Total posts: 218
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Irrelevant to what?
Irrelevant to whether or not either of our claims are factually correct. To believe a claim is true simply because it sounds believable is to make an assumption, and an assumption is a false premise(as well as an idiotic belief). Therefore, you comparing our two claims, asking which seems more believable, is irrelevant to whether or not they are believable. Nothing more than cheap distraction tactics used by inferior debaters.
No, lets not forget what this is about. You are mocking me for saying I worship The Truth as God.
No. I am illustrating how ridiculous your argument is. You are asking me to believe your claim to be true without the need of proof. So I made a claim of my own, and asked if you would believe it without proof, just as you did, to show you undeniable evidence of just how ridiculous it is to ask someone to believe a claim without proving it true.
Now that I've spelled out the obvious for you, would you like to stop dodging the question and actually grow a spine? Prove your claim, or leave it alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Comparison is irrelevant. It doesn't matter which claim seems more or less believable. Would you believe me if I made that claim, or would you not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If I told you that I'm from a planet called Krypton, that I can fly, lift entire buildings with one hand, and am bullet proof, would you believe me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Manipulating definitions to fit your delusions does nothing but make you look insane, Mopac. So, by all means, continue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't expect you to believe what I say about anything.
Well, considering that you refuse to prove anything you say, that's very logical of you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You're just as human as I am, so don't expect me to believe you're any more perceptive unless you want to prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I didn't claim that there is no absolute truth. I said I have no ability to know what things are absolutely true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
FANATICAL ? hahahah..........FOOL...falling to the floor and begging some invisible GOD hoax.. for SALVATION ?
I'm an atheist, numbnuts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Humans are incapable of proving absolute truth, but are also incapable of disproving absolute truth. So, the best answer to that question is: I hold no belief of it either way.So you don't believe in absolute truth?
Are you a nihilist?
While there are certain aspects of nihilism that are logically consistent with known aspects of reality, no I am not a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
First time you ever acknowledged the definition.
Absolutely not. Never once in the entirety of our exchanges with each other(even in our formal debate) have I ever denied the validity of the definition you presented. I have only ever shown how the definition of the word is irrelevant to your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Oh I accept the definition. The definition simply does nothing to prove your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
At this point, I have to believe this guy is trolling. I mean nobody is this fucking stupid and delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That is why they can only play semantic games and mock those who point out that none of their arguments stand when the light of truth is shed on them.
LOL?! Wow that is ironic coming from a guy who attempts to use word definitions(aka semantics) to prove his arguments. Does the hypocrisy never end?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Needless to say, I feel pretty secure over here havong the dictionary on my side.
But the dictionary isn't on your side. Argumentum ad dictionarium, and argument from false authority.
I guess you have a false sense of security. For your argument, saying the dictionary is on your side is like saying apple pie is on your side when you're being shot at by snipers in a war zone. Are you ever going to accept that dictionaries do nothing for your argument at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
omg my fucking ribs hurt, that's fucking hilarious!!! High five man. I couldn't have done it better myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The reason why the only thing you get from me is the dictionary has to do with the fact that you are arrogant and don't deserve anything else.
Oh, so unless I'm a good boy, you refuse to prove your argument? lol that's hilarious.
Considering that I've read nearly every post you've ever made to this website, including all of your debates, and have never seen you use any other argument at all aside from the fallacious dictionary argument, you must think everyone on this website is arrogant and doesn't deserve anything else. You're so full of shit that I can smell you from behind a computer screen.
This is the easiest way to demonstrate that you are unreasonable.
So making yourself look incompetent by refusing to prove your ridiculous arguments is your idea of making me look unreasonable? Man you're full of jokes today, aren't you?
So your fallacies are...Invincible ignorance
Prove that any of my arguments have committed argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Strawman
Prove that any of my arguments are irrelevant to the debate at hand(which is what a strawman argument is).
Fallacy misidentification
Prove that any of my arguments misidentified any of your arguments.
You love to regurgitate bullshit, but you've never cared to back any of it up with facts nor proof. That's why nobody on this site, neither theists nor atheists, take a single word you say seriously. You have managed to make every single person here laugh at you just as hard as I do. When you prove your ridiculous claims, you'll shut us up. Until then, it's just more comic relief for us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Don't worry. I just backed his argument into a corner. He's about to reveal his psychosis.There is no need for you to subject yourself to this. Unlike me I am sure you have better things to do lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You know, I am trying to help you understand something, but if you are going to make a mockery of this discussion, we don't have to waste our time with it.
Are you stupid or something? We understand your ridiculous argument. We believe "the ultimate reality" exists. We simply aren't delusional enough to believe it's "God." We have no reason whatsoever to believe that "the ultimate reality" has anything at all to do with the existence of some "God," and since I've thoroughly defeated the only argument you've ever made for it(the dictionary argument, in case you forgot), you've given us none.
Can you go back home and eat your crayons in peace now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am not trying to use a dictionary to prove God exists
Well, since you've never used anything else to try and prove your god exists, my original statement that you have never, and probably will never, prove that it exists, is true. That leads me to wonder why you attempted to deny it.
The rest of what you said is self defeating, so I see no need for response to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am not making a fallacious argument at all. I am not even making an argument.
Definition of God courtesy merriam-webster..."capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality"
For starters, that is an argument.
Secondly, your argument commits two logical fallacies, which are:
- Argumentum ad dictionarium (appeal to dictionary)
- Argument from false authority
Your argument attempts to prove the claim that God exists by showing that a dictionary says that the word "God" is synonymous with "the ultimate reality," and since "the ultimate reality" is something that has been proven to exist, that must mean God exists.
Let's start with the most obvious one: Argumentum ad dictionarium.
(taken from https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition)
Description: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term.
As you can see, trying to prove that God exists by using a dictionary to define the word "God" is a fallacious argument.
Now let's take a look at Argument from false authority.
(taken from https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/244/Appeal-to-False-Authority)
Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
The author of a dictionary is not a credible authority on whether or not God exists, nor whether or not God is "the ultimate reality," or whether or not God is anything at all. Therefore, trying to prove God exists by using the author of a dictionary as a source is a fallacious argument.
You argument also commits argumentum ad verecundiam, but that's just overkill, so I don't feel a need to include it. I have just undeniably shown your entire argument for the existence of God to be utterly fallacious, and if an argument is fallacious, then it is invalid. I understand that I've wasted my time, because you don't care whether your argument is bullshit or not. You're not interested in being factually correct. That's one thing you have proven many, many times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yeah, so when I say God, I am talking about The Ultimate Reality.Which invalidates your argument.
I hate to burst your bubble there bro, but merely making claims doesn't invalidate anything at all. You have to do a bit more than make a statement, and use logically fallacious arguments in order to prove a point. Another concept you seem not to grasp.
As I've said countless times, you have never, and probably will never, prove your ridiculous claim. No one has any reason to believe you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A dictionary proves how a word is defined, nothing more. That's why argumentum ad dictionarium is a logical fallacy. You don't seem to grasp the concept of a fallacy, and how it invalidates an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.
You have never, and probably will never, prove that statement. No one has any reason to believe you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There. I unblocked you.
I had you blocked because of your relentless harassment.
You say I can't know, but I certainly do know.Why do you say I can't know? Because you think you know.
Because you insist that reality is "God," yet you can't prove it even to yourself. Look at the debate(if it can even be called that) between you and Discipulus. Every time he asks you how you know reality is "God," you dodge the question and simply insist that reality IS "God." Beyond using a dictionary to define "God" into existence, you've never once actually explained how you know your god exists. Being that your god is empirically unperceivable, and that humans cannot know that which they cannot empirically perceive, it only stands to logic that you can't know.
Oh, and by the way, before you brazenly call me a coward, perhaps you should remember that I challenged you to a formal debate over this exact matter, and I won. A coward would never formally debate you at all, much less challenge you to one. A big reason why I blocked you is because you have given undeniable evidence that no amount of proving you wrong will ever change your mind, therefore you're a waste of time to speak to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I've never unblocked you. I don't need to in order to tag you in a post.
I fully understand what you believe. You're no different than any other theist in that you believe something you can't actually know to be true, and that no amount of proof that you can't know what you believe you know can change your mind. It's call cognitive dissonance.
For whatever reason, you seem to believe that if someone disagrees with you, they must not understand you. I guess that's just another part of your psychosis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So have you gathered yet that he is a master at twisting words and dodging questions, and that he'll never give a straight answer if that answer would be detrimental to his argument? This is why I said I have no interest in riding that merry-go-round again. Debate with this person is utterly pointless. He doesn't accept the fact that he needs to prove that reality is god, and that no one else agrees with him on that, and nothing you ever say or do will ever change his mind. He is truly the cleanest, purest example of cognitive dissonance I've ever encountered. Why do you waste your time when there are other theists out there who are sane enough to have an actual debate with?
Do you know what he said we he lost the debate he had with me? "It doesn't matter if everyone says I lost. I know I'm right." He's a waste of time dude. A truly lost cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yet according to the dictionary which I am unjustly mocked for going to as a reference for the meaning of words, powerful rulers are considered gods.
You're not mocked for using the dictionary for the only purpose it has(to define words). You're mocked for using said definitions as arguments for what entities exist. The dictionary defines many words. Such as: Unicorn, leprechaun, fairy. Just because these words are defined as if they exist doesn't mean they do. The only reason the Oxford dictionary defines "God" as "the ultimate reality" is because that is what several religions believe "God" is. Whether or not "God" actually IS "the ultimate reality" has never been proven nor disproven.
When you learn the difference between word definitions and physical objects, perhaps you won't be seen as a lunatic anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah...
Then we have the more rationally sane explanation: An atheist and a catholic walk into a bar. They both agree that it's morally right to tip the bartender. The catholic said it's because "God" is with both of them, and guides their thoughts, even if the atheist doesn't believe it. The atheist said it's because they're both human, therefore they have the same instincts. One of these arguments can be proven correct. The other one can't. Which one should we believe? The proven one? Or the unproven one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You mock everyone here who corners your ridiculously fallacious rhetoric, you name call, etc. It seems hypocrisy is part of your M.O. I have respect for theists whom are able to present a challenging argument for their beliefs(as rare as that may be), but you, you sir do nothing but quote a dictionary and insist that because a dictionary said it, it must be true. Before I met you, I thought I had witnessed the most hilariously delusional minds theism has to offer, but I must say, when it comes to cognitive dissonance, you truly take the cake.
Take care and good riddance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Munky and Head from Korn. Wes Borland from Limp Bizkit. Mark Tremonti from Creed/Alter Bridge. Rabea (semi-famous YouTube guitarist).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No interest really. Argumentum ad dictionarium is annoying enough as it is without adding delusional insistence to the equation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I've never been a fan of Darrell. He's a talented guitarist, but his artistry is too random for my tastes. Walk is a good example. The solo in that song makes no musical sense with the rest of the melodies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
$50 says I know where he's going with this. I've been on the Mopac merry-go-round many times. Ultimately, when you pick apart his argument, it comes down to a dictionary being the only piece of so called "proof" for his assertion, and when you get to that point, that's when he starts repeating himself over and over and over, utterly dismissing all logic and reason as if they're invalidated by what the dictionary says.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Actually he uses Oxford. I would know. I've debated the man and have heard his speech about how Oxford is as ironclad factual as the bible itself. But alright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Because theists are generally horrendously ignorant, and (for the most part) have a serious lack of reasoning skills.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well, I suppose learning from our mistakes isn't without a sense of irony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm going to roleplay as Mopac, just because I can. Here goes:
Yes, I have a question! Why are you so superstitious? Of course God exists. God is The Ultimate Reality, and The Ultimate Reality, by definition, exists! You deny that The Ultimate Reality exists? That makes you superstitious and delusional! The Oxford dictionary defines God as The Ultimate Reality, and the Oxford dictionary cannot possibly be wrong! So that means of course God exists, because the existence of The Ultimate Reality is undeniable! The atheistic argument is self defeating, because we live in The Ultimate Reality! It cannot be denied! Take note of my pretentious, yet ironically grammatically incorrect, capitalization of The Ultimate Reality in an attempt to make myself look intelligent because I'm ignorant enough to think that because I'm referring to "God" the words must then be capitalized! Worship my incredible genius!
*goes back to eating crayons*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Correct. Opinions are in fact subjective beliefs. However, your belief that opinions are subjective beliefs in fact is not a subjective belief. It's a belief based on a fact, thus opinion, while relevant to the subject matter, has nothing to do with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well, you see that's my favorite part about facts: It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. They're true regardless. Those who reject facts as falsehoods are what we call delusional people.
As for your debate challenge, I have no interest in participating in such a uselessly trivial argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
lol? Let me get this straight... you believe that a belief pertaining to whether or not something exists is subjective?
"Yeah I believe there is a car parked outside my house. But that's just my opinion. Maybe to you, that car doesn't exist."
I see we have yet another member who doesn't comprehend the parameters of reality and how the human brain interacts with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You really have no idea do you?
"I believe metal is hard because it looks pretty."
Does that seem logical to you? Of course not. Why? Because it is not reasonable. Why is it not reasonable? Because an opinion cannot justify a belief of a fact. The two concepts are incompatible.
In layman's terms: If the belief is of a matter of fact, then so is the reasoning behind it.
I shouldn't need to explain this to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
An opinion cannot be correct or incorrect. A belief is not an opinion. It's an acknowledgement of perception. It seems you have quite a bit to learn about reality and how the brain interacts with it.
Fact: The sky is blue.
Opinion: I like the color blue.
The former is universally true or false. The latter is only necessarily true or false for the person expressing it. Whether or not something exists is a universally true or false idea, therefore a belief taken on it is a matter of fact. Not opinion.
Does that spell it out enough for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Very good songs. I enjoyed it.
I'll one up you though. Otep is the queen of the metal gods:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is asking for a personal opinion.
The reasoning behind a belief has nothing to do with opinion. Something is either true, or it's false. That is a matter of fact. The fact that you would call it an opinion shows strong evidence that you're not intellectually qualified to ask such a question.
Created:
Posted in:
Can someone ban that dude? He's on some drugs or something. Reading his posts gives me a headache.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
That's because atheists are generally reasonable(hence us questioning the actual validity of fairy tales before just believing them). It is a reasonable argument that theists don't question their beliefs because of fear of consequence. Nearly all of them were raised to fear their gods, and taught never to question them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I said fear. Not what the fear is of. Nearly all theistic religion plays on fear. It always has, since way before Christianity existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Okay... and so did the ancient writings of Ra, Olypmus, etc. Primitive brains are easily manipulated, and quick to assign blame to things equally as unexplained as that for which the blame is assigned. To take any sort of truthful belief from the ramblings of a delusional mind is to divorce oneself from reality. It's nothing more than an interesting piece of fiction people buy into for one singular reason: Fear.
Created: