Total posts: 3,457
-->
@fauxlaw
No - the chemistry is the entire point of all of this - you fundamentally are misinterpreting the point of the conversation - semantics only matter in court and in beuarcracy, if we have the ability to tell the intention behind words, they are not needed - and I have made my intention clear - this is a red herring in regards to the conversation at hand - I find your insistence on the importance on-brand with your rhetoric, but I find it beneath someone who has clear brilliance in the regard of rhetoric to simply use semantics instead of that rhetoric you've built for years.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That is a neat little word salad wrapped up in semantics - of course - anything of excessive intake is not harmless - we could agree that generally a speck of sand is harmless, but enough of it is harmful. Sodium and Chlorine are intrinsically harmful as particles - of course Sodium much less than Chlorine, but to site the fact that "enough excessive salt is harmful" is very bad evidence to me being "scientifically illiterate."
Also... you haven't mentioned anything in regards to the actual science of how salt is formed, nor the properties which are newly formed because of it - you are simply seeking to make arguments based on rhetoric, when, in total, you have no actual arguments, just... a half-willed semantic blabbering about how salt has other properties, yes, yes it does - not the point - the point here is that chemical reactions can induce changes in regents or new properties.
That is basic chemistry
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
To be fair, my progression isn't bad - not as rapid as Supadudz, but 2,500 posts in 6 months is pretty good I'd say
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I don't need to show anything - because there is nothing to show - can't show what's not there
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What are you talking about? Are you unable to comprehend basic reasoning? There are no theists you've convinced, therefore it is literally impossible to make a list - it was a rhetoric question.
Simply showing something like that is... its useless, if you have no conclusion to reach, you are the equivalent of a 12 year old saying, "I told you so," it achieves nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Thomas, why you runnin? You mad bro?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The fact that you falsely identified my wild syllogism is enough to ignore your presence; however, the fact that you have not convinced a single theist means that there is no list
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Aha! I've surpassed you, let's see if I can keep it.
Created:
Posted in:
In correlation with our divide in which president we prefer is the traits that we value, so - what 5 presidential traits do you believe to be most important?
Created:
I've been debating here since... around last September, or around 7 months. Throughout my time here, I've seen a plethora of different debating styles, voting styles, and even different styles of communicating a rebuttal. I've seen people with much greater rhetoric ability than mine, I've seen people with much better reasoning ability than mine, but throughout my time here - I'd like to think I've improved those aspects of myself, but I still find myself coming up short, at least to my standard of progress I hold myself too. So I am throwing my pride to the wolves, what would you guys suggest to improve myself further? What areas do I need to improve in? What areas do I need to shore up? What are my weaknesses, my strengths? Generally, how convincing am I? All of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Hmm - I have no issues contesting something which I believe to be dishonestly motivated - that's the only way you can stay intellectually honest in my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The ones you've been able to convince? That's impossible because you haven't convinced a single theist of their fault. I encourage you to try to think of one you've been able to convince. Go ahead, have a field day.
You see -despite the fact that we agree that the Abrahamic god is wrought with contradictions and immoral behavior- I am not inclined to agree with the way you attempt to come to your conclusions. While some of them are quite well reasoned, your rhetoric is abrasive, sometimes contradicting, and rather indicative of a propensity for harassment. There are better ways to convince people, such as Socratic questioning, and you need to at least try to employ them. What you do instead is convince theists to look at a religious or theist critical person with contempt.
And unless that is your goal - which, in retrospect, would be brilliant - you have failed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Would you like me to list the number of theists you've successfully convinced alphabetically? Because I could do that real easily - zero - especially not Fauxlaw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"The human brain differentiates early in development both structurally and functionally in a sexually dimorphic way (Swaab, 2007). Clear structural sex differences in the central nucleus of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) have previously been found by our group, both in its volume—as delineated by its vasoactive intestinal polypeptide innervation (Zhou et al., 1995)—and in its number of somatostatin immunoreactive neurons (Kruijver et al., 2000). Interestingly, both structural differences were found to be reversed in male-to-female transsexual people; they were not influenced by alterations in sex hormone levels in adulthood and not related to sexual orientation in males (Zhou et al., 1995; Kruijver et al., 2000)." [LINK]
In other words, people's brains are chemically and structurally different depending on how your gender identity correlates with your assigned gender/sex. Transgender individuals have brain structure that highly correlates with the gender they identify with, and not the gender/sex they are assigned.
"A significant sex difference was found for brain weight among the four groups [(male, female, transsexual male-to-female and castrated patients, (Kruskal–Wallis P < 0.008)]. Male brain weight was higher than female brain weight (P < 0.001). Male-to-female transsexual persons had a brain weight (1358 ± 155.6) in between that of the males (1529 ± 231.4) and females (1244 ± 160.5) (Tables 1 and 2), that was almost significantly different from the male group (M > MtF: P > 0.053), but not different from the females (F = MtF: P > 0.130). The brain weight of the castrated group (CAS, 1387 ± 206.3) did not differ from that in the other groups (CAS = M: P > 0.917; CAS = F: P > 0.142; CAS = MtF: P = 1)." [LINK]
To summarize, usually people's brains are of different weight depending on the sex they are assigned at birth, and average the patients documented here who are: male, female, and transitioned from assigned male-to identify female - the transgenders individuals who identified as female had brain weight most similar to other females.
"The INAH3 subdivision in males was significantly (1.9 times) larger than in females (P < 0.013). The INAH3 volume values fully agree with the previously reported data (Table 4). Comparing the male-to-female transsexual group to the male group revealed a significant difference in the INAH3 subdivision (M > MtF: P < 0.018), while no difference was found when the male-to-female group was compared to the female group (MtF = F: P > 0.973) (Figs 5 and 8)." [LINK]
I could keep going, but I think you understand the pattern, neurologically speaking - individuals who identify as female are drastically more similar to people who are assigned and identify as female than male. To argue that "you can tell with your eyes" is drastically undermining the biology which tells us the differences between cis and trans gender peopled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Why do you do as you do? Obviously you aren't the typical "Christian" and I would hazard to presume that you don't believe in god at all - or at least not in the Abrahamic one - but the fact of the matter is that your way of presenting flaws in theological reasoning is not effective, so why do you still do it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
"More specifically, behavioral factor analyses do not provide an unambiguous model of the underlying cognitive architecture, as the factors themselves are inaccessible, being measured indirectly by estimating linear components from correlations between the performance measures of different tests. Thus, for a given set of behavioral correlations, there are many factor solutions of varying degrees of complexity, all of which are equally able to account for the data. This ambiguity is typically resolved by selecting a simple and interpretable factor solution. However, interpretability does not necessarily equate to biological reality. Furthermore, the accuracy of any factor model depends on the collection of a large number of population measures. Consequently, the classical approach to intelligence testing is hampered by the logistical requirements of pen and paper testing. It would appear, therefore, that the classical approach to behavioral factor analysis is near the limit of its resolution."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
- Yes
- No
- To be determined
Now see- three is tricky -because you'd have to account for the highs and the lows- not just an example of like one super racist country - because there are also other countries which are really good about stopping racism before it starts. Now, if you were to ask: "Do you believe that America is more racists than other countries on average?" this would be a lot simpler because most the average would work out differently - thats a global rate versus a national rate - and more accurate as well. So I'll abstain from answering the last question until there is a quantitative way of measuring racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I find myself in agreement with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Hm, I haven't seen a debate from him I consider stronger than yours - at least not the time you beat me - though I don't believe Whiteflame correctly judged the debate, I do think that you did have a good argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
Interesting, I didn't consider your argument for gun control all that strong - you certainly have stronger arguments. Undefeatable has a vastly different style of debating from you - and, in my opinion, better. No offense.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
It is indeed a new property as a result of the new structure, that is how chemical reactions work.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Well now your shifting the goalposts, we were never discussing that new physical laws weren't made - new properties were introduced by the emergent property of chemical reactions, by the physical laws of the universe.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Incorrect, you've done both of the fallacies, but that doesn't really matter - because you are primarily interested in the "soul" - or what you call the property which allows neurological networks to lead to consciousness. Which, supposing that these networks don't have the right properties for consciousness, and therefore coming to the conclusions that their is a soul - is a fallacy of composition - which was my point - you could yes, argue that you were going for it the opposite way around - because you have in fact committed both fallacies in your reasoning.
