong with denying certain minorities service and the economic implication of that.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Companies that do such a retarded thing would go bankrupt.

>>84897389
That's my point, retard.

>>84897637
yeah like >>84897730 said, if you started a thread about breadboards and soldering you can expect people who want to contribute to the discussion have at least a basic knowledge of the topic right

File: 1499869183913.png (189KB, 286x293px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 286x293px

>>84897948
>I don't support forcing other people to think the way I think.
Nobody is telling you or forcing you to think any shitty way you want. Just what constitutes fair business practices that aren't legal segregation techniques that serve to do nothing to discriminate certain people out of participation.
>Am I the person not letting specific groups of people in my store?
Well I mean, you argued that position. So implicitly or explicitly, you'd be okay with economic segregating.
>Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?
Because it is a fantasy world and not reflective of how economics works, or it's used as a ruse to justify being a racist faggot.
>There is nothing wrong with that.
This is why I have a problem with people like you, there is something wrong with segregating businesses based on discrimination of minorities. How does it feel to parrot the very logic of segregationists?
>Companies that do such a retarded thing would go bankrupt.
That doesn't make it right, or fair, to allow a practice like that. "Well, we should all be allowed to shoot people in the face, I can't tell other people where to put their bullets. Nobody would actually shoot anyone! They'd all be dead!"

It's retardo logic, matey. If I honestly need to explain to you why segregation is bad, there is something fundamentally wrong with your brain.

>>84897471
If you're so autistic you think the government should pass laws that require violence to prevent voluntary segregation, you have issues

>>84898283
Literally point to where I condoned violence. You need basic regulations in business to prevent abuse. You rather we have kids working in sweatshops for ten cents an hour and have the economy tank under the pressures of monopolies?

Like I said, you libertarians are a joke and live in a fantasy world.

>>84898194
*serve to do nothing but

Is this worth watching or is it the typical religion-science debate where both sides are extremely nice to each other and too afraid to say anything interesting, and when they finally do the debate gets derailed back into safe territory and then it ends?

>>84898436
You should watch any debate with Dawkins. I don't mean that as a fedora tip, he's just honestly savage.

>>84898436
Bill is not nice to Ken Ham in any way.

>>84898472
Alright, thanks, I will!

>ctrl+f bill nye dropping a phat beat webm
>0 results

fucking why

>>84898493
Excellent, I hate it when debates like this are extremely peaceful and all "agree to disagre" where they don't even argue. Guess this one isn't like that.
And does he talk about his sex junk?

>>84898549
No, none of that, that I recall.

>>84898357
>Literally point to where I condoned violence.
If I don't let specific groups into my business, the police will come and arrest me. If I restist I will be shot.
VIOLENCE you dumb fuck

>You rather we have kids working in sweatshops for ten cents an hour
Child labour laws need to be completely abolished
they're starving and killing kids in the third world

>under the pressures of monopolies?

monopolies form thanks to government controls
why don't you read actual economic history instead of getting your opinions from shitty memes

get gassed

>you libertarians are a joke
top kek it's hilarious when you leftist losers are completely unable to refute what we are saying

File: 1498874096825.jpg (81KB, 419x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 419x480px

>>84898913
>If I don't let specific groups into my business, the police will come and arrest me. If I restist I will be shot.
Kek, so you are complaining that there would be a physical altercation if you resisted after breaking the law? Toppest of keks. Highly doubt you would be shot in your own store.
>Child labour laws need to be completely abolished
I have never read a more retarded statement in this thread. So you essentially support child labor, then?
>monopolies form thanks to government controls
ABSOLUTE FUCKING KEK it is literally the opposite, my history illiterate friend.
>why don't you read actual economic history instead of getting your opinions from shitty memes
If every libertarian read a book on economic history, none of them would be libertarians. Or at the very least, they wouldn't advocate getting rid of child labor laws. Thanks for the laugh though.
>get gassed
Very peaceful of you.
>top kek it's hilarious when you leftist losers are completely unable to refute what we are saying
You are paranoid if you think everyone who thinks you retarded is your lefty boogeywoogey and in case you haven't been paying attention, you have consistently been refuted. If you would like a works cited post of sources, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Especially given the fact you have no clue how monopolies work.

>>84899114
>Kek, so you are complaining that there would be a physical altercation if you resisted after breaking the law?
I'm not complaining about it, I'm pointing out you are a hypocrite and a liar for saying you don't support violence against people voluntarily segregating

idiot

>I have never read a more retarded statement in this thread.
look at your posts lol

>So you essentially support child labor, then?
no, why would I support such a horrible barbaric thing?

> it is literally the opposite
HAHAHAHHAHA
HOLY SHIT READ HISTORY
The original form of monopoly meant government monopoly

Free markets are introduced to destroy monopolies.

>If every libertarian read a book on economic history
We constantly read and write them.
Countless books with endless mainstream sources have been written by libertarians.
lol

>they wouldn't advocate getting rid of child labor laws
Why do you support child prostitution and starvation?

>you have consistently been refuted
TOP KEK you just keep contradicting yourself and now you don't even know why child labour laws or the minimum wage is a bad thing
kill yourself

>Especially given the fact you have no clue how monopolies work.
TOP FUCKING KEK
The original term monopoly even refutes you.
Explain how monopolies can magically form in free markets and I'll refute it as I have refuted countless leftist losers like yourself in the past. I'll wait.

>>84900167
Oh, this was bait? Okay.

>>84900167
>Free markets are introduced to destroy monopolies.
Unrestricted business literally created the first monopolies, mate. What do you think the early Industrial riots and protests were about?

>>84900167
>he thinks child labor laws and the minimun wage are bad things
>if not bait, then literally retarded

>>84891632
>Who was in the wrong here?

Both of them, but more importantly the producers and network were in the wrong.

No one featured in this ''debate'' is/was a scientist, the entire premise was a lie.

>mechanical engineer ''debates'' religious cleric on a subject neither of them are qualified in.

File: 1498247667240.jpg (47KB, 558x564px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 558x564px

>>84900167
>Countless books with endless mainstream sources have been written by libertarians.

>>84900167
>Im pointing out you are a hypocrite and a liar for saying you don't support violence against people voluntarily segregating
You breaking the law and resisting arrest is not an example of ME advocating violence, friendo. You could just not resist arrest?
>no, why would I support such a horrible barbaric thing?
Since you want to get rid of child labor laws?
>The original form of monopoly meant government monopoly
No.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antitrust_law

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike
>Free markets are introduced to destroy monopolies.
Kek. See above.
>We constantly read and write them.
Countless books with endless mainstream sources have been written by libertarians.
Name one that isn't laughed at.
>Why do you support child prostitution and starvation?
You think preventing children from being exploited in factories equates to prostitution?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Child_Labor_Committee
>TOP KEK you just keep contradicting yourself and now you don't even know why child labour laws or the minimum wage is a bad thing
Yes, with positions like that, I'm the foolish one here.
>The original term monopoly even refutes you.
No. It doesn't.
>Explain how monopolies can magically form in free markets
When you allow unrestricted business to monopoly without checks and balances, which literally happened in the US before the anti-trust act.
>and I'll refute it as I have refuted countless leftist losers like yourself
You are delusional and paranoid.

Thanks for the laugh though.

God isn't real but Christianity is integral to western civilizations success.
Jordan Peterson was right. the west is dying

>>84891632
Nye is a retard. But even retards are more sane than religious people.

>>84891682

Anon LARPing as a Catholic is best meme

>>84902074
Let them. The armpit of the internet is their only outlet. In a decade or two they won't even dare to wear cross in public because Mohammed Bin Aladdi and his 20 sons will be patrolling his area.

>>84891965
Epic, just ....epic. wow....

>>84895255

Does anyone on /tv/ actually watch movies and television still? I sure don't

>>84891761
>>84891896
You might be very surprised just how much of the U.S. is comprised of these anti-science protestants. Literally my entire extended family. I grew up thinking it was normal, later learned they were a minority, but maybe not as small as you think.

>>84901727
>the west is dying

No it isn't. It's being purposely murdered. Enjoy your slavery when/if the jews finally realize their dream of creating a world filled with totally exploitable, subservient brown people.

>>84904783
>atheist rebelling against his family
What a surprise.

File: download.jpg (5KB, 375x134px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 375x134px

>>84897074
hate blacks, mexicans ,irish, germans , japs i dont care .
but i draw the line with nuggetphobia
it current year for goodness sake

>>84901727
this
like that simpsons episode about the backstory of Jeremiah Springfield

>>84895443
what is Truth ?

the final redpill: god is simply a manifestation of the highest possible social order

>>84892597
What about the show is unscientific?

>>84892597

Except Hamm raped nye in the first debate.. nye won the second one (walking around the creation museum) sure. But Hamm's pre prepared stuff was excellent unlike nyes which looked like it was prepared the day before by a lazy highschool student

>>84895794

No it doesn't. You don't seem to know the definition of the expression necessary truth

>>84906086

Read the thread, bud.