I disagree with your definition of agnostic. I've always understood it that an agnostic is not someone who CANNOT be convinced by evidence, only someone who believes it is impossible to tell based on the evidence they currently have. Atheists are also open to evidence but believe that the current evidence weighs heavily enough in favor of "God doesn't exist" as to support that stance.
I would be interested but I won't debate religion unless it's unrated. If you still have no takers in 11 days, would you be interested in an unrated debate?
I would say that there is a fairly large fundamental difference between biblical Judaic faith and contemporary Judeo-Christian faith.
1. Biblical characters would regularly observe miracles. Elijah called fire from the heavens as empirical evidence of the strength of his god. Moses called his plagues and parted the Red Sea, Joseph foretold the famine, and Job saw cities destroyed by fire and brimstone. If I was in the shoes of these individuals or contemporaries living in a city where such blatant miracles occurred, I would obviously believe the words of these prophets. The Old Testament was an excellent time to have faith, because it was anything but blind.
2. In the New Testament, you don't see any gigantic miracles like this. No cities or armies wiped out by the wrath of God. Instead, one man made miraculous healings, turned water into wine, fed the thousands, and walked on water. As far as pure grandeur goes, this is pretty tame compared to the Old Testament. And most of the miracles Jesus performed were small and had no evidence of it occurring after the event. Even so, anyone present when he healed someone, or performed some other miracle, would be pretty convinced that he was magical if not strictly divine. I know I would be in that situation. And yet somehow, there aren't any modern occurrences of priests or prophets performing the miracles at this scale, and definitely nothing that completely flies in the face of science. In other words, modern Christianity is based on blind faith, whereas biblical faith, as depicted, was anything but blind.
I will be going camping for the next couple days so I may not be able to make the deadline, but I will make every effort to try and get something out before my time runs out.
You can separate art from the artist when considering the art and then when you're considering the artist you can rate them based on their art. The art should be based on itself.
You were cocky. It's happened to me. I would probably be higher on the leaderboard if I had thought a few debates through more thoroughly. Thanks for playing though!
I'm curious if you've ever looked at debateisland.com
The people there talk almost exclusively about politics and religion, but the Debra AI is pretty cool.
There are a lot of complicated moral questions surrounding AI and their rights as sentient entities. We are approaching a point where we might have an sentient AI on accident before we're ready, but politicians aren't interested in laying out policies surrounding non-human minds because their terms are shorter than the expected timeline for AI.
If we met an intelligent alien species, it would not function in the same way as us. It would not have oxytocin or dopamine either, and it probably would not experience emotions in the same way that we do, but you would not assume that it is unfeeling. A proper artificial intelligence will likely be just as alien to our own lines of thought and biochemistry. Most research today favors developed neural networks rather than structured code written step by step. The closest things to a true AI today like GPT3 are literally alien in mode of thought. Not even the people who develop it can look at the code and say, "it is thinking ____."
What's your justification for the claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If I say "there is no evidence that a 9th planet in our solar system exists, therefore I assume there is no 9th planet." This is slightly different from the claim of God's existence, but in this case absence of evidence does serve as evidence as absence, so you will have to prove that this claim is true for the question of God's existence.
Quetzalcoatl, the main Aztec god, was depicted as light-skinned and bearded by a culture that had little-to-no facial hair and darker skin. I've also seen people cite the use of crosses as symbols in certain Native American tribes as evidence, but that seems false to me as the cross has no Judaic connections and would not be associated with Christianity for several hundred years, as it didn't yet exist.
As far as I know, DNA tests haven't shown anything, but I haven't looked into it very fully. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon is fairly vague when it comes to geography, especially distances, but I have seen the Central American region as a top candidate for matching the descriptions that are given, namely, a sea on each side.
Here's an interview between some skeptics and a guy who low-key believes in witchcraft.
http://www.thebayesianconspiracy.com/2018/07/64-magick-with-david-youssef/
"I do not believe in astrology in myself, as contrary to female individuals in my age group."
" I can avoid being stereotyped in a way that I do not like and isn’t true."
I judge fictional characters from novels, even though I do not believe that they exist. To the non-theist, God is just a character in a very old novel.
First of all, I'm saying this as someone who used half of their legal name as my username. I can't think of any social media sites that require identification for your name like you are proposing. Facebook is the only one I'm familiar with that makes you fill in a first and last name, rather than just a username.
You say "It will give the website more social media feel, attracting new users." But it is more the exception than the norm for a social media site to require a first and last name.
This verification process would not be free, and DArt would not be able to afford it as a matter of fact (at this point in time).
Technically, ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, not arguments. There is also a fourth appeal, known as kairos. The difference between an argument and a rhetorical appeal is fairly simple. Ethos, pathos, and kairos are often convincing to people but are also often fallacious as arguments, such as appeal to authority, the bandwagon fallacy, ad hominem argument, and the halo effect. Logos, or logic, if done properly, is never fallacious.
The appeals are APPEALS, not arguments. They aren't designed to be true or accurate, only to persuade people. That's why you see them in commercials and politics. A robot is not convinced by a rhetorical appeal, it is convinced by the application of facts to PROVE a point, not just make it look good.
I disagree with your definition of agnostic. I've always understood it that an agnostic is not someone who CANNOT be convinced by evidence, only someone who believes it is impossible to tell based on the evidence they currently have. Atheists are also open to evidence but believe that the current evidence weighs heavily enough in favor of "God doesn't exist" as to support that stance.
bump
bump for votes
"Is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Shhh don't spoil my arguments
I would be interested but I won't debate religion unless it's unrated. If you still have no takers in 11 days, would you be interested in an unrated debate?
Generalization from fictional evidence is a logical fallacy.
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Generalization_from_fictional_evidence
Except for the part where they both get in trouble for not showing up to work.
Final bump for votes
I was tired when I wrote that part, so it was basically on autopilot. The point still stands, just needs minor correction.
I just spent an hour writing an RFD, the karma gods owe me a few votes over here.
bump
Good to know, thx!
I would say that there is a fairly large fundamental difference between biblical Judaic faith and contemporary Judeo-Christian faith.
1. Biblical characters would regularly observe miracles. Elijah called fire from the heavens as empirical evidence of the strength of his god. Moses called his plagues and parted the Red Sea, Joseph foretold the famine, and Job saw cities destroyed by fire and brimstone. If I was in the shoes of these individuals or contemporaries living in a city where such blatant miracles occurred, I would obviously believe the words of these prophets. The Old Testament was an excellent time to have faith, because it was anything but blind.
2. In the New Testament, you don't see any gigantic miracles like this. No cities or armies wiped out by the wrath of God. Instead, one man made miraculous healings, turned water into wine, fed the thousands, and walked on water. As far as pure grandeur goes, this is pretty tame compared to the Old Testament. And most of the miracles Jesus performed were small and had no evidence of it occurring after the event. Even so, anyone present when he healed someone, or performed some other miracle, would be pretty convinced that he was magical if not strictly divine. I know I would be in that situation. And yet somehow, there aren't any modern occurrences of priests or prophets performing the miracles at this scale, and definitely nothing that completely flies in the face of science. In other words, modern Christianity is based on blind faith, whereas biblical faith, as depicted, was anything but blind.
I have returned from camping, but have too much homework to invest any substantial amount of time in this debate in the next two days.
I will be going camping for the next couple days so I may not be able to make the deadline, but I will make every effort to try and get something out before my time runs out.
bump
Tagging top of the leaderboard for votes.
bump
Are you interested in voting?
Out of curiosity, what was the comment you deleted?
You can separate art from the artist when considering the art and then when you're considering the artist you can rate them based on their art. The art should be based on itself.
I have watched Dr. Stone, but that was not the motivation behind my debate. It's one of my favorite animes though.
tinyurl has failed me? Unacceptable. Here's the site address rather than the image address then.
https://imgur.com/gallery/oJ59jnL
A for effort, but I goofed.
This'll tank my points for sure.
Tony Stark's opinion on the matter: https://tinyurl.com/yx9y8eqe
You were cocky. It's happened to me. I would probably be higher on the leaderboard if I had thought a few debates through more thoroughly. Thanks for playing though!
I will do it.
I'm curious if you've ever looked at debateisland.com
The people there talk almost exclusively about politics and religion, but the Debra AI is pretty cool.
Whoops, I'll update that.
I'm wiling to play Devil's Advocate.
There are a lot of complicated moral questions surrounding AI and their rights as sentient entities. We are approaching a point where we might have an sentient AI on accident before we're ready, but politicians aren't interested in laying out policies surrounding non-human minds because their terms are shorter than the expected timeline for AI.
If we met an intelligent alien species, it would not function in the same way as us. It would not have oxytocin or dopamine either, and it probably would not experience emotions in the same way that we do, but you would not assume that it is unfeeling. A proper artificial intelligence will likely be just as alien to our own lines of thought and biochemistry. Most research today favors developed neural networks rather than structured code written step by step. The closest things to a true AI today like GPT3 are literally alien in mode of thought. Not even the people who develop it can look at the code and say, "it is thinking ____."
How can you prove that AIs don't feel emotion?
Would you be interested in debating this topic with me?
What's your justification for the claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If I say "there is no evidence that a 9th planet in our solar system exists, therefore I assume there is no 9th planet." This is slightly different from the claim of God's existence, but in this case absence of evidence does serve as evidence as absence, so you will have to prove that this claim is true for the question of God's existence.
Diamond blades can 100% cut through a cell wall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramicrotomy
Quetzalcoatl, the main Aztec god, was depicted as light-skinned and bearded by a culture that had little-to-no facial hair and darker skin. I've also seen people cite the use of crosses as symbols in certain Native American tribes as evidence, but that seems false to me as the cross has no Judaic connections and would not be associated with Christianity for several hundred years, as it didn't yet exist.
As far as I know, DNA tests haven't shown anything, but I haven't looked into it very fully. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon is fairly vague when it comes to geography, especially distances, but I have seen the Central American region as a top candidate for matching the descriptions that are given, namely, a sea on each side.
Here's an interview between some skeptics and a guy who low-key believes in witchcraft.
http://www.thebayesianconspiracy.com/2018/07/64-magick-with-david-youssef/
"I do not believe in astrology in myself, as contrary to female individuals in my age group."
" I can avoid being stereotyped in a way that I do not like and isn’t true."
I believe this is known as hypocrisy.
I judge fictional characters from novels, even though I do not believe that they exist. To the non-theist, God is just a character in a very old novel.
First of all, I'm saying this as someone who used half of their legal name as my username. I can't think of any social media sites that require identification for your name like you are proposing. Facebook is the only one I'm familiar with that makes you fill in a first and last name, rather than just a username.
You say "It will give the website more social media feel, attracting new users." But it is more the exception than the norm for a social media site to require a first and last name.
This verification process would not be free, and DArt would not be able to afford it as a matter of fact (at this point in time).
lol
You have the burden of proof. If you fail even one argument, you lose.
Technically, ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, not arguments. There is also a fourth appeal, known as kairos. The difference between an argument and a rhetorical appeal is fairly simple. Ethos, pathos, and kairos are often convincing to people but are also often fallacious as arguments, such as appeal to authority, the bandwagon fallacy, ad hominem argument, and the halo effect. Logos, or logic, if done properly, is never fallacious.
The appeals are APPEALS, not arguments. They aren't designed to be true or accurate, only to persuade people. That's why you see them in commercials and politics. A robot is not convinced by a rhetorical appeal, it is convinced by the application of facts to PROVE a point, not just make it look good.
bump for votes
daily bump
bump
Technically, the sandwich got its name from the Earl of Sandwich, not the town itself.