You take back everything you've said? Hmm, how interesting, but semantics had nothing to do with your claims. If you concede your wrong, fine by me, but don't distract yourself from the fundamental leap in logic you've made by appealing to semantics - the specific fallacy you used is semantics - that's about it.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
I love how you dropped the entire beginning of my argument - so I'll finish this off for ya - the lack of consequence and value - well of course, if nothing did result in something then that something wouldn't be nothing, and therefore would have consequence, but a book doesn't have "consequence" but pushing it off of a shelf has a consequence, the reaction of something can produce a consequence. Also... you don't seem to know what a red herring is - a red herring is whenever you try to continuously mention a thing that has nothing to do with the argument itself in an attempt to mislead your interlocutor, but the talk about salt and chlorine is extremely topical, go on, prove that its a not a new thing - harmlessness that is - because it seems like you just conceded that point to me.
Logical Fallacies do not only apply to syllogism, logical fallacies apply to any appeal to logic, any time whenever you try to perform reasoning, is a time whenever you have a chance to commit a logical fallacy - your entire basis is a fallacy, a fallacy of composition - which is presuming that because the composition of things have a quality, the components also have that quality, which is false. A single drop of water is not loud, like a waterfall is - a single page of paper is not sturdy, like a collection of hundreds of papers are. My point is, your assertions that "Any emergent feature is only emerging because its core function exists on lower levels" Is simply ignorant on your part - as new things can come as a result of reactions of that thing with other things, so no - not always will the core functions exist until the reaction occurs, that is how chemistry works.
"Chemical reactions involve interaction between chemicals such that all reactants are changed into new materials. The properties of the new materials are different from those of the reactants. This is distinct from other changes such as evaporation, melting, boiling, freezing and mixing where changes involve no new substances." [LINK]
No - the harmlessness - comes from the chemical reaction - it comes from the emergent property of sodium reacting with chlorine chemically, it has nothing to do with its base parts, and I'm gonna assume you mean "exhibited" not "inhibited" because inhibited means to be stopped or prevented, whereas exhibited to be allowed or to be shown - so I'm gonna assume you meant the former. But your claim is simply not backed by any evidence, and is itself a fallacy - furthermore - no - because you were originally talking about wholes, you were talking about the brain and salf, so yes - you were indeed talking about the fallacy of composition, now you have moved on, but that means nothing - you cannot simply expect me to drop a fallacy because you are making a new one - that's just another one to add to the list.
Your "claim" is unproven, you have asserted it, but done nothing to actually prove the claim, and it the reasoning that you have just provided is quite literally a textbook logical fallacy - you have yet to prove anything, only assert - you've admitted to making fallacies - try to actually back it up next time - until you answer my points comprehensively and actually acknowledge your fallacies - this is all your getting from me - because you are a dishonest interlocter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eventuality001
Your complete lack of relevant sources is interesting, but beyond that it doesn't actually address my point - Jesus was in Rome - Italy didn't become a nation until the 1940s my dude. Furthermore, they specifically said "Slaves, treat your master with..." You see - specifically slaves, so the supervisors of the slaves, and in some, slaves weren't treated correctly. None of what you're saying has anything to do with anything - because there is no account anywhere of Jesus having a family, in fact - Jesus probably doesn't exist. So no, you are wrong - in every account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So you would argue that one has to accept the commands issued by Jesus? In only the New Testament or also the Old Testament?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I disagree - Jesus dictated that the only way to get to heaven is by accepting jesus as their lord and savior, blah, blah, - that is the only "commandment" that they are held by in order to be Christians, at least by biblical standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
I couldn't do it justice, I'd look into Whiteflame's forum posts about abortion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Thewhiteflame has a much better argument for abortion than I do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
No - you have not verified each search result, you have not proven that each result is even relevant to the discussion at hand, you have not proven that each result is causal, you have not proven that each result is at all verifiable. You have done nothing but larp, please actually present your evidence - not just claim google results give you certain results - you are aware that google personalizes search results right? We don't get the same thing whenever we type into the search bar. Furthermore, you could simply say the same thing for any result, I typed in "God is real" and got 2.6 million results in 0.56 seconds, does that mean that every result proves that god is real? Of course not, that's absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Would you mean elaborating?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Why Do Theists Have Lower IQs? [LINK]
By asking why theists have lower IQs, you have necessarily claimed that theists have lower IQ than an average population. But you know you made that claim, don't play around, just demonstrate your claim - you're not being clever, just emulating a Twitter comment section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
So nothing? You have literally nothing to prove your assertion? You have made a claim - you therefore have a burden to demonstrate that such claim is true - until you do, there is no reason to believe you. Its that simple
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Quite an interesting interpretation and I would agree to that being probably one of the better interpretations of the bible; however, if you accept that the virtues encouraged in the new testament by Jesus are what Christians ought to follow - then I would have to disagree with the holy book.
For one - Jesus's views regarding slavery - and this is a virtue he is teaching not a legal matter (namely obedience):
"Ephesians 6:5-8 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free."
Note that the bible makes a clear distinction between slaves and servants:
"1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust."
Analyzing the first passage Jesus instructs that slaves obey their masters with a sincere fear and "trembling" - just as they would christ. Notice also that it doesn't exclude masters who abuse their slaves, as given the context, it is broadly about who you ought to respect and obey, such as parents - and its a part of the wide "armor of god" narrative that the letters are on about.
If we were to approximate the time period and location of Jesus we have the Roman Empire around the rule of Nero - and here we see the average treatmeent of slaves under the roman empire:
"Slavery in ancient Rome differed from its modern forms in that it was not based on race.But like modern slavery, it was an abusive and degrading institution. Cruelty was commonplace.A common practiceSlavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race. Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.Life as a slaveAll slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. Although Romans accepted slavery as the norm, some people – like the poet and philosopher, Seneca – argued that slaves should at least be treated fairly." [LINK]]
Given the treatment of slaves that they were likely addressing, that is telling slaves to obey inhumane masters and people who are willing to whip and beat them. I'm sorry but I find extreme problems with the direction to "obey" their masters, not for masters to let their slaves free, or for masters to treat their slaves right, but to "obey their masters". Given the historic principle of the time, it is extremely unlikely that the slavery being mentioned here was mere "bond-serventry".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Arguably those aren't apart of the new covenant though - the mere fact that its stated in the new testament doesn't make it a new covenant - I mean if you were to simply argue that anything in the new testament is new covenant, then you would be accepting a lot of rules that I'm sure you wouldn't like - but more importantly - Jesus makes it pretty clear that their is only one way to get to heaven in the new covenant, through accepting him as your savior and asking for forgiveness for your sins - that's technically the only rules - acknowledging that you are sinning and accepting Jesus.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Make that 10 posts
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
To be fair - given that logic - one could dismiss the 10 commandments
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
So its not just me? Your bullshitting is just you everyday? I see - present the evidence. Present the proof - FLRW thinks things similar to you, but he actually tries to show proof - not to mention - you have yet to prove anything regarding IQ - I think this forum is a tad more appropriate to continue our conversation though - so - demonstrate both claims - that IQ tests are actually useful at doing anything, and that Theists even make consistently lower scores in IQ testing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
In other words - you have no proof that IQ tests are actually useful in measuring anything? Therefore - to use it as some kind of standard is a lie at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Again - no rebuttal - just that "millions of dollars have been spent on it" - yes because people think that they are right - please demonstrate that they were- cause you are just running away - please demonstrate the metric by which IQ tests are useful.
Because you are simply not very good at coming to logical conclusion.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
It then goes on to explain why such a term is reductive because:
"also called the Lorentz force, explains how both moving and stationary charged particles interact. It's called the electromagnetic force because it includes the formerly distinct electric force and the magnetic force; magnetic forces and electric forces are really the same fundamental force"
Which is exactly as I said - to call it "the electromagnetic force" is redundant. Again - stop your cherry-picking. Furthermore, you have yet to actually prove that this somehow makes it impossible for chemicals to make a new thing - you do realize both chlorine and sodium are non-ferromagnetic right? Unless you believe salt is made by turning them into electromagnetics you have no point here - only a red herring. Now - salt and chlorine do react because of electrostatic reactions - now because of Lorentz reactions - but that still does not mean anything - because a new property emerged from the combining of two things, the mere fact that an electrostatic reaction is what induced that reaction means nothing regarding the new property - do you think electrostatic reactions are inherently harmless? The more you try to sound like you know what your talking about, the more I get that you are googling things in order to support the conclusion you already came to.
Next up - no - you need to understand how syllogisms work - whenever you are determining if your syllogism is valid - each premise has to follow one another logically - and the conclusion is exactly the same - in order for your argument to be a sequitur - the information you provided must deductively follow to your conclusion. But your conclusion - does not follow any information you provided. That is a non-sequitur - specifically because of the fallacy of composition - of course you apply fallacies to conclusions - that is one of the only areas you really look for when determining the validity of a syllogism- but you didn't create a syllogism - the part we were talking about is effectively your premise.
Um... yes - the "subject" as you call it - now has a property that means that the subject is fundamentally not nothing - you haven't actually cited the fallacy I made, nor explained why it is a fallacy, note that whenever I said you were making a fallacy of composition I precisely explained what it was, and how you were making it - you simply try to handwave it away but this all points to me that you a fundamental misunderstanding of logical fallacies (which makes sense, this is why I told you to go look them up) -again nothing is the absence of everything but to assign a property is to make that nothing a thing. You can not study nothing therefore to make any conclusions regarding its nature to be fundamentally flawed.
No - again - you are wrong - to make something retroactively negatively have properties is indeed a property - but you've actually failed to identify what I was talking about "the absence of all properties" is not what I was talking about, you said that nothing cannot have an effect on anything - but to have that property or "quality that something has" is to make it not nothing. Again - you cannot come to any conclusions regarding nothing's nature - because it operates under laws which we cannot observe - there is no nothing in our universe - you are simply making assertions that are flawed in the first place.
Finally, yes, other things do have minds - so what? Furthermore - the fact that laws and processes occur which lead us to a new reagent does not mean that it was "inherently there" it was introduced in the reaction - and furthermore it is a new property, that is to say a lack of a property which they both had - the new reagent is different in that it no longer possesses a property they both had - it is new - and the quality of such a thing - being harmless - is a property yes. You don't seem to realize that a thing not doing something is a property unto itself. To be unmalleable - or to possess the quality of not being malleable.
For you to say it is "not a fallacy" is you being ignorant - you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Go ahead - look up a fallacy of composition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
You do remember my original contention right? I said that IQ tests are not a useful metric, and you responded that they are the most universally used and most effective way of the time of "measuring IQ" - yet you haven't even demonstrated that they can measure IQ. You are simply pivoting away from you claim because you can't back it up - again - the foot (as in your foot) - was the most universersally used and most effective way of measuring distance- that does not mean it was practically efficient, or a useful metric (which the same thing in case you didn't know) - we were arguing about whether or not IQ tests are a useful metric- and your only argument that they are is that they are used widely - and the "Most effective at test" - again an add populum and an assertion - just because something is widely used and claims to be effective does not mean that it actually is.
Prove that it is indeed a useful metric
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
You have not actually responded to my point - simply went on a self-indulgent rant - now defend your premise: Is it true that because something is currently (as asserted by you) the most "effective" measure of something that it is actually effective at doing that thing? Because then you would have to defend that measuring things with your feet is the most effective way of measuring distance? Do you see how the fallacy comes in there? Please actually respond or I'll just ignore you - I don't have time for your little assertions - you don't have my respect as an interlocutor, either keep that way or actually respond intelligently
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Hahaha, no. Why would you think that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Ironically that is me - I am a high school debater from Texas. Though I prefer this debating to UIL debating
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
As to how to fix those kinds of oppression? Typically its by dismissing stereotypes and humanizing people, so by increasing the representation of these people in media, books, etc - but not just in one culture, in all cultures - that is the only way to actually make a difference. Studies show that having a minority on a show or in a book you like is roughly equivalent to having a friend of a minority, which typically makes people more tolerant. There are of course, more individualistic answers to these problems, but the bigger picture is that is propagated by systems - that is the only way that systemic oppression can exist afterall.
Fair enough regarding the consensus thing - I was typically saying today's science - and most of it - not necessarily all of it - but I do totally understand the confusion. I also apologize for the aggression, a tad tired and frustrated from the circles with Athias in another thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Evolution, the big bang, etc - what science currently thinks of the natural world - and I would agree that yes - it is typically accurate. Is this your idea of an interview? Because if it is I'll have to stop here. I said I would, if and only if, you gave me a solid number of how many questions there were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Protest of oppression, protest of self - pick one - pick all. and because of oppression, most often caused by some other bigoted identity - for example: gay people being hung by the catholic church, or black people being lynched by white people, or women not having equal rights by dudes, or Native Americans by the colonizers who came to America for not "owning the land", or Japanese Americans for "colluding with the enemy", I could go on and on - its because are not typically bigoted against specific individuals but some trait in general
Created: