Total posts: 218
Posted in:
Why do people waste their time talking to Mopac? I mean seriously, here is his entire argument:
"A dictionary says God is reality. So since reality exists, God exists."
He's too delusional to comprehend argumentum ad dictionarium, and he has completely closed his mind off to any and all criticism of his ridiculous claims. He is the literal definition of cognitive dissonance, meaning speaking to him on this subject is a complete waste of time, and could even be classified as insanity, given the definition of insanity. Stop feeding the trolls and ignore his ass. Maybe he'll do us all a favor and go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I never said they were empty claims. I said they were unproven claims.At what point are you ever going to consider that experiences are more than just an empty claim?
I mean how many claims of something do you need to realize it's not just a claim but a reality?
Argumentum ad populum. A number of people claiming something is true doesn't make it true.
who or what exactly are you waiting on to so-called demonstrably prove it for you
Evidence
and why are you waiting for that?
Because I'm not delusional.
no secular medium or source is ever going to prove something to you they cannot touch or reach themselves
Exactly. Let me share a little piece of common knowledge with you: Humans are incapable of knowing that which they cannot empirically perceive. That means the human brain literally cannot know anything at all unless it can see it, smell it, taste it, hear it, or touch it. That is a proven fact. The fact that you deny it doesn't make me wrong. It makes YOU wrong.
you're wasting precious time in doing so and why so many forms of spirituality ARE available
Nothing more than unproven claims.
You are the key that unlocks the spiritual door not someone else
More of that "you'll never know unless you believe" bullshit. Nice argument. As if the human brain has the ability to alter reality with its beliefs. Hilarious.
And the rest of your response is just more of the same garbage. Next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You admitted that it's not perfect, but I wanted to point out the main imperfection: Love is as much a chemical in the brain as lust is. Both are scientifically verifiable and explainable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Good assumption
What assumption? There's no such thing as a "good" assumption.
Then you got silly with this one, spirituality has been established like a road map for a very long, long time.
Not exactly. Claims have been made for a very, very long time. These claims have never been proven, hence the existence of atheists. As I said, spiritual phenomena have never been demonstrably proven to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, he's right in the aspect of personal experience. If one empirically experiences something, and they can conclusively verify what it was, then they can know what it was. If what it was is something spiritual, then they're proven to themselves that something spiritual exists. Unfortunately, in the entire history of man as we know it, no one has ever been able to demonstrably prove any conclusively verifiable spiritual phenomena. That, coupled with the fact that I've never personally experienced such a thing, is the reason for my atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
...... right.
Okay, then I have one simple question for you. How do you know all this to be absolutely true(i.e. do you have tangible proof)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Alright broheem, then listen up. You claim a god exists(you call it "God"), yet this god you believe exists is from no theistic religion. That means you have nothing to define it or describe it except your own brain. As if religious gods weren't impossible enough to prove existent, yours doesn't even have a book to describe it, or provide even speculative evidence for. For all we know, you made this god up in your head. Maybe you're schizophrenic. So, if you're really sticking with your story, then your claims fail before they even begin. You need tangible proof.
Created:
Posted in:
So I was writing a song for my girlfriend(yes I'm a musician) for Christmas. It usually takes me a matter of hours(or less) to write a song, but I've been working on this one for months because I want it to be my best work, and be perfect. The problem is, I failed to complete it in time. I've never tried to express a love this powerful with words, so I'm having trouble with the lyrics(which is very odd for me, because I'm usually quite good with lyrics and poetry). However, the instrumental has been done for quite a while. Have a listen:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
No you're not. If you were, you wouldn't have a problem answering a question as simple as what your religion is. You're not very good at this. The only thing you've managed to accomplish here is annoying people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
lol, you're one of those "beat around the bushers" aren't you? You think you're right because you won't answer a question. What a waste of time. What the fuck are you even doing here dude? You're not interested in debate. The first time a real challenger comes up to you, to use semantics to get out of having to actually defend your ridiculous arguments. Pathetic. I'm done with this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
And which one is a fundamental consciousness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Are you drunk or something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
My arguments are only moot when you can point out problems with them.
Indeed. The problem with them is that you won't tell us which god you are referring to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Which god? "God" isn't a name, it's a classification. Like the word "human." If the word "human" were spelled with a capital H (Human) and used in a sentence, it would imply that only one human exists. But if someone didn't know which human it is that exists, I'd have to specify which one. So, which god are you referring to? If you don't specify a specific god, yet use the term "God," then your argument is by definition moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What doesn't it follow, and how? You said "Mini argument for God's existence" (using the word "God" implies a specific god, in fact), and literally the first thing you wrote was "God is defined as a fundamental consciousness." If you're not speaking of any specific god, then you either don't know how to speak English, or you're trolling. But, that's beside the point. Your argument is uncertain and you have failed to make a final decision(of which god you speak of), thus your argument is, by definition, moot.
You can either accept that, or protest it and be sent back to grade school to learn the definition of "moot."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
They're intended to be arguments for the existence of a god, as your OP explicitly states. Thus, since, by your own admittance, you aren't referring to any specific god, your arguments are moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Then your entire post is moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Yep. You're a lost cause, just as I thought. You're one of those people who can never take criticism, thus you will never improve. I am therefore wasting my time with you. Another added to the block list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I'm afraid I'm having a bit of difficulty figuring out your purpose here. I see you've been here for roughly three months, have yet to actually participate in a debate, and from what I've seen of you around the forum, tend to spend your time throwing around unsupported insults, pomposity, arrogance, and sarcasm, all apparently intended to bolster what you seem to believe to be a "persona of intelligence." In other words, you act similarly to a hipster student blogger who spends his time talking about how he's better than everyone else instead of studying and actually proving it. The ironic part is that your actions actually accomplish the opposite of what you seem to intend with them.
Let me give you a keen piece of wisdom: Debate and philosophy aren't about your ego. It's not about who is smarter, or more intelligent. It's really not even about who is right or wrong. It's about finding the truth, and using skills of reasoning and critical thought to mold the intellect into something capable of finding it. If you're here simply to have dick measuring contests with everyone with whom you come into contact, you've come to the wrong place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
As I've said many times over to the various invalids whom attempt to peg me as intellectually inept, any idiot can say someone is stupid. It requires intelligence to provide sound reasoning supporting such an assertion. Those whom refrain from such providence are generally the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
God is defined as a fundamental consciousness.
I take issue with your above words. I assume you are speaking of the Christian god(if I am wrong, correct me). If so, by what authority do you define this god this way? Certainly not by the authority of the Christian bible, as the Christian bible does not define its depicted god at all, much less as any kind of consciousness. The premise of your entire argument rests of the above quote, and the above quote is factually incorrect. Your argument is therefore false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Indeed I am. Else being quite a bit more intelligent than the general population.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
That is to a play on words what sharpness is to a sack potatoes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
It's not beside the point. My question points out how faith equates to delusion and, more often than not, stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
A leap of faith or logic implies a chance. Of course there is a chance they'd be okay. The point is that there is also a chance that they would NOT be okay, and they have no evidence to suggest that there is a chance they would be okay.
Let me give YOU an example that is actually correct, since you seem to have trouble in that area:
If you were walking with a friend to a cliff, and that friend turned to you and said "God told me you need to jump off of this cliff, or else Jesus will die a horrible death and we'll all be teleported to a place one billion times worse than Hell," would you jump off the cliff?
If so, explain why. If not, explain why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You have a full book of "oldest tricks in the book?" You realize that statement is self defeating, right? If a trick is the oldest in the book, then none of the others in the same book are the oldest.
Why do I need to explain things like this to you people? Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
You asked me if people were fools for thinking the earth is round thousands of years ago when everyone thought it's flat. That is an example of zero knowledge. If you weren't speaking of zero knowledge, then rethink your examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Whether or not you believe me is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But a lot of what we know is what we have been told by trustworthy sources. Human children simply have too much to learn to use trial-and-error.i'd say that if parents tell their kids that god exists or the world is flat those kids will l believe it and 'think they know it'. Its not foolishness - its necessary to believe what you are told without proof.What people have to learn as they grow up is that not everyone is as trustworthy as their mum!
That is not knowledge. It's assumption. What you have just done is rationalize ignorant delusion, and you have exemplified the biggest problem the world has today(especially America). I am not one of those people. I do not take on an absolute belief of something until I have knowledge of it. I am living proof that it is not necessary to make assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
So a person that thought the world is round when everyone was saying flat was a fool?
I want you to take another look at what you quoted from me. Here it is:
It's really quite simple dude: Only fools believe something is true when they don't KNOW it's true. End of story.
Notice the bolded, italicized, underlined text.
In the past, before the shape of the earth were verifiable, both were fools, because no one KNEW what shape the earth was. I'm not getting how the point I made seems to be so difficult for you to grasp. It is, as I said, very simple. Children grasp this concept. Belief is justified by KNOWLEDGE. Without KNOWLEDGE, a belief is not justified. Without KNOWLEDGE, a belief is classified as delusion. How many more ways do I need to say it before you grasp it?
Created:
Posted in:
@Raltar
No dude. I'm not Mopac. I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a liar. I'm not cognitively dissonant. I'm not uninterested in being correct. If your vote were based on facts of our debate, I wouldn't have a problem with it. You claimed I did not effectively rebuttal Mopac's argument, and that is simply a load of bullshit, and you know it. You're not an idiot dude. I can always tell when someone is an idiot. So, I know you understand that when someone in a debate shows that their opponent's entire premise and argument commits a logical fallacy, they have then refuted their opponent's argument, which is the most effective rebuttal anyone can ask for. I refuted Mopac's entire argument, yet you said I didn't. That is a bold faced lie on your part, and that's why I have a problem with your vote. I hate people like you who sit there and lie their faces off because they're too proud to admit that they're wrong. People like that have no place on debate sites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
No, it was indeed moderated. Virtuoso is who moderated it.
Raltar gave Mopac the better arguments vote, and his reasons stated were: #1 I had a burden of proof that I didn't prove(he took that one back and admitted later that I in fact did not have a burden of proof, being that I never made a claim), and #2 that I did not effectively rebuttal Mopac's argument, when in fact I did, VERY clearly, in my final argument, by showing that Mopac's entire premise and argument commits argumentum ad dictionarium, which obviously completely refutes his argument. Anyone with an IQ above 90, the ability to read and comprehend the English language, and a very basic understanding of debate and how logical fallacies work can easily see how my final argument refuted everything Mopac argued. So, in light of that, I ask: Why, then, did Virtuoso say that Raltar's vote was adequate? There are only three possible reasons I can think of: #1 he didn't even read his RFD, #2 he's biased(agrees with Mopac), or #3 he has no idea what he's doing.
Go read it all for yourself, and you'll see what I'm talking about. www.debateart.com/debates/309
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Considering that a person's vote which I recently reported to you on my recent debate was deemed adequate when the voter made false claims about my arguments and used those false claims as reasons for giving the argument vote to my opponent, I feel that the strictness of the RFD is entirely irrelevant to the problem this site is facing. The problem is, obviously, that bullshit votes are allowed in formal debates. I am brand new to this site, and because of that moderation decision, I am already seriously considering leaving it. Formal debate here is obviously useless if votes are not required to have factual merit. I am very disappointed, because I actually like this site a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A word definition is something that tells what a word means. A word is a human construct. Words are tools that are used to describe thoughts humans have to other humans. You, for whatever insane a reason, believe that our reality must be what a dictionary says it is, as if a dictionary's word is some kind of divine, infallible law of reality, and not a human, man made construct, not bound by any law of reality. It seems that your tiny little brain is incapable of conceiving the fact that a dictionary does not hold the secrets of the universe. It's a book that defines words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
It's really quite simple dude: Only fools believe something is true when they don't KNOW it's true. End of story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You arbitrarily rejecting a definition you don't like(because it makes you wrong) is not an argument.
You apparently don't know how to read. I have never once rejected your dictionary's definition of "God." In fact, in our formal debate, I specifically said that you have PROVEN that that is the definition of the god you speak of. What you are failing to comprehend is that dictionaries don't dictate what is and isn't. The word "God" may be defined as the ultimate reality by a dictionary, but that does not PROVE that the reality we live in is God. You want to talk about fallacies I've supposedly made, but you ignore your own. You are literally trying to define your god into existence. Your entire argument commits argumentum ad dictionarium, but you don't care at all. You don't care to be logical, or to even make sense. No amount of proving you wrong can change your mind, because you're not interested in being right. You believe you already are, and that's why debate with you is a useless waste of time. Someone who isn't willing to consider the possibility that they're wrong is someone who believes what they believe to be infallible, and people who believe their beliefs to be infallible are almost always wrong. You are a waste of my time, sir. From this point forward, I will not be responding to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I'm not going to pretend like that made any sense at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That's what a dictionary says is the definition of "God." This dictionary doesn't prove that reality is god, therefore, as has been said to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over by theists and atheists alike, your argument is INVALID. You've proven NOTHING. Get it through your head and move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
A lack of an explanation does not serve as an explanation, which is essentially what your entire argument relies on.
"I can't come up with a better explanation, so god musta done it."
Have you ever heard of schizophrenia? My ex girlfriend's daughter(who's schizophrenic) would be laughing her ass off as what you're saying right now, telling you how every bit of that could be explained by schizophrenia. The coincidence that what was predicted actually happened can't be explained by it, but it doesn't need to be. You can't logically connect the event with the prediction. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Your entire argument relies on one gigantic fallacy brother. Your argument fails.
Good try though. If nothing else, what you've said is at least interesting to think about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm gunna humor you.
Why no Mopac, I don't think I AM referring to a four legged furry creature that barks when I talk about apples! How ever did you know?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yes of course I do. I live in it. You live in it. Blah blah we all know what you believe. "Hey look! This dictionary says God is the ultimate reality! Well, reality exists, right? That must mean God exists!"
It's the most pathetic excuse for an argument for the existence of God that I've ever encountered, and that's saying a lot, because I've heard some pretty stupid arguments from theists. Just give it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Psychobabble ignored. I'll answer you:
Truth is another word for fact. Facts are based on reality. So, in a word, one could say truth IS reality(the only real point Mopac ever got right).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Nobody cares to hear your psychobabble anymore. Go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Where you demand proof, you won't get it due to the proof only being in the form of experiences and observations of a specific observer (weak evidence). But if you demand evidence, there is a lot of evidence to suggest one of these spiritual platforms could be right. I think at the very least, being agnostic atheist spiritual is most logical presently.
A hole in a tree could be "suggestive evidence" of a giant(such as Sasquatch) sodomizing a tree. Or, it could be evidence that someone shot the tree with a cannon. Or it could be evidence that a laser was misfired and hit the tree.
Which one do we believe? And does it really matter? Because the reality of it could be that the tree was simply deformed, and so all those people who believed a giant buttfucked it, or a cannon shot it, or a laser misfired at it are superstitious fools.
As I've more than adequately proven here, "suggestive evidence" is no reason at all to believe something. Evidence is good for only one thing: Leading to proof. Without proof, belief cannot be justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So....there are no Theists that exist?
Why are you asking me that? I said your claims aren't evidently true to anyone. Of course that applies to theists. It applies to them first and foremost, since they don't require anything to be evident in order to believe it.
What claims do you want evidence for?
I wasn't aware this needed spelling out, but here we go: Any and all claims anyone in the history of the universe ever has, is, or will make, needs evidence and/or proof in order to be justifiably believed as true.
Wrong sir, show me where I claimed that.
BTW, I don't argue for any religious God in particular, I argue for the Creator period.
Alright fine, you claimed that the "creator" exists. Whatever that ominous piece of not-evidently-true fiction means.
Okay, now that we are confident you have a penis what exact problem do you have in accepting or considering you are conscious soul that is using a physical body?
The same problem I have with accepting that the world is an invisible bucket of ketchup and we're all just floating potatoes: It's not evidently true.
you are also a soul that is having an experience through a material body.
Prove it.
And why not? you keep saying "evidently" but give me an example why spirituality is not evidently true.
Because it has yet to be evidenced, which is where the word "evident" comes from.
So we're back to the same problem you said you wouldn't do, you won't consider sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality. If you were to CONSIDER it like you said you would then we could move forward, or at least ask me questions why you should consider religious or spiritual sources for insights and knowledge about God.
Bro, I've spent the better part of two decades considering it. Who are you to tell me what I have and haven't considered?
Where do you get your information that something is proven?
The empirical observation and experience of reality.
Don't be a wise ass, where do you get your information from that something is proven besides what you experience directly through your physical perceptions.
There is no other place from which a human can gain knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
All you've done is to tell me what you personally think of your own position.
Oh, I see the problem. You don't recognize factual statements when you see them. Interesting. Why are you here again?
Conservatives tend not to need things to alter their sobriety.Recreational drugs are a leftist/liberal thing.
lol, and he calls ME unrealistic. Walk outside and get a clue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Anti-theist aren't known for their realistic outlook.
That's like saying "donuts lovers aren't known for the love of sugar." The entire reason atheists are atheists is BECAUSE of a realistic outlook. A realistic outlook requires evidence and proof. Theism presents no evidence nor proof, therefore it is literally the definition of unrealistic. What are you on dude?
Created: