Total posts: 218
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Survival bias is part of the instinct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Morality isn't based on opinion. It's based on survival instinct. The psyche can corrupt it, which makes it appear to be based on opinion, but at its core morality is a universe set of facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Let us know what? He doesn't decide what is and isn't a valid argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I can read, bro. I know what his argument is. That has nothing to do with what you quoted from me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
A bunch of primitive, incredibly inept, superstitious morons with no concept of logic nor reason wrote the book of Genesis. The end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm gunna skip through all of the responses thus far and just respond to your OP:
An all powerful God could eliminate evil
By definition, yes.
An all good God would want to eliminate evil.
By definition, yes.
Evil exists
It does indeed.
therefore God probably does not exist.
Incorrect. This would be correct: "Therefore an all good god probably doesn't exist." Omnibenevolence is a word that is used to attribute an utter lack of evil in a being. A being that utterly lacks evil cannot create evil. Therefore, if a being creates evil, then it is not omnibenevolent.
But the question is - what is evil?Evil is something but it is not some thing. It is not a thing so God did not need to make it.In fact God cannot be responsible for making it because it is not a thing.
Are we speaking of the Christian god? I ask because the Christian god outright claims to be the creator of evil. Observe the following passage:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
So what is evil?
Evil is the absence of good. It is the hole in the proverbial donut. It is a shadow - it is coldness - that exists because of a lack of heat.Evil is therefore not defined by what it is - but by what it is not.
Wrong.
The definition of evil is as follows:
morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED
Evil is therefore a departure from a perfect standard of good.There must be a perfect standard of good to measure good and evil.Good is closer to the benchmark and evil is further away from it.
The above is defeated by the above definition.
If there is no God, Then there is no standard of morality.
Nothing you have said thus far supports this claim. Provide a reasonable argument for linking any standard of morality to any god. If anything, the very fact that the Christian god created evil proves that it is below the moral standard. Far below it, in fact.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have revealed a brutal truth on CreateDebate about the Abrahamic Gods.
You've revealed me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You begin by accepting that either God or chance (that is the presupposition) and you build from there
This statement alone defeats literally your entire argument. You don't begin a belief system with an assumption. How do you not understand how insane that is? An assumption is exactly the same as ignorance. It is a belief taken without knowledge. AKA faith. Wow dude. You seriously believe you can know something because you assumed it? I can't even... the sheer stupidity of that statement baffles me to the point of being unable to articulate a response. If that were true, then i could assume the moon is made of milk, and build an entire factual philosophy of life based on that. You seriously need help.
I can't continue this with you. You deny the most simplistic, basic things that even children grasp as a part of human reality. There's just no reasoning with you man. I can't believe I used to think you were intellectually honest. You're literally the opposite. No way man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I admit we both start from presuppositions in building our worldviews (atheists and Christians)
I assume nothing, because I'm not the one claiming to know how the universe began.
That being said, I'm going to prove you wrong with one very simple sentence in response to the above quote:
A presupposition is a position taken from a premise rooted in assumption, and an assumption is quite literally the opposite of knowledge, therefore, by your own admission, you do not know how the universe began.
End of debate. You lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You say atheistic scientists assume a scenario and build evidence from it. When it comes to explaining the origins of existence, you're more or less right(I say more or less because they're more like educated guesses than assumptions, but still). However, in order for your "evidence" to make sense, you have to assume your god exists. So, in other words, you do the exact same thing.
If your god does exists, then your evidence makes perfect sense. However, if your god doesn't exist, your evidence is the stuff of psycho babble. This is why you're not supposed to make assumptions. Evidence based on assumptions equates to nothing more than speculation and imagination. I know you'll never admit that, even though it's true. That's fine. You Christians cling to your delusions like a life line. No amount of proving your arguments false will change your mind. One needs to be interested in finding truth to be willing to change their beliefs. I've literally never met a theist of any kind willing to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Response to response #1: Atheism assumes no "origin of the universe." Some atheists choose to believe in evolution as the cause. Others simply don't claim to know. I'm the latter. Evolution does exist, and we've seen it happen countless times with creatures and objects. We have tangible proof of it. However, evolution as an explanation of how the universe started? We have no more proof of that than we do of gods, therefore I believe in neither explanation. You assume that I assume these things because you can't seem to comprehend the idea of not having an affirmative belief of the origins of the universe. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean I assumed something.
Response to response #2: You can't seem to make a point without manipulating every definition you can into fitting your worldview. If you have to manipulate something in order for it to support your beliefs, then they're probably wrong.
Response to response #3:
Another dispute regarding your debate (link in a previous post):There are only two forms of knowledge available to humans:
- Knowledge a priori
- Knowledge a posteriori
I contend that there is another form of evidence, transcendent in nature - God's revelation.
Oh. So the voices in your head? Yeah that'll hold up in court.
Science is a tool with many flaws that forms many worldviews. It can be used as an idol of worship in the sense that it replaces God as the ultimate authority when, as you say, so much just can't be known about the world via science. First, in the case of origins, it relies on the interpretation of the data which could be wrong. It is observing things in the present from the past that doesn't come stamped, 13.9 billion years old, or 3.4 billion years old. Many, many things have to be presupposed.
You say tangibly proven data is presumptuous, yet you call an incomprehensible "ultimate being" no one has ever actually encountered a reasonable explanation? That's ass backward, bro. Something tells me you don't accept "chance" as an explanation because you simply can't wrap your head around it, and it's so much easier to blame it on something you don't have to try to comprehend(god). Blaming things on magical creatures is intellectually lazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I really need a "rofl" emoji. Jesus. Not only is this dude delusional, but also sexist as hell(sexism, as with any form of prejudice, is delusion, but still).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
When you say Christians are delusional because they place faith in an invisible Being I query how well your belief system can make sense of why you exist? If you do not care to question this then you are left with your facts and the present alone. Nothing else can be known, or so you seem to believe.
So unless I make assumptions about things I don't actually know to be true, I can't know those things? I guess you've never heard of scientific research? Please carefully read what I'm about to say.
For thousands of years, humans thought the earth was flat. One day, science proved that wrong. You're saying that had I been alive about 50 years before science proved that the earth is round, and I had withheld any affirmative belief(no belief that the earth is flat, nor round) until science proved which one it is, that means I don't care to question the shape of the earth, and nothing of it can be known? In what universe, other than the confines of your imagination, would that ever make any sense at all?
You are so deluded. You say atheists are delusional because they don't make assumptions about the origins of existence. Ironic that an assumption actually IS delusional. Say what you wish. Your words are devoid of reason, and it's painfully obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@PGA2.0
I've spoken my peace on this topic. My very well argued points are being dismissed as if they're not factual, and so I see no productivity in continuing, other than to say:
The point here isn't about who or what, if anyone or anything, did or didn't create existence as we know it. The point I'm making is very simple: All of it is nothing more than theory. Evolution, creationism, both are nothing more than unproven theories. Therefore, if a person claims to know that one or the other is true, yet declines to prove it, they are delusional.
WE. DO. NOT. KNOW. HOW. THIS. SHIT. CAME. TO. BE.
The end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You talk a good show, and much of what you say does make sense in many different contexts. However, for starters, you ignored both of the questions I asked you(I'm guessing because they're highly detrimental to your argument), and secondly:
Your entire argument here has one fatal flaw: Your argument against atheism rests on the premise that atheism fails to give an alternate explanation for how the universe came about. You assert that unless an alternative can be given, the proclamations of Christianity have to be accepted. That is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. I will explain below.
Your argument fits the following example taken from that site:
Example #2:
To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.
To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
You assert that if nobody can give a better explanation for existence than yours, then yours must be true. That argument is utterly fallacious. As an atheist, I am not claiming that existence as we know it didn't come from one god or another. I am claiming that we do not know where it came from, and currently, that claim is exactly right. Until someone proves a god created our existence, theism is fallacious.
You grasp at straws. You are rigid in your assertion that a fallacious belief is a valid one, and you are, fundamentally, wrong. Whether or not you accept that fact is what proves or disproves that you are delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, thanks for the ad hominem and a genetic fallacy (i.e., all Christians are delusional and brainwashed), as well as an appeal to common belief (argumentum ad populum - what is true of one is true of all with the belief that all Christians are delusional), plus it is begging the question (assumes the conclusion by the premise/states X, thus X is true), an overgeneralization, and the list goes on!Asserting delusion and proving it are different matters.
Except I have proven it. Many times over, in fact. And that is why I say it. I am not a person who makes empty claims. You believe something exists when you don't know it exists. That is textbook delusion.
de·lu·sion
noun
- an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
The idiosyncratic belief that is firmly maintained: God(s) exist(s).
The contradicting reality and rational argument: You don't know that.
I have indisputably proven you to be delusional.
That is where you are mistaken, granting God exists. Granting God exists and that God is the biblical God(here is where you created a hypothetical situation) we can know since there was Someone there and Someone who created what we see, so all facts and truths would be God's facts/truths.(and there is where you spoke of it as if it were real, and not hypothetical) To discover anything we would have to think His thoughts after Him or understand them through His revelation.
Notice the notes I made in your quote above. You began with a hypothetical proposition, and then claimed that hypothetical proposition to be a source of factual knowledge, as if it weren't hypothetical at all. "If god exists, then that's how earth was created. So, I know god exists because the earth exists." That is just plain nonsensical. It's as if you forgot that you used the word "granting."
As for your claims of ad hominems, and whatever other fallacies you accused me of, here's why you're wrong: I didn't use these insults, and appeals to the population, and everything else, to defeat your argument. I had already proven it false before I ever said you were delusional, and even delusional people can make valid arguments, so proving you to be delusional does nothing to defeat any argument you make, unless the argument is that you're not delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you under the assumption that the Bible does not reveal knowledge?
That's not an assumption. It's a fact. The bible is a book. Books are nothing but paper. Paper has no ability to verify the words that are written upon it. It's up to the scribe to provide proof of their claims, and none of those whom authored the bible provided anything more than unverifiable speculation that you people delusionally accept as actual proven knowledge. Well, maybe not proven knowledge, because right now you're claiming that knowledge doesn't need proof, which might be one of the most delusional things I've ever heard someone say.
You deny it but there is evidence that is reasonable and logical and greater than any other supposed god. Many, over the centuries, have recognized the reasonableness of the biblical revelation. Some very brilliant people think other than you do. They see evidence in ways that you are not open to.Definition of evidence(Entry 1 of 2)2: one who bears witness***1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.1.1Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.1.2 Signs or indications of something.
I have a question for you: You accept these things as evidence and proof, yet they are disputable. Tell me, what happens when your so called "known facts" are proven false? Are they still known facts?
Do you see how that makes no sense at all? How could something be a "known fact" if it is possible to prove it wrong? Facts are, by their very nature, correct. A fact cannot be incorrect, because it it were, it wouldn't be a fact. A fact is indisputable. Unable to be false. To claim one has knowledge, one has to claim this information to be factual. If the information is disputable, which your so called "evidence" in fact is, then it is not factual, thus it is not knowledge. Do you grasp this concept? You constantly make empty claims of knowledge, and you call anyone who rejects these empty claims unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to claim disputable information to be knowledge. It is, quite simply, a false claim.
Actually, all worldviews that query existence attempt to answer basic yet ultimate questions such as, Who are we, where do we come from, how do we know, and what happens to us when we die. From my perception, your beliefs, based on facts obtained from a priori and posteriori knowledge seems devoid of meaning to me if you don't question why you are here and what significance there is in that thought. Philosophy is all about these questions.Somehow we got here. If you are right in your worldview or don't really care, then ultimately nothing matters. If my worldview is right, then you have a problem. So questions about our origins are worth the thought.
Actually my philosophy has nothing at all to do with answering some question about "why are we here" or "how did we get here." Completely irrelevant to my philosophy. You're wrong yet again.
So, I have another question for you: Why must there be a reason why we're here? Why must there be a purpose for our existence? Why do you seem to be unable to fathom a meaningless existence? Cockroaches have no known purpose for existing. How do you explain their existence?
An entity needs no purpose in order to exist. Your argument is utterly invalid and in fact quite irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The laws themselves require no posteriori verification.
Tell me, how would you know a man is unmarried if you didn't know that they're a bachelor? Unless you empirically obtained the knowledge that they're unmarried, the only way to know it is to empirically obtain the knowledge that they're a bachelor. Knowledge a priori(knowing he's unmarried) is only possible through knowledge a posteriori(knowing he's a bachelor first). A priori is a logical deduction based on a posteriori. A priori cannot exist without a posteriori, and you can claim it can all you wish to, but if you expect your claims to be accepted as facts, then you need to show how an example of knowledge a priori can be obtained without an example of knowledge a posteriori having first been obtained. Your argument is factually incorrect.
I do have a choice. I reject the claim that all knowledge is impossible. It's a self-defeating position.
So then you claim to be able to objectively verify that we are not living in a computer generated dream world created by machines for the purpose of controlling us? If so, please, do show us all how you can verify that. If you can't verify it, then you can't know that we aren't. It's as simple as that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The 3 fundamental laws of logic are a priori and require no posteriori verification.
I literally just finished proving that wrong.... where's a face palm emoji when you need one.
You're also making statements of knowledge while arguing from the position that knowledge is impossible.
I'm human. I have no choice but to do that. Neither do you. Your rejection of a fact doesn't change the fact. That's the beauty of science: It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, because it's true regardless. Rejecting facts simply makes you delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You're referring to knowledge a priori, which is always verifiable by the parameters of knowledge a posteriori. An example: If someone is a bachelor, then I know they are unmarried. That is knowledge a priori. However, I can indeed verify that they are unmarried by looking into their marital status, and so it can also be knowledge a posteriori.
All mathematical(logical IS mathematical, and so I don't know why you felt the need to distinguish the two as if they're different things) truths are empirically verifiable. We simply don't need to verify them, because they are already verified by another thing that classifies as knowledge a posteriori. The knowledge that someone is a bachelor is obtained empirically(knowledge a posteriori), and that is what allows us to deduct the knowledge a priori(that they are unmarried). Without knowledge a posteriori, knowledge a priori cannot exist.
It was a nice try though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You ignored my question, and so I'll be ignoring your responses until you answer it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Oh, so you can objectively verify that everything you think you know isn't just an illusion pulled over your eyes? Can you, for example, prove that we aren't living in a computerized dream world, hooked up to it at birth and used for energy by a race of machines? If you can, I'm all ears. You definitely can't, but you're unwilling to acknowledge the fact that that means you don't know anything. Any idiot can say someone is wrong. It requires intelligence to show it.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
Created:
Posted in:
The short answer to the OP is: You can't. No one alive today was alive when the Christian bible claims that Jesus was alive. We therefore cannot conclusively verify his existence. End of story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Now you're just being ridiculous. Fine bro. You wanna use a paradoxial technicality as a scape goat so you don't actually have to use your brain and argue your point, that's fine by me. It displays your intellectual laziness, which says a lot about your entire way of thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Of course it's reasonable, because it's a fact. No human can ever actually know anything. However, since it's impossible for us to know whether or not what we perceive is real, the only choice we have is to live as if it is. Like I said, that is a paradox. I don't know if you know what a paradox is, but it's useless to discuss because it cannot be proven either way.
It's the same thing as the paradox of eternity. Humans literally cannot fathom infinity, because the human mind insists that everything must at least have a beginning, even if it has no end. So, in the human mind, a being having always existed, having no beginning, is impossible to fathom. Therefore, discussing it beyond mere fascination is futile. That why I will not discuss the issue of the verifiability of information with you in that context. It's a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Knowledge is information that is verified to be certain dude. If information isn't verified to be certain, then it's not knowledge. It's speculation. Do you not understand that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you wanna get technical, nothing is verifiably certain, because humans cannot verify that what they perceive, think, or know is actually real. All we can do is assume it is, because we have no other option. That is the flaw inherent to being intellectually finite. But, considering that that is a moot point, I'm ignoring that. If you'd like to discuss it, then discuss it with someone else, because that discussion is a useless, impossible to solve paradox.
As for everything else you said: I don't think i need to define those words for you. You seem to speak English.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Possessed information about something IS knowledge.
Wrong. If someone told me they saw Santa Clause breaking into someone's house, then I don't have knowledge that Santa Clause exists. I have knowledge that someone said Santa Clause exists. There is a HUGE difference between those two things that you don't seem to grasp.
Evidence is information indicating whether a claim is true or untrue. If there's more evidence favoring the claim, the belief is both rational and based on knowledge.
Brutal already said it, so I'm just gunna repeat his words as a response to that:
Because the definition of truth requires fact and the definition of fact requires indisputability, only what is universally indisputable (empirically and scientifically verifiable phenomena and logical necessities) can be identified as TRUE.
