Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But trees don't have a mechanism to read those tree rings and then use the infomation obtained. The DNA in a cell is read by ribosomes that click along it 3 bases at a time, grabbing the amino acid corresponding to the codon read and adding it to the protein coded for. There's a bit more to it than passively indicting an annual cycle of growth.
That is precisely why I think it is a problem that creationists are allowed to use vague terminology and implications about meanings and such rather than being made to make actual solid testable claims.
I am sure we agree on that point. The creationist word "kinds" is the most infamous example of this but "genetic information", "complexity", etc. are other examples.
A more important question would be how to show people that such vague terminology leads to logical fallacies. I am sure there are some that would continue to believe regardless but I think many simply don't realize that their arguments use logical fallacies. Many of the top opponents of creationism are former YECs themselves after all!
So what do you think the best approach would be? An indirect and subtle dismantling of the vague terminology itself by first requesting detailed definitions then holding creationists strictly to those definitions would be my recommendation but other options certainly exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I get that... but first we have to identify the process people actually use, not the process they think or say they use!
Certainly, but the first step in the dialectical method is to identify what a person says [such as what they say their method is]. Only after that is it possible to investigate whether what they say is true [such as whether that is actually the method they use].
It isn't always the fastest process but I think it is an important step in order to avoid potential misunderstandings later in the converaation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So I shouldn't have said "bob updated his belief" - bob's brain updated it for him to use.
My point regarding there being a justification to Bob's belief still stands, does it not? Whether that justification just happened to be registered consciously or instead first registered unconsciously then later consciously discussed with Alex in this particular instance seems irrelevant to that point. The justification exists either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
1.) Strawmen: “if Evolution is true, why have we never seen a Crocoduck”, “why have we never seen a fly turn into not a fly” and similar aims at ridiculing evolution.
While arguments of this type are still quite common I think they are at least on a steady decline and will continue to decline as long as education about how evolution actually works continues to spread.
2.) Equivocation: “DNA contains information”, “evolution is just a theory/new information cannot be created”.
Arguments of this type are precisely the kind that I mean when I say that many creationist arguments can be easily dismantled if they are first made to stop using vague terminology. My question to the OP in post 93 is an example of one way to start such a process.
3.) Showing one thing - no matter how small - that isn’t fully explained by evolution - disproves evolution. Showing one thing - no matter how small - that is partially explained by creationism - proves creationism.
That is a more complicated logical fallacy which would have to be addressed some other way such as inquiring into the soundness of the method itself rather than addressing individual arguments made in such a way on their own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@Reece
I am more interested in first wondering whether the process one uses to make their conclusions is a sound process rather than whether the conclusion itself is sound.
Reece, how does your process for concluding that determinism is accurate compare to secularmerlin's? If your reasoning is based on something other than "an examination of the evidence" then please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I suggest a belief is a 'scrap of information in a brain' and are usually tagged with a 'level of confidence'. I would say bob originally believed (ie had the belief) 'Charlie is not around'. On hearing the noise bob updated his belief to '80% charlie's turned up, 20% he still isn't here'.
Yeah, sounds right to me.
I was responding specifically to the claim that a lack of 100% certainty makes one unable to justify their beliefs. Bob is only 80% sure of his belief but he still clearly has a justification - the truck sound.
Created:
Posted in:
pharmakeai was originally in the bible but it was translated to sorcery in later versions in the bible
That is how translating things to english generally works, yes. They change non-english words into english words.
Wait, you... you do know the bible wasn't originally written in english... right? You know this already? Yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I suspect that the god=truth thing was taught to Mopac along with the dictionary nonsense when he was coverting to orthodoxy.
Taught as an apologetic? Very likely, yes. Taught as a litteral teaching? Maybe, but not any differently than the way that other denominations teach that God is litterally love or that Jesus litterally makes truth possible. Based on my experience with various Christian groups Mopac heavily overexaggerates the differences between Orthodox Christianity and other denominations.
pga is apparently chaneling a presuppostionalist theologian called van Till, who he names as a favourite author on his profile.
I don't recall ever having much of a conversation with pga so I won't say anything about them specifically but in general presupps and YECs really give a bad name to theist apologists in my opinion. There are plenty of perfectly sane apologists that belong to neither group but it seems that sadly most of the better-known ones fall into one of the two categories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Nice find.
Thank you. I spend a lot of time doing things around the apartment listening to YouTube on autoplay in the background. When I stumbled across that video about a week and a half ago I was nearly convinced that Mopac was the apologist in the video before I took a second look!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Our sciences and/or world would be compatible. Everything is made of the the same particle. That could be bc it is ultimately one.
Let's pretend this statement about there only being one type of elementary particle is true. As far as I know that is not the generally accepted view of the scientific community but that is not relevant to my point.
Do you think that "science does not outright disprove [insert idea here]" should be considered a valid reason to accept an idea as true?
Notice I asked whether that would be a valid reason to accept an idea, I did not ask whether that would be a valid reason to avoid discarding an idea. That would be a different question entirely.
Second reason in the why is the world around us. I believe spooky things happen, spiritual experiences. It would explain why everyone has there own type of experience and anything spiritual in nature is subjective to the observer.
Most of what you say, with the exception of this quote here regarding experiences, seems to simply sum up as "it is not impossible as far as I know". The experiences you mention here seem to be the only positive support of your position that I can see. Would you lime to talk more in-depth about these experiences?
But like i said earlier, the why is a little trickier than the what. Bc giving solid "why" answers means i'm 100% on board, which i'm not.
Wrong. It is possible to believe something without being 100% sure. It is possible to have reasons for said belief if said belief is justified.
An example of this:
----------------
Alex: Hey, is that Charlie that just pulled into the driveway?
Bob: I believe so, yes.
Alex: Why do you think so?
Bob: It sounds like his truck to me.
Alex: How can you be 100% sure without looking out the window?
Bob: I am not 100% sure but I do think it is Charlie's truck and the reason I think so is because it sounds like Charlie's truck.
----------------
Yes, it is possible to have reasons for believing things you are not 100% sure about.
The only beliefs that don't have reasoning behind them are unjustified beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe in metaphysical determinism.
For similar reasons that secularmerlin outlined previously, or for different ones?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
At first glance Mopac's... argument I suppose, for want of a better word... is just a slightly mutated form of the ontological argument. I do not know whether the resemblance there is coincidence or the argument is actually inspired by the ontological argument in some way but in either case the resemblance does exist and I have dubbed this type of thinking "proto-ontological apologetics" as a result.
You may be suprised (though you almost certainly won't be) to learn that Mopac did not actually come up with the idea of the proto-ontological apologetics he uses. You can see in the link below a video about someone making almost word-for-word the same argument (though to their credit they don't treat Merriam-Webster's as divinely inspired the same way Mopac does so they at least have that going for them) This person also cites another apologist's book as an inspiration for the idea within the video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Their vague use of the term is the main problem. They like to heavily imply things that they mean rather than outright say things and they use their vague terminology to do so, such as implying that some 'kinds' have more 'genetic information' that makes their physiology more 'complex'. These are all vague and blatantly unscientific phrases which they can redefine at a whim as long as they are allowed to imply definitions rather than being made to outright state definitions.
Actually convincing them to define the above terms with any solid definitions (such as defining genetic information as the length of a DNA molecule in this example) makes demonstrating the falicious nature of their implications as easy as performing a simple Google search.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I mean new genetic information should be created because an arm is totally different to a wing.
What do you mean by 'genetic information'? DNA is a molecule, so do you mean that a specimen with a longer DNA molecule has 'more genetic information' than a specimin with a shorter DNA molecule?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Just read through your post for the first time and I think that while you have answered the question of what you believe is true with a more detailed explanation than you did before, which certainly will help us to communicate going forward, I can't help but notice you seem to have been a bit vague as to what it is that causes you to believe this explanation is true. In other words you were very succinct as to the "what" but not so much as to the "why". You didn't avoid it altogether but it seems to have been at the periphery of your post and not the main focus, primarily either stating "it is not impossible" or "This other random explanation seems less likely" rather than explaining what makes your idea at all likely. I am going to read through it again and respond specifically to certain parts below and hopefully you will see from that why I say this.
Anyways, i think a oneness platform would divide bc intelligence such as ours would find being only "one" entity alive would be terrifying... especially if it is infinite. So, i think it would divide into multiple entities instead of staying as one. Considering an incorporeal or infinite unbound consciousness could do anything it can imagine, this wouldn't be in the realm of impossibilities.
As I thought we agreed before saying something is "not impossible" is a far cry from saying that it is true or even that it is a justified belief. The existence of an "infinite unbound consciousness" here is something you have not supported - in other words you have not explained why you think this "infinite unbound consciousness" exists. I am sure you could explain more in-depth what you believe the nature of this consciousness is but as much detail as you give that would not tell me why you think it actually exists.
Therefore, if we all die and go back to a source platform, you can call it god i guess i call it source bc it's more fitting, then i believe within this platform we have individualized.
This is another example of what I was talking about above. You do well in explaining what you believe and I do now have a good basic understanding of what you believe. Based on this quote you believe:
- Our minds continue to exist after death
- Our minds return to this "source platform" after death
- After this return our minds "have individualized"
You later even go on to describe what you mean by this last point in the form of an analogy. However, you do little even in the following paragraphs to explain why you believe any of this. The closest you come to doing that comes in the next quote...
Something like Christianity would be similar to the matrix analogy. You get a body somewhere else and you have to put up with that reality. But i do not favor that view and favor the non-dual, infinite consciousness type platforms. They make more sense which i can explain why (other than these reasons above) if you ask me questions.
Now while I do intend to ask you questions for as long as you are willing to answer them, the fact that your ideas might make more sense than some other random idea of the afterlife does not actually mean that your ideas make sense in general much less that they are true. Even if you did explain in more detail why it is that what you are saying makes more sense than something that was made up a couple thousand years ago that does not explain why you think that your idea does make sense, that only explains why you think theirs do not.
In short, I am not asking nor will I ask why you don't believe other ideas, I am asking why you do believe yours. The existence of an "infinite mind" is one example of something that is central to your description of the afterlife yet you never explain what it is that led you to the conclusion that an "infinite mind" exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@askbob
I disagree but let's assume that is true, is that a bad thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Terms like what? value? intrinsic? weirdo?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
People like you think money has no value unless we say it does.
Right.
It doesn't matter what you think about money, it has value.
Never said it doesn't, weirdo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
When you are starving and need some food, when you are homeless and need some shelter... Yeah, you won't be saying money has no intrinsic value then.
It is sickeningly obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills actually reading what I type that I think money has value.
However, your posts here demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what the word "intrinsic" means. Perhaps you should start there and return after you are done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And yet we both know that Orthodox Christians worship God as truth but also that they believe about God other things because God being truth is only one aspect of God established by these "thousands of years of theology" you speak of. There are other aspects as well.
We both know this, but only I acknowledge it aloud. You even go so far as to deny that other such aspects exist (at least when you are in apologetics mode) and if God exists Mopac then God sees your denial.
Here is proof that God sees your denial, because God knows everything about you:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But I am glad you aren't a socialist.
Of course that's what you got out of it. Heaven forbid someone have an economic philosophy that Mopac is told to disapprove of.
And yet we both know that Orthodox Christians worship God as truth but also that they believe about God other things because that is only one aspect of God established by these "thousands of years of theology" you speak of.
We both know this, but only I acknowledge it aloud. You even go so far as to deny that other such aspects exist (at least when you are in apologetics mode) and if God exists Mopac then God sees your denial.
Here is proof that God sees your denial, because God knows everything about you:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm not a socialist and my post was not about socalism
Respond to what I actually said and not your straw man of what I said, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I tell you that I worship The Truth as God.
To say that Socialism is an economic system is very different than saying that Socialism is an economic system and that it is Satanic. These are not the same.
Mopac would say that a person that says "Socalism is an economic system" is not telling a lie, but they are telling only a partial truth and if they insist that Socalism is nothing more then they are concealing the rest of the truth.
This is simple to understand, and not difficult to understand. I think even you understand it.
To say that Santa is Father Christmas is very different than saying that Santa is Father Christmas and that he gives presents. These are not the same.
A child that believes in Santa and says "Santa is Father Christmas" is not telling a lie, but they are telling only a partial truth and if they insist that Santa is nothing more then they are concealing the rest of the truth.
This is simple to understand, and not difficult to understand. I think even you understand it.
To say that God is reality itself is very different than saying that God is reality itself and that he listens to prayers. These are not the same.
An Orthodox Christian that believes in God and says "God is reality itself" is not telling a lie, but they are telling only a partial truth and if they insist that God is nothing more then they are concealing the rest of the truth.
This is simple to understand, and not difficult to understand. I think even you understand it.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey I bet* there isn't a Atheist on this site that never went to Sunday school at least five times.
Hmmm... I have definitely gone to church many times (many different churches) and Sunday school at least once (the Mormon version) but I am pretty sure I have gone to Sunday school less than 5 times.
It might be that my memory banks are faulty since it was so long ago though... Certainly less than 10 times at any rate!
An enjoyable social experience from what I recall, though I never actually believed any of it.
Created:
Posted in:
I answered all the questions honestly and got a 90%, then I went back and did it again changing only my answer to the question about animals and got a 100%.
My empathy says to treat animals kindly for the same reason that I treat people kindly. I would never personally mistreat an animal and if someone was abusing an innocent animal in front of me for no reason I would feel justified in inflicting the minimum amount of harm on the abuser required to make them stop if I thought I was able to stop it, but I could not in good conscience give a proper humanist answer to that question mere hours after eating several McChickens from McDonalds.
I could justify it by saying that I am not able to prevent the mass mistreatment of farmed animals but what if I was in a position to stop it? I still would not, and if asked why I would likely give the utilitarian response that doing so would inflict harm upon human society because our modern population levels require such things to sustain. As far as I know this utilitarian answer would be justified, but It certainly isn't emotionally fulfilling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
WoA reads scroll to me. I've never read past the first sentence of his first ever post.
You aren't missing anything interesting. He is basically just a bizzaro version of PW, absolutely convinced beyond all reason that anything that has anything to do with religion is the source of everything wrong with the world.
I am also not 100% convinced that he isn't a cleverly programmed spam bot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Oh I agree the past is not infinite. It was the entropy argument against it I was having a go at, just to wind you up really. I wondered what other argumnts there were!
Whaaaat? What could have possibly given you the idea that It is possible to wind me up? Hahaha, ridiculous!
Well except for... eh, and... Okay nevermind.
But really that truly was just a misunderstanding on my part equivocating 'universe' with 'cosmos'. I really have no idea about the cosmos having an infinite past and I don't even mean that in the "I think this but I might be wrong" sense, I truly have no idea. I have simply not thought about it or researched the topic enough.
You and Outplayz have piqued my interest in the topic though. I will probably look more into it in the near future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I will definitely respond to this... Might be a few days though, there is a lot to read and think about there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't buy into the socialism/capitalism dichotomy. Capitalism is a theory of how economics works. Socialism is not a theory of how economics works.
I think the meanings of words such as socialism are generally more nuanced than their simple dictionary definition because language is a social construct and therefore simply throwing the definition of a word at someone to prove a point is immature and childish.
You, however, think that throwing around a dictionary definition to prove a point is perfectly valid. Therefore here I am throwing the dictionary definition of the word socialism at you.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, I actually agree that these are good questions. Not difficult to answer but potentially thought provoking if it turns out that I am right about where he is going with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Since we both can't prove either or, it just comes down to personal speculation.
Like I said I do actually have reasons why I think this is the case, just not something I want to go into detail on in this thread, or really even this forum.
It's probably better to address the details on the other thread when i get into why i suspect afterlives as i do, bc this conversation is probably going to go that route anyways.
Very well, not really very efficient to have two conversations going at once with the same person so merging them into the other thread is fine by me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
We can be pretty sure that the universe's past is not infinite. Einstein's cosmological constant has been very thoroughly discredited for decades now.
As for the cosmos being infinite, which is what I assume you meant (and probably what Outplayz meant too I realize, now that I think about it...) That is a topic that I have spent significantly less time thinking about but overall as far as I know it is possible for time to have existed before the Big Bang and thus possible for the cosmos to be infinitely old. Whether this is actually the case or what the implications are for the nature of the cosmos... Fuck if I know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Whoa wait a minute, they might have different ideas about what constitutes spirituality or what the purpose is, but there should be no argument about the nature of it.
Semantics. What "constitutes" spirituality and what the "purpose" of spirituality is are, in colloquial language, subsets of what its "nature" is just as much as 'the fact that It transcends the physical sense perception' is a subset of its "nature".
If you want to argue that tangent then feel free to do so alone. I don't see the point though. I think you understand the meaning behind my question well enough and if re-wording it in your mind to "what constitutes spirituality?" or "how do you think it all works?" makes you feel better then by all means do so. It doesn't bother me a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You do (or don't) ....understand the difference between the nature of the physical sense perception (the material universe) vs the nature of spirituality (spirit), which is what religion and Theism is putting forward? I'm not asking if you believe it, I'm asking you do you know what that means at all?
Yes I do understand the difference between those two things, just as I understand that those who do consider themselves spiritual often have different ideas about the nature of spirituality in the same way that people might have different ideas about the physical universe. That is the reason I wanted to hear your idea about the nature of spirituality from your own mouth, I want to make as few assumptions about what you actually believe as I possibly can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
But is the idea correct? I can't answer that... no one can answer that. If anyone tells you their belief is correct, they're lying.
I think based on our conversation in the other thread that you are mistaking my question for an assumption that you are 100% certain. I hope you now see that I, like most people, acknowledge that belief and certainty are not synonymous. If a person believes something they usually mean that they think that what they believe is more likely to be correct.
In light of this I would like to ask again why you think it is the case that a person's afterlife is determined by what that person believes the afterlife will be like. I acknowledge that you don't claim absolute certainty, I never said that you do claim absolute certainty, but you have said you do think it is the case so I would like to know why you think that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
How do you feel about what I've said so far or what do you think about it?
I believe it is certainly not impossible that something supernatural plays some sort of role in our reality, I simply think it is more likely that It does not.
Do you understand fully what I mean about the nature of Theism?
No but I think it is important that I do which is why my next question after you responded to my inquiry about your personal experiences was going to be to ask you to give an explanation about what precisely you believe regarding spirituality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I'm assuming you mean a living organism somewhere in the universe, specifically. But, if there are other living organisms, then there is no reason why there couldn't be living organisms like humans.
Sure sure, such a thing as you describe and a myriad of other possibilities are of course possible - that is why I do not claim 100% certainty on that or any of my other answers - but I do not think such is the case.
That goes equally for your thought experiment about us being in a simulation created by some other intelligence. I do not claim that this is impossible, I claim only that there is insufficient evidence to convince me that this is actually the case.
I have previously admitted that I am hesitant to claim 100% certainty on most things and I will now say that the idea of Earth being the first birthplace of intelligence is the one that I am least certain about out of those questions you asked. I do however think that there is evidence that we may be the first, at least within our local group of galaxies.
As for what that evidence is i actually think it might be better to open a new thread, perhaps in the science or philosophy forum, rather than go into detail here if you wish to have that conversation. If not then I will simply say "I think the most likely possibility is that we are the first (at least within our local group of galaxies)" and leave it at that.
You think it is logical, in a seemingly infinite platform, that we are the first? We are proof that are type of intelligence is real and can exist. Wouldn't it be illogical to say we are the first?
Again I admit It is possible that other intelligences existed prior to ours, but I do not think it is in fact the case. Even you, and I am assuming here that you do not believe humanity to be the first example of sapient life, must admit that It is possible that we are the first even if you do not think it likely. After all in a scenario where there are... 'multiple generations of sapience' I suppose, for lack of a better term... Even in that scenario someone has to be first and that someone could be us.
It is therefore not about what is possible, since we both acknowledge both possibilities are possible, but instead It is about what is more likely. I think It is more likely that there have not been other intelligences before ours and you (I assume) believe It more likely that there have.
Again the specific reasons why I think this is more likely is something I would rather discuss in another thread, if you wish to have that conversation that is.
It just so happens that the existence and nature of intelligence (I am sure you have heard of the Fermi paradox) is something that I have recently (within the last few months) spent A LOT of time thinking about. In fact if you had asked me that last question this time last year I may well have given a very different answer.
An infinite setting makes more sense than a finite setting
There are multiple problems with the idea of an infinite past. Entropy is not the only such problem, It is simply one of the strongest and most well known.
Created:
Posted in:
Intro
This is a copy-paste of a post I made in a different thread with one key difference... I found out that the seven-year-old's definition of Santa actually can be supported with a dictionary definition. The seven-year-old is still wrong and still for the same reason that they were wrong before but I think this small detail improves upon the point of the post enough to justify its re-posting here.
----------------
Seven year old child: I believe that Santa is Christmas, that Santa has magic that comes from Christmas Spirit, that Santa wants to give us all presents, and that if we are really good then he will! Hey Mopac, do you believe in Christmas?
Mopac: Christmas? Uh yeah, that holiday that people celebrate. End of December for some, beginning of January for others.
7YO: Well guess what, buddy? YOU BELIEVE IN SANTA! GOTCHA NOW SUCKER!
M: Uh, what? No, I don't believe that days can be magic or... what was that other thing you just said? Oh, the -
7YO: No no no no don't worry about that other stuff. Just the part where I throw a truism at you, that's all I want you to focus on.
M: But that part about presents... I don't believe that any -
7YO: No no no no you're really making this more complicated than it has to be. If I am in apologetics mode then when I say 'Santa' I really just mean that as a synonym for 'Christmas'. You aren't going to deny that Christmas is real like all those dirty wicked evil Hannuka celebrators do, are you?
M: I seriously doubt anyone has ever told you that Christmas does not exist.
7YO: It's settled then. Congrats on believing in Santa.
M: But that's not how language works, little kid. You can't just redefine the word Santa just because you want to convince people that they believe in him. The word 'Santa' has an actual meaning to people that speak this language. The meaning behind this word is how people understand this word to work and if you arbitrarily use it differently you aren't contributing anything to the conversation about Santa at all!
7YO: Actually I have a dictionary to support this definition of Santa. Look at this definition:
See? Santa is defined as "Another term for Father Christmas" In other words SANTA = CHRISTMAS!!!
M: Dictionary definition? Did you hear a single thing I just said? Even if you do have a dictionary which could be read that way I am telling you that people use the word Santa a certain way, a way that you understand perfectly well, and if you try to prove some weird point by just focusing on one aspect of it (the association between Santa and Christmas) you are not helping anything. There is so much more baggage to go with the word Santa than just what a dictionary says because that is how language works. Language is not created by dictionaries. Language is a social construct.
7YO: Look dude, seriously. Belief in Christmas is belief in Santa. I don't care what the other several billion people who speak English think about Santa because that is just their opinion. If the only part about Santa that you believe is the Christmas part, you don't believe in the presents or coal or anything, then to you Christmas is Santa. I wouldn't say that, I would say Christmas is just one part of Santa, but if Christmas is the only part that you believe in then I INSIST that you call Christmas Santa.
Mopac: That is absurd! I already have a word for Christmas. I call it Christmas!
7YO: Well sure you can still call it that, just make sure you call it Santa too and don't forget that if anyone asks you whether you believe in Santa you have to say yes now!
M: But that... That is so stupid... There are SO MANY flaws in what you are trying to do here. Nobody uses the word Santa that way.
7YO: Okay bye now! I am off to convince more people that Santa exists so that I can get on Santa's nice list! Bye bye Mopac!
- Later that same day -
Mopac: I believe that God is ultimate reality, that God created the universe, that God loves us all, and that the Orthodox Christian church is God's favorite church. Hey you, do you believe in ultimate reality?
Innocent bystander: Ultimate reality? Uh, you mean that like, reality is real? Yeah sure. Reality is real.
M: Well guess what, buddy? YOU BELIEVE IN GOD! GOTCHA NOW SUCKER!
IB: Uh, what? No, I don't believe that the universe was created or... what was that other thing you just said? Oh, the -
M: No no no no don't worry about that other stuff. Just the part where I throw a truism at you, that's all I want you to focus on.
IB: But that part about the Orthodox Church... I don't believe that any church -
M: No no no no you're really making this more complicated than it has to be. If I am in apologetics mode then when I say 'God' I really just mean that as a synonym for 'reality'. You aren't going to deny that reality is real like all those dirty wicked evil nihilists do, are you?
IB: I seriously doubt anyone has ever told you that they don't believe reality is real.
M: It's settled then. Congrats on becoming a theist.
IB: But that's not how... You know what, nevermind. I don't actually care. Congratulations Mopac I believe in God. Just let me get back to what I was doing.
----------------
I truly, without any sarcasm, cannot see a single flaw in Mopac's argument against this child's flawed apologetic. If anyone else can please do tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
How are you certain that no gods exist?
I'm not. Never said I was.
Do you believe this is the only reality? Basically, that this is the only universe and there are no other universes?
Yes.
Again, how are you certain?
I'm not.
Do you believe aliens exist?
Yes.
Do you believe human intelligence is the only type of intelligence that has ever existed? Basically, that humans are the first entities that exhibit this type of intelligence, consciousness, sentience?
You mean besides the few human-like species on Earth such as Neanderthal and others, I assume. Yes. I think Earthlings might very well be the first sapients.
The words 'belief' and 'certainty' are not synonyms.
I would be more than happy to go into detail on why I gave any of these answers if you wish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Orthodoxy is not an "Us vs them" faith.
Where did I say it was? When I said you have an us vs them mentality I was talking about you, not your religion.
You are so used to equivocating individuals with groups that they might be associated with that you automatically assume that I am doing the same. That is very telling.
Created:
Posted in:
Something we don't have from DDO that I never thought about is the polls. I never thought about it because I never really used the DDO polls very often but now that I just came up with the idea of a poll I would like to make the absence is quite conspicuous. Any chance of us getting some poll functionality in DART?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Love perfected casts out fear. I do not fear you, nor any threat to my life here on Earth. I am not of this world.You are misunderstanding me.
Seems pretty easy to understand. It's a simple 'us vs them' mentality. I am not part of your in-group and am thus baselessly equivocated with being a "threat to your life here on Earth."
I would be surprised if we lived near eachother, but if you recognize my username, maybe!
Seems unlikely. Anywhere near Michigan?
There is bound to be an Orthodox Church somewhere in your area if you wanted to go on your own.
Like I said a few times most of my family is Orthodox, if I wanted to go to the one down the street then I would go with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And you have adopted this label as a declaration of war against all who believe in God.
There it is, right there. You are so convinced that anyone not in your in-group must by necessity want "a war against all who believe in God." You have nothing to base this on, and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Yet because this is what you are conditioned to believe, that is the message that you spread. Fear the outsider. The outsider wants a war.
I'll have you know that we pray for the armed forces during every liturgy at the church.
That's exactly what I said. Some people do something to challenge persecution. You... don't.
Yet you still feel comfortable associating myself and others with persecution simply because we are not part of your in-group. Do you know what it would take for me to be part of your in-group? A simple phone call, that's it.
"Yo Mary, mind if I tag along with the family when you go to church next Sunday?"
"Sure, I'll text you the address in case you forgot since it has been a few years since you visited. See you there."
Just like that I could be a church-going Orthodox Christian. That is the difference between being in Mopac's in-group and being a feared outsider.
Created: