Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wippooDL6WE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I don't know who the guy on the right is but I know he's going to completely ruin Nye.

>Parrot Man vs. Ron Perlman in Quest for Fire

what did they mean by this?

In that instance Bill was right. It doesn't matter if he went crazy later in life.

Literally nothing good has ever come out of Kentucky.

The people who think the world is 6000 years old are far better role models for your children. They teach young people to avoid drugs and pornography, to work hard and raise strong and healthy families. They want to raise of generation of people who follow the protestant work ethic and reject cultural degeneracy, people who could build a far better and stronger civilization that has ability end our reliance on fossil fuels and bring humanity to the stars. Their one and only problem is that they think that Adam and Eve lived with Dinosaurs in the garden of Eden, a small price to pay for a brighter future.

The culture that Bill Nye represents is one of decadence and decay. He wants your children to grow up to simply be too hedonistic and lazy to develop alternative energy sources or to colonize other worlds. Humanity will go quietly into the night, with full awareness of the incomprehensible miracles of nature that led us to where we are today and our solemn duty to act as stewards of the Earth.

Sam Harris vs. this dude would have been better. Hitchens vs. this dude would have been best.

Probably the guy who doesn't own a "museum" that features people riding dinosaurs.

this. Nye is a living meme

You are a walking piece of shit masquerading as a cliche.
Hope it was worth it.

Neither of them were particularly good debaters or orators.

You for helping to spread the Sup Forums disease.

American Christianism was a mistake.

>tfw I've been to the creation museum three times
It's actually pretty fun, they have a cool planetarium. I'd recommend it.

I'm no fan of liberals or modern """""science""""" but creationism is utterly retarded

The pure and wholesome culture of protestants is a facade. They're ok with degeneracy as long as you don't tell your pastor. They use threats of burning in hell to scare and control their children.

The guy on the right is proof of human-ape ancestry.

>m-muh evolution

There is a valid point here

>m-muh magic book

This happened years ago you underaged little queer

Since the guy on the left is a complete joke, I'd say the guy on the right.

Sam sounds like a robot and thinks like one. He also advocates for ethnic cleansing so long as it is brown people who believe in Allah not his precious Jews. Fuck that guy and the fedora tippers that suck his dick.

kek, American protestants are the biggest Israel supporters.

>two retards debating about something retarded
wew lads

This guy is right you know:

on average sure
if it's true that good values produce a better life and also true that the earth is more than 6000 years old why not tell kids both?

Right about making a giant liberal strawaman?

I wish Ken Ham would stop. His giant ark isn't even seaworthy. These people do more damage to Christianity than people like Dawkins.

Then why do they appease coalcucks and frack enema fags? It's time to rebrand nuclear

The side into hedonism and laziness are going to be the ones inventing ai's to run billions of experiments a day. Conservatives are going to be the ones telling you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when 99% of labor is being done by robots.

The debate wasn't about who leads the better life

>hey man im ushering in the socialist utopia by making the rich pay for my weed man its a revolution man im on the side that invents robots that will take over the world man
lmao you people are so delusional

>creationism
Imagine the level of cognitive dissonance

>Americans

Your country will be a third world shit hole in the next few decades. Just like all the other shit holes that dismiss basic science.

>these "Debates"
Ugh paid for and funded debates are never fair and the audience is always biased debates do nothing.

>he wants to have the state pay private prisons to take the niggs while they slip him something extra

It won't be a utopia but automation taking the majority of jobs is almost a given at this point. The tech is already there they just need a decade to make it good and another to make it cheap. Also if they make an AI as smart as a trained dog at any point during that time it's a wrap for most people in the workforce.

>Proddies
>rejecting cultural degeneracy

ʰᵃʰᵃʰᵃʰᵃʰᵃʰᵃʰᵃʰʰᵃʰhehehehehhahahahahahAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

The William Lane Craig/Christopher Hitchens debate was infinitely better.

Baby raper

>Triggered

>I speculate that there will be no jobs in the future
>so let's usher in the murderous system that dooms everyone to a life of poverty NOW because that's how we'll deal with it in the future
why are hippies so stupid?

the banana

If you need fairy tales to keep you from sucking dick then you were always a degenerate

The funny thing is that the debate was but a fundraiser for the museum, and visitation has increased since it was broadcasted.
Ham won as soon as Nye agreed to it.

Bill Nye is literally the worst person to be making this debate. The only way the fundies are going to be convinced is if someone with master bible knowledge convinces them it is compatible with evangelicalism. All Bill Nye does is reinforce their stereotypes of arrogant heathen scientists. He's literally playing into their hands. What a fucking retard.

um, probably the creationist

They should have had Francis Collins debate Ham. He's a theistic evolutionist, a Christian, and the head of the Human Genome Project and NIH.

A proddie! Ignorant of Eastern Orthodoxy! Color me surprised!

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

But that would never happen because it might actually work.

Obviously the guy on the right was wrong, believing in Young Earth creationism, and building a huge replica of Noah's Ark for his amusement park for heroin using Trump voters.

fark > sa
moot pls go

Someone can believe Earth is 4 billion years old and still raise their children with morality.

Some teachings are a little wacky, but focus on outcomes not teachings. You're right about decadence and decay.

But it wasn't really miracles that led us to today. It was freak accidents.

Collins might be too busy but it's at least worth a try. He established BioLogos to help Christians understand the logic and theological consistency of evolution. It makes sense that he would take the time to do something like this.

No true Christian is okay with degeneracy

I grew up in a southern baptist church in Tennessee.

The most decadent, degenerate people with the most fucked up problems I have ever met in my life attended those two churches. I also went to a private Christian school. Again, the kids there were ten times as wild as ones in public school.

There is nothing noble about teaching your children shit that doesn't make any sense. If you want them to believe there are only two biological genders, you teach them science, you teach them logic. You can't have it both ways, Christfag.

Santa isn't real, but kids believing in Santa can produce better behavior.

Sometimes a lie produces better behavior than the truth.

>teach your children that lying is okay -- that'll make them better people
(You)

so the power of the holy ghost is the same as the ministry of silly walks?
youtube.com/watch?v=wippooDL6WE


really gets my noggin joggin

>There is nothing noble about teaching your children shit that doesn't make any sense.

Results matter more than teachings. Outcomes matter more with teachings.

For example, Mormonism is batshit insane, but it consistently leads to better outcomes in adolescents. Even actors who were raised Mormon but went more degenerate in Hollywood have pointed to the positive influence it had on their life.

Your anecdotes are worth less than nothing, neckbeard faggot

>results matter more than teachings
How about good teaching with good results? Don't cherrypick one hack """scientist""" with a BS in engineering as being representative of how every non-Christian in the world raises your kids and I can stop cherrypicking my own bad personal experiences with the church.
See above, edgelord. Insults don't make arguments.

Have you heard of necessary illusions? It's an illusion that the word is a meritocracy, but if you believe it is you'll work harder to achieve success. If they realized the truth that much of success comes down to luck, they may not ever even try.

It's about outcomes, not beliefs.

the irony of you proving that posters point right tho kek

The things you teach your children when they're children is not the same as trying to have them adhere to falsehoods when they mature. You're poisoning them with the idea that lying is okay and they'll hold that hypocrisy against you for the rest of their lives.

Christianity is a Jewish invention and plot to keep White people retarded so they are easier to control.

Checkmate non-athiests.

Got any data on that? The more repressed kids are the worse shit they do when they get freedom

>Insults don't make arguments
You didn't make an argument, you worthless fedoralord, you told a story and pretended like it had any probative value

>How about good teaching with good results?

Like what? Science doesn't tell people how to live their life, the right way to live. In fact, most degenerate SJWs in college are big believers in science (except when it comes to transgenderism).

The truth is most likely that there is no soul, and no Hell. So people are not punished for sins after they die. Knowing that doesn't really produce good results. It indicates people can get away with harming others as long as they don't get caught.

Personally I think inflicting suffering on others is morally wrong, but I've talked to all kinds of autists who think why should they care, as long as they aren't the ones suffering.

And when they realize their behavior is based on a lie it causes them to see their entire moral system as such. This leads inevitably to nihilism.

I don't think the concept of hell or sin has to be literal for it to ring true. People who behave badly generally have chaotic and undesirable lives, hell/sin are metaphors for that

I don't have kids. And personally I would feel bad lying to them about Santa, and lots of things. But even Joe Rogan said you gotta tell your kids about Santa.

And people lie all the time, without even being taught that lying is okay. People learn on their own that lying can get them what they want, and avoid negative things.

Religion is necessary to civilize women and children.

And if there is no God, it's not like hypocrisy even matters anyway, it's certainly not a "sin."

>There is nothing noble about teaching your children shit that doesn't make any sense. If you want them to believe there are only two biological genders, you teach them science, you teach them logic. You can't have it both ways, Christfag.
(You)
Not all ethics are tied to believing in creationism. There is nothing wrong with taking moral lessons from the Bible -- the ones that make sense, like a good portion of the teachings of Jesus, but a lot of those morals are pre-Christian in their origin and have nothing to do with a talking snake or a burning bush.

You do not need to rely on Hell to punish those who are wicked in life. You should attempt to improve your society so that the law is a sufficient deterrent to endangering the existence of other people. Science teaches reason, it teaches the scientific method and that is enough for most normal people to establish a decent enough moral code for them to be good people.

Well, women need to be controlled, because nature controls their bodies.

Religion was invented to constrain the natural hypergamous behavior of women.

That's a claim, not an argument. You assert that scientific reasoning is superior to religious reasoning but provide no supporting points or evidence.

>two biological genders
>scientific fact

>but it is a claim that teaching your children objective scientific facts is the best way to have them reason out the 'gender question'
You sound like an idiot.

Repressed? Amy Adams grew up Mormon. Ryan Gosling grew up Mormon. Did they end up doing much "worse shit"?

Adolescents do tend to rebel. But that would mean children raised atheist would also tend to rebel.

Yes, it is a claim. You've provided no evidence as to why "objective scientific facts" are better or more persuasive than religious arguments. It's entirely possible that children would be more receptive to religious reasoning. But I don't know that because you've provided no evidence.

In what way is science a basis for a moral code? Science only concerns itself with measuring measurable things to explain what the world is. Mythology/stories/religion are collections of lessons to teach people what happens when people behave in certain ways. They resonate with people and endure because they ring true. There's definitely drawbacks when people are dogmatic about their religion, but I don't think abandoning it in favor of something that doesn't even attempt to fill the gap is going to produce positive results

Well, children and pets can't really understand the nuances and intricacies of negative utilitarianism.

But if you say that Santa keeps a list, checks to see if they're naughty or nice, doesn't bring toys to naughty kids, then that provides motivation to undeveloped brains. Unlike telling them that inflicting suffering on others is morally wrong because every living being wants to avoid suffering.

Bill Nye isn't a real scientist so he loses in any debate involving science

>no evidence
Teaching your children that there are two biological genders based on hard evidence collected since the discovery of chromosomes versus teaching your children that there are two biological genders based on their supposed creation by a benevolent (sometimes wrathful) man in the sky with magical powers.

The choice is obvious. What do you want, an infograph?
In pursuit of scientific discovery and in the study of discoveries of the past, children must learn logical deduction. It is not difficult for non-sociopaths to reason out that murdering someone is wrong.

*unnecessary suffering
it is not morally wrong to inflict suffering on someone who is trying to inflict suffering on you. It is not virtuous to be harmless, harmless people are used and abused by evil people

one is promoting creationism, the other is promoting gender theory.

They are both charlatans promoting anti-scientific woo-woo.

>The choice is obvious
Not without evidence it isn't
>What do you want, an infograph?
It's called an infographic. If you had one that'd be great.

>Well, women need to be controlled, because nature controls their bodies.
>Religion was invented to constrain the natural hypergamous behavior of women.

Religion is useful, but people get hung up on the "truth" of it.

The seven deadly sins are pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, sloth. Those are all things that are easy to give in to. But the seven deadly sins are all things that increase suffering in a person. And many are variations of greed or pride. Lust is greed for sexual things. Envy is greed for what others have. Sloth is greed for laziness. Gluttony is greed for food. Wrath often comes from pride, and greed for vengeance. But they all harm the person who is obsessed with them.

You could even mention the marshmallow test on delayed gratification. Children were offered a small reward immediatey or a larger reward if they waited. Children who were able to wait longer tended to have better life outcomes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

If something feels good right now, people (especially young people) often don't understand why they shouldn't do it. They have less a concern for future consequences. They have less of an understanding of how A leads to B.

That's why things like fables, parables, stories with moral lessons came to be.

>not without evidence it isn't
How about you use that brain of yours? Reason this out for me.

One method of teaching is based on immutable facts that, when examined, hold up under scrutiny.

The other method is based on something that is objectively not true in an effort to achieve the same result. It cannot be proven. It can only be thrown into doubt as your mind develops.

Which is the better way?

Or you could tell them that hurting other people is wrong because they themselves do not like being hurt. Seems like a more Christian thing to do instead of literally teaching them to believe in Wotan.

I meant that the fundies that organize these debates are excellent propagandists and only agreed to the debate in the first place because they knew they would win. Someone who could actually challenge them on theological grounds would make them shit their pants.

I would like to be proven wrong however, if this could be arranged that would be baller.

So science instills reasoning skills and shows how truth has value, I don't disagree with that

but how does one reason that murdering someone is morally wrong? The way I see it, logic can be used to get from a value to a moral. If you believe humans have intrinsic value, then it logically follows that murdering (ignoring all other context) is wrong. But where does that base value come from? It appears to me that it comes from our society/upbringing, which is heavily based on Christian ideals. Not all cultures share the same values though, and I don't think science will ever change that

Yeah I agree. I don't like when people are literal and dogmatic about it, but I think it's totally irresponsible to try to throw it all away without trying to build something superior in its place. I'm all for criticizing things, but only in their full context. It's like the anarcho communists ripping on capitalism because there's still problems in the world. I'm over here like damn dude, you're going to make things a whole lot worse because things aren't perfect?

Good point. YEC advocates tend to be very selective about the intellectual spaces they place themselves in. This would probably be a non-starter.

Then how come atheists are much easier manipulated by jews than Christians?

Bill Nye for thinking he could win a debate with a Creationist without resorting to calling him a fucking heretic and citing every anti-creationist Catholic from Origen in 200 to Bishop Robert Barron in 2017.

Seriously, how the fuck do people still think creationists will follow what "science" says if they believe science is the work of the devil?

Communism is going to be the end game, but we're far from that point now. The only way it'll work is it has to be run by fair, logical AI which cannot be corrupted. This AI will efficiently handle the means of production and make sure the fruits of said labor will be rationed out with a hint of bias or greed. This is the only way communism will work

No, not all ethics are tied to believing in creationism. But certain beliefs, even false beliefs, can still lead to ethical conduct, moral conduct.

The fact is that people are more likely to behave if they think they are being watched, or if they think they will eventually be punished for misdeeds. In that way, beliefs in God and Hell help to dissuade immoral behavior. However, religious people sometimes believe that God is on their side, or that Jesus died for everybody's sins, then they may believe that everything that happens only happens because God wills it, or that they can do anything they want because nobody can judge them but Jesus.

I don't know if the law really is much of a deterrent. And the law is pretty much the secular version of religious commandments. But if mankind invented the law, if the law can be changed, if the law was merely invented by other people as mortal as you, it holds less weight than a deity.

Science says nothing about moral codes. Scientists may believe that morality evolved, that empathy evolved, and yet bullying still exists, ingroup/outgroup tribalism still exists, tons of violence still exists. Science can't give you many reasons to not eat other animals, except maybe saying that red meat may increase heart disease, etc. Science will say humans are omnivores. Philosophy may say that inflicting suffering on others is morally wrong. Religion may say that killing and eating animals is wrong, or it may say that every animal that exists is under the dominion of humans.

In the Book of Genesis, it says that mankind was made to rule the world. But even scientists and technologists seem to continue to hold that view. Nature holds that might makes right. Technology holds that might makes right. Only philosophy or religion could insist that might doesn't make right.

On an unrelated note, Robert Barron is a filthy universalist.

*without bias, duh

really?