Everything else is pure imagination.
Since your "belief" is not indisputable, it cannot be classified as a fact, and if it cannot be classified as a fact, then it cannot be justifiably believed as true, and any unjustified belief taken on that something is true is pure imagination, which means: DELUSION
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
And it could be right and if you don't know then what is more sensible and reasonable to believe
I seem to have to repeat this fact over and over again with you people: Without KNOWLEDGE, NO BELIEF is reasonable. So, the answer to your question is: None. No belief whatsoever until knowledge, one way or the other, is gained.
and what is the case for God (I defend only the biblical God and will argue against any other as being nothing but the construct of the imagination)?
Lmao that is hilarious dude. Your god has no more proof or evidence than any other god ever claimed to exist, yet you say all other gods except yours is a delusion? I took you for a more reasonable person than that, but clearly I was wrong.
To answer your question: Same answer for your god.
Since you are a philosopher the question is how does a universe materialize naturally and which natural theory or paradigm (or the one you support - what is it?) is right if any?
Being philosopher doesn't give me some magical ability to divine information out of thin air. I don't claim to know how the universe came about, and I'm not stupid enough to blame something I can't explain on something equally unexplained(like theists do). See, I'm a sane person, so I only claim to know things that I actually know.
If you can't say, then I see you divorcing yourself from the subject under discussion since you have made a judgment above.
Absolutely not. I say you're all delusional. That keeps me firmly in the subject.
Regarding evidence, the problem is that none of us were there
DING DING DING!!!! EXACTLY!!!! And that little statement right there, my friend, defeats everything else you said. You CANNOT KNOW, so stop acting like you can.
As an atheist, your worldview would see life coming from the non-living since you do not ascribe it coming from a living Being - God, would it not?
What the hell? No it wouldn't? Being an atheist means you don't claim to know where shit came from, not that it came from nothing. I don't try to answer things I can't answer dude. I go out and gather information so that I CAN answer it. Currently, humans have no ability to say where this universe came from, if it came from anywhere at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If a claim is more plausibly true than false, it is more rational to believe the claim rather than withhold belief or disbelieve it.
In fact it's not. You just rationalized delusion. Belief can only be justified by knowledge. You lack knowledge, therefore your belief is unjustified. Guess what unjustified belief is. Delusion.
de·lu·sion
/dəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
- an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
It is irrational to believe something is true when it's not. Since you don't KNOW it's true, it is possible that you are wrong. Therefore, if you were proven wrong, your belief is proven to be a delusion. Because of this, if there is ever a possibility of you being wrong in a belief, then that belief is irrational, which equates to delusion, proven by the above definition.
Theists are delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I'm actually finding myself in agreement with ET. I'm quite shocked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?
Because if you don't actually KNOW it's true, then you could be wrong, and if you believe something that's wrong, you're delusional. Something having a favorable probability is nothing more than reason to investigate further. If it were reason to believe it to be true, then if we saw some idiot come down a chimney on Christmas, we'd believe Santa Clause exists.
I really don't understand how you're unable to comprehend the simplest of concepts pertaining to evidence, proof, and reason to believe. I mean I understood this shit as a child. It's novice level shit dude. Theists never cease to amaze me with their naivety and stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Complexity equates to simplicity, thus the point is very simple: Do not assert beliefs as facts. Instead, assert facts as beliefs. Learn what facts really are, how to find them, and then how to accept them. A good example of asserting beliefs as facts is Mopac's argument for "God." He believes God exists. So, he goes out and tries to find ways to prove God is reality, because he knows reality exists. I don't claim to know all the avenues he traveled to get to this path of argumentation, but the only way he seems to know how to argue it is to say that if a dictionary agrees that God is reality, then since reality exists, God exists. He can't see the flaw in this because he asserts beliefs as facts, rather than facts as beliefs. While he may be one of the most extreme cases of delusion you find in this area, he is far from being alone. Most humans think this way in all things, which is the biggest reason for the chaos we experience in the world. The American government is the way it is because the citizens think this way, for example. I stand for logic and realism because it is the path to truth, and humanity needs to understand how to arrive at truth if it is to defeat chaotic delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I've only done that once. When I turned 17, still in a juvenile boot camp for 5 more months, I realized that I needed to change my entire way of thinking. I was psychotically emotional. I would allow my emotions to dictate every thought, belief, and action, and I knew if I continued down that path, I'd either spend life in prison, or my life would be very, very short. I decided to spend the next decade mentally training myself in the ways of what I call "logic and realism." It's similar to "realism," with differences. I basically came up with the philosophy myself. I started putting critical thought above all else, and only allowing emotion to inspire and teach. I started being objective and practical. My beliefs started requiring evidence, and my mind started actively searching for proof. Eventually, I started standing against that which I knew was wrong, and I became brutally honest after I figured out, through critical thought, that the truth is never offensive.
I'll leave it at that, as it's going to take a lot of typing to fully explain it, but that is my "worldview change." It wasn't easy, as emotions are difficult things to control when you're psychologically damaged as a child, but it's definitely not impossible, nor is it something that should take a lifetime. All it takes is proof that you need a change, and a will to be correct rather than incorrect. Ironically, I've met very, very few humans who care to be correct when found to be incorrect. Most humans are only interested in having their beliefs accepted and endorsed by others, whether those beliefs are correct or not. This is he biggest thing I stand against in humanity, as it causes delusion, which causes chaos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I used to be against vaccinations until someone showed me the science behind the accusations of them causing autism, which proves the claims false. Is that sufficient?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Emotional attachment to beliefs stand in the way. Changing your worldview is a huge deal to most people.
I change my beliefs all the time, when they're proven false. It's called having a firm grasp on reality. Since theists have an extremely loose grasp on reality(if any grasp at all), I wouldn't expect them to "grasp" that concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Has he talked about his time spent on other planets in other galaxies talking with the Overlords that reside there?
You're not serious....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Yeah I'm getting that. It annoys me a bit, but it doesn't necessarily discourage me from shutting down his arguments. Him practically ignoring a response I was kind enough to take the time to write out for him, however, earns him a place on the block list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Don't worry, I definitely won't have anything new for you, seeing as how I wasted 30-45 minutes of my time hashing out a response to that clusterfuck you gave me and you're not even gunna respond to it. You're going on the block list. Done with that. You're really a waste of time to debate with anyway, because you have no concept of what evidence is, nor proof, nor even logical fallacies. I can see why you don't do formal debates. You'd have your ass handed to you by anyone with half a brain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Let me start off by saying that you're lucky I'm even responding to this, because I literally have to scroll a million times just to get your quotes because of your incessantly annoying choice to individually post each and every response you had to me, quite literally giving me a headache.
That said, here we go:
I believe you mean the same thing TBH, correct me if I'm wrong
You're wrong.
because you dismiss them as the same.
That doesn't mean they're the same. Empty claims have no value ever. Unproven claims currently have no value. 5000 years ago, when the entire human race thought the world was flat, one man claiming the world was round was an unproven claim. Back then, I'd have dismissed it the same, however, obviously he's correct. He had simply not proven it. You have a nasty habit of making assumptions. You should stop that. You might actually be correct once in a while otherwise.
If I was wrong you wouldn't be using the term "unproven" instead you would be considering it as part of evidence to be evaluated and possibly learn from it.
That literally makes no sense at all. An unproven claim is not evidence... wtf are you on about? If you had any verifiable, non-speculative evidence at all for your claims, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Because, to whom do you mean unproven?
To anyone whom has not empirically perceived proof.
your assumption is that spirituality is unproven and therefore you don't accept it as evidence before you even give anything a try
For starters, spirituality being unproven isn't an assumption. It's a fact. Secondly, accept spirituality as evidence? So you want me to accept a claim as evidence itself? And you say you're not delusional? Dude, are you alright? Do you need some help? Or are you just trolling here?
to you they are empty claims otherwise you would put some value to it.
A claim is not evidence. Spirituality has no demonstrable evidence to support it, therefore it is an unproven claim. If you want to contest the words I'm using, then break out a dictionary and prove them incorrect.
Do you not see the circular argument?
Nope.
what is the difference you wish to distinguish between empty and unproven?
See quote #2 in this post
this is why I was careful to use cross referencing when referring to spiritual experiences because "unproven" is a subjective claim, that is your perception only and at what point are you willing to learn from someone who has experienced something you have yet to?
If you expect me to take someone's word for it when they tell me invisible pink unicorns exist, then you're not only delusional, but an utter idiot as well.
You seem to skip all my points about involvement, as to basically say you don't give a shyt.
No, I simply prove them invalid, and you proceed to ignore the proof. That's not my fault. Talking to you is like talking to a child who believes in Santa Clause. "Seeing isn't believing. Believing is seeing." And then you show him a globe and utterly prove that the north poll is uninhabitable, and he's all like "magicks!" You really need to take a class on reality.
Is that the best you got?
You're saying I need to do more than prove your argument fallacious in order to defeat it? Well now I guess you also need a class on debate.
That you are dismissing without any real reasons because evidence consists of testimonies
Testimonies are not evidence. If they were, argumentum ad populum wouldn't be a logical fallacy. It would in fact be a valid argument. A million trillion zillion people could claim that hands and feet don't exist, and yet they would all still be wrong. You don't seem to grasp this concept. You don't seem to grasp what evidence and proof is at all. It leads me to question your presence here on a debate website.
which is fist hand encounters so there is no reason for you to treat it like it doesn't exist, skeptical is fine but evidence exists. To you, spirituality is as good as empty claims which you denied. Otherwise you would admit there is in fact evidence.
Present this evidence and I'll admit it. Keep insisting that a claim is evidence and I'll keep calling you an idiot.
Lol, you mean you are not willing to look at facts, spiritual based facts from legit sources.
What facts? Show me these facts, and explain why these sources are "legit."
Did you pay attention to anything I wrote?
I did indeed. I don't respond to things I haven't read.
So in other words you want to play it your way, you don't want to perceive spirituality as it is and learn new things.
If spirituality were proven to exist, I'd love to learn about it. However, I don't believe in Santa Clause anymore dude. I'm a grown up now. Grown ups usually require proof of things existing in order to believe they do. If Santa Clause wants to come shake my hand, I'll believe he exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
YOU keep typing like you're CREEPY ....WHY ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I've just realized that we've hijacked this thread. We should probably stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Christian god himself is "prideful in the negative sense." Isn't hypocrisy a sin? I'm pretty sure it is, and in this, the Christian god is a hypocrite.
But anyway, I wouldn't call that pride at all. I wouldn't even call it arrogance, as arrogance is an exaggerated belief of one's self worth. I'd call that confidence, and again, there's nothing wrong with confidence either. If I'm the best in the world at something, believing I am and saying I am is perfectly fine. I'd say it's more sinful to say it isn't, as that implies jealousy, and jealousy is a biblical sin(but wait, the Christian god is also jealous. Hypocrisy again!).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your quote really has nothing to do with being proud or humble, but I'll comment on that: There is absolutely nothing logically wrong with being proud of something. Pride is very useful. It helps us do better work, be better people, and find happiness in simple things. Why would a benevolent god shun such a thing? Your god not only shuns it, but calls it a cardinal sin! Ridiculous.
Anyway, yes of course I understand what you're saying. This is why I said you answered it best. I simply disagree with you wholly.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The fact that you exist and have an experience is evidence of God.
Explain how existence and experience is evidence of God.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
He loves to lie, doesn't he? He and I literally just had a formal debate over the claim that the Christian god exists, and every single argument he gave for that claim used the dictionary for proof.I do not use a dictionary to prove God. That is silly.
Alright Mr. Mopac, I'm gunna give you the chance to put your money where your mouth is. Give me a valid argument for the existence of the Christian god that does not mention, at all, any dictionary whatsoever. If you succeed, I'll unblock you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
@PGA2.0
@PGA2.0 Pretty good answer. In theory, the comprehension would come from contemplation of the word, which makes it personally interpretative, which makes it inconsistent being that personal interpretation is subjective, which explains the hundreds of different Christian denominations, which out right proves that if God indeed guided the hands of the authors of the bible, then he's either full of shit, or he's very, very imperfect.
@Goldtop Probably the absolute best description of the Christian god I've ever read, though you didn't actually answer his question.
I conclude that PGA's answer was the best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Perhaps, then, this forum is a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
The last debate I hosted that you moderated, you moderated a bullshit vote as an adequate one, so I'm afraid I'm not interested at all in participating in any tournament you'll be moderating.
Created: