Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Border Wall - ConTrump Is Misogynist - ProTrump Is Racist - ProAnd that's pretty much everything I've done outside of the BibleYou can't think of any topics at all? Although I think we agree on a lot of stuff
Alright fine. I'll think of some (one I guess until you accept it)
How about Christianity is a bad moral system to follow?
I'll start and we will have 30k characters with 1 week for arguments.
You can either share the burden of proof as in state how Christianity is a good moral system or debunk my claims.
I am not going to show a different moral system to follow instead will just show how bad Christian morality is. If you want me to make my own moral system I will. It will either be omar2345's moral system or Rule Utilitarian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Ooof okHow about Does the Bible have Contradictions? I'm ConAnd actual contradictions, not like typos lolAnd only do like 10 per round not five million -_-
That is pretty f*cking boring.
Do you have 9 more in mind that you are informed on and are willing to speak about?
If lets say the other 9 brought up are more what I consider boring then I'll pick the Bible contradictions.
Please don't purposefully make your other choices as bad. It doesn't have to be 9 just a lot more than 1 if you can't think of too many.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So if I accept God is another word. Now God exists? What a shallow foundation you have God existing. Guess people don't need too much to think they are correct at something. Somehow definitions makes you correct.You are confused because you don't accept that the word "God" refers to The Ultimate Reality.
It's a definition. That is, a clarification of what it is I am refering to or talking about by using the word.Do you know how definitions work? If you do, then you should be able to figure out that your argument is nonsensical.
Clarification to your definitions doesn't make you correct.
I can simply say reality and God are separate and those are my definitions. We won't go anywhere. That is the problem with your God existing argument. It is shallow and non-existence. It is just changing definitions to suite your agenda. It is kind of boring how little you need to think you are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That there is some form of existence, and that if there is some form of existence there must be Ultimate Reality, that is, existence as it is in totality and actuality.
How did you get some form of existence?
Reality exists. God doesn't.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
God is reality in the truest sense of what that word means.
No it isn't which is why science doesn't support it. The best measurement for observable evidence can't give evidence for God.
Your superstitions about God doesn't matter when there isn't evidence for it.Your superstitions concerning God does not overthrow that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Epistemological nihilism is a blackhole not worth getting sucked into. Been there, done that.As I demonstrated, there is a knowledge that is undeniable.
Do tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Desartes use a similar argumrent to prove it was his self that was the one sure thing.
In what way?
I think therefore I am?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Anything that takes a stance to my side or against?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
There is 1 page with 3 friend requests.If Sup sent you the friend request a long time ago, it could be buried in your activity notices. And if your friends list is two or more pages, did you make sure to check all pages? They're listed chronologically, so it could be buried there, too.
So what exactly happens when you go to Sup's profile and hit "accept friend request"?
That wasn't the issue. The issue was knowing I had to accept his friend request. Accepting friend request works. Just check my friends section and you'll see SupaDudz
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Reality exists. God doesn't. Stop pretending something else.The Ultimate Reality exists Omar, and talking about something else while pretending to talk about the same thing is not an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It doesn't. I am even checking now. I have yet to see anything about a friend request from SupaDudz. I went under the friends section after I clicked the blue icon and I don't see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
That wasn't what I asked.In my case I was always a right winger, before and after researching and pondering things.
Tell me the people on the left who use the world red pill to mean they had some sort of wrong think on the right which they eventually knew was wrong?
There is an entire channel dedicated to red pill and guess what? It is a right wing channel.
Here is a video of his outlining what he actually is:
Just watch 15 seconds and you'll understand he makes the same points as the right. Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder etc makes similar points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In simple terms and as far as we know, knowledge is uniquely a human thing. (Ok. Other Earth species may also possess the ability to store and utilise data)
What can we know?
It is best to show the furthest we can go so that we can have something to discuss.
Therefore human knowledge is human knowledge and consequently what we know is what we know.
Circular logic?
What actually is there to judge the credibility of our knowledge?
Do tell.
As current knowledge stands and no matter how much some people might protest to the contrary; Gods and Aliens and Ultimate Realities are just assumptions and cannot actually be known and therefore remain incredible.
Okay? I wanted you to see to answer the question you posed instead of state this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't suppose that I am rational. I do not suppose my senses aren't deceiving me. I don't even suppose an external world.
Prove to me you are rational.
Prove to me your senses are correct.
Prove to me you know anything about the external world.
You can know with 100% certainty that there is some form of existence. Your experience proves that. Even if this is illusion, still the fact there is some form of existence can be known with 100% certainty.
Did I say there was no existence? I made clear that you can exist but you don't know it.
If there is some form of existence, there must be a reality as it truly is.Reality in the truest sense is The Ultimate Reality. That is God.So you can be 100% certain that God exists. Not much else. Everything else you can only be so sure.
Who would have thought someone so irrational would use logic even though it is flawed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I wasn't online on that time.
Can you pick the topics?
I'll pick the 1 from your picks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’ve not conceded anything, you’re literally not listening to anything I’m sayin
You literally didn't bring a counter to my appeal to popularity claim nor do you have a counter for the Occam's Razor rebuttal.
You’ve conceded that if we’re not all suffering from subjective delusion
When did I call it suffering? You sure I am the one straw-manning?
So please, can you just get of this thread, and start a thread in the philosophy forum where someone else can educate you about your confusion between epistemological truth, objective and subjective facts.
I already have. I have shown your Occam's Razor is not universal therefore not objective and how an appeal to popularity is not objective. I have also shown how a tool can be used to get the sky to be white and with all of that if that is your best defenses for your arguments. I expected more. I didn't even need to think of my rebuttals for a while to find problems with what you said yet you don't see it. Not my problem you can't see how bad your arguments are. I only demonstrated it and hoped you would see the problems but you didn't.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You are comparing apples and eggs.
You were stating something that doesn't even exist and then stated it was the same thing as something that does exist as in reality exists and God doesn't.
There are people scattered throughout the entire world who were alive at every stage of history whoo had no bible and still witnessed The Ultimate Reality as existing.
Reality exists. God doesn't. Do you not understand?
You don't need the bible to know God exists.
You need to not digest propaganda to understand the falsifies of the Bible.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The bible is not God, Omar. Neither is science for that matter. You are talking nonsense.
God supposedly gave you its message with the Bible. The only way you even "know" of its existence through that. To say the Bible is not God is obvious. That wasn't my claim. My claim is that you get your ideas about God from the Bible and that is your supposed link to it.
The Ultimate Reality is God.The Ultimate Reality exists.Thst is all there is to it.
Science gives better results.
Science is superior to the Bible.
That is all there is to it.
How insignificant man's knowledge is when held next to God. A child is impressed because science gives them videogame idols to worship and waste away their life in vanity. It gives them media to consume like some insatiable drug addict who can never have enough of what isn't even truly satisfying. Vanity, all of it.
How insignificant is your mind when you can't even comprehend a world were your specific God doesn't exist. Mopac is impressed by the "Bible" yet doesn't realize there are more impressive things in life like videogames the discovery channel etc. Mopac is too busy pleasing his non-existent dad instead of actually enjoying reality.
Who would have thought how irrational a theist can be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’ve specifically shown multiple reasons outside merely the popularity why the ubiquity is a measurement lends credibility to the claim it is not subjective.
You have conceded one of your arguments. Off to the next until you think of another. Why not give me the best argument you have instead of giving me ones that are fallacious?
The basis for believing the claim that the sky is blue - is Occams Razor - that it’s the simplest explanations.
That is from a person who doesn't believe in God. I know from Mopac he would state the simplest answer is that the sky is blue because of God. Doubtful you would make the same claim. I know that wasn't the original claim but it is easier to make your claim "sky is blue and no I don't think God did it" would help you see how the simplest explanation to you is not the simplest explanation for other people like Mopac. I have shown you a flaw with using the simplest explanation given the differences of what people define to be simple.
The sky isn’t white : the ubiquitous measurements of the light from the sky show it to have a wavelength of between 380nm -500nm.
The sky is white. I use a tool to show that whenever I look up with lets say with glasses it looks white. Your argument here is that X is X because a tool said so. So for me to show a counter is to use a tool designed for the sky to look white. Want to add other conditions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s not an appeal to popularity - I would suggest you google that too.
An appeal to popularity: It happens when someone tries to argue that something is right because lots of people believe in it.
Your statement:
having multiple other people observe that something, and all agree both on what they are seeing
It is an appeal to popularity.
The basis for believing the claim that the sky is blue - is Occams Razor - that it’s the simplest explanations.
So now you mention this. I wonder why. Maybe it is because you can't actually defend your objective standard is just an appeal to popularity.
This is just getting even more obtuse now, and quite frankly I am not interested in being your teacher and walking you through basic terminology any more.
Like how you couldn't be bothered to debunk your objective standard not being an appeal to popularity.
If you can explain to me how your thoughts and feelings can make the light coming from the sky something other than a wavelength of 380-500nm, then I will agree that the colour of the sky is subjective.
I feel like the sky is white. Is that what you want me to say?
I’ve already spent too long entertaining this nonsense.
I call you out for an appeal to popularity and like the time I questioned you about it you didn't even try to debunk. It makes me wonder if you can actually defend your objective standard.
Created:
Posted in:
We rely on axioms to do anything.
We presuppose we are rational.
We presuppose our senses are not deceiving us.
We presuppose we can view the external world.
Under these presuppositions we can lets say speculate on the world but that doesn't mean we know things. It just means under specific axioms we can speculate on the external world. If we did know something we wouldn't be using axioms instead we use it because it is the only way to observe what is around but that doesn't mean we know.
This is mainly used for people to counter what I said or give examples of when we have known something.
Hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The more important problem of an appeal of popularity is that if everyone lets say are biased into believing something and use that to influence what is right or wrong then what you consider to be right wouldn't be found or discovered. A clear example is when Christians falsely use science to support their beliefs. Since the Christian community is much larger than the Atheist community they are more popular therefore correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Please show me a way in which you can use your feelings of thoughts to change the wavelength of light coming from the sky because you believe in solipsism.
That wasn't the point of me saying that. I'll attack your point directly then.
Your argument boils down to an appeal to popularity. If everyone was blind there would be able to observe observable evidence. If everyone was deaf they wouldn't be able to observe evidence that can be heard. If your argument was not an appeal to popularity do clarify this statement:
Observing something external, having multiple other people observe that something, and all agree both on what they are seeing, and it’s inherent nature does very much make it an objective observation
Created:
-->
@Mopac
My religion doesn't come from a book, Omar. A book does not dictate our faith.
Yes it does. Without the book what would you be reading in Church? Without a book how would God dictate your life?
You don't understand our faith. I keep telling you this, but you keep going on as if your.mind is closed off to what I am saying.
No matter how many times I tell you. You can't comprehend you are wrong. You are in denial how bad the Bible is at giving answers to the world when you use that above science for lets say the length of the universe.
The Ultimate Reality is God.The Ultimate Reality exists.That is all there is to it.
Science gives better results.
Science is superior to the Bible.
That is all there is to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
The “ red pill” is a reference to The Matrix in which Neo takes the pill and opens his mind to the idea that everything he knows might be wrong. He then goes on a search for the truth.It has nothing to do with partisanship.
Tell me a left winger who uses the word red pill.
Then tell me the countless examples of right wingers using it.
It is used to pretty much state some kind of wrongthink on the left then they took the red pill and became a right winger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What if I believe in solipsism?Thats what the words mean. We’ve established that the underlying measurement is external
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It sounds like you are close minded to understanding what we believe, so you calling me close minded is simply you projecting yourself on to me.
It is the other way around. I am not taking advice from a book that speaks about something they can't prove. Your irrational.
We certainly have a discipline, a discipline that would even give more competence to a scientist. That discipline is the purifying of the nous. A scientist with a clean intellect is going to be a more effective scientist.
When you can't debunk a better measurement say you are helping it in some way in order to stay relevant in rational discussions? The thing is there is no evidence for this and since that doesn't register to you since you are a Christian I didn't know why I said something you can't even comprehend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Isn't that the entire idea of a fact to state something to be true as in the sky is blue?you’re confusing not knowing whether something is really true
You’ve conceded that if what we see is real - these things are objective,
My problem wasn't with what was real. So this is a point about something that wasn't even a contention. My problem was if we were able to see what was real and confirm it.
At this point you appear to be being unnecessarily obtuse.
No you just don't understand my point.
I'll clarify.
Saying something is objective misses the assumptions being made which stops it from being objective. Nothing is actual objective even in your narrow minded concept because even if I agree with the sky is blue it is still built upon axioms you or I can't justify.
Can you please quote me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
there needs to be a meme that is iconic to this site
Something like you know debating has gone too far when people don't use the debate section to debate.
Created:
You can be condescending and pretentious about this issue all you want, but in pointing the finger at me and calling me close minded, you have 3 pointing right back at you.
Is this Bible talk? I can't tell given how both are stuck daydreaming when science tries to find answers instead of sitting in a Church reading things that isn't registered by God.
You don't know what the bible is to us. Your argument is foundationally inept.
The Bible is a fairytale for all ages who had the misfortune in believing in it. I can't stop a child from believing there are monsters under their bed. I can't stop a Christian believing an immaterial dad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Firstly - that light from the sky is between the wavelengths of 380nm and 600nm is the objective fact; if you want to then go one step further and make subjective ruminations about whether you should care about that fact - this is up to you.
There is a purpose behind every reaction even if it is just a biological disposition. You narrow view of what is objective still isn't objective given the assumptions that have to be made.
Whether you should care about the sky; or bother to look up, is probably subjective: but isn’t what we’re talking about - that’s just a nonsensical subjective question your injecting into the underlying fact, and is therefore meaningless.
Okay. Had a point then I decided to remove it.
Everyone observes that the sky is blue. We’re either all correct - or we’re all wrong in exactly the same way.
Not blind people. Not people who are yet born. Not people in a coma. Not people on life support. Do you want me to go on or are you going to change "Everyone" to people who can see?
If we’re not lo wrong - then the fact is objective - if we’re all wrong in exactly the same way - then the cause of the error cannot possibly be down to individual feelings in my brain or your brain - if we are all wrong, then the lack of arbitrary observation of everyone observing different things indicates an external cause of the error - hence it too is still objective.
Which I said earlier answering the question about the wavelengths wasn't important or maybe you missed that? I said it here:
I am simply stating it is going to register in your brain which is subjective. So my problem isn't with the context here instead the base of it.
Which again, leads me to believe you don’t really grasp the concept of subjective or objective: and are simply muddling up concepts of what is true or not; vs what is affected by individual thoughts or feelings.
You don't grasp what you already conceded here:
The sky is blue under the assumptions that we are not clouded by external factorsBingo.
You have conceded we require assumptions to make your objective claim valid. I am simply stating by having assumptions your claims are not objective because we can't actually prove axioms. Those are believed to be true.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Yes I do and you concede that science is better at making observations than the Bible?You don't know what we believe, which is why you are pointing to the bible as if we took it as a scientific manual to begin with.
You sre simply assuming what we believe, and you do not really know. If I told you, you wouldn't believe me, because it doesn't conform to your current understanding.
You can't comprehend you Religion being wrong which is why you are unable to have an open mind. I pity you given your circumstances then I realize there is a whole lot of you to pity.
My religion is not anti-science. I have always loved science. Even before I ever became a Christian. You are making a false dichotomy.
Who said anything about anti-science? I am simply stating science makes claims it can support with evidence whereas the Bible is stuck daydreaming.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You are creating this false dichotomy of the bible and science. You are accusing me of being closed minded simply because you refuse to accept what I believe as valid and it frustrates you.
Someone who can't comprehend they can be wrong is trying to use a fallacy but ultimately failing?
Science is a better measurement than the Bible yet you can't comprehend it.
Your failure to understand this due to your close-minded nature and other things are the problem.
You don't understand my faith, but you are not really open to understanding it because you have already dismissed it.
You don't understand science, but you are not really open to understanding it because you have already dismissed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes it is. The sky is blue is never really the full story. Should I care if the sky is blue? Should I look if the sky is blue?This is not relevant to the fact of whether the sky is blue.
This is an ability not a feeling.
Given our nature linked to our brain a subjective thing that gives us feelings. It is a barrier to self-verification.
Created:
You want me to prove something when you refuse to accept what it is being proven. This is not rational.
The rational thing to do is use the best measurement we have to find observable evidence. You are irrational to favor the Bible over science. Simple.
Also, you presume to understand my faith when you are very much in the dark about it. This is not reasonable.
Yes I do. I understand the problems that you can't even comprehend given how close-minded you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
one outcome if we are not “clouded by external factors” is that the wavelength of light that comes from the sky is objective. That would disprove your thesis.
That if is not met.
Please explain what part of “external factors” (that are able to effect how every human on the planet perceives light from the sky - such that it makes all humans perceive this light in the same way - and to have the same wavelength) - are based on “feelings”.
Meant factors instead of external factors.
- Ability to state a value better than another (How is X better than Y?)
- Ability to self-verify (How do you prove proof?)
I'll stick to this for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
1: Make easy debates. Your profile says your a libertarian. This probably means you support the 2nd amendment. Make a few debates labeled, "All guns should be banned" your con. I did this like 5x and most of the time, someone accepts the debate then forfeits because their mind was changed due to your arguments. If you copy my arguments, you'll lose points for plagiarism, so don't do that.
Oooof
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Bingo.So; if we aren’t “clouded by external factors”: it is objective that the sky is blue?
Yes but I don't think we can actually be removed from factors (should have just said factors since there are internal problems as well).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You are talking about books again.
Where do you get "God's word" again?
The word "God" with a capital "G" means "Ultimate Reality". So you are wrong to say that accepting God is to reject Ultimate Reality.
No they are not linked. You are making this up. Don't appeal to the dictionairy definition and whatever this is not correct. Do you have acutal evidence or is it muh self-evident muh I making stuff up that I think is right muh because my book said so.
And you don't understand my religion. If I explained it to you, you would call me a liar because you prefer to believe what you think you already know.
Your problem is that you fail to grasp an actual criticism for your Religion instead you see it for lack of a better term blasphemy. I am simply stating obvious special pleading where you use self-evident and a rejection of evidence for God but not for lets say you have fingernails. You can see your fingernails whereas you can't see God. You can prove the existence of your fingernails but you can't prove the existence of your God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
For something to be subjective; it must be based upon feelings.
I am saying under the assumption we are rational thinkers and we are not clouded by other external factors that would be true.
If the sky being blue is based upon feelings - then the light from the sky must not really be 380nm - 500nm; it is simply our brains making that up.
The sky is blue under the assumptions that we are not clouded by external factors. You are removing the fundamental limits of humans or as a better phrase our epistemological limits. One such epistemological limit is our failure to self-verify. We can prove our proof or in another way we can't prove that science is the best method of observing by itself. We must use what is already present to confirm it as in the other measurements are wrong therefore science is the most helpful not the best irrespective of the alternatives. In order for something to be objective it would have to be proven outside being more effective than the alternatives at whatever it is we are measuring.
but you really do need to answer the question - as the answer is instructive of your problem.
Explain.
is light from the sky predominantly 380nm -500mm, regardless of how it is measured, or who measures it?
Under the assumptions that our tools are correct and we are able to perceive it then yes.
And regardless and independent of who’s subjective brain is viewing the information?
You even said it yourself it is not possible or if you think it is a straw-man you implied it:
Observing something external, having multiple other people observe that something, and all agree both on what they are seeing, and it’s inherent nature does very much make it an objective observation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Who is straw-manning who again?Claiming it is subjective means that you’re arguing that light from the sky being at 380 - 500nm is a product of the human brain and our “feelings”. This means that light coming from the sky isn’t really 380nm - 500.
I am claiming that context is missing information as in the base of everything we use to perceive the world. The brain. That brain is subjective. Care to respond to that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Club
Basically most of the time on DA I don't find things to be informative. In real life I find pretty much nothing to be informative.wdym
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Club
I take debating IRL seriously, but online debating doesn't really matter.
Mine is the other way around. In real life people don't really give anything to debate around and in most cases on this site they don't either but there are more informative things going on DA than in real life for me.
Somewhat
Like what?
Prefer not to say
Why not?
Risk
A board game? Not for me because games online look more visually stimulating.
Wrong answer you will be lynched. Joke by the way.
You made a grammatical mistake, but 20 years
Right answer well I think so at least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So light that comes from the sky isn’t predominantly made up of light that is at 380nm - 500nm?
I am simply stating it is going to register in your brain which is subjective. So my problem isn't with the context here instead the base of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Club
I am just going to use the same questions but change one of course.
Why don't you take debating seriously?
(From what I have seen you don't care about winning or losing. To me I don't like losing but if I did make weaker arguments then I am okay with it)
Do you think you have confirmation bias?
(Just search up the last two words you'll understand eventually.)
Why aren't you a social democrat/neoliberal?
(You better have a good reason or I'll have nothing to work with)
What is your favorite game of all time?
(There is a wrong answer and lynching will be involved)
What is worse living a mundane 80 year life or living happily for 20 years of your life?
(These are set in stone you can't change that)
That is all for now. I'll ask more if I can think of more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Red pill is a right wing thing. If you don't think it is tell me who uses it and isn't right wing.then I took the red pill and even after that I still found myself on the right wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You accepted my debate then I clicked on your profile and then realized you gave me a friend request. Didn't realize it because it wasn't even in my notifications anywhere.
Created: