Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Why did you bring it up?
As for culture, society very well promotes a certain culture for a homosexual lifestyle so miss me with that.
Explain to me how they’re unrelated?
I think my homosexuality example answers that one.
What is the “everything”?
Antisemitism, Xenophobia, and Tribalism. Your trying to categorize all those narratives into one when the only common denominator is prejudice not racism, and let me make something clear in case you ask me, prejudice is a broad branch and racism falls under it so what is racist is always prejudice but what is prejudice isn’t necessarily always racism. Almost like fruits, all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples, same applies to discrimination they come in many forms just like fruits do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Obviously they’re related or else you wouldn’t be trying to defend it.
I also brought up homosexuality, is that related?
Look at race holistically and you’ll see many positions aren’t mutually exclusive.
Just because you choose to add more unrelated variables into the equation doesn’t make your view anymore holistic then mine.
I see little to no difference apart from colloquial practicalities.
Well that’s the issue here, hence why your chalking everything up to racism when it’s not, and maybe you should be a little more concerned with truth and technicalities before you deem anyone as illogical when you subscribe to that same line of thinking, just saying.
Let’s say our race of people splits in half, my side goes into the dark ages while your side goes on a 1000 year technological journey. Would you say we are still the same race? I would say we’re different races of people
…Seriously dude you can’t base the intrinsic nature of this subject on a ridiculous/impossible hypothetical like that, again give me a break.
I confine race to genealogy and culture.
Interesting how you say that because if I were to look at this through a “holistic” lens then genealogy falls under ancestry, the term you happened to deem as irrelevant. As for culture, society very well promotes a certain culture for a homosexual lifestyle so miss me with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Obviously logical positions rule out illogical positions when it comes to defining race/racism in their entirety.
Well historically many of the positions were illogical, my point exactly.
Xenophobia still falls under racism just like antisemitism.
No it doesn’t, they’re different terms for a reason. Race isn’t that broad of a category where you can take two unrelated subjects and chalk them up to race related, a xenophobic comment is saying I don’t like Americans, well contrary to many beliefs Americans are composed of many different races of people so your not saying anything pertaining to race just culture and lifestyle. The word I was tripping on was tribalism BTW not xenophobia but that’s not the here nor there, do you know the differences between race, ethnicity, and nationality or not? Because the only way this discussion can be productive is if you acknowledge that question.
Ancestry is irrelevant.
Your ancestors make up your racial background so if the narrative is race then it’s very relevant, the only thing that’s irrelevant is calling white cruelty against white people racist, I mean seriously dude are homophobes racist too if they consider gay people an inferior race? Give me a break.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
1. The perspectives contradict how?
Because they’re all inconsistent narratives, historically a lot of people were misinformed/ignorant regarding race (one drop rule is a perfect example of this) Hitler included, if he cared about science at all in that regard he would know that the Jews he killed has European ancestry/DNA similar to his, as for linguistically that’s the least fundamental of all when you take into account the spectrum of varying differences in language of the past and present due to popular bias.
2. doesn’t it make perfect sense to say antisemitism falls under racism?
No, because Jewish is a religion not a race, that’s like calling Antichrist people racist, the two are non sequiturs. Even if you wanted to argue from a Jewish bloodline perspective that doesn’t negate the fact that race is still a non sequitur, maybe that more falls under the lines of for lack of a better term xenophobia (don’t quote me on that one), it’s important to know the differences between race, ethnicity, and nationality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Just because people conceptualise race/racism differently at any given point in time doesn’t mean you can’t holistically look at it from a historical, scientific, linguistic, etc perspective.
To be fair a lot of those perspectives contradict each other, nonetheless the only one that’s relevant is the truth and truth be told a common denominator between Hitler and the Jews he killed is there both white so calling the holocaust racist from Whoopi’s perspective is incorrect perhaps she should’ve offered a more specific term rather than the vague one she used since getting the narrative right is the goal, maybe she would’ve gotten less heat if she called it for EXACTLY what it is, antisemitism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
You consider that choosing can be objective, but you failed to justify special pleading for God.
Because God is objective.
No one has a monopoly on objective morality.
Seriously dude, if you don’t believe in objective morality you could’ve saved us both the time and started with that but if your arguing that objective morality exists without God then I’ll gladly like to hear your argument for that one.
What is that hypothetical of Double_R that you had allegedly proven to be incoherent ?
…Again seriously dude, your gonna accuse me of making assumptions about a hypothetical and not demonstrating it and you have no idea what the hypothetical even is? That makes no sense, before you can accuse me of anything pertaining to assumptions on a hypothetical topic knowing said hypothetical topic at hand is required.
I too find it hard to make sense of the things you are saying.
Again
a you problem.
The issue is that you are nebulous about what you do(n't) understand.
That’s your take, I already said mine.
If so, then that is an interesting theorem you have presented. Please demonstrate it.
You literally quoted my demonstration, again
your inability to comprehend it isn’t equivalent to me not giving it.
Try basing your beliefs on reason and evidence. That is what skeptics do.
Except skepticism is contrary to belief.
It is difficult to say for certain, for I have read the conversation only once, but it looks like most of the rubbish comes from you by a large margin. You certainly have made little effort to make or keep the discussion constructive. You must be Christian.
Your right that is difficult to say for certain, contrary to that second to last sentence. One thing you and your boyfriend have in common is the contradictory element of your arguments and inability to comprehend logic. You must be a relativist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It was perfectly relevant, I already explained why, you don’t get it.
No you haven’t. Now it’s your turn to provide another post number, otherwise your argument is futile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m not going to comb through the post to figure out what are going to make up next.
So in other words you didn’t see it, liar.
The two statements I asked if you knew the difference between has nothing to do with
Exactly, nothing at all therefore it makes no sense to ask me such an irrelevant question because it had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It was never my point nor had anything to do with anything I was arguing.
See #363
WTF? You claimed I was purposely avoiding using the word acceptance here when I literally defined belief earlier as “to accept something as true”.
Exactly, which is why asking me that question about if I knew the difference makes no sense at all.
And what about this over-simplified example makes you think I was avoiding anything, other than a 4 syllable word to ensure this example was as simple as I could possibly make it?
Well how about you do yourself a favor and don’t use any more examples going forward, because they’re never on target (or simple for that matter) and you just end up confusing yourself and everybody else involved, not to mention you requesting me to make sense of your own stupidity, I’m not having it period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The second is further establishing the difference between the concept one is pointing to with any given sentence and their state of mind regarding that concept which you are deducing from their statement.
…Like I said an abundance of times your round earth questioning/examples doesn’t logically follow with the narrative being discussed, since the narrative was the conflation of belief/acceptance then stressing the separation of something from one’s state of mind is the total opposite of that and besides the point.
From post 352:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you don’t understand what a concept is by now and the relationship between X and the concept of X
It’s not an issue of what I understand, it’s an issue of what you said.
Conflating two things does not have to be explicit
Coming from the guy that also said
But that’s a deduction you’re making, that’s not what the message the person speaking is pointing to.
Again, contradiction at its finest because the former embraces implications and the latter claims it’s separate from the message, which one is it dude because again your all over the place and with all this hypocrisy in your statements
you are either trolling or just not smart enough to have this conversation.
We were talking about god, which lead to why hypotheticals are used
Well that’s not following me because YOU FIRST initiated the hypothetical nonsense, and there’s a difference between discussing many subjects and making two opposing arguments, I’m accusing you of the latter, hence why I’m taking your quotes and using them against you.
Correct. I’ve explained this to you already. Clearly, you are just not absorbing anything I’m saying.
No you didn’t, because you PURPOSELY AVOIDED explicitly using acceptance in your line of questioning, that’s a part of the conflation with belief, your not gaslighting anyone here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The very thing you’ve been pretending to not understand for the last few pages.
…Speak for yourself there buddy, it’s interesting how you say this yet YOUR THE ONE that called the shape of the earth a concept, care to explain that one 🤔?
The reason I’ve been comparing it to belief is because you keep conflating it with belief, so I’ve been forced over and over again to explain to you the difference.
Conflating what with belief? The only thing I conflated with belief was acceptance, so the only way your line of questioning logically follows to my claims is if you were to ask me
I accept the earth is round.
I believe the earth is round.
Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
But you didn’t, instead you
focus the conversation on something I never said.
By ignoring context and lying on my behalf in the process, hence why I put emphasis on implications because it seemed like you were losing track of the narrative to suit your own (which I still don’t know what that is because your all over the place) and if you were to ask me what’s the difference between the two statements I provided then I would say none at all, if you disagree mind explaining that difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What you put together from a set of words is not the same thing as the concept the speaker is pointing to. If I claim the earth is round, I’m pointing to the shape of the earth. The fact that you are focused on my state of mind instead does not change the concept I am pointing to.
The shape of the earth isn’t a concept it’s a matter of fact, and the fact that you compared it to belief makes it fair game to also make the focus being your state of mind as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
that’s not what the message the person speaking is pointing to.
Your not pointing to anything without context, which is what an implication essentially is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don’t understand what you’re asking. Please rephrase and/or elaborate further.
The former statement implies belief even though it isn’t explicitly said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The words "I believe" have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, it is entirely pointing to the mindset of the speaker.
Yes, but when comparing that statement to a similar statement with more context pertaining to belief, then the proper assumption is that statement is also pertaining to belief otherwise it’s fair to ask why is it being said and why is it being compared?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The words "I believe" have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, it is entirely pointing to the mindset of the speaker.
Yes, but when comparing that statement to a similar statement with more context pertaining to belief, then the proper assumption is that statement is also pertaining to belief otherwise it’s fair to ask why is it being said and why is it being compared?
Before I continue tying this in to why this matters with regards to our conversation, what issue do you have with this?
I have a better question, what is it that I’ve said that made you feel the need to ask me the question you’ve asked me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
Choosing normally qualifies as subjective.
Normally isn’t always, especially in reference to God.
God does not have a monopoly on objective morality.
Then who/what does?
I am not actively participating in the discussion about morality here as it is off topic.
But you are, otherwise you wouldn’t have @ me making arguments pertaining to objective morality (or lack thereof).
You are assuming Double_R's hypothetical is incoherent. Assumptions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!
…But I did, your inability to comprehend it isn’t equivalent to me not giving it. Taking someone’s arguments for reality and using it to suit a hypothetical narrative that hasn’t and won’t ever happen isn’t coherency because reality and hypotheticals against reality don’t mix/match. Consistency is an element of coherency that shouldn’t be ignored unless your being incoherent, if my redundancy hasn’t registered with you then perhaps it never will which is a you problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
Fine I’ll bite, no what’s the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you understand the difference between these two statements?
Your the one that added the believability variable into the equation not me so I don’t know why you insist on asking me questions pertaining to believability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
These are really simple questions.
If they’re so simple then you answer them instead of asking me just to not accept whatever I say.
a fact is a fact regardless of whether you believe it or not
the word sufficient in that sentence is determined entirely by whether the individual accepts the proposition
Two contradicting statements in the same post, because facts are no different from sufficient evidence and belief is no different from acceptance yet the former quote means nothing determines the other and the latter means the opposite so how about you explain that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If the evidence does not produce belief then please explain what it is sufficient for.
Truth, people don’t always believe what’s true, I mean you said it yourself
because a fact is a fact regardless of whether you believe it or not.
So this cognitive dissonance within yourself is a you problem that maybe you should reevaluate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When I talk about sufficient evidence, the word sufficient in that sentence is determined entirely by whether the individual accepts the proposition.
No, it’s determined by adequate proof. Acceptance doesn’t require anything, you can accept a concept with no sufficient evidence (earth being flat) whatsoever and it’s still acceptance just ignorant acceptance and truth has no bearing on acceptance, you said as much yourself when you said and I quote
because a fact is a fact regardless of whether you believe it or not.
Meaning a fact is a fact regardless of whether you ACCEPT it or not also, so I don’t know why you insist on contradicting your own arguments.
That line of thinking that sufficiency is “subject to” acceptance implies that sufficiency is relative to the person and there’s nothing relative about semantics (hence why you quoted the dictionary several times). I can literally mention several times people denied rather than accept sufficiency, why? Because sufficiency has no bearing on acceptance and vice versa.
Excuse my redundancy but maybe if I approached the issue ad nauseam you’ll get the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
In those cases “nothing” was sufficient for that person.
But aren’t you the one that conflated “evidence sufficient” with belief? So pray tell what’s the evidence sufficient for the belief that the earth is flat? If your answer is there is none then that refutes your argument that evidence sufficient is conflated with belief period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you know what that’s called when something is sufficient to establish that something is true? That’s called belief. The literal definition of belief is to accept something as true.
Establishment and acceptance are too different things (at least in the context we’re discussing it).
If the person believes a proposition (aka accept the proposition as true) then the evidence is by definition sufficient as proof.
No, because not all beliefs are “SUBJECT TO” evidence. Some believe the earth is flat despite “sufficient evidence” of the contrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
or to produce belief
Keyword or, so yes it’s still an added variable that’s includes but isn’t limited to belief.
And not only embedded, it’s literally the thing that separates that which qualifies as proof from that which does not.
Not based off the definition you provided it is.
Again, for something to be proof it must result in belief.
I love how you ignore the first half of the definition as if it’s not of utmost importance just to acknowledge the latter half, the definition still stands on the first half alone it doesn’t with the second. The definition also says
in its truth
Meaning what’s being believed is also true, and it says
evidence sufficient
Meaning it doesn’t only take belief for proof but sufficient evidence, so your not gaslighting anyone here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Because if you do you should understand that I didn’t add in an extra variable.
…Yes you did, the extra variable you added was belief.
The difference matters and is what makes your original statement that facts are not subject to proof incoherent.
I didn’t say they aren’t I said they are.
and then there is the concept of proof which deals with what you think about them.
…Except it’s not. Proof isn’t a concept, in fact it’s exactly what you said about facts
it’s reality that are true regardless of what you think about them
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I did answer.
No you didn’t, you conceded as much when you said
I don't feel like going through my moral epistemology.
So if that’s your story and your sticking to it then so am I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Like I said, just reread our messages, that's the argument you made.
I don’t need to reread anything, I know the type of thing I’m capable of saying and I wouldn’t say that.
I don't feel like going through my moral epistemology. I'd like an answer to my question.
And I’d like an answer to mine so I guess we’re both out of luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
That literally is your argument. Just reread our messages, and that's the argument you made.
Unless you have a direct quote from me, I don’t want to hear that nonsense.
I know morality isn't an illusion because I can deduce a universally true moral principle.
That’s not answering the question it’s begging it, how do you deduce a universally true moral principle? That’s like me saying I know my experience of God isn’t an illusion because I can deduce a universally true religion in Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
That's how your argument flows over your last couple of messages. Maybe you have a better one?
No it isn’t, so you can’t criticize one’s argument without having a proper understanding of what it is, so to make things easier for you answer this, how do you know morality isn’t merely an illusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I know why I know things, therefore, my experience of God isn't an illusion?
And when did I ever say this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You're not making a coherent argument.
That you know why you know things? Sounds pretty coherent to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
And how is that?
I’m sure you know why you know things.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Its a reasonable suggestion if you or they can prove there is such a place as "hell". Can you?
No it’s a reasonable suggestion if that’s why they believe as they do and you didn’t say “I can accept that” in #29, you absolute dunce.
Now I am asking you to leave this thread as per CoC instructions.
After your the one that invited me, boy have the tables turned.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I can accept it IF!
That’s not what you said originally LIAR, and that “if” is your claim not mine.
I won't be responding any more UNTILL you have proven your own original claim.
You made that decision to not respond a long time ago, it took a message directed to Tradesecret (NOT YOU) to make you and I go back in circles.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Which in your case you have failed to support said claim.
Now your just lying, because after you made your claim pertaining to me you said
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I started this thread with a question not a claim, you clown .
Do you even know what a claim is?
religion is important to the believer because of an irrational, unfounded superstitious "fear of hell".
This is a claim (YOUR CLAIM) you clown.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
We did this dance already Stephen, like I said before your still unwilling to defend counter claims that you made and no progress can be made with someone that operates like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How do you know that your experience of God isn't merely an illusion?
The same way you know morality isn’t merely an illusion.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen thinks he’s slick with his line of questioning in this forum and he’s not, he clearly has a hidden agenda for religious people to prove there religion (which is fine BTW) he just isn’t honest in his delivery or accommodating because he’s unwilling to defend counter claims that he makes and no progress can be made with someone that operates like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you understand the difference between a fact, and the acceptance of a proposition as a fact?
Yes why?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
So, the most impressive being must also have the greatest handicap.
In comparison to the second greatest handicap yes, so pretell what’s the second greatest task that’s been successfully completed?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion if you or they can prove there is such a place as "hell".
And how do you know that someone hasn’t?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Ok. So you are saying that religion is important to the believer because of an irrational, unfounded superstitious "fear of hell". I can accept that.
How do you know the fear is irrational, unfounded, and superstitious?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So you keep saying, but I simply do not agree.
Semantics is not predicated on your agreement of it
See synonyms for definition #7.
Now it is obvious you have no interest in supporting your "fear off hell" superstition so its best we leave it there.
Whether or not it’s a superstition is besides the point, fact of the matter is the believer believes in it hence why it’s important to them period.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are seriously confusing someone that cares about someone with someone being interested in something.
To care about something is synonymous to showing interest about something period.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are seriously confusing someone that cares about someone with someone being interested in something.
To care about something is synonymous to showing interest about something.
I am interested in many things, it doesn't automatically follow that I believe everything said about that which I have an interested in.
…Okay? I never conflated belief with interest, I did however conflate care with interest.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't care what someone does or doesn't believe. I simply asked why is religion so importantto the believer.
These are two contradicting statements. Clearly if your asking why in regards to a belief then that means you care about the belief, otherwise why ask why?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
That's because I need to know that this "fear of hell" you mention actually exists and where it originated.
No you do not, last I checked the question was
Why Is Religion so Important To The Believer ?
Not is religion a valid belief?
Created: