Total posts: 2,073
-->
@TheUnderdog
I agree with ludofl3x, your argument makes so much sense, you should just go for it.
I'm sure everyone will understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Hey man, long time no see.
How's your brother doing? Still good?
Created:
-->
@baggins
You win all the debates brother, ill give you even 5 not 3. Just let me know whenever you actually want to talk about this and you are ready to defend your position with arguments
I defended my position already, the burden of proof is on you.
There, I defended it again loser.
Created:
-->
@baggins
Okay you “win the debate”. Congrats. Theism is not unscientific and not irrational because of … idk reasons. Whatever you want to put there I wont question it. Thanks for the conversation, Im not interested in talking about solipsism, what majority of mankind believed in, what was beneficial, what was necessary, which scientists believed in God, proving the existence of the external world and all of the other irrelevant arguments.On the other hand for everyone else who might see this, if you believe theism (whichever you believe in) is logical and you actually want to defend your theistic beliefs and present them, we can see if they are logical and scientific and have that discussion. The point of the conversation would be to find out if theism is reasonable/rational/scientific to accept today.
Hold on a second, I did the BOP game on three different subjects, so I won all three debates.
Woo hoo, I like the BOP game.
Created:
-->
@baggins
btw the BoP is not a game. Theism claims something extraordinary as an absolute truth. You dont need to be a genius to get skeptical about it especially when theists say "welp its based on faith actually". It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it (if they want to prove it reasonable). If I declare the existence of something to someone who does not see that I wont be saying " yea this some BoP BS game Im not proving anything, but you go ahead and disprove my unproven claims". Your claims are unreasonable to believe because they make huge assertions with 0 evidence. You said nobody will debate theism being illogical. Just assume I dont know anything about theism and show me its logic. Show me what your theism says and we can judge the logic together.
Let's do the BOP game itself, like a BOP game Bop game.
Your assertion about the BOP game is that "It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it (if they want to prove it reasonable)." This is a "huge assertions with 0 evidence."
The Burden of Proof is on the person making the assertion, please prove that "It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it".
Created:
-->
@baggins
In post #7 you argue for the existence of an "objective external world", the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.
Prove that an objective external world exists.
Created:
-->
@baggins
btw the BoP is not a game. Theism claims something extraordinary as an absolute truth. You dont need to be a genius to get skeptical about it especially when theists say "welp its based on faith actually". It is the job of the people who hold that belief to justify it (if they want to prove it reasonable). If I declare the existence of something to someone who does not see that I wont be saying " yea this some BoP BS game Im not proving anything, but you go ahead and disprove my unproven claims". Your claims are unreasonable to believe because they make huge assertions with 0 evidence. You said nobody will debate theism being illogical. Just assume I dont know anything about theism and show me its logic. Show me what your theism says and we can judge the logic together.
OK, then let’splay your BOP game. I know the rules ofthe game by those who like to play are you have the BOP and I don’t because youare making a claim and I’m not. So lets play.
I’ll serve.
The debate is “Theismis unscientific, illogical, and irrational” and you are pro, which is to sayyou are the one making the assertion that “Theism is unscientific, illogical,and irrational”, therefore the Burdon of Proof is on you.
Now it’s your turnto bounce it back to me.
Teeheehee, this isso clever, it’s much better than actually debating the subject matter, you don’tneed to know anything about anything and you can still debate it.
Created:
-->
@baggins
...Continued
Science has not confirmed any of the claims of any of the spiritual societies. It is no surprise to everyone that majority of the past human societies were more spiritual / undeveloped / religious / primitive etc… That brings nothing to the topic of the conversation which is : Is theism reasonable and scientific? And idk if you are aware but I am talking from a 2024 perspective. I am talking about if theism is reasonable today, now, not 500 or 5000 years ago.
OK, then please talk about “if theismis reasonable today”, that’s the task at hand, to make an argument as to whytheism is irrational, unreasonable, and unscientific today.
Also spirituality is not always interchangeable with theism so we might want to focus more on theism and not the assumed “spirituality” of ancient people. If you want to discuss why humans so far have been mainly spiritual throughout history thats another topic, which I can discuss if you want.
I think we can table that topic tilllater, let’s do the topic of the debate today.
Also if theism or spirituality were/are beneficial for anything that wont make them truth or reasonable.
Whoa there, this is an completely illogicalstatement, if spirituality is beneficial then it is reasonable to chooseit. Is that the point of yourbifurcation of the topic into theism and theists? To say theism is unreasonable but it’s notunreasonable to choose theism as a belief is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps youneed to go back and learn what the word reasonable means. My argument is that it “is not” illogical,unreasonable, or unscientific to choose to believe theism. Your argument needs to be that it “is”illogical, unreasonable, or unscientific
On to the next thing,“If you are saying this because of amistaken belief that science doesn’t deal with immaterial things”…the straw man. No I am not saying science doesn’t deal with immaterial things, I am aware of mathematics for example. Quantum fields, the space time continuum, dark matter, … how does any of this help theistic cases exactly? Theres a lot of things that go along with all those entities. We have been able to observe them, test them, verify them, make predictions based on the information we learned, wheres all of that on the side of theism?
Let’s be clear, the definition of“reasonable” is “having sound judgment; fair and sensible”. Theism is a belief, theists are people whohold that belief, so to say theism in unreasonable, is to say it isunreasonable for a person to hold that belief. I don’t see how your distinction between theism and theists can have anymeaning at all really. “Sound judgement”implies a conscious agent making the judgement, theism itself cannot have soundjudgement, only a person can have sound judgement in choosing theism, younecessarily need to be talking about whether it is a reasonable for a person tochoose theism. To say that an action isreasonable is to refer to the action being reasonable for a person to engage in,the action itself isn’t what is reasonable.
How do we test the truth of your spirit dimension or your force of God that interact with us? We can see what gravity does? What does the spirit do? If you can find things that we know of that are immaterial that does not help you justify all of your claims just because you decide to label yours as immaterial too. Magnetic fields are “immaterial” but we sure know why and how they work. We know about Magnetic flux lines, flux density, flux permeability. We know its the motion and alignment of charged particles, which create invisible lines of magnetic force that can interact with other magnetic materials. Thats what makes it scientific. Its been observed, tested, studied and confirmed.. bringing up stuff that are “unseen” but real does not make your unseen claim true. Why dont you just show me the scientific work where scientists confirmed or observed a spirit.
Do you think this debate is aboutproof? There are no proofs of God,scientific or otherwise, that’s why you see the word “faith” being associatedwith theism.
Or anybody that observed a spirit and we can try to confirmed that. We cannot observe any of the theistic claims. That makes it unscientific. Just because science cannot deny or refute them does not make them scientific. Science cannot refute unfalsifiable and untestable claims.
I said at the beginning that the onlyway to evaluate theism logically and scientifically is to observe theists, theonly way to determine if their choice to believe is reasonable is to evaluatethe reasons they give for holding that belief, and then determine if thosereasons given, are resonable.
“Oh hey I think theres a leprechaun flying in this room but in the same time he is in a different dimension (spiritual) so science cant possibly test that so therefore you cant prove im wrong so therefore my “experience” with the leprechauns in a spiritual dimension is scientific”
A lot of atheists seem to think ifthey say something really stupid about theism, it makes theism look stupid, butit doesn’t, it is the person making the stupid statement that looks stupid.
-if this is your argument I would rather not waste more time discussing this. And if science prove right now while Im writing this that theres some spiritual 5th dimension, we still dont know whats in that dimension and if theres leprechauns in there, or unicorns , or gods, or god, or which god is it, or anything at all. Just show me something that leads to your specific god.
That’s a great imagination you havethere, not a particularly scientific imagination, but hey, it is definitely cool. My point was that science does in fact, tellus that there are other dimensions of reality of unknown character. If you want to think it’s leprechauns andunicorns that science doesn’t know about, go for it, whatever floats your boat.
“It is mycontention that the belief that Theism is illogical, irrational, andunscientific is a strictly unfounded and faith-based belief, it is not based onlogic, reason, or science, and consequently”Im waiting to see problems with my logic.
I’m still waiting to see your logic.So far your argument seems to be that Illogical, unreasonable and unscientificare just labels I put on theism and I can’t tell you why. You can refute that by actually telling mewhy.
There is either scientific evidence/observations/experiments that confirm it or there isn’t. The answer to that determines if the belief is scientific or based on faith or something else.
There is either scientificevidence/observations/experiments that confirm what exactly?
There is either a sound hypothesis for theism or there isn’t. The answer to that determines if it’s reasonable to believe in theism or not. Im waiting for the sound hypothesis you have that made you believe theism.
I see where you are going with this,this is that BS burden of proof game, if I can’t prove that God exists you win,right? Well, that is not logical, it isn’teven an argument, it’s a game and nothing more.
Some sort of syllogism would be nice and not so much irrelevant talk. All we need is for you to form an argument that starts with premises and end with the conclusion - “theism is rational and scientific”.
OK, so you are making the debate “theismis rational and scientific” and the burden of proof is on me now? Does it have to be theism as opposed totheists too? Do I need to prove theexistence of God, leprechauns and unicorns too?
Sound hypothesis dont consist of fallacies btw or pseudo-evidence.
No shit?
I’ll let you address those points before giving you anything new to respond to and I will get to christianity later.
By “I will get to Christianity later” do you mean you willdeclare that Christianity is unscientific, illogical, and irrational” too, and then sayI need to prove you wrong?
Created:
-->
@baggins
…. Firstly….“ yourargument comes down to saying that the vast majority of mankind is, and alwayshas been, unscientific, illogical, and irrational, that is an extraordinaryclaim and it should be difficult to justify. I think you will be hard pressedto show that Isaac Newton was illogical, unreasonable, or unscientific, buthey, good luck with that.”We can either talk about how what you said is a Composition/Division Fallacy or how its irrelevant for many other reasons.
LOL, nope, that’s not a Composition/DivisionFallacy, go back to your fallacy list and try another one to see if that works.Let’s go with why you think it’s irrelevant.
In this case, your argument is saying that if I claim theism is irrational, then I must also be claiming that rational thinkers like Isaac Newton were irrational.
It’s really not all that complicated,if you claim theism is irrational, then you are necessarily saying that it isirrational to be a theist.
You assume that if the whole (theism) is irrational and unscientific, then its parts (its members) should also have the same attributes and vice versa.
So you want to change the definitionof theism such that the word theism is unrelated to the word theist? You will need to explicate that idea,I assume when we talk about theism we are by definition, talking abouttheists.
In your first response to me in post#3 you referred to your “main arguments of why I think Theism or To Believe inGod is illogical, irrational and unscientific”. You weren’t making this distinction then,you equated “theism” and “to believe in God”. It is disingenuous to now say that theism and believing in God are twoseparate things.
Just because all bricks in my house are light doesn’t mean my house is light in weight too. Just because my house has a square shape doesn’t mean that each part of my house is with square shape.
Non-sequitur.
If I claim that the belief in God / Theism is irrational and unscientific that doesn’t mean I claim everyone who holds that believe is unscientific. What Im doing is Im claiming they hold irrational and unscientific beliefs.
OK, let me get this straight, you areclaiming that theism is irrational and unscientific, but believing in theism isnot irrational and unscientific? Thisstrikes me as nothing more than a semantic distraction from the fact that youneed to present an argument, stating that theism is irrational and unscientificagain and again is not an argument. Ifyou want to say that theism and theists are two different subject matters,fine, but you still need to make an argument as to why theism is irrational andunscientific.
Theres plenty of overall rational scientists who are christians but they are aware that the belief they hold is based on faith/emotions and not reason or science.
It appears that your atheism is basedon faith/emotions and not reason or science. If you want to share the reasons, logic, and science behind yourassertion about theism , that would actually be an argument.
How does “all of mankind being unscientific” make any sense? There’s so many generalizations being made here, and you were the one that said this is not supposed to be easy? Issac Newton (or all of mankind if you want) can be unscientific and irrational about some things and rational and scientific about others.
Of course it doesn’t make sense,that’s why I pointed out that you were saying it. But hey, lets go with your idea of theism asindependent of theists, now please give your “reasons” why theism is irrationaland unscientific.
The next rout we can take is talking about how none of this matters even if went along with your argument. Even if you were right and I did claim Issac Newton and all people who were/are theistic are irrational and unscientific for this specific belief thats not difficult to justify at all. It’s just another fallacy (appeal to authority and appeal to popularity) that makes no sense.
Nope, it's not an "appeal to authority andappeal to popularity either", go back to your list and try again. Or, get pastthis innane distraction and go with the “thats not difficult to justify at all” thingand actually justify it with an argument. Then I will respond to your argument, then you can respond, and it willbe like we are having a debate.
What smart people believed hundreds years ago does not make the belief reasonable NOW. How are we going to test what Issac Newton would think about religion in 2024? How are we going to test what philosophers and scientists from thousands years ago think with access to current day technology and information about the universe and the laws of physics? Is it so difficult to imagine that humanity for the majority of its history has been unscientific? For how many hundreds of thousands of years humans have been living outside and in caves before we modernized. Do you think cavemen were rational and scientific? By our standards today. I dont care about what was the right thing to do or think back then. Im asking you if you start acting and thinking like a caveman in 2024 would you be rational and scientific?
OK, since none of that has anything todo with what we are supposed to be debating, how about we just get past it andyou present an argument for why theism is irrational, unreasonable, andunscientific.
“so I think you have conceded that one can certainlydiscuss the concept of Spirit without being able to explicitly know it’snature”Sure I “concede” but Idk how that is helping you.
You seem to think that it isirrational and unscientific for theists to talk about spirit without being ableto explicitly know it’s nature, but it is rational and scientific for you totalk about spirit without being able to explicitly know it’s nature. It’s just an observation, please don’t goback to your fallacy list and try to make a distinction about how it’s somehowrational for you but irrational for others.
Im still waiting to find out.
What are you still waiting to findout?
All this spirit talk is little bit confusing so I will wait until I know more about what you’re saying exactly before I comment on your definition. So far I still dont know your definition of spirit and god is but maybe we are agreeing.
If you want to have a debate you needto have at least a cursory understanding of the subject matter of thedebate. I don’t think that saying youare confused is an argument. Do you know what the word “transcendent”means? Understanding the concept oftranscendence is important to the discussion.
“To say that “science has yet to findanything spiritual” must certainly be explicated, what exactly do you mean bythat? The simple fact is that science hasnever found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at anytime in history.”
“they have found mankind to bespiritual. “I dont like to use the word fallacy all the time but…
Oh, but I think you do.
Even if all of the societies from all time were thought to be “spiritual” that does not mean they are “spiritual” if you know what I mean lol.
No, I have no idea what you mean, itsounds like you want to get into the semantics weeds again, how about you just tellme why theism is irrational, unreasonable, and unscientific.
if you dont heres the explanation: Theres a difference between claiming (or believing) to be spiritual and being spiritual. “Science” has found a lot of societies that thought they are spiritual and lived accordingly. Just because they believe in spirits does not mean they were actually spirits there interacting with them.
I see, so spirituality is a vastconspiracy? There is some sort of globalconspiracy where the majority of mankind in all times and all places haspretended to be spiritual but they really weren’t?
Continued....
Created:
Posted in:
An atheist buys an ancient lamp at an auction, takes it home, andbegins to polish it. Suddenly, a genie appears, and says, “I’ll grant you threewishes, Master.” The atheist says, “I wish I could believe in you.” The geniesnaps his fingers, and suddenly the atheist believes in him.
The atheist says,“Wow. I wish all atheists would believe this.” The genie snaps his fingersagain, and suddenly atheists all over the world begin to believe in genies.
“What about your third wish?” asks the genie. “Well,” says the atheist, “I wishfor a billion dollars.” The genie snaps his fingers for a third time, butnothing happens. “What’s wrong?” asks the atheist. The genie shrugs and says,“Just because you believe in me, doesn’t necessarily mean that I really exist.”
Created:
-->
@baggins
The assertion that "outside 'reality' is an assumption" seems to dismiss the possibility of an objective external world altogether.
I don’t think it dismisses the possibility of an objective reality altogether, rather than ontology, it speaks to epistemology, about how we can know about the external world.
There’s a reason Immanuel Kant is considered the father of modern philosophy and it’s largely because of his underlying insight that the mind is constructive.
The mind doesn’t mirror the order of nature; it constitutes that order. We see nature from the vantage point of, and as it conforms to, the structure of human reason. So argues the single most influential work in modern philosophy, Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”.
In a nut shell, he said we can only assume that there is an objective reality “out there” somewhere, which is presumably the cause of our sensations, but we can’t know it in and of itself. We can only know it as it presents itself to our senses, and that knowing is a matter of the way we are constitutionally organized to know. Basic things like time, space, matter, and energy, are not independently existing things in reality, they are conceptual frameworks we mentally impose upon reality; they are the way we know things as a function of our particular cognitive apparatus. A being with different senses and a different cognitive apparatus, will know and experience reality differently. What reality is, in and of itself, remains a mystery.
This is very close to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics by the way, the Copenhagen Interpretation’s answer to the question of “what is light” would be, we don’t know, it isn’t a wave or a particle, it is something else, wave and particle are only our ways of knowing it, based on our limited ability to know something.
Before he died, Steven Hawking was most recently advocating a new version of truth he called a “model dependent reality” which states that there is no independent reality; that reality is dependent upon the models we develop, and a model that works is true. Pragmatically speaking, two logically conflicting models are both true if they both work.
If that is the case, then from Steven Hawking’s point of view, if the Theistic model works for a person, it is true, and the same could be said for an Atheistic model.
Created:
-->
@baggins
Theism is all about or mostly about God so if we go without defining “God” it could get difficult .
It’s not supposed to be easy, yourargument comes down to saying that the vast majority of mankind is, and alwayshas been, unscientific, illogical, and irrational, that is an extraordinaryclaim and it should be difficult to justify. I think you will be hard pressedto show that Isaac Newton was illogical, unreasonable, or unscientific, buthey, good luck with that.
I dont think I have any problems with your definition except I dont know what a “spirit” is and might challenge you on how you define god later on if it comes to that since obviously there’s much more to “god” than just a spirit or transcendent. Either way let’s get to my main arguments of why I think Theism or To Believe in God is illogical, irrational and unscientific. I know you said you want to argue all of those separately but I will lump irrational and illogical into one category for now. For me both mean almost the same- unreasonable. I will respond separately to all three after your arguments tho. Also this being more of casual debate/conversation I dont want to go all out in 4-5 long arguments and prefer this to be more like back and forth type of exchange if you dont mind.Why do I think Theism is unscientific? If we go by your definition and think about spirituality more than what most people think of when they say god then I would still claim that science has yet to find anything spiritual or a spirit anywhere in the world.
Note: Above you said “I dont know what a“spirit” is”, and here you are referring matter of factly to “anythingspiritual or a spirit”, so I think you have conceded that one can certainlydiscuss the concept of Spirit without being able to explicitly know it’snature. Minimally, you can define spiritas what you are talking about here, and then define God as that thing thoseTheists are talking about over there.
To say that “science has yet to findanything spiritual” must certainly be explicated, what exactly do you mean bythat? The simple fact is that science hasnever found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at anytime in history. The experience of thesacred, the common experiential reality of human beings we refer to asSpiritual, is common to all peoples in all times, and it appears to have beenreached independently among peoples and cultures that did not have contact withone another. This certainly leads one to logically conclude that a Spiritualorientation is the natural state of human beings. It is fair to say thathumanity is innately spiritual, which is to say, spirituality is the naturalorienting response to human experience.
Perhaps it would be more accurate tosay “science has yet to find anything spiritual” except for mankind, in everytime and every place they have ever looked, they have found mankind to bespiritual.
If you are saying this because of amistaken belief that science doesn’t deal with immaterial things, that is physicalism and it is simply misguided. In science there are plenty of thingsthat are not physical, but that have the power to affect things that arephysical, the study of immaterial entities are foundational to physics. Theconcept of a field in physics is not a physical or material thing, but it hasan affect on physical objects. Newtonian gravity is a field that has anobservable and measurable effect on anything with mass, but it is certainly animmaterial thing. In Relativity theory, gravity is a curvature of spacetime,still not a physical or material thing. All of the unifying theories ofphysics postulate more dimensions, most reference ten or eleven dimensions,that is to say that reality ultimately consists of at least six additionaldimensions that transcend the four-dimensional frame of reference of science.
Physicalism is not supported by science,quite the opposite, physicalism would require the causal closure of thematerial world and science has abandoned any attempt to demonstrate that. In fact, Kurt Godel provided a logicallyconsistent proof that such causal closure is impossible, even in principal.
The Theistic belief that there is atranscendent Spiritual dimension to reality is not refuted by science, andtherefore, it is not “unscientific” any more than dark matter or dark energyare unscientific because they are immaterial at best, and we do not know whattheir nature is.
Which would make the core of theism or the spirit idea itself coming from somewhere else (not science), therefore unscientific.
The things science studies do not“come from” science, they come from observation, experiment, and analysis.Consequently, the scientific evaluation of Theism is necessarily a matter ofobservation of Theism, and what we observe is these guys talking about God, butunable to define God.
If you want to say the spirit is unscientific but the belief in the spirit is scientific then I’ll hear you out.
I don’t want to say “spirit isunscientific” at all, there are different ways of knowing, science, religion,philosophy, science and religion or two different things, but that is not thesame thing as saying religion is unscientific.
Why do I think its unreasonable? I just haven’t seen one convincing evidence or argument for God or spiritually. For me it is unreasonable to believe and accept something as true in this particular case (when it is not something mundane), without any good reasons.
It is mycontention that the belief that Theism is illogical, irrational, andunscientific is a strictly unfounded and faith-based belief, it is not based onlogic, reason, or science, and consequently, rather than Theism, it is thatbelief itself that is illogical, irrational, and unscientific.
The fact is,reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raisedhere, Theism is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith, which is to sayit is a choice, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectuallysatisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of humanexperience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounterthat we have with a reality that is experienced as full of qualities, values,meanings, and purposes.
For those whodo choose it, Theism is reported to provide a sense of orientation while purporting toembrace everything, including regions of being that are presumed to existwithout their nature being known, so it can be said to be a more comprehensivepoint of view.
The theisticconclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but ratherit aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and moreprofound context and understanding.
Now depending on what we’re talking about exactly I can get deeper in what good reasons are for me to confirm that particular huge claim but It can be hard without mentioning any particular religion. I feel like this will be conversation that has nothing to do with the Abrahamic God so if you can get more specific about what exactly is theism for you or which one are we talking about it could be good. Thanks
I've studied comparative religions but I'm most familiar with Christianity and it's source material, a lot of Christians would disagree but I believe I can call myself a Christian for your purposes, so please feel free to proceed with that "particular religion" if you want.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I heard Trump is growing a narrow black mustache under his nose.
The Boston Blackie kind?
Created:
Looks good, but be advised, my argument will entail the contention that how God is "defined" is not relevent to the argument as to whether Theism is unscientific, illogical, and irrational or not.
Theism refers to God as a “Spirit”, most commonly described as "transcendent", so arguments about defining/describing God are foolish, they are most commonly engaged in by those who know nothing about the subject matter, wasting timetalking past each other and accomplishing nothing. When reading these discussions, more often than not, it is clear that neither party is the least bit interested in understanding the other.
Nobody thinks of God as an object and attemptsto dispute existence by insisting we objectively define the term negates theprimary concept of transcendence which is at the core of Theism. For logical or scientific understanding, we get nowhere debating what the word“God” stands for, we must look at “How is it used?” if we want to understand itlogically or scientifically. Evaluating the concept of God in that way allows logicaland scientific standards of observation and evidence to be applied.
When you observe the use of the word God by Theists, we cansee that it is used to evoke and sustain a way of seeing the world which cannotbe expressed in any other way. The wordGod is used in many ways, but primarily to evoke a certain dispositional set ofresponses to human experiences, and to express the personal nature of thoseexperiences. This is the basis upon which I will logically and scientifically be arguing that Theism is a rational position to take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
We are constantly bombarded with claims that Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific, but none of those spiritual detractors will ever debate it, not ever.I’ll debate youCool, it will be my first time so be gentle :)We can make the subject of the debate: It is reasonable/rational to be Theist.Now let's figure out how to set it up.
Or we can make the subject: Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific
And then you be pro of course, would you prefer that since that's the way I stated it in the post you responded to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
We are constantly bombarded with claims that Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific, but none of those spiritual detractors will ever debate it, not ever.I’ll debate you
Cool, it will be my first time so be gentle :)
We can make the subject of the debate: It is reasonable/rational to be Theist.
Now lets figure out how to set it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
It is reasonable/rational to be theist.Anybody want to debate this?That's sort of ambiguous isn't it?
Yeah, that's somewhat my point, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, there are no proofs either way, Theism is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of qualities, values, meanings, and purposes.
Being theistic certainly doesn't guarentee reasonableness.
Of course it doesn't, I'm responding to a boatload of contention that Theism is uneasonable/irrational. We are constantly bombarded with claims that Theism is illogical, irrational, and unscientific, but none of those spiritual detractors will ever debate it, not ever. The other thing that is constant is this Pavlovian response that Theism carries a Burden of Proof, which is complete nonsense, but nobody will debate that one either.
I think, if only. I can be really stupid. My theism can be really stupid.
Everyone can be really stupid, nothing protects from that.
I would think you would have to be more specific.
Yes, that would be the debate part, I'll be very explicit if anyone accepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@ADreamOfLibertyyou're the one who asked"how do you solve the issue of (gender) dysphoria ?"that's like asking"how do you solve the issue of homosexuality ?"Dysphoria is defined as dissatisfaction. It's not a sexual orientation, it's stress.That's correct, the dictionary definition is:dysphoria: a state of feeling very unhappy, uneasy, or dissatisfied.It would be fair to say that the existence of transgender people has caused a severe dysphoria among MAGA people.You are suffering from Transgender dysphoria, and we are just trying to help.We are telling you to just leave these people alone, and focus on your own life, because we care and want to alleviate your suffering.Please, let us help you overcome your Transgender Dysphoria.That's nothing short of an ignoratio elenchi circular argument that is tantamount to an appeal to mockery.
Me, mock MAGA dumbshits? Nah, that doesn't sound like me.
You clearly lack the temperament required of mature civil discourse. Why are you even here, other than the obvious (trolling)!?!
LOL, another idiot that came to a debate site looking for an echo chamber.
Sorry, you can keep spewing your bigotry and intolerance, I'll keep responding, and you can just keep up with the whiney baby stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is reasonable/rational to be theist.Anybody want to debate this?some are and some are notwhich specific flavor of theism are you prepared to defend ?
Nobody believes in the God you don't believe in, so it's not about that invisible bearded man in the sky you don't believe in.
Literalism is plain stupid, you will get your ass handed to you if you don't know the difference between literalism and Theism.
If you want to argue that Theism is not rational, you probably should have at least a smattering of familiarity with the subject matter of the debate.
The statement was simple and straight forward, rather than trying to make it about something else, just take it at face value.
Is it your contention that Theism is not a reasonable or rational position to take?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
think of it this waydo you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?why not ?are you perhaps UNconvinced ?or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?furthermore,if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaoswould you think that person is probably insane ?That is quite the non-sequitur, what is the point of this mess, and what does it have to do with the subject of Burden of Proof.the "burden of proof" is quite obviously on the claim that NANABOZHO is the one true creator god
Not obviously at all...especially since nobody claimed that "NANABOZHO is the one true creator god".
do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator god ?
I'm more familiar with Dayunsi actually.
are you perhaps UNconvinced ?
Nope.
or do you think that people who DON'T believe in NANABOZHO have a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they don't believe in NANABOZHO ?
Nope, and I don't believe this nonsense that the Theist has a "burden of proof" that somehow requires them to EXPLAIN WHY they do believe.
That's not a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Is this assertion a claim you are making?Yes
Please provide proof of your claim that "the burden of proof falls into the side that is making the claim".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
the burden of proof falls into the side that is making the claim.
Is this assertion a claim you are making?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are two assertions most atheists make.1) The Burden of Proof is on the Theist.2) Assertion number 1 is not an assertion.think of it this waydo you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?why not ?are you perhaps UNconvinced ?or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?furthermore,if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaoswould you think that person is probably insane ?
That is quite the non-sequitur, what is the point of this mess, and what does it have to do with the subject of Burden of Proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Oh no, you don't understand, we don't hate them, we just don't think they should be allowed to exist"Dysphoria shouldn't be allowed to exist when we have advanced medical technology far beyond chopping body parts off.Only a sadist would believe otherwise.
Oh pulease, dysphoria is practically the human condition anymore.
We've all read your posts, they are not the words of a happy, satisfied and content man.
Get real, if any of us were perfectly happy and content people, we would not be wasting our time here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
you're the one who asked"how do you solve the issue of (gender) dysphoria ?"that's like asking"how do you solve the issue of homosexuality ?"Dysphoria is defined as dissatisfaction. It's not a sexual orientation, it's stress.
That's correct, the dictionary definition is:
dysphoria: a state of feeling very unhappy, uneasy, or dissatisfied.
It would be fair to say that the existence of transgender people has caused a severe dysphoria among MAGA people.
You are suffering from Transgender dysphoria, and we are just trying to help.
We are telling you to just leave these people alone, and focus on your own life, because we care and want to alleviate your suffering.
Please, let us help you overcome your Transgender Dysphoria.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm asking about the dysphoria. Are you encouraging that no help is to be given to those that seek it in ridding of the problem?i already answered that questionif they want help they should get help, just like anyone elseif they don't want help, leave them the fuck alone
Even if they want help, leave them the fuck alone.
There are between 1 and 2 million transgender people in the US, there is an entire medical industry around helping them, with doctors, psychologists, surgeons, and plenty of other resources, there is nothing to rectify, those who want help have plenty resources available, those who don't want help have resources available.
This idea that they need MAGA clowns to rectify their existence is nonsense, nobody is swallowing the garbage Mall and Amber and ADoL are spewing, pretending that we care about them, what a fucking joke.
"Oh no, you don't understand, we don't hate them, we just don't think they should be allowed to exist" LOL.
The stupidity of MAGA is fucking astounding.
Created:
Posted in:
There are two assertions most atheists make.
1) The Burden of Proof is on the Theist.
2) Assertion number 1 is not an assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Amber seems to have ran away from my question.
Maybe she's busy beating the trans out of kids, you know, like an actual parent LOL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
If you don't want to help better people, that's your business .As far as your subjective judgement over me on this topic of transgenders, that's all your assumption.You haven't proved anything on me in regards to this subject.But you're entitled to a bias view, keep this up as you have.
Do tell, if I meet a trans person, how can I tell them they can get in touch with you so you can "rectify" them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
@SidewalkerI see, and what makes you qualified to "get rid of dysphoria"?Well, they do seem really obsessed with "helping" trans people, but what really bothers them is that trans people exist. It confuses their sexual attraction dichotomy of male and female, because they find trans women attractive and they cant make sense out of it and just want the feelings to go away.This retort is no surprise coming from you.
Except for it didn't come from me, it came from Best Korea, pay attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
Banned at user request. Sad day everyone.
Sure, that's what they want you to think.
It's obviously a vast conspiracy, George Soros is probably behind it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I see, and what makes you qualified to "get rid of dysphoria"?Well, they do seem really obsessed with "helping" trans people, but what really bothers them is that trans people exist. It confuses their sexual attraction dichotomy of male and female, because they find trans women attractive and they cant make sense out of it and just want the feelings to go away.
Mall told us he had to "choose" his sexual orientation, apparently it could have gone either way for him and he "chose" to be heterosexual.
That's interesting, and weird, so maybe these guys are feeling excluded because they are afraid that they chose wrong? That might explain the obsession.
If you are attracted to both sexes, and you have to pick one, how do you deal with the insecurity about what you are? Perhaps it makes you angry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
[Sidewalker] Two weeks before the 2020 election, Trump insisted that Barr arrest Biden and his family, Barr refused.You believe that Double_R?
Of course he does, it's how the MAGA clowns came up with it. Isn't "accuse Biden of what Trump does" your campaign strategy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
The question is about getting rid of dysphoria.
I see, and what makes you qualified to "get rid of dysphoria"? What kind of training do you have.
Assuming you know the secret to "rectifying" dysphoria, please explain how you do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is not what I'm asking. The question is about getting rid of dysphoria. Are you encouraging not to help people that don't want the dysphoria that are seeking the help ?Drop the bias and address this.i already answered this(IFF) someone wants help or therapy or something (THEN) they should be free to seek help or therapy or something
Yep, and that is what is happening, but these MAGA clowns disapprove and want to "rectify" it.
HOWEVER,it is a bit ridiculous to ASSUME that every single person who is trans thinks it's some sort of major problem that must be solved
And it's astoundingly weird to ASSUME that every single person who is trans needs to have Mall "rectify" it for them.
What does it even mean to "rectify" a transgender person?
Created:
Posted in:
Two weeks before the 2020 election, Trump insisted that Barr arrest Biden and his family, Barr refused.
After losing the election Trump tried to overturn it with an insurrection.
And now the MAGA folks are claiming Trump is the victim of these things.
The MAGA folks are really really fucked up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Here's an idea, let them deal with their life, and you deal with yours.That's a pretty selfish way to build a society, where you leave the weak to fend for themselves....
A much better way is to "rectify" anyone who is different.
Especially if you are trying to build a master race society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I tell you what. Figure out how to solve gender identity dysphoria. Let us know.That's the point of this topic. Stay on topic.You and these transgender topics. Do you know somebody personally that's a transgender or something? Somebody close to home is that it?
Nope, as I said, it doesn't affect me, and I just don't give it much thought, what I don't understand is why you and others like you are so drawn to it, so passionate about it, so obsessed with it. Why is it so important to you that the existence of the transgender community needs to be rectified?
And only an idiot would buy that nonsense that you want to be their savior, you are the great rectifier LOL.
Here's an idea, let them deal with their life, and you deal with yours.
Does this person have the dysphoria? I'm sure the person would appreciate your construction resolution in regards to the topic, to the topic, to the topic.We thank you.
You seem to think this is an echo chamber and anyone who doesn't mimic you is off topic, that's bullshit.
If you only want to talk to people who agree with you, there are web sites for that, but this is a debate site, and no, we don't need you to "rectify" that either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When you really press them about why it bothers them so much, they tend to talk about it as if it's contagious, I think that is very telling.The growth curve is identical to a contagion.
I really don't think it's contagious, but if you are that afraid, by all means, wear a mask, see if there is a vaccine, wash your hands a lot.
Fight the urge, next time you start feeling confused, take a cold shower.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
for reasons (A), (B), and (C)i'm pretty certain all of those things were happening long before the term "gender identity"
I'm pretty certain all of the inner turmoil and deep insecurity were happening long before these haters decided to focus their anger on the transgender community.
I really don't think someone who is "comfortable" with who, and what, they are give it any thought at all, I mean, why would they, I know I don't.
These guys need to look inside to discover why the transgender community attracts so much of their attention and generates such passion, and perhaps it will help them get some control over themselves, stop obsessing, maybe stop being afraid of who they might be deep down. At least the transgender community is being honest with themselves.
When you really press them about why it bothers them so much, they tend to talk about it as if it's contagious, I think that is very telling.
I'm sorry they are "uncomfortable" with their own life, but they really shouldn't take it out on the transgender community, it reminds me of a little dog barking at himself in the mirror.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Don't folks commit suicide over gender identity?If that's not a crisis,I don't know what is .
The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than of deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without. - Eric Hoffer
What is it about the gender identity issue that causes your doubt and uncertainty?
Perhaps your anger is directed at the transgender community because you feel excluded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
@RaymondSheen
I thought that other than a few of the dinosaurs, no one made albums anymore.
That's about it, when pot stopped having seeds in it, we just didn't need albums anymore :)
Created:
It's a roast of the PresidentOh cool, so you think Trump is the legitimate sitting president. Weird take, but ok.
No, I already told you, Trump is the only President to vain and thin skinned to even attend the correspondent's dinner.
It's the MAGA snowflake thing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Cool, so you won't have to worry about Trump in Ukraine, or the sea of American flags on J6.
Of course not, criminal defendants with 91 felony charges aren't allowed to leave the country, don't be silly..
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty sure they were not waving Ukrainian flags.
They were doing what Trump told them to do, if he didn't say Ukranian Flag, then there wasn't a Ukranian Flag.
But there was a gallows they brought for the Vice President.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe you will be more welcome in Ukraine. I heard Congress cares more about them than Americans, even waving their flag patriotically during a Congressional session.
I think that was the same place MAGA insurrectionists were waving a confederate flag,...or was that where they were beating on a police officer with an American flag, I can't remember.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Correspondence dinners are the same as the Oscars. It's all for show and to make fun of low class Americans.
It's a roast of the President, Trump is the only truly low class American to ever be President, and of course he wasn't mature enough to attend one.
Even the snakiest of journalists thought it was in poor taste, and groaned audibly, as it will cost Biden the election by being way too out of touch with America.
Snowflake, snowflake, snowflake, Mommy Mommy, they are making fun of me, boo hoo hoo. It's OK little Donnie, Daddy will give you another hundred million dollars to make you feel better, and someday you will grow up to be a typical "average working American".
America is just about done with the elite upper class fucking up the country for average working Americans. "Let them eat cake" isn't working anymore.
Oh yeah, so let's put that average working American Donald Trump in charge, he'll show that upper-class what's what LOL.
Every week I think, well, at least MAGA can't get any dumber, and then again and again, they prove me wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont care how people identify.
I am at a loss to understand why anybody gives a damn and am truly mystified by how many people get all bunged up about it.
What are we talking, like .5% of the population, one out of every 200 people or so? I'm just glad it's not something I need to deal with, but to each their own, it's certainly not my business.
These people that make it their business and rant and rave, there must be something important missing from their own lives that makes them want to fill it with anger at people they don't know or understand. This doesn't have anything to do with them, I suspect they focus on other people's problems to distract them from thier own.
I think they've got their own kind of dysphoria going on, it's an identity dysphoria.
We get it, you are angry people, but pretending that your anger comes from other people's lives is nonsense, it's your own life that made you an angry person, don't try to lay it off on other people, nobody is buying it.
How about you guys deal with you own shit and leave these people alone.
Created: