Total posts: 218
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Essentially what Christians experience as "divine connection" is the interpretation of an emotion felt when "engaging" their god. They believe this emotion comes from this god, and the thoughts thereafter are placed in their minds by this god, and positive events that happen in their lives are set into motion by this god. Every bit of it is defeated with 5 little words: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Brother, I'm 34 years old and have been studying and debating against Christianity since I was 17. I promise you I am VERY well informed. Intimately so. I have debated ministers with PhDs in their doctrine and shown them to be ignorant fools. The notion that you, a pretentious moron who thinks semantic fallacies equate to proven argumentation, knows more about Christianity than I do, is the most hilarious thing I've heard in a long time. You know nothing of your own god. You think he's an intellectual idea. Ridiculous. Go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I thought I did, when I was a kid. Then I grew up and realized I can't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorely an omnipotent omniscient being could tell you what to say.
One would think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How could I prove something true to those who do not want to believe, even if it was true? I can try and persuade you at best. You WILL NOT accept the Christian God if you do not believe He exists,
I believe you exist. Is it because I want to believe you exist? No. Frankly I don't really care whether you exist or not. Can I not accept that you exist? What difference does it make whether I accept your existence or not? Your existence is a fact of reality. I have undeniable proof of your existence. To deny that you exist would be denial of reality(delusion).
Your god, on the other hand, does not undeniably exist, and whether or not I want it to exist is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it does. Your assertion here makes no sense at all. As if what I want to believe has any ability to affect what is. I'm not a magical wizard, nor a god. I'm a human who can't conjure entities with my beliefs.
but you certainly appear to have grievances against this non-existent Being. Go figure?
Go figure? I guess you don't find grievance with someone who orders infanticide, genocide, rape, murder and a plethora of other atrocities? Who is the morally skewed person now?
A skeptic, generally speaking, will always find another reason to doubt.
A skeptic is intelligent enough to question claims of truth, instead of believing in fairy tales.
I can only present a reasonable defense and tear away at inconsistency, as you do with me.
I'm still waiting for this "reasonable defense."
Yes, they exist for a reason. I'm willing to learn.
And I'm willing to teach.
Listing every logical fallacy in Latin can certainly make a person look like a genius but are their charges true to the fallacy? I would invite you to explain them, not only for my benefit but for the benefit of any other dummy like me reading this thread. It also gives me a chance to interact and question the validity of the claim.
This is very reasonable. I didn't explain because I took you for someone who understands them already. The last logical fallacy I accused you of I actually did explain to you, in a sense. I said your argument basically states that "He said it's true, so it must be true." That is the essence of argumentum ad verecundiam, or "appeal to authority." Just because someone says something is true, doesn't mean it is. Your argument rests on the word of a supposed god, therefore it is invalid. You must prove this god's claim.
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). It does not necessarily follow that it can't be proven true, or that I don't know it is true.
That is true, however, you specifically said that logical fallacies are unavoidable for your arguments. That means your arguments cannot be proven true. Did you misspeak? If so, rephrase.
Sometimes I believe that people list logical fallacies to shut down a dialog.
I list logical fallacies for one reason only: To do exactly what they're intended to do, which is: Show an argument to be invalid.
If your argument commits a logical fallacy, then you have two options: Either fix the argument, or admit defeat.
Because I may not, can't, or don't express it well enough does not necessarily make what I believe false.
This is also true, however, if you can't articulate an argument well enough to prove it, then honestly you probably shouldn't be on a debate site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Don't listen to Mopac. He thinks "God is truth." Meaning truth itself. What he doesn't seem to comprehend is that "truth" is an intellectual idea, not an entity. An intellectual idea has no ability to affect any physical thing(such as the ability to create). His entire belief system is based off of a logical fallacy(a semantic argument stating that the definition of "truth" fits the description of "God" given in scripture, therefore to deny "God" exists is to deny "truth" exists, or "reality" exists. He's an idiot).
Created:
@OP:
Obviously preachers, unless they have no moral center, because the bible is essentially a fictional book full of horrid atrocities committed by a cruel and evil god, and the men that follow it. Most Christians are brainwashed from their early childhood to see the bible as "the good book," and therefore read it with bias instead of objectively. Anyone who isn't already a Christian who reads the Christian bible, and has any sense of morality, would be utterly disgusted with the notion of worshiping the monster depicted within.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Why does anyone even respond to poly? He's very clearly a troll who only wants to get a reaction out of people. I mean no one is that stupid.
For that matter, why does anyone respond to Mopac? He thinks he can play word games to prove his god exists. He doesn't understand the concept of semantics, or how they're a logical fallacy. He's useless to engage on the topic of theism.
@Grugore
There is no valid evidence nor proof for the existence of a god or gods, therefore no, I do not know a god or gods exists/exist. Your claim is utterly ludicrous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Look dude, you're trying to prove something is "true" here. Logical fallacies exist for a reason, and that reason is: To point out errors in logic and falsehoods in proof in order to ensure that something is actually proven true. If your argument commits a logical fallacy, then that argument has not proven something to be true. If you can't prove something to be true, then there is one very simple conclusion: You cannot know it's true.
If logical fallacies are unavoidable in arguing for what you believe, then what you believe can't be proven true, which means you believe something is true when you don't know it is, which is the definition of delusion. It's as simple as that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So are you saying you are more than the physical? Your reply suggests more.
Any sentient being is both physical and mental. However, physical makeup provides for mental makeup
A priori - from that which is before.
Incorrect.
a pri·o·ri
/ˌā prīˈôrī/
adjective
- 1.relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
Before you existed, before living things existed, supposedly from a naturalist of a humanistic framework, devoid of God, all there would be is matter. How does matter produce something that is non-material, abstract in nature, non-physical, such as the laws of logic, or abstract thinking, living, conscious beings?
I'm not a scientist, thus I do not claim to know. However, ignorance doesn't justify making assumptions based on speculation, which is exactly what theists do.
If he was directed by God he knew it.
If the Christian god exists, yes.
How can a prophet 100's of years removed set it into motion, and by a foreign power?
There is a plethora of possibilities, some of which I've already pointed out. As to how the prophet actually did it, who knows? Maybe it was a god. Maybe it was any number of possible things. The point is speculation proves nothing, and that's all you are doing. Speculating. Your entire argument is: "I can't explain it any other way, so it must have happened this way." Absence of evidence is not evidence for. That is pure speculation.
The prophet was only telling what he heard God say.
Supposedly. Again, that is not a proven fact.
I know Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.
Correction, you know someone said it was.
I know that the OT book of Daniel was written before the 1st-century.
Correction, you know someone said it was.
I know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that house the book of Isaiah is around 97% accurate in comparison to the earliest OT Jewish texts found, other than the Christian Bible.
You just inadvertently admitted that you don't actually know they're accurate.
I know Isaiah and the other biblical (OT) manuscripts predate the 1st-century too.
Correction, you know someone said they do.
For some of the rest, where external history is not available, I have good reason to believe. It logically and reasonably makes sense.
A fool once said "Speculation is a logical reason to believe."
I use my subjective mind, my reason, and my five senses in conjunction with the biblical revelation (God's divine word and law) to interpret what I experience by the five senses filtering into my subjective abstract mind aided by the rational thought of Someone else.
That's a real fancy way of saying "He said it's true, so it must be true." Argumentum ad verecundiam.
I could go on and on defeating your arguments at every turn, but this is getting boring. Let's move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
To whom and why not?
To anyone, because you have presented no valid evidence to support your claims, hence my use of the words "not evidently true."
what have I claimed?
That the Christian god exists.
what is evidently true to you that is outside the parameters of spirituality?
Anything that has been proven to be true. For example, I have a penis.
how many claims does it take you to realize there may be something to consider?
No one is claiming that there is nothing to consider. It has been considered, and found to not be evidently true.
So none of what you have accepted has come through a source of written material?
I didn't say that. Read what I said again.
at what point do you ever consider claims as something that reflects reality and something you have accepted?
When said claims are proven true.
where do you get your information from?
The empirical observation and experience of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Anyone who expects another to believe their claims needs to prove their claims. If you don't care what I believe, then you need not prove anything to me, nor need I care what you say. And no, no one was speaking to you, certainly not I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What reason do you have to disbelieve it?
Your claims are not evidently true.
can you give me a specific reason not to consider spirituality? as opposed to any other study?
Of course not. To dismiss something without consideration is to be willfully ignorant.
The information about God is there, I don't have to prove it, it is written through and through in all forms of spiritual insights. You just need to be open to consider knowledge from sources that correlate with the nature of God. There would be really nothing I could prove to you, but there is a world of facts and ideas that I could have you consider if you would just engage me for a little bit.
Written words prove nothing but that words have been written. It is what the words imply that can hold proof, and nothing within these texts proves anything. Only claims are made. This "world of facts" is nothing more than speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I see. Well, allow me to respond to that.
The Constitution allows me my religion. I don't have to prove it. Get over yourself.
No one was talking to you, idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't care what you believe. If you want others to believe it, then prove it. If you don't care what others believe, then why are you on a debate site?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I have no reason at all to believe any of that is true. You claim we can know gods exist? Then prove it. If you're not going to prove it(you do hold the burden of proof), then I'm not interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm rather tired of the "does god exist" argument, and "is foreknowledge possible" argument. I can't technically prove you wrong, since I can't prove that gods don't exist, nor can I prove that foreknowledge is impossible, and likewise you can't prove me wrong since you can't prove gods do exist, and you can't prove foreknowledge is possible. Speculation on either point is all that is possible, and I have no interest in proving either position impossible since I am sane enough to admit that I cannot know. I only claim just that: We cannot know.
I'm more interested in your claim that your god is benevolent. That's one I can utterly destroy your argument with. Let's debate that, shall we?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So do you believe all you are are a bio-chemical-electro reaction - a biological bag of atoms, so to speak?
Physically, yes.
The question is how you get a priori from a completely material universe. Is it a necessary truth?
That question really made no sense. Do you understand what knowledge a priori is?
That is not true. It confirms many things.It was put in the Bible somehow. The question is what is reasonable and logical to believe based on the evidence available? The OT was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The OT predicts this fall. It predicts the collapse of the Jewish OT economy, the promised Messiah coming before this fall to a specific people that do not exist in covenant after the fall, judgment, a new covenant and a host of other things.
That doesn't mean that this "prophet" knew it was going to happen, nor that this prophet didn't personally set it into motion. Therefore, prophecy coming true alone does not verify that the supposed prophet can see the future. Do you understand how knowledge verification works?
There are only a number of foundational beliefs you can hold, such as 1) We are created by God/gods, 2) We come about by chance happenstance, 3) it is all an illusion
Only a fool forms a belief of something they cannot know.
Yes, I do original presuppose the Bible is true and is God's word. When I first started reading it that is how I held it to be - God speaking and revealing Himself to me. Yet from that belief, I have been able to make sense of origins, existence, morals, truth, and tie it into everything else.
I could do the same thing with any fictional book. Lord of the Rings, for example. All I would need to do is convince myself that its words are factually true. In other words: Become delusional. I've always found it hilarious that Christians are just as quick to call someone who thinks leprechauns are stealing their lucky charms a raving madman as atheists are, but when it comes to their equally unproven god, they're perfectly fine with that particular form of madness.
Why do you think it is me who is delusional and not you?
Because I'm not the one claiming to know things I don't know.
Here we go. This kind of thinking has been funneled into you by the culture you live in.
This kind of thinking has been funneled into me by the reading of your bible. I could bury you with proof taken from your own bible. Want me to?
If you don't want to know Him you never will, as simple as that.
I truly hope you're right. Knowing such a despicable monster would be very, very unpleasant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That in no way makes it right in its judgments. Are you an authority on the Bible since you have read it so many times?
Only the author of a book is an authority on that book.
Why is your mind necessary in determining whether it is true?
Because the mind is what perceives evidence and proof, and interprets the truth it reveals.
Why is your belief true to what is?
Belief has nothing to do with what truly is.
May I ask what your highest authority is on this matter?
The Christian bible is literally the only supposed account of the Christian god. Therefore it is the only thing that can be an authority on it.
So, will you accept that as evidence of his existence? Is it a reasonable belief? Is it reasonable to believe other writers like early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and others verify his existence by mentioning his works?
You're asking me if something is true simply because someone says it is? You aren't serious, are you? Of course not. How ridiculous a question.
Sure you can, or else nothing from ancient history can be known. Do you believe that nothing can be known?
The only thing that can be known of ancient history is that someone somewhere wrote some text claiming to be factual accounts of historical events. Whether or not these accounts are factual cannot be verified, thus cannot be known.
Okay, sure. Do you need one of these five to believe something?
You need at least one of these five senses to know something a posteriori, therefore, since justifiable belief requires knowledge, the answer is: Yes. otherwise the belief is a delusion, even if the belief is true.
The Christian faith is a reasonable and logical faith.
That's like saying "evil is the greatest form of love." It makes absolutely no sense. A complete oxymoron. Faith, by its very definition, is completely unreasonable and illogical.
It depends how carefully their message was preserved. With different copies and lots of them from different centuries and lots of them, you can verify and check to see how accurate the record has been preserved.Is that reasonable and logical to believe?
Yes and no. Yes it is reasonable and logical to believe that the writings are all consistent with each other(if they are). No it is not reasonable and logical to believe that because something was written by a thousand different people, it must be true. That commits the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.
You take Him on His word or you don't (Hebrews 11:6). But when you do He opens up so much more to you in confirming His truth.
According to Christians, yes. Yet another claim that has yet to be proven.
That is your assumption, not mine.
I never make assumptions.
The Big Bang or whatever you believe is magical too, isn't it - pretty incredulous to believe. Where does it all start in your opinion?
I don't claim that I know things that I have no knowledge of. I have no ability to know "where it all starts."
God confirms His existence in numerous ways - answers to prayer
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
His providence and how He protects the Christian
Unverified
how He confirms His word
He doesn't. In fact, his own bible contradicts itself hundreds of times.
how we come to understand and love Him
Delusion confirms nothing but that one is delusional.
How do you know your wife or your girlfriend? You spend time with them. With God, the first step is believing He exists and then trusting Him. If He exists then there is no greater authority. If you don't believe He exists how will you ever know Him?
I can't say I ever have trouble believing the tangible being that is my girlfriend exists. If this god wants me to know him, he's free to walk up to me and say hi. Otherwise I have no interest in knowing him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Which man? Are you speaking of Jesus?
Any man making any prediction that came true, including Jesus.
The Bible contains many predictive texts that were written before the fact. Do you dispute this?
Nope.
So your theory would be okay if you could show me even one person that you know or know of that can do that. Can you?
Anyone could, so yes.
How do you stage the future?
Predict this football team will win the superbowl. Pay the quarterback to purposefully throw the game. That team wins. Suddenly they're a prophet who can predict the future(in the minds of very, very gullible people/idiots).
How well do you know Preterism?
About as well as I know any doctrine based on the Christian bible.
What we know that it is reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem, before the common era.
Even if that were reasonable, which it's not, it wouldn't matter in terms of proving divine prophecy, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Tell me, why is it reasonable to believe (and logical) that these OT books were written before the fall of Jerusalem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
What makes you think that your authority and judgments are more authoritative than its words? After all, you are basing your highest authority on a mere mortal, limited, finite mind - yours or someone else. Why is it the necessary mind in determining truth?
Because my mind is the only one I have, thus the only one relevant to me and what I believe.
May I ask what your highest authority is on this matter?
I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Authority on what matter? The Christian god?
Do you believe that Josephus existed, based on his written accounts or not?
I believe a book says he existed. Much like a book says Jesus existed, or the Christian god exists.
How would you confirm the existence of an ancient historical person?
You can't.
Do you have to see them to believe them?
Or smell them, taste them, touch them, or hear them. There are five empirical senses, not just one.
And can you get to know someone from their biography or things based on what has been written about them?
If said writings are verified to be true, then perhaps. It depends on how thorough said writings are.
I see your argument as mute unless you want to deny the reasonableness of history.
There is nothing reasonable or unreasonable about history. History is one thing, and the recording of it is another. The truth is often lost to time, as the scribe can write whatever they want. Who could ever verify the truth of the words written by men whom have been dead for 2000 years?
The biblical God does not go about trying to prove His existence to His creatures.
That much is painfully obvious, and quite ironic too, being that an omnipotent being could very easily prove such a thing.
You either take Him as the highest authority or you place some authority above His.
I place no authority on magical invisible pink unicorns.
He interacts with humanity by singling out a specific people, and they write about Him.
How do you know this?
The difference between you and Him is that He is a Spirit alone.
Actually, according to Scripture, he's not "A" spirit. He IS spirit(John 4:24). He is also love(1 John 4:16), light(1 John 1:5), and a consuming fire(Hebrews 12:29).
You are material and it can be argued spiritual. There is a part of you that does not seem to conform to the natural world if materialism is all there is.
Is there? I've never noticed it.
By the way, are you an empiricist or do you believe in the immaterial also?
It doesn't matter what I believe. I am unable to know that which I cannot empirically perceive/experience unless it can be known a priori, therefore any belief I have of that which can only be known a posteriori which I have not empirically perceived/experienced is delusion.
In the pages of Scripture, there is a message, a revelation about/from a personal being claiming to be God. If this message is true, then we can know God in as much as He has revealed Himself. If the message is from God, then you would expect it to confirm what we know about reality through its words. Prophecy is one such confirmation.
As I've already explained, prophecy confirms nothing.
Another is the unity of the Bible and its central theme. The NT says it reveals Jesus Christ throughout the OT Scriptures. I can show the reasonableness of this on most pages of the OT. The OT Mosaic Covenant was a covenant with Israel. In Exodus 24:3 they agreed to the conditions of the covenant. Deuteronomy 28 gives the blessings of the covenant and the curses for disobeying the covenant. Every physical ordinance and the ritual requirements were a shadow or type of a more perfect reality, a spiritual one. We are told they all point to Jesus Christ, and this can be demonstrated.
The fatal flaw in your belief here is that you are assuming that this bible of yours speaks factual truth. You are assuming every word is absolutely true, and that everything it says happened, happened. Because of the fact that you are not 2000 years old, and have no time machine capable of traveling 2000 years back in time, this belief is unjustified, thus it is a delusion. In other words: No, it cannot be demonstrated. Not really. Only in your mind.
The descriptions of God revealed in the pages of Scripture are also reasonable in describing what God would be like, the greatest necessary Being. The Creator would need to understand His creation and what He has made. He would have to transcend it, and therefore the physical reality, and that reality would have to have a beginning. If He is all knowing, just, and wise, then He would demonstrate this in the pages therein. These attributes are just a smattering of what is revealed about God. We also learn of His character, His holiness, purity, and power.
The Christian god is a murderous, misogynistic asshole who rapes, pillages, commits mass genocide, pitches his own children into a "lake of fire and brimstone" for sins as menial as lack of faith... If this god does exist, I certainly don't want to know him.
Then, I can go from there to determining how we make sense of anything, ultimately. Why should we in a chance happenstance universe? There is no reason. Why do we keep finding reason and why do we continue to make sense of a senseless universe? It makes no sense that we would. Why would we?
Lack of intelligent design does not equate to lack of sense. That makes no sense.
If I start to dismantle your worldview, to find out what makes it tick, what would I be left with that could make sense of anything? To make sense of origins, existence, morality, truth I claim God is necessary.
Well, your claim is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your theory would be alright if it was one or two or even a few predictions, but hundreds? Who do you know who can predict the future with certainty?
Who said this man could predict the future? I certainly didn't. A man could give five hundred million accurate predictions, and simply be a man who staged five hundred million events to happen exactly when he said they would in the future. Only a fool believes that looks are never deceiving. If Preterists are really that gullible, then they have far more problems than the idea that they're delusional alone.
First, you would have to give good reasons that these authors wrote these manuscripts after the events in question. If you can't do that then you would have to show the predictions were inaccurate. Are your reasons good?
Why would I need to do any of that, and why wold the predictions need to be inaccurate?
Created:
Posted in:
@Everyone
It's been fun, but I have things to do. I'll be back later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ad hominem-is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[
Exactly. Thank you for proving my point :). If you read my previous responses to you, you will see that my statements of fact(referred to by you as "insults") were not used with the intention of refuting an argument by attacking your character, motive, or other attribute of you. My words to you had nothing to do with any argument you had made, thus these "insults" do not meet the criteria of what constitutes argumentum ad hominem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
"Ad homs" are insults used with the intention of refuting an argument. My words to you held no such intention. Currently you are proving that you have no understanding of what a logical fallacy is. Do you wish to continue showing signs of being an imbecile, or would you like to cut your losses and be quiet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
People say there is no evidence for the biblical God. Prophecy is one of many bucket loads full of reasons. What is more, it can be verified via history to a reasonable and logical extent. Thus, there is factual evidence for it.
A man says "God told me this will happen in 100 years." 100 years later, said thing happens. This does not prove that the god this man claims told him this actually did tell him this, nor does it prove that this god even exists. It doesn't even prove that the man knew it was going to happen. The only thing it proves, in fact, is that the man happened to be right. Be it by pure happenstance, foreknowledge, or a god, neither have been proven. This is a perfect example of what I'm referring to when I say that Christians have no concept of what constitutes evidence and/or proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The word "idiot" was used as an example of something that can be used as an insult, and can be a statement of fact. It was, in fact, never used to describe you(at least by me, I can't speak for others). The words used for you were: coward, imbecile. And at the time of stating them, I explained why I stated them. Currently, you are showing signs of a horrible memory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If one displays signs of idiocy, and/or proves that they're an idiot, and one, in turn, says they're an idiot, that is not an insult, rather it is a statement of fact.
Your opinions strike me as someone being exactly what they are accusing others as. Until you release those opinions and do more than label me that's all you really have to go by
Someone who claims statements of fact to be opinions is claiming to be intelligent, and you're surprised at why I'm not interested in what that person has to say? Comical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I never insulted you. I made a logical deduction. If someone is an intelligent person, and one says they're an idiot, that is an insult. If one displays signs of idiocy, and/or proves that they're an idiot, and one, in turn, says they're an idiot, that is not an insult, rather it is a statement of fact. In any case, you don't strike me as the type of person who is interested in being correct, or finding the truth. You strike me as a person who already believes they're absolutely correct, and would never renounce their beliefs if proven incorrect. Now, I could be wrong. I'm not claiming to be able to divine knowledge based on an impression. However, until you give me reason to believe otherwise, I will remain uninterested in debate with you in an environment such as this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm currently already in two time constricted debates, so I'm going to have to pass on that. I don't have time for another debate right now. Plus, I'm honestly not interested in specifically debating the biblical relevance of Preterism. I find that belief system to be irrelevant to the reason I debate against Christianity and theism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Do I take it you consider killing an enemy in war as not justified?
You're asking me if you take it that way? I don't know. Do you?
What about executing a convicted killer?
What about it?
Would you say that people's moral judgement of such things is 'universal'?
True morality is based on reality, thus it is not affected by us. It is what it is, regardless of us. That's why morality is universal.
If the war is necessary to protect the lives of those whom you rely on to survive, then yes, the war is morally just.
Executing a convicted killer is not morally just, because the killer has been apprehended and no longer has the power to kill someone. Therefore, the killer no longer poses an immediate threat, and as I said, killing is only justified if there is an immediate threat of death by that person. "An eye for an eye" is morally skewed, because it asserts that two wrongs make a right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Then yes, I do understand where you stand, and no I do not agree that it is the biblical stance, nor do I specifically disagree.They have a lot of similarities but some glaring differences too. I side toward full Preterism. I don't see how you can make sense of Scripture with partial Preterism, or with futurism in any form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Okay, then the question is why should my instincts operation in the same way yours do?
Because we're both human.
If it is to my benefit to kill others so I will survive what of it? If Hitler had gained world domination and has survived, then whoever he deemed unfit would be eliminated and there would be nothing wrong with it. This begs the question of how you get from what is (descriptive) to an ought (what should be). From what I witness those in power make the rules. If you live in North Korea you live by a different set of rules from those in the USA. Why is your moral instinct any "better" than that of Kim Jong-un? Because you like it? Well, too bad, he likes the opposite and for you to survive in his country you have to abide by what he decrees. The problem is that you have two different set of rules regarding the same thing (let's say abortion or capital punishment). Who in effect is 'right?' They both can't logically be for they state opposites. It goes against the Law of Identity, the Law of Non-contradiction, and the Laws of Excluded Middles. In effect, it turns logic on its head.
Actions beget actions. That is factual reality. That's why killing for reasons other than an eminent threat is not morally just. If your life is immediately threatened, and killing is the only way to stop that threat from meeting reality, then killing is morally justified. If you kill indiscriminately, you invite others to do the same to you. Good begets good, evil begets evil, actions beget actions. These are basic logical principals, and basic human instincts for survival.
My moral instinct is no different from Kim Jong-un's. Kim is an evil prick who was raised in a morally skewed environment. His emotions were psychologically conditioned. His morality comes from these emotions, instead of reality. As I said previously, those who base their morality on conditioned emotions rather than reality are morally wrong. Kim has exactly the same instincts as I do. He simply ignores them when it comes to morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Ah, I see. So you are arguing that rocks are humans, even though I specifically said "human morality." I see you're another one of those useless people who rely on semantics to make a point. It's universal among humans dude. Human morality in no way has anything to do with rocks. Stop being ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You apparently don't know what "universal" means in the context which it was used.
u·ni·ver·sal
/ˌyo͞onəˈvərsəl/
adjective
- 1.of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.
In other words, "across the board," "done by all things," or "affecting all things." True human morality is the same for every human in existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I am a Preterist. Do you understand what kind of stand I take on eschatology and do you agree that it is the biblical stance (that it rings true to what is stated in the Bible)?
Not yet. You haven't revealed what type of Preterist you are. Partial, or full? They are two very different doctrines.
I also don't see how a person arrives at morality from relativism. If there is no absolute, unchanging, objective, universal basis for good (best - and you see where I am going with this line of thought) how can 'good' be anything but preferences, and what makes a personal preference good? It just makes 'good' what they like, and if they have the power to do so, then what you must live by. The problem is that it is not a logical system of thought since the Laws of Logic, the Law of Identity (A = A; a dog is a dog; good is good), is lost. 'A' can mean whatever you want to make it mean, thus it becomes meaningless. 'A' loses its identity with relativism.
Relative morality only exists in those who base their morality on psychologically conditioned emotions, thus relativism in morality is false. All humans are born with the same primal instincts; Instincts like survival. Most notions of morality are formed by these basic instincts for survival. It is the reason why murder is seen as wrong, and etc. I won't go into detail on that right now, as it's not needed to answer your question. The answer is: True morality is absolutely universal. It just doesn't need an eternal god to be so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
For a Christian, you seem like a rather intellectually honest individual. You may ask me whatever questions you like about what I believe and why. I may even agree to debate you on these forums, if you promise to admit defeat if you are defeated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It doesn't matter who defines a term. What matters is whether the actual definition matches what the person in question has defined it as.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
The problem with the Big "A" Atheists is that they have absolutized their belief system to the point that it overrides everything else, including logic, reason and evidence.
This is true. However, I'd like to point out that if you replace "Big "A" Atheists" with "Christians", that statement perfectly defines them as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't consider a debate won unless a premise has been proven false. Formal debates wherein a debater wins when they haven't disproven a false premise, or proven a true premise, are debates whose votes are utterly invalid. If that happens around here, then I won't be here very long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A debate, whether formal or not, is about which premise is correct. A formal debate is far better at ascertaining which is correct, as it is held to strict rules of validity in argumentation and evidence/proof thereof, whereas informal debates are held to no rules at all. It's astonishingly ironic how so many people on a debate site don't seem to grasp this concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well, that's why you're not supposed to make assumptions. Assumptions are beliefs that are based on ignorance.
Let me explain this to you, since you apparently don't understand: Name calling in debates is frowned upon only because it's a logical fallacy when insults are used for the purpose of refuting an argument. Why is it a fallacy? Because proving that your opponent is a moron doesn't prove that your opponent's argument is wrong, as even morons can be correct.
This doesn't mean it's logically invalid to say someone is a moron if they are indeed a moron. This also doesn't invalidate the notion that morons, more often than not, make moronic statements and harbor moronic beliefs. Thus, to say someone is a moron, without the intention of thereby refuting said moron's argument, is perfectly fine. Unfortunately, most people, such as yourself, don't grasp that concept, and will use insults in attempts to refute arguments, which destroys the purpose of a debate.
Do you understand now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not in a debate on this forum. An idiot is an idiot. It may be a logical fallacy to say so in a debate, but that doesn't make it any less valid as a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Science likes all evidence. Evidence isn't proof, obviously, however, evidence can lead to proof. Unfortunately for theists, they have no evidence to support their beliefs. Only imagined evidence. I've met Christians who claim that the world around them is evidence of intelligent design, therefore a god. Theists generally have no understanding of what constitutes evidence. Only what they choose to believe. Valid belief isn't a choice. You don't choose to believe the sky is blue, or that fire is hot. These are undeniable parts of reality. You observe reality, not create it with what you choose to believe of it. Theists don't grasp that concept, and Mopac is no different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Formal debates are bound by rules and are objectively criticized. Forum debates are bound to no rules and aren't necessarily criticized at all. Tell me again how that's a better recipe for hashing out truth? I've debated on forums for over a decade. Sometimes it goes somewhere productive, but most of them time it goes right down the crapper after a few ad hominem-infused rebuttals. I came here for real debates. Not debates with children calling each other names on a forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In other words, you can't prove your claims, so your arguments are utterly useless and you forfeit the rest of the debate, right? I figured as much. Type1 may have let you win with those weak little semantics, but I'm a whole other monster. I guess some people can't handle actually having to put money where their mouth is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
lol this dude is gunna make this win a lot easier than I thought it'd be. All he does is quote the bible.
Listen "dood," I've read your bible cover to cover probably more times than you have, so you can save your bible quotes. They aren't backed by evidence, and they certainly aren't convincing enough alone. Go write your rebuttal in the debate, and PLEASE, use some evidence, or at least make a good argument. I want a challenge.
Created: