Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Mainly due to most theists are Religious so I don't think it is really worth making a distinction for such a small amount of the population. Besides they are not really that annoyed they are called that either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I guess it can pretty much apply to anything but this is the Religion forum and there is a correlation between God believers and Religion which is why it is directed at them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
That is difficult to comes to term to. It is easier to believe you can exist after death without no knowledge about it being the case.
Bear in mind everyone is a victim of circumstance. I think some people are too far gone to change through no fault of their own. Given Religious people have a lot more to lose than I and it seems like they are losing supporting I guess I am getting my way instead of theirs in this specific circumstance but I would be as annoyed if I was Religious and seeing a decline in Religiosity.
I didn't choose to believe what I believe it just happened. Like a person who believes in God. I can't imagine believing in God and I think that is the same feeling people have when they find people who don't believe in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If you are saying people believe in things that they have no knowledge of knowing exists then I would say that it is true for pretty much anyone. Religious people would exhibit it the most with Religious practices and everyone else would exhibit it when planning or expecting something in the future. We don't know if it will happen but we still exhibit an emotion because of it.You can't change that which does not exist. The mind of the rightist has been replaced by a mass of ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It is actually a waste of time if your aim is to change a conservatives mind. It is constant begging the question. No ability to verify their standards with what we currently to be the best way to view the world. I am going to refrain from talking to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Please stop appealing to emotion and give me an argument.
My way of viewing morality is correct. Me not being able to criticize others isn't required for what is true.
Make it short like before without using your feelings as in Hitler bad but you can't say he is bad if I act on moral nihilism.
Created:
A standard that can self-verify itself is impossible.
Meaning all we can do is use a standard to compare other standards in the hope we find answers that would suffice us.
We can't appeal to an objective standard so we use the best things we got.
Created:
Posted in:
X true is true because my book says so.
The only way you can change their mind is have them specifically tell you what their book says and listen to a contradictory position they hold to it while also putting a lot more effort in describing to them how they are wrong without offending them and them actually taking your critique seriously. Reason doesn't work when someone thinks God is real.
I have found the defeater of this entire forum. It is all a waste of time unless we are friends and know what each other do outside DA so that we can use that as arguments in a way that doesn't offend the other person and they actually consider it.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You don't understand, lefties are attacking him. The structure works like this:
Minority socialist -> socialist -> minority capitalist -> capitalist
Given the socialist is greater than the minority as in Pete they can attack him.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It only one takes leader to press a button in order for others to retaliate and kill everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
1 month and this is still going on. Talk about an elongated ejaculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you condemn his use of anecdotes, ad-homs and him as a journalist only using 25 seconds of a clip to make a judgment?
Who is a better preacher of what you like?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Warren seems like a mix between Biden and Bernie.
More Bernie I think.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Overlap with Pete and Biden would be my guess. I don't know what Pete did but he is doing well. It looks more like those supporters went to Biden. As soon as the first dip occurred Biden increased and then Pete is taking people away from Warren and Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You hate women and you use incel takes like this to prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Created:
-->
@Wylted
It must be really difficult to be funny when you need to say the n-word to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
Basically Michael Brooks is a socialist, likes anecdotes and compares Pete Buttigieg to Sam Harris.
Created:
Posted in:
Video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRkGaObbfvs
(0.47) "if we take some horrifying depressing scenario like Joe Biden"
Is Michael supposed to be a Democrat as in someone who opposes the Republican party? This seems to me like he forgot to mention Trump. If Joe Biden is horrifying depressing then Trump must be the devil.
(1.02) "Pete Buttigieg represents generations defining reassertion of failed hegemony and failed ideas"
This will be more important later on since he gives examples.
(1.26) "Pete Buttigieg's record on race is not the product of somebody who didn't use woke terminology or needs to be educated on certain policy sets. This is somebody who actually has been involved in issues with regards to race policing, gentrification and here has an attitude on education that shows that he clearly sincerely and horrifyingly wrongly diagnosed things"
If it wasn't clear this is an Ad hominem. This is not an attempt at genuine discussion instead this is loaded in before people have seen the clip. It is another thing saying this after the video but it is another thing saying it before. This is bad because viewers don't actually know what he says so you are pretty much printing this in before it is started, meaning you are starting people off with a negative idea of him instead of allowing them to see it first.
(1.59) Video starts "the kids need to see evidence that education is gonna work for them"
Does anyone find this problematic?
(2.06) "yeah because you're motivated because you you believe that at the end of your educational process there is a reward, there's a stable life, there's a job and there a lot of kids especially lower income minority neighborhoods who literally haven't seen it work. There isn't somebody they know personally testifies to the value of education"
Please find me what he said that was bad.
(2.33) "I mean it's amazing people that some people could be following me be this delusional"
Pretty much attacks his own supporters who found that not a bad statement to make.
(2.39) "He is speaking about people... I mean I don't know the broader context of this question is so I won't make it you know let's say people from any community that are experiencing poverty and a lack of social mobility right"
Pretty much made an opinion without knowing the broader context of the clip. As a journalist you don't think it is your job to find out relevant information? I guess they really dislike Pete so much that they are willing to do anything to berate him without knowing the context of the clip. Ellipses were added for the stutters.
(3.05) "I just heard a clip of Sam Harris saying something like this"
Anecdote and making it seem like phony intellectual Sam Harris is comparable to Pete. Phony because of his philosophy which can be seen with his book called the moral landscape. Great video here.
(3:14) "so the point is that the reason that people are having trouble at school and having trouble at school and having trouble moving up a ladder is because the entire economic and political is stacked against them on a material level not because they don't have positive role models"
So my question would be why can't it be both? This also hints that he think racial problems don't exist, only economic problems do so we can assume that he wants socialism and denies racial injustice versus wealth injustice.
(3:33) "you don't go to a very wide variety of circumstances and background and you don't actually meet incredible well-read highly educated people"
So basically he is saying Pete hasn't met anyone educated. This is a straw man. Pete didn't say he hasn't met educated people, he is saying minorities don't have role models that have succeeded through education. I am saying educated people because anyone goes through variety of circumstance and has a background.
(3:43) "that we're confusing testing and accreditation with intellectual acumen.. they absolutely they might have overlap in some cases but they are absolutely not the same thing"
Basically an attack on the institutions we use to define who is qualified in saying what. If you don't think so how do we define who is an intellectual on a topic? My standard would be their accreditation and if yours isn't then your basically just like Michael Brooks as in science is a liar sometimes but for any institution we hold to define who is qualified or not. The link shows what phony intellectuals would do in order to suit their agenda. Michael wants socialism therefore screw truth only if it conforms to my worldview and I will debate or wiggle around to find anything to make sure people agree with me not what is.
(3.56) "education does not solve poverty, poverty is a resource and distributional problem"
??????? So basically when we see earnings of people with higher forms of education, they are all lies. Link
Sure education intrinsically does not solve poverty but you can say intrinsically this medication that 99% of the time works inherently doesn't completely help. This is a bad take from someone who people look up and just shoving this out without prefacing it.
(4.04) "this is a scam that conservatives and neo-liberals have been running for decades which is that we can de-industrialize, totally hack the safety net, we can have no public provisions for housing and healthcare that are real substantive and sustainable, we can red-line people, we can racially discriminate against them, we can box in resource (?) then... we need to terrorize the teachers and teachers unions but we just need somebody to see somebody from their neighborhood get educated and do well. I'll tell you this I know for a fact that you can hear countess stories of people from different backgrounds saying I actually do know X Y or Z person who did do quote unquote all of the right things you're supposed to do. They did get degrees, they did do this and now they're basically swimming in debt"
The hate-boner is real. If it wasn't clear he was a socialist, I don't know what else I would need to tell you. Nice also at the end giving us an anecdote in the face of something we have evidence for.
(5.00) "that's by far the larger number"
Confirming his anecdote to be larger than actual data on this topic. Guess truth only matters if it conforms to his worldview.
(5.05) "what kind of disgusting system do we have to be in that when you finally do meet I mean if you go to a private college or an Ivy league Campus or even some good state university campuses, you will meet people who are like upper-middle class usually white not always but always up or middle-class if not rich and they're normal people. They're not dumb, they're not brilliant and they're there and there's a lot of them there and they look and live in certain neighborhoods and they got paid, they got trained and certain ways to take certain tests you know recommendations (?) and then you will met somebody from you know like Appalachia or an inner city or somewhere like that is not racially geographically represented and you'll meet them and you're like oh that person is a fucking genius usually and lucked out because they had one guidance counselor like literally had absolutely astoundingly above-average talent and then had several lucky breaks so basically all this is doing is I mean it sounds like boring stupid pablum but really what it is is systemic and aggressive victim blaming and there's nothing in this guy's record that I have seen that would attest otherwise to any policy views."
I can't believe I wrote this much and I can't believe I did this entire thing. Anecdote yet again.
(6.38) "that's a 25 second clip so maybe the rest of the debate will come out and say, we need to get jobs, we need to get healthcare, we need to deal with policing, we need to deal with racism"
It is a 25 second clip what do you expect, him to lay out every single policy proposal?
(6.49) "this is very much something that you need to sort of add in today's world because there's a million different clips floating around of people"
What? You played into this culture yet here you are complaining about it. You could've refrained from the retweet and this video and waited until you had the full context but you choose to do this.
(7.53) "there's more lines of evidence that Pete Buttigieg racist than black people don't support him because they're homophobic."
Well given this link. Black people are 79% Christian as in a Religion who states it is morally wrong to be gay. It might not be fear of gay people but I think my claim is easier to make than Pete is a racist because of this one clip vs one quote from the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Well well I was right. It took you 24 days to complain about the lack of questions in your AMA and restart a dead thread.
If it wasn't clear, you are complaining about people forgetting about your AMA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Try a coherent sentence.
Okay hypocrite. How about "Try to formulate a coherent sentence"?
Wasn't I talking about scientists?
What does this have to do with anything? It is actually the complete opposite
Guess you are against free speech. I can't believe it took you that long to flip flop from positions.
The thing is, you fascists support opinions but just not the ones you disagree with and deem as hurtful and offensive.
Oh so you are for free speech now. Wow the flip flopping is real. Who knows, you might flip flop in the same paragraph.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
People who are pro-life and pro-choice are a 50-50 split.
Where the past you talk about scientists?
And where did it even say he was a "scientist.?
"Dr.Anthony Levatino"
obstetrician gynecologist
Are you telling me a doctor is not a scientist?
It does not matter what he is, there is nothing wrong with giving people your own story and personal opinion.
Thank you for telling me you support having the right of opinion while also realizing it led to a ton of Jews dead.
Seems like you have a tendency to complete miss my points. Don't expect me to answer all of yours if you don't do mine or completely misrepresent the point I was trying to make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't know who "they" are but I would say either intentionally or unintentionally Trump is pretty much ruining the only chance the democrats have to win using the information we have now. It can change during that time.So, they only have a problem with Trump looking into him because he is the best candidate to beat Trump?
Why would that be the more important question?
If Trump is able to do this what else can't he do? If he is able to get away with investigating a potential president as the president himself seems pretty f*cky.
If Biden is a super corrupt guy who will likely conduct many corrupt acts as president, shouldn't the American people be informed that he is corrupt?
Sure.
Maybe they don't want to vote for someone like that.
Don't you see how this helps Trump?
How do things need to be changed?
Dictatorship or monarchy. I guess if you want to remove the two party system.
With the two party system in mind, I doubt things would change. Trump has shown current Republican politicians will follow him and Democrats seem to have division. Republicans might have division but the politicians don't really seem divided.
The best thing Democrats have are liberals as in center left to left voters. It would be a lost cause if the majority of them were socialists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Isn't the problem with this that Biden is the most likely candidate to face to Trump and looks good in swing states? Looking at the data I don't think there is anyone else in the democratic that could beat Trump.I don't see why people have issues with Trump asking about Biden.
isn't it in the interest of the American people to know about that corruption?
I would say you are missing a more important question. Is it in Trump's interest to prevent Biden from being a the democratic nominee in order to secure another term?
Shouldn't it be a secondary concern that they are political rivals?
Nothing is above politics unless both parties agree until one of the parties decide to change things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Should there be a mandatory requirement for people to vote let's say every 3 days?
If you want voting to occur then yes.
What encourages people to vote?
I guessed they liked the debate so they thought it was worth voting on. There are other reasons of course.
I'll be voting at least once per day, and you guys should do the same.
Nope. Boring and not worthwhile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Your video is too lighthearted.
Okay bring up and argument not your feelings next time.
I want people to see the gruesome truth of what happens in abortions. Even my video was animated.
Animation can't highlight gruesome truth. No explanation was given with this.
It was after he explained abortion that he said he was pro-life. What is wrong with a personal opinion from someone who performed 1,200 abortions?
He was a scientist condemning a field that he was acted on. Scientists should only condemn past theories instead of what is generally accepted. Abortion is permissible and this is the way to do it. By him saying it is wrong he is condemning a practice and people are going to see this as see! even a scientist disagrees with it.
Basically it is not just a personal opinion and it never is. It is an opinion of a scientist who is not professionally using a platform.
Youtuber is a Youtuber. I put more blame on the scientist for stating his moral position than a Youtuber.
It is still an educational video.
You didn't disagree with this so it isn't just an educational video:
So what?You just before this:There was nothing about what is morally right in there.
I am guessing you have a bad memory or you don't actually want to defend what you already pointed out here that is more than an educational video. He gave his personal opinion like what you said in your latest comment and your second latest comment.
I'm not quite sure why you want to silence opinions of which you disagree with.
Who said I wanted to silence his opinion? Oh wait you don't have a quote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
<br><br>The is-ought fallacy is a naturalistic fallacy. It grounds morality in what is (nature) to derive its oughts.
You have no basis for such an accusation. Explain to me how the is and ought distinction is a naturalist fallacy.
God's character/nature is good
Demonstrate it.
There is always another 'what if.' All I can say is that there is sufficient reason to believe. It is not blind faith. It is not an irrational faith.
You don't understand how things work. People just don't change their mind because they hear what you say. People change their mind when you have provided something worth them considering the opposite then changing. You outwardly call people lost causes or in your words people who don't want their mind changed. You don't understand me nor can you and the failure resides on you. You show just how little ground that your Religion has when all you do is posture about how bad the other side is. That is not an argument when there is so many different sides. It would only be fair if we were just talking about 2 different worldviews but there is a ton out there but you don't seem to understand so here we are at your attempt using your feelings to say how bad 1 out of several worldviews are.
Belief is antithetical to reason. You using as the opposite shows how irrational you are. I don't believe something to be reasonable. I use reason to determine what is true.
You borrow from the Christian worldview in making sense of things. You don't remain in your own worldview, you look outside it.
Reason is not a Christian thing unless you are begging the question yet again. You don't even know how to use it so I would expect nothing less from a person who doesn't even know how words are used.
Thus, you live inconsistently to your starting point of core belief.
What is my core belief?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You just before this:So what?
There was nothing about what is morally right in there.
Are you acknowledge your mistakes or is that too difficult for you?
He can have an opinion if he wants.
What kind of take is this? You pretty much for Trump saying whatever he wants on twitter because muh free speech without understanding the consequences of what he says.
Why is it a waste of time to be educated on the torture of babies in the womb?
Anyone who wants an educational video. Can find it somewhere else with a scientist claiming a practice is morally wrong. As seen here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Did you even watch the video? Please watch, starting from this point: 3:32. You just post videos without even understanding what is going on even if it so direct.What does the video have to do with your comment?
He simply explained what happens during abortion.
and?
There was nothing about what is morally right in there.
Lol.
Also, that is the argument from authority. You don't have to be a philosopher or have a PhD to determine what is morally right.
Who said anything about "determine". If you look back I said he is not an "authority" or "philosopher". Please read what I said. Now I know you can't read or listen to what is going even if it is so clear. It is almost as if you are intentionally misrepresenting me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I am stating what needs to be the case for morality to AVOID the is-ought fallacy.
The case can't be made. You can't avoid that problem, you have to tackle it head on. Even with a God you would still have to answer to the problem. Lets say there is a God. Why ought we follow it? I am not here to entertain this instead please provide a counter to the is and ought distinction. If not then I am taking that as you agreeing morality is subjective.
Can you identify such a necessary measure?
Deflection yet again.
Prove He does not exist.
It is not my job to prove unicorns do not exist. It is your job to prove the supernatural. You have got this the wrong way around.
If you don't have such a measure, then why are you living inconsistently in using the terms 'good' or 'better.'
If I don't have an objective how am I living inconsistently? I don't know how you got to that conclusion.
That is the best I can do. I needed to develop the argument somewhat.
I had an even darker joke but I will leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Whatever you want to happen isn't an argument. Please refute the is and ought. If you don't then you have no ground to stand on.Thus, the case for an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging, omniscient (or else how would one arrive at the good) standard or measure for moral values to be justified as anything more than preference or feelings.
And any worldview that cannot define or justify the moral good as anything more than relative, subjective feelings or preference (i.e., a like or dislike) is not in a position to preach to others on morality. It brings up the question of 'why should I believe your subjective opinion?' 'What makes it any better than mine.' 'How do I justify better if there is no fixed measure?'
More deflection and something I would call moral highroading as in you claim moral superiorty. In this instance you are hypocrite because the same thing can be said about you.
God gives me morals. This is not justified.
My morals are not subjective. No measurement given.
I just listed out the two problems with your side. If you can meet them you are pretty much the only one I found to do this but alas I don't have high hope given how conversation on another thread.
Try and keep it short as well. I am not retired and I got stuff to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Morality is whatever anyone chooses it to be. There is no way to objectively get to a moral good. Please see the is and ought distinction if you are not sure on this.
If the distinction isn't clear do ask and I'll hopefully help you understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
A scientist stating a practice is wrong. Realizing he is not a philosopher nor an authority on what is morally right, I'll say what a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
God would be the process, His creating. So, you have a transcendent eternal being (thus without cause) creating the physical, external universe.
What is the result and what comes before God since you pretty much admitted God is a process.
You could've found the definition before makes this error but oh well. I'll wait for you understand what you did wrong or lie about what you just did.
as I explained in my last post
As I will say again, all I see is completely different comparisons, begging the question and shifting the burden of proof. Now if you think I missed something please present an argument and make it short if you can.
Good, then that makes two of us, yet I have heard the argument for no causality.
? I reject your appeal to creatio ex nihilo on the basis it has never ever been demonstrated to be true. Please present an argument for it instead of speculating.
One such argument is the Steady State Theory which has been refuted by most scientists as implausible.Another, if a transcendent being did not cause the universe and it came from nothing there can be no cause since nothing would have no cause or need of a cause.Another is brute facts, that there is no explanation for a fact.Another is the argument from quantum physics that "there can be effects without causes. And if quantum events do not need causes, then perhaps the universe doesn’t either." https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/do-quantum-mechanics-invalidate-the-causal-principle/
Yet again showing you have no clue in presenting an argument for what you believe in. Instead of actually providing an argument for your side you are still resorting to well this can't happen and this and this or implying it so my side is correct. I don't care about your constant shifting I care about an argument for God which you have yet to give.
Self-creation is a self-refuting term.
So you are telling me God doesn't exist? In order for something to exist it would need to start from somewhere. If you want to challenge this point then go ahead but bear in mind I have the entire observable world as proof for my hypothesis yet you have nothing.
What would an eternal being need with time?
Another begging the question. "Eternal being need" under your worldview is stating God has no need so it is contradictory. You are not presenting an argument instead posturing as if you had. I keep calling you out on it but you keep doing it. What don't you understand?
Anything that has a beginning in this physical universe can be explained in a time-relationship.
Thank you for agreeing with my hypothesis "In order for something to exist it would need to start from somewhere" and thus clearing showing you have no ground in the physical universe. Only in something we can't verify to be true.
The R.C. Sproul example/analogy just illustrates a very annoying fact, that there is a garden (the universe) yet no reasonable explanation given for it if there is no gardener.
Anti-science claim yet again. We see through fossils that plant life existed before humans yet here you are stating the opposite. Your analogy doesn't work when plant life is not contingent on humans but here you saying it is not reasonable to think that. I guess another point of you wanting answers and go as far as not even use the best way to view the world as in science to make sure you are correct. You instead reject science and carry out with this anti-science rhetoric.
All I am pointing out to you is that it is most reasonable to believe that if I found a formula for something that is verified outside myself I would think someone else was responsible for it since it conveys information.
I would like an answer to the difference between invention and a discovery. This is the only new point that I have yet to see if it is at least one argument for God. If you don't bother to answer that question then don't expect me to respond back. You have shown clearly not to present arguments instead posture about your side by only talking about the other. It must really be difficult to support the very thing you believe in when you need someone else's help to make your argument. Your argument has basically summed up too hey look how bad they are. That is all. I have never see an argument that has come close to hey look how good I am. Having stories is saying how good you are, it is pandering to a base. I don't know if this is a problem with theists because all of you sound like preachers instead of good debaters willing to even present an argument for your side.
It is not me who is avoiding answering questions.
Please asking question to my question is not an answer. It is just another deflection.
My reasoning is that we are creatures of reason and meaning. It seems built into our DNA. If the universe has no meaning to it then we are creating something that has no ultimate meaning. Yet you continually look for meaning. You debate meaning on DebateArt.com.
Yet again feelings. Your DNA point can equate to the non-sequitur point of Jesus resurrected because there was an empty tomb. Realizing any scientist would never accept a resurrection as a reasonable explanation for something not being in the same place it was before. It is like me saying where is my keys. The only reasonable explanation is that it resurrected.
Saying my reasoning is that humans have reason is a bad argument. You are basically saying I do this therefore it must be true. No attempt to made to demonstrate it to be the case. No something akin to scientific racism doesn't count. Both have no argument and like you said all you had to courage to say was it "seems" like to be the case. Meaning you have no backing it what you say.
I do not see humans coming from apes.
Anti-science and anti-American judicial system. I didn't see the fossils therefore we don't come from apes. I didn't see the person get murdered therefore the person didn't get murdered. You fly in the face of deductive reasoning yet you preach "reason" and for the other it doesn't matter that the person is innocent until prove guilty. It only matters innocent until I see them to be guilty.
Actually experiencing it or seeing it happen is a factual confirmation.
Never mind how unreliable testimony can be. We have don't have standards to uphold instead we should accept everyone's of the world. I wonder what happens in a court of law whenever there is opposing viewpoints. I'll tell you, nothing will get done.
What I am saying is I have experiential evidence that what I think is confirmed by what I experience.
No you don't. In order for you to have experiential evidence you would need to be an authority figure on the things you talk about. Meaning there would have to be some sort of standard for the supernatural but we don't have it so the next best thing I am guessing either a physician or biologist. By looking at your profile you have met none so saying this is false. You are even retired so you might well be not well-versed in the current literature to make arguments because on experiential evidence. of course you can be experienced citing old information but what good is that when we have new information?
And you can't stop assuming that materialism and naturalism are true. You assume this even though it does not make sense from your foundational starting point - chance happenstance.
I haven't given a single argument because you have failed to present one. Whatever is a strawman.
I know when someone starts attacking the man instead of the arguments they are bankrupt. This is what you just did.
Your words speak for itself.
That is just an assertion.
Whatever you say about dog can be said about God. Do tell me any differently.
Thus, you know of Him while you deny Him.
"I know when someone starts attacking the man instead of the arguments they are bankrupt. This is what you just did." You just called me a liar if it wasn't clear. This is getting into Mopac levels of stupidity.
It was an appeal to the Bible as evidence as well as other arguments.
The Bible is not a reliable source of information.
Again, you keep avoiding any answers.
I avoid because you do. You can't answer a straight forward question so why should I?
I believe there is a difference between the mind and the brain.
Feel whatever you want. Demonstrate it if you actually want me to take whatever you said here seriously.
Well that is precisely the point, isn't it?
Clearly showing God has no basis in reality but you still believe in it. This conversation is more or less done. I'll just finish commenting on what I deem to be relevant and say goodbye.
Science starts with a philosophical presupposition.
Great point. At least we can agree on something.
Given I missed out a lot mainly due you essentially saying God has no physical backing, I have nothing more to discuss. When you have physical evidence do come back to me. You can of course reply to what I said here but don't expect me to reply back given you have already made clear what you lack with your beliefs. A physical backing.
Adiós, muchacho
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That just takes the process back one step further.
Which would contradict God creating the world in whatever days right?
We assume that there is a gardener but after waiting a week no gardener shows up.
Thank you for pointing out you assume there is a God. I on the other hand state plants can grow without humans yet remain agnostic to God not present the claim that I have a way of understanding the supernatural.
Of course, we can speculate that some things do not have a cause.
No you can't. I reject this. No one has yet to find anything that disagrees with the core principle of cause and effect. Please justify this. Don't shift the burden of proof and since this is contingent on what you said later I will stick to just rebutting this.
God exists outside of time.
Justify this as well. Don't shift the burden of proof or beg the question.
The claim I am making is that science relies on consistency/repeatability. How does a random chance happenstance chain of events create that sustainability and consistency?
Even if I agree with your strawman neither is your worldview consistent with science. You have made that abundantly clear with the R. C. Sproul example. You assume there is a gardener but none shows up. You assume there is a God but none shows up.
Principles of mathematics such as natural laws are discovered, not invented.
Difference between an invention and discovery? I am not going to challenge the constant shifting of the burden and lack of explanation unless that is all you got.
Why are you asking that meaningful question?
Shifting the burden of proof yet again. Are you going to answer it or is this the question game?
Meaning seems built into our reasoning. We search for it. The absurdity would be looking for meaning in a meaningless universe. We could arbitrarily make it up but at the end of the day, it is meaningless. So the question becomes why are you looking for meaning in a meaningless universe? Does it help you cope? For what reason - it is all meaningless anyway.
You basically said there is x because y is absurd. Why would we find meaning in a y universe? This is not explaining nor even sufficiently answering the questions I am posing to you. You are basically deflecting like what you do almost every single scenario just because you can't answer simple questions. I know the answers are complicated but I would've thought you would've at least tried to explain your point of view.
It is an explanation that satisfies what we witness.
It satisfies your feelings. Your eye has no desire but your mind does. You have latched onto something instead of actually having a coherent system to make sure what you latch onto isn't flawed.
So one view is capable of making sense of things because from experience we witness them happening and the other view is not.
Making sense is also begging the question. If it wasn't clear to you whatever confirms God makes sense but what doesn't make sense to you. Meaning to people who already agree with you they are going to feel like yeah this make sense but when it comes to people who disagree with you. You have to demonstrate it or else you are appealing to a crowd. Remember I don't believe in God so do explain yourself.
You just can't stop assuming God is true because it just makes sense. I know you believe in God I just want to know if you know it exists.
And the answer is baffling.
Okay.
I'm trying to get you to think of what is more reasonable, your foundational starting point or mine.
Wait so are you implying you are not in no position in changing your mind? All I get from here is you do this while I will put nothing on the line. This has got to be anti-intellectualism. I don't think you will admit to valuing God over truth and say something like well they are both the same thing or something.
What dog? Where did this notion of 'dog' as the greatest conceivable Being come from? If your dog spoke the universe into being what is your evidence that dog exists?
dog exists outside of time.
Now with God, you knew of Him long before I brought Him up, I'm sure.
Is this an appeal to time? I am coining the word. You are using time as a measurement of you being correct. Time does not have the ability to do so unless we are discussing time specifically. We are not. We are speaking about God so this is an appeal to time or an appeal to tradition.
If so, present your evidence for your dog and why I should believe it.
If you are not going to do it for God I won't do it for dog.
Again, you are assuming I have no evidence.
That entire thing you just wrote was filled with appeal to tradition, anti-science and begging the question.
Because if there is no reason or meaning why the universe exists why do we keep finding reasons and meaning in such a universe?
Why is there a need for an ultimate meaning? You are not answering simply shifting yet again.
Not only this but why would or how can something without intelligence, reason, or meaning sustain itself indefinitely?
I am sorry but humans die and as far as we know we don't retain what makes us as in the brain. Are you going to admit this is begging the question as we have no scientific backing for our identity carrying on after death therefore God does it?
how do dice roll themselves?
You have a double standard. God exists outside of time like you said and the dice doesn't. Meaning by you even asking this you are complacent in comparing two vastly different things unless you would like to tell me how dice being moved by something is similar to God being moved by nothing.
Are you saying my argument makes no sense?
No you are not giving an argument. I would have to receive an argument for it to make sense. As of yet all I have got is that God exists outside of time and examples that are comparing two vastly different meaning no argument for God.
Then present your arguments for the devil as reasonable to believe and any evidence that backs up your claims.
You haven't so I won't either.
My argument is why do your feelings trump mine if yours are as subjective as mine?
Thank you admitting you bringing your feelings into this not irrespective of it.
I am saying that what your dad likes to eat has nothing to do with quantitative values.
I 100% nailed you on that comparison yet you decide to make a different point. You don't how bad the structure of your own arguments were which shows in your lack of explanation of your previous argument here.
I'll add not understanding your own argument by giving a non-sequitur as a response to the list.
A moral ought describes something that should be, an objective. How do you arrive at a prescriptive from what is descriptive?
Is and ought distinction has yet to be falsified. I'll await for you to do so.
Yours is off-limits?
You have yet to fulfill your burden of proof and expect me to do what you didn't.
Most scientists beg only the natural explanation. Do you think they know better than you do or I do?
Basically admitting you are pro science when it suits you but against science when it doesn't conform your worldview.
Again, you seem to think that science is the be-all and end-all of the discussion but I question in regards to origins if it is science or scientism.
Again, questioning the very thing we accept to bring the best results. This is anti-science yet again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Do you know the character limit in the forums?
Thanks in advance
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
It either denies God/gods or it lives and looks at life as though none exists. Thus, its explanation of the universe is materialistic or naturalistic.
How about if I take the view that things did exist before the big bang but it wasn't God?
I'm asking to make sense of why we can do science or why things continue to function or in the same manner (uniformly) so we can predict outcomes and make equations that explain the way these processes work?
Please tell me how God conforms to cause and effect. If God doesn't God has no support in science unless you are making the claim it created it. At that point please stop begging the question and prove to me God exists instead of assuming it is true.
Well, granted it does not depend on any of our minds because these principles work whether we think them
I did not grant this. Explain yourself.
Sure we can create meaning but ultimately it means nothing.
Why does it have to ultimately mean something?
But one view is consistent with experience, the other is not. So you live contrary to what you inwardly believe.
This is begging the question again. I am not going to explain this because I have already given an answer earlier on that I would've used here.
?
The two paragraphs after "There would be no intent. How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability?" are the same. That is all.
We could only know if God revealed this, which is what the Bible claims.
Are you an agnostic?
The Bible reveals God spoke the universe into existence. He said, "Let there be light, and there was light."
I found this book called dog and in it and I stated "Let there be bad and there was bad". Is that proof of the devil (evil God)?
I am asking for an explanation from a worldview that discounts God and that is reasonable to believe.
Please read the prior statement earlier. I stated give me an argument. You said there was arguments in the question themselves. Meaning instead of actually giving evidence for your worldview you instead resort to begging the question by ridiculing the other side. You pretty much implied your side is true without even proving it.
If there is no intention behind the universe explain how and why it sustains itself and why it must?
Why does the universe need intention?
It matters because I can make sense of the 'why' with God and ultimately I do not believe an atheistic worldview can and remain consistent with its starting presupposition - no God.
So what I am getting here is that it feels good to see the world in your way so you accept it?
My argument is that granting God these things become explainable and make sense.
Begging the question yet again. You know you are not making an argument right?
How about we assume Devil (evil God) to be true? I feel like it explains the world.
Morality makes sense if there is an unchanging, fixed, universal, absolute, ultimate reference point and measure. Without it why is your FEELING any better than mine?
Yet again no argument. You are basically saying my dad makes sense of strawberries. Without my dad how do I make sense of strawberries? I just picked up on this argument from authority. Instead of actually providing evidence God did this, you are saying God did this as an authority on the subject. While also shifting the burden of proof yet again.
If you are wrong on origins how much more are you wrong on?
You are in no position to question my position. At least I don't lie about the reality of things. You use the supernatural (unattainable thing) to support your arguments. You use feelings to support your claims and an old book.
Now, why existence? Why is there something rather than nothing?
I don't know. Doesn't mean I will beg the question to be what I would like it to be. I would like to hear an argument instead of this constant deflection.
How would you know since you deny God His existence, or at least ignore Him? What could I ever give to convince a person who does not want convincing? You would just find another reason to deny Him, another 'what if.'
Who said anything about me? I specifically talked about science. Give your findings to science and see what they think of the supernatural. I am going under the suspicion you don't actually want to give your old book to science because you know they don't agree with the findings. If this is true then you are pretty much cherry picking what you understand through science to suit your agenda and discard what doesn't conform to it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
But I don't think it's really fair for you to spring your commandments on me at the last minute (post-facto).
Oh so skipping
Sure I skipped around a little, but I didn't realize that was "against the rules" at the time.
is how people normally address points and bringing in information that I have already rebutted is also what is considered normal. Noted.
I've made an honest effort to reply to each of your points in the order I read them.
Please also see post #31 and post #52 and post #53. You replied to it 3 times when only 1 was needed since I already answered post #31 in post #40. Meaning for some reason you thought bringing in information that I have already addressed in #40 was valuable much later on.
I don't know if you were being honest or not so I don't care what you have to say about it. I was frustrated at other things as well but I have pointed out the largest offense so that should be enough.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am going to refrain from speaking to you here. I have given good critiques to your position and I don't see you replying to them. Instead of actually highlighting how my problems are not actually problems, you instead choose to bring up questions you have already answered twice just to name one example and completely be all over the place with what you choose to rebut. I didn't do the same to you so I expected the same thing back. I am not going to comment further for those reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not only questions but they are questions to an atheistic worldview.
Care to tell me this worldview?
How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability?
Please put this in more simpler terms. Are you saying how did this universe form without a God?
But we formulate mathematical equations that are not invented by us.
Who invented this?
Not only this but we continually seek meaning in what, by atheist standards, would be chance happenstance, an ultimately meaningless universe.
You can seek meaning in an ultimately meaningless universe, do you disagree?
Experientially and practically, you keep confirming these things are true, although theoretically and presumptuously you live contrary to those two qualities.
You saying it is true doesn't demonstrate it to be the case.
I'm not following.
What you said in the paragraph that starts with "2 + 2 = 4 means nothing to a tree or rock" is something you covered in the last paragraph. Things exist outside our mind which was the essence of the two paragraphs which is why I didn't cover it.
Mindless, unintentional, purposeless, pointless, irrational, indifferent chance happenstance.
Explain how God did so is a more compelling argument.
I'll entertain the strawman just here.
That argument is, make sense of ultimately anything from a chance, chaotic, random, happenstance universe, one without a mind behind it that wills it and sustains it.
So you were begging the question? Instead of actually presenting an argument you are assuming it to be true without evidence.
First, with a chance happenstance universe what is the why? It just is. And why should there be a how or what?
Why does why matter to you? Do you want there to be a God or are you finally going to give an argument for once?
The reason why you can ask how or what is because we can use what we know to understand what and how occurs. Asking why requires to know the person doing it. I don't think you have a connection to God. If you did please present it to science as our best way to find observable evidence.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And you can skip over points you aren't interested in covering?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
There would be no intent. How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability? One of the reasons science works is because we have confidence that things will work like they have in the past, thus predictability. If there is no mind or intention behind the universe why should we expect that to be the case? Why should we be able to find reasons for such a universe?
These are just questions.
If there is no ultimate mind behind the universe why should we look for meaning and why do we continue to find it?
Not an argument for God. Saying people find meaning has no link to God. If you happen to find a link to God.
They seem to ring true whether we exist or not.
There is absolutely no way to verify this to be true.
The 2 + 2 = 4 paragraph is in essence a repeat of the last paragraph.
Thus, to date, God is a more reasonable and likely explanation than chance happenstance.
Describe to me the contrary position as in the not God argument.
If it wasn't clear I am not a fan of your questions. Instead of actually presenting an argument for your side you instead resort to condemning the other. Why not make a compelling argument instead of shifting the burden of proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
One pro was that it would prevent rent hikes.
????
Tell me how maintenance fees, a mortgage while also the time investment comes close to rent fees? If you are comparing two different quality houses it is unfair. When comparing similar if not the same houses renting saves money and I love you didn't even bring up the point the value of the house depreciates by 2% every year.
This is what you saying:
Well I don't have to pay rent.
I am saying:
You have to pay for the mortgage, maintenance fees, on top of that the house depreciates by 2% every year and it is a liability because x amount of money is spent on an asset you can't liquidate (basically take money and use it someplace else) while also not realizing another asset costs less which essentially does the same thing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you reading my comments?
It seems you don't even bother to clearly lay out your points, like how I did, instead keep spamming new comments when you haven't even come close to the character limit.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please read my response before. Do do it my style because you have shown twice you are answering questions you have already answered.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I encourage people to get on a pathway towards buying their own home, but I wouldn't force it. I don´t want to pay all these rental fees and would rather eventually own my own home.
Do you understand that buying a home is one of the worst financial decisions you make in your entire life?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just please lay out how I laid out what I did in post #40, 41 and 42. If you have already rebutted the claims brought forward copy it underneath the title of either Censorship, Logic-Zombie, Thank you or Copyright
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Censorship
What consequences are you talking about?
You have already addressed this. Please see post #31 and my reply which you should be arguing against #40
Certainly...Information can lead to harm and SECRECY can lead to harm.I'd rather face the harm from information.I simply don't have enough FAITH in authorities who keep SECRETS.I simply don't have enough FAITH in authorities to police themselves (conflict-of-interest).Private-CITIZENS should have an iron-clad right to privacy.
Fuck me this is so confusing. I don't know why you are not realizing that I have given you new arguments to rebut. I'll just tell you again that I have already given counters like to this one. Sure you didn't actually address this before now but I already laid out my problem with this in post #40
Created: