Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Except nothing about that is personal opinion, it is literally true that something that is "supernatural" happens outside of the realm of natural-ity, and you have not at all, nor do I believe anyone, to have suffciently demonstrated another realm to exist. Until this realm has been proven to exist, nothing supernatural could happen. Therefore, literally, any solution that isn't a 0 on the plausibility chain is more likely than the occult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Literally all I ask is that you actually engage in my arguments instead of saying, "I don't see what you mean" and "Explain more", that doesn't seem like that much effort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I am a little tired of your continued questioning, I already explained myself: I do not think any supernatural thing is possible, at all, it literally defies reality. Until someone can demonstrate that their is more than reality, this remains true. Therefore any alternative solution is more likely than the supernatural. Not only that, I explained, again, why they are probable in each step, its like you didn't even read the entire thing. If you won't actually engage with my answers, I see no reason to spend further time actually giving you answers, as you ignore half of them anyway, and you don't have any actual valid criticisms of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Again, I am not trying to debunk Occult as a whole, as I think they are categorically false, and I have no need to do that. Second, you have basically just hand waved off the explanation, the point of it is - even if the occult was real, that explanation would be the more plausible one, especially with no evidence in your favor. Again, your finger's could have easily been supporting the planchette (Note that you do not have to put your fingers underneath a coin to lift it, it is perfectly possible to grab onto the edges and lift it, with more people this is even easier), heck, your fingers could have been underneath it and you are:
A) Lying, you could just be making it up that your fingers weren't underneath it, you have no way to prove that you aren't lying (as you have motivation to lie) unless you show video evidence and something showing that you haven't doctored it. Not only that, but people lie about stuff like this all the time, its not like its hard to believe that someone would lie about this, especially with the low stakes you are under.
B) Not remembering the occurence correctly. This is another thing that happens fairly often, in fact, human minds are notoriously bad at keeping details straight, and this is another more than likely thing to have happened - in fact - you could be both lying and misremembering, or you could be doing one or the other. With misremembering, this is most likely what happened period, as, this happens to most memories in general.
C) You simply misconstrued where you're fingers were in the first place, you might think you were "barely touching it" when in reality you could have been supporting more than the entire weight of the planchette. I see no reason to dismiss this as a possibility, and in fact, happens again, very notoriously. Especially with things such as cards, coins, and yes, even planchettes. It happens so often that an entire style of "magic" tricks have been made using that fact (Card Tricks).
The fact is, your experience was not of the sort of Occult you said existed (which is a claim by the way, regardless of if you want other people to accept it, therefore you still must provide evidence for it). Secondly, you did not at all consider any of the literal study by experts regarding this entire topic of Ouija boards, which give me further credence. I see no reason to believe that you were not supporting the planchette in some regard, rather you mistakingly thought you had, remembered not supporting it, or are lying about the experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I never claimed that "ignorant peasants" wrote the bible, I do claim, that a lot of the bible is written by "Unnamed Authors", quote:
"in spite of these attributions, most scholars do not think any of these men were the original gospel writers. None of the gospels is written in a style that suggests the authors was present at the events being narrated. Nor is it likely that the disciples of Jesus were able to write in Greek, the language in which the gospels were written. So we are left with the reality that the gospels were written by anonymous Christians decades after the events that they relate"
Therefore, it is impossible to determine the actual literacy rate or education of the bible, to claim either they were educated or that they were uneducated, would require further evidence.
Furthermore, as someone who holds the whole, "Supernatural occurrences are impossible because they happen outside of the natural, and the natural is all their is from the evidence we have" No, I do not think they happen. I think it is far more likely that one of the literal millions of explanations cover what people misconstrue as "The occult" and I have failed to see any comprehensive test to demonstrate the supernatural, despite some practices (such as the Ouija Board) being highly testable. Not only that, but even the "evidence" which we do have, is the lowest form of evidence, with contradicting accounts that with sources that often time double back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
THE EVENT ITSELF
I dabbled with a Ouija board. I thought that we had contacted a woman who died at the age of 30 in Spain. The object that moved around the board spelling out names and ages actually lifted off of the board at one moment, which is impossible since our fingers were barely touching the object. While I believe this to have been (for lack of a better term) spiritual experience, I know it wasn't a deceased woman from Spain that moved that object around on the board. I believe it came from the same origin as human contacts with the alleged deceased, ETs, and any other entity that appears to contact humans mentally, or telepathically.
To clarify all objects involved:
I- RoderickSpode; A member of the online debating website "DebateArt.com"
Ouija Board - "a board printed with letters, numbers, and other signs, to which a planchette or movable indicator points, supposedly in answer to questions from people at a seance"
Contacted Spirit - a woman who died at the age of 30 in Spain
Some background on the Oujia Board, and what scientists believe the effect to come from:
The participants were equipped with eye tracking devices so that the researchers could study their — largely unconscious — predictive eye movements. That is, the researchers wanted to see if the participants first glanced at the letters they would later move the planchette to.As the scientists explain, a person’s sense of agency, or the feeling that one has control over their actions, arises primarily from the brain’s ability to predict “the sensory consequences of an action, and then [compare] this prediction [with] the actual consequences. When prediction and consequence match, the result is the feeling that ‘I did that.'”Andersen and team examined the participants’ eye movements in two different conditions: the “voluntary action condition” and the “Ouija condition.”In the first condition, the participants — who worked in pairs — were asked to move the planchette deliberately to spell the word “Baltimore” or to point to “Yes” and “No,” respectively. In the Ouija condition, the participants were asked to use the board as they normally would.The researchers then analyzed the recordings of the participants’ eye movements. When analyzing the data, they examined both the individual eye movements and the eye movements on a “pair level.”Additionally, the researchers administered questionnaires to the participants that enquired about how strongly they believed in the “abilities” of the Ouija board, as well as their overall level of religiosity and spirituality.As expected, the data analysis revealed that participants made more predictive eye movements in the voluntary condition than they did in the regular one.Unsurprisingly, given the underlying mechanisms of the sense of agency, the participants reported feeling much less in control in the Ouija condition than they did in the voluntary one.However, when the researchers looked to see whether at least one participant in each pair made a predictive eye movement, they found some interesting results.“[W]hen we look at the pair level, we see that pairs in the ‘Ouija condition’ on average predict the letters of meaningful responses as well as isolated individuals do when purposely spelling responses in the ‘voluntary action condition.'”“In other words, a pair that moves the Ouija planchette in a predominantly non-deliberate way collectively predict letters as well as an individual seen in isolation that is moving the planchette on purpose.”So, when the Ouija board was used as usual, at least one participant knew where the planchette was going.“Our study suggests,” say its authors, “that successful Ouija board sessions critically depend on joint action.” The “spooky” or “paranormal” feeling that Ouija boards induce is due to the fact that participants take turns in predicting the next letter.In addition, they say, “it appears that participants in the ‘Ouija condition’ generally underestimate their own contribution to the joint interaction.”This is supported by previous research on force escalation that showed that “self-generated forces are generally perceived as weaker than external forces of the same magnitude,” explain Andersen and colleagues.Finally, in addition to the joint predictive effort and the underestimation of one’s movements, belief in the Ouija board’s abilities also added to the “spooky” feeling. Participants who said that they thought the board can facilitate communication with spirits were more likely to report that the planchette had moved on its own.
What can we take away from this? Well first of all, that people are more often than not controlling the planchette, even if they think they aren't: “it appears that participants in the ‘Ouija condition’ generally underestimate their own contribution to the joint interaction.” It also means that the likely hood of what RoderickSpode described is little to none, as RoderickSpode has not provided any evidence that the Occult is real in any regard we are forced to ask the question: Was RoderickSpode tricked by the board and basic psychology as many teenagers and adults are, or is the entire world of the Occult, unproven, reality?
There is, of course, an obvious answer to this question.
Before I provide it, I want to go more in depth into the pre-written defenses by the OG poster, most likely assuming that the one who would respond would have some sort of argument against Ouija boards in general, and indeed, I have, but let's see if RoderickSpode's defenses actually hold up to criticism. The OG post has only one defense, and that is, as follows:
The object that moved around the board spelling out names and ages actually lifted off of the board at one moment, which is impossible since our fingers were barely touching the object.
The human finger is actually capable of some incredible feats, even lifting 400 pounds with the middle finger [8], but also in times of intense emotion or even action, people can radically misjudge where their finger is located, it is entirely possible that you grabbed onto the piece more than before and were able to lift it. Planchettes are often light weight pieces of wood, weighing no more than a light gram-mage, perhaps at no more than 50 or so, maybe some special planchette's do, but we have no reason to believe that the sort of object used was heavy enough that a misjudged finger placement could not have lifted it.
There is no reason to accept any of the claims here, and it is more than possible that RoderickSpode is: A) Lying about the experience, B) Misremembering the experience, C) Attributing the Occult to something that is fairly common.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The Occult -
"Mystical, supernatural, or magical powers, practices, or phenomena" [2]
"the knowledge and study of supernatural or magical forces." [3]
Though not all of the definitions necessarily include your interpretation of the word "Occult" it can be fair to say that you do have a credited definition, as the Collins English Dictionary does support the definition in the OG post, however, it does bring into question the OG's post validity in terms of what the BoP (Burden of Proof) has to say about these sorts of things. For context, the OG post says, and I quote:
"To obtain proof of the bible, unless someone has a road to Damascus experience, one has to take certain steps to obtain proof for themself (as opposed to demanding it on-line in discussion forums).With the occult, there's no question one has to literally practice the art. Otherwise, there's just no grounds for demanding proof."
Let's look a little closer at what the burden of proof is, and see if this "practice" is excluded from it. Instead of just checking out the standard dictionaries, I will be consulting some more philosophically or argumentally inclined sources, as they are more topically educated or centered, and therefore take into consideration the actual things being addressed. I will also provide the traditional dictionary definitions for comparison.
Also, just for some clarification, I will not be using the legal perspective of what the burden of proof is, as the the takes on it from the legal and philosophic views are radically different. Where in the legal sense, one side of the case has some sort of huge advantage, such as in a criminal trial, the defendent is innocent until proven guilty, and while this might work whenever talking about individual actions (notice I said "might"), this does not work in the case of assertions.
The Burden of Proof - "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position." [4]
Some might fault me for using the wikipedia's definition, however, whenever one considers the sources listed and verified for this specific page, I find it justified:
- Cargile, James (January 1997). "On the burden of proof". Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. 72 (279): 59–83. doi:10.1017/s0031819100056655.
- ^ Marc Kaufman, First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth, Simon and Schuster, p. 124.
- ^ Leite, Adam (2005). "A localist solution to the regress of justification". Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 83 (3): 395–421 [p. 418]. doi:10.1080/00048400500191974. [t]he point of articulating reasons in defense of one's belief is to establish that one is justified in believing as one does.
- ^ Leite, Adam (2005). "A localist solution to the regress of justification". Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 83 (3): 395–421 [p. 403]. doi:10.1080/00048400500191974. justificatory conversation...[is]...characterized by a person's sincere attempt to vindicate his or her entitlement to a belief by providing adequate reasons in its defense and responding to objections.
- ^ Dennett, Daniel C. (July 1988). "Review of Psychosemantics by Jerry Fodor". The Journal of Philosophy. 85 (7): 384–389 (389). doi:10.2307/2026956. JSTOR 2026956.
- ^ Rodych, Victor (1996) [1986]. "Wittgenstein's inversion of Gödel's theorem". In Shanker, Stuart; Kilfoyle, David (eds.). Ludwig Wittgenstein: critical assessments. 2. The later Wittgenstein: from Philosophical investigations to On certainty. London; New York: Routledge. pp. 232–265 (261). ISBN 0415149150. OCLC 47938413. Thus, in 1991 Wang seems to understand why Wittgenstein rejects GIT, but, apparently favouring the "onus game" (or "burden tennis"), he unfortunately concludes (pp. 257–58) that "the burden of proof falls ... squarely on Wittgenstein's side" because of Wang's own 'principle of presumed innocence'.
- ^ Abelson, Robert P. (1995). "Credibility of argument". Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 170. ISBN 0805805273. OCLC 31011850. When research presentations advance claims that many or most readers deem incredible, these claims are vulnerable to severe challenge. In response, there will typically be a rebuttal by the investigator, and then a fresh round of criticism. The burden of proof shifts back and forth between the investigator and the critic in what might be called the game of 'burden tennis'.
- ^ "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam". Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic. Lander University. 2004. Archived from the original on 30 April 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-29.
- ^ Dowden, Bradley. "Appeal to ignorance". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Hales, Steven D. (Summer 2005). "Thinking tools: You can prove a negative"(PDF). Think. Cambridge University Press. 4 (10): 109–112. doi:10.1017/S1477175600001287.
This is only half of them, with some of the citations shortened to not take up as much room. I also think that this is the most commonly understood definition of the Burden of Proof, or that, whenever someone makes a claim, they have the burden to provide some sort of evidence to fulfill their assertion, otherwise any reasonable person is justified in not accepting the proposition. Here are the more standard definitions from the regular dictionaries:
"The obligation to prove one's assertion." [5]
"the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge" [7]
I think that based on the other definitions, and the list of philosophic journals that Wikipedia used to qualify their standard of the burden of proof, that the definition provided by Wikipedia is usable. Let's take another look at the "Occult" and compare it now to our definition of the Burden of Proof, and see if it is actually justifiable to say that the occult does not have to fulfill that burden.
BoP -The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position
Occult - The knowledge and study of supernatural or magical forces
Well then, even the definition of Occult is an assertion into itself, as many philosophic teacher or student can tell you, the actual definition of knowledge is very hard to pinpoint exactly, but for this discussion we can use the classic, "Justified true belief", therefore the definition of Occult is saying that it is possible or at least theoretically possible to have a justified true belief in the supernatural or magical forces; however, technically it could be referring to untrue supernatural magic or forces, so the Occult definition doesn't necessarily have any burden of proof.
However, to claim that one does have some sort of knowledge on the Occult, and that the magic or supernatural forces being discussed are real, that is an assertion, and therefore does require evidence to back it up. Saying that you have practiced Occult, and clarifying that the practice happened in actuality, is a claim, and therefore, in order to have any warrant, must have evidence. I'll provide something similar as an example, just so that everyone can wrap their head around the concept of the Burden of Proof. Let's take being the best chief on the planet.
Now, these aren't exactly analogous, but the concept remains the same: One can be a chief, and that requires relatively little evidence, just as someone can technically have "occult" knowledge just by reading Harry Potter. However the qualifier of "best" is what demands proper evidence and incites the BoP. The qualifier of "real" or in this case "practice" with the context that the practice occured, is what demands the burden of proof. Therefore, just because something must be "practiced" does not excuse it from demonstrating that that practice can actually occur, and isn't something else, that the practice is supernatural or magical forces.
Therefore, the entire thing of, "one has to take certain steps to obtain proof for themself" is false, unless they specifically claim that the Occult is false, the one that claims that they have practiced occult to real effect because of supernatural or magical forces, must also demonstrate that claim. Because it is a claim, adding in an extra caveat of it being, "practiced" has no effect on the actual burden of proof. Due to the parenthesized line right after it: "as opposed to demanding it on-line in discussion forums" I believe the order to be of a biased conclusion on the OG's poster's behalf. Therefore he does have the burden of providing evidence for what he claims to have occured.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Yes, the bible should be banned, and the US Constitution didn't say anything about Slavery until it was literally outlawed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you not read a single thing I said? White Privilege does not have to do with who did or did not own slaves, its a societal thing that happens due to implicit and explicit biases. None of what you're saying holds any consideration. White privilege was formed through: The Slavery of Black people - as this part in history had the opinion of black people be that they are less than human, property, beneath them, this is a big foundation for the treatment of black people, and of white people; The Jim Crow laws, which made sure to specifically deny rights from people because they were black, but on a deeper level, it reinforced the biases that began in the era of slavery, that black people were somehow less than white people; "Modern" Media, and not just in television but how black people were portrayed in every aspect of it, especially later 90s and early 2000s, established an even further bias against black people, even being the source of why many people think that black people are armed more than white people (untrue).
See, the biases that have built up are centuries old, and you wanna know what helps end white privilege, acknowledging that it's there; because denying its existence is what lets it spread further and further, all that little tirade did, was show that you really didn't understand the causes of white privilege.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
BEGINNING Fifth Paragraph Rebuttal
There may be a lack of a type of evidence you accept but not a lack of evidence because a first hand observation IS evidence.
The type of evidence presented are practically the same as claims without other forms of evidence, as I explained earlier. The type of evidence should matter whenever we are talking about the probability of the claim in question, and testimonial evidence is lacking in that regard.
Whether someone lied about an event does not make certain propositions untrue, it just means someone lied about what they personally claimed.
Whenever that is the only evidence of that thing? Then it is practically untrue, perhaps it is true, but I would have no logical reason to accept that as true. That would be you getting it right out of luck or chance, and that is not an acceptable level of evidence.
All kinds of things exist people have lied about that they personally witnessed. Again the fact you take one side so rigidly tells me a lot about your beliefs.
The fact I take one side shows that I am not being obtuse, it shows that these claims are either true or untrue, and unlike you I am not only relying on the notoriously unreliable evidence, as the only evidence that x or y is true.
END Fifth Paragraph Rebuttal
Lol sure, I wonder why that is?
Because as I have explained, supernatural occurrences are physically incapable of happening, therefore it comes down to an A or B option: The laws of the universe are true, and this person simply did not accurately deduce what their experience was, something that is ripe for happening to humans, or B - the laws of the universe are untrue, and this person accurately deduced what was happening. So... the greater probability is that you simply did not ascertain what wash happening. Construing it as something I simply assumed, is not logical, nor is it arguing in proper faith, something you have criticized me of.
END Sixth Paragraph Rebuttal
Because a person can not create a spiritual event, rather they must observe one. I can't conjure up a tornado obviously, they have to be witnessed and the fact I can't create one does nothing to the reality they exist. Keeping in mind this is just being used as an analogy.
Except we can witness and analyze the results of that tornado, we can record evidence that can be verified, we can still test and find out that they happen theoretically, none of the above can be applied to spiritual matters. There is more evidence to a tornado happening than just the actual tornado. One does not have to witness a murder to know that a murder occurred, there is other evidence. It is suspect to me, that no one was able to provide any verifiable evidence of spiritual matters.
END Seventh Paragraph Rebuttal
However you want to ascertain it is your choice, it does not change my observation of an event.
That doesn't actually respond to my point.... you have made a claim, you have not provided enough evidence (or proper evidence) enough to fulfil your claim, until you have provided this, you are making an assertion. Those are the facts of this case right here, again, this is comparable to someone saying: "I know I have no evidence that Bill ate the cake, but that doesn't change the fact that Bill ate the cake." Which isn't untrue, if it happened, but why should anyone accept that if there is no evidence that Bill ate the cake? Sure it's possible (not in the case of supernatual things, but in the case of the cake) but that is no where near enough evidence to conclude that it happened.
END Eighth Paragraph Rebuttal
You mean you biasedly categorize all testimonies as unreliable? I see that lol
Obviously you have taken this statement in bad faith, and close-mindedly (again - Ironic that you have claimed that I have been close minded this entire time) I meant that the action of specifically criticizing your evidence is not biased, I criticize all claims like this. Also, it is untrue that I biased claim this, they all are unreliable, even if something happens to be true, that does not change the fact that testimonies are categorically unreliable. You are making a joke out of a serious claim, without any evidence to back your side.
END Ninth Paragraph Rebuttal
It is defined as evidence is what my whole point was despite how you feel it needs to be labeled. The amount of evidence is what makes it compelling and something to be considered.
The evidence is uncompelling, and isn't evidence in the regard of being "evidence that points to something of truth", it is evidence, yes, but that means nothing. It doesn't prove anything, nor even make the claim considerable, as you seem to be insinuating. Your "whole point" was not only that it is evidence, that is part of your point, but that is definitely not your whole point.
END Tenth Paragraph Rebuttal
They certainly need to be considered obviously, why assume them true or false? each claim needs to be carefully handled intelligently, it neither makes them true nor false rather it lends itself as support of an assertion or proposition.
It does not support the assertion, it raises it from the "No one would even claim it true" to the "Someone claimed this happened" category, that is really only removing negative numbers, not necessarily adding any truth to the claims. Whenever there is no supporting evidence for these assertions that are in any regard true, then these are assertions, nothing more. Each testimony is a claim, that x happened in y way, that claim is an assertion. All testimony is, is a wide spread assertion of x or y, so without evidence regarding those assertions, they aren't true. Especially whenever, the claim itself is that aliens visited, the default position is that, "whenever there is no evidence of visitation no logical person would be convinced of visitation." Perhaps there might have been, but there is no reason for any person to believe that statement.
Do you have any idea how many documentaries there are for Bigfoot and alien encounters by normal people? Bigfoot testimonials and alien encounters are overshadowed by spiritual ones but that's really besides the point.
None of which provide any solid support of big foot or aliens? Yes, again, those do not really prove anything. It proves that people can mess around with shadows, lighting, and wrongly deduce what caused x or y, but it doesn't support their existence. You seem to think that the frequency at which something happens somehow increases the likelyhood of it being true, this is a combined appeal to ad populum and the gamblers fallacy. This is an error in your thinking, not proof of anything.
When a person makes an observation of an event, given they aren't a liar and they are somewhat intelligent their observation should count for something of consideration.
Whenever the claim is small, then yes, if there is other evidence of that, then yes. You would be correct, if there is no other evidence of a large claim, then no, that doesn't count for consideration.
END Eleventh Paragraph Rebuttal
Keeping in mind alien encounters could be several possibilities if we understand how that term is used. These could be spiritual observations but the one observing it may not know that, there could be creatures that exist in other parts of creation...why not?
Because spiritual encounters are literally impossible, as I have said, so many times. Again, all of your arguments go, "They could exist, why not?" And you fail to consider that the burden of proof lays on the one who made the assertion, not the other way around, but again, there are reasons.... as I already said, I swear if I have to say that again I will be a little frustrated.
I don't have limits that tie down my personal views of the world, so I'm always open to possibilities
Then you are being the definition of unreasonable. There is evidence that there are limits to what happens, therefore things that are claimed to have happened outside of those limits are not evidence that the limits are untrue, the limits are evidence that the claim is untrue. You make it sound like I'm arbitrarily assigning a limit here, when the reality is that you are arbitrarily removing limits, with no reason behind your action.
I'm not dumb either, I don't just accept things to accept them I am very careful about my approach.
You have provided no evidence that you are careful of your approach, and I never claimed you to be dumb. Wrong? Yes, but not dumb, there is a difference.
In spirituality cross referencing is a very useful and powerful tool. The important thing would be not to just decide observations are unreliable just because you're queasy about a particular idea.
Again, you have literally no evidence that I am quote "queasy" you are dismissing my entire argument out of a misunderstanding of my own position. There has been no evidence of either claim, you are pulling things out of your mouth at this point. Prove your assertion, or it holds no barring , thats how assertions work.
END Twelfth Paragraph Rebuttal
You can speculate all you want as long as you know you're speculating.
There is no speculation going on here, that is what happens in brains:
"Humans have a tendency to see patterns everywhere. That’s important when making decisions and judgments and acquiring knowledge; we tend to be uneasy with chaos and chance (Gilovich, 1991). Unfortunately, that same tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist."
This is a literal scientific fact, whether you like it has nothing to do with the actual point at hand.
END Thirteenth Paragraph Rebuttal
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry but you're being narrow minded here. It can be unreliable BUT.....notice the but....it CAN be reliable as well.
Correct, however whenever looking as testimonial evidence as a claim, as with all things, we should only accept something whenever that things reaches the level of evidence considered. Testimonial evidence can not be reliable or consistent, for it to be the sole evidence of a claim, is not enough to prove that something whenever that something is as massive of a claim as your is, which is that an entire other dimension exists.
It's not just one or the other which is why I said testimonials CAN be used to support the truth of an assertion. This is why they should be considered along with any proposition, however they should be considered intelligently not just accepted or rejected there is a middle ground here.
Again, incorrect, you would be correct if we accertaining, say: whether you had 30 dollars in your wallet. That is a relatively small claim, where we have lots of testable, concrete examples of that happening. Of course that can incorrect, but the level of the claim has enough external evidence or reasons why this could be true, where your word, or anecdotal/testimonial evidence would be enough. The claim you are making is not comparable, and the lack of any empirical evidence is telling.
To take one stance over another is not useful either. It's funny how atheists always take one side when it comes to spiritual or religious propositions and it's always the "unreliable" side lol. Any bias here??
Again, it is unreliable, the actual accuracy of a specific claim of testimonial does not matter whenever testing the reliability of the claim, just whether it is consistently true or false whenever navigating a large number of claims and anecdotal evidences. There is no bias here, this is you not understanding what reliability is.
END First paragraph rebuttal
Again, you decide to ignore the fact that it goes both ways why? testimonials are defined not only as evidence but also used in law as a useful tool in supporting the truth or falsity of claims.
The fact of courts is that:
"Research has found that eyewitness-identification testimony can be very unreliable. Law enforcement and the courts should follow the recommendations of social scientists when using and assessing eyewitness techniques, such as lineups, in criminal cases"
The reason why eye witness is used in some cases is because in a lot of cases - first of all - it is not the only evidence being used here. The eye-witness testimony is secondary evidence, supporting details, to the primary evidence, the main idea. When used in conjunction with more powerful or more convincing evidence, it isn't a bad source, as other pieces of information can correlate eye-witness testimony. The other reason is that eye-witness testimony is the only evidence that the court has to work on, and in that case, that is because of the situational crimes that can happen, and isn't at all applicable to "an entire other dimension".
Your point isn't one.
It should be the same with spiritual concepts, and not saying they should be accepted without a rigorous process of sifting information but they should be considered as evidence that correlates with the nature of what we are studying.
Without other, empirical, evidences of such a claim, the testimony can be ruled unreliable, or more accurately, misrepresented by the "experiencer" itself. As not only can people lie, but they can misconstrew things, they can make illogical deductions, they can think they are convinced whenever they are not, they can be tricked by a any number of things, etc, etc.. without any other evidence to support this, and evidence against it's existence, I see no convincing reason why we should accept this as "evidence" well, it is evidence, I mean compelling evidence.
If you want to be intellectually honest you can't just take one side over another. If someone hit your car while you were driving and someone witnessed the event, you would want that person to testify on your behalf correct? that testimony (observation of an event) would be useful in determining what actually took place.
Except for a couple things - this is not at all comparable to the situation with spirits and such, where that would literally be the claim of an entirely different sort of matter. You can actually prove that cars and people are things, and that people can be in car accidents, and that car accidents happen. None of the same things can be empirically proven of any supernatural claim. If, that was the only way that any evidence could be obtained, sure, but if there were other ways to accertain the truth, you would bet that I would rather only have my testimony and not involve other people that could have (and this is a large possibility) say I was the one who hit the other driver.
Why you decide when a testimonial is not useful could be just due to your own bias of a subject, not knowing that the same testimonial could be unbiased itself and could possibly support a conclusion that opposes your assumptions. That's why they ARE useful, to determine what could be possible outside of what you personally believe.
Except that doesn't matter, because just as much as that testimonial could be true, it could be untrue, and whenever the likelyhood that is untrue is greater, the level of convincing that that claim has is lowered. This is all built on a lot of assumptions, that the my claim is untrue, whenever there is a mountain of evidence that supports my own view, and.... only testimonials that supports your own. This is a standard that is literally built to substantiate untrue claims. If there is little possibility that the claim is true, counteracting evidence, and only testimonials to support that claim, you can bet that it is the one who makes the claim to prove that their claim is unbiased. The literal definition of claim is an disputed assertion, and someone who makes a claim has to provide evidence to support it, that is their literal burden. Testimonial evidence just means that more people are claiming something, but more people claiming something does not mean that thing is necessarily true. An appeal to populum wins you nothing but a fallacy.
END Second Paragraph Rebuttal
Yes it would, because you're also ignoring the other side of the coin. The reality that a testimonial COULD be unreliable changes nothing of the fact they can be reliable. See how that works? If you wish to sweep them under the rug because somewhere someone gave an unreliable account that's your decision of course. There's many factors to consider when looking into witness accounts but surely to reduce them to only untruths is somewhat absurd TBH.
This is not true, testimonials as a whole are unreliable whenever they are the only source of evidence. Again, the individual validity of these claims do not reflect on the whole, which is unreliability. Yes they can be true, but that's akin to saying: "I know the probability says that it is not very likely to happen, but it could happen." Sure, but that doesn't prove that it does, and the other person is reasonable in saying that it doesn't. This is fueled from a fundamental misunderstanding of not only how the burden of proof works, but also how evidence works, and how claims work.
End Third Paragraph Rebuttal
That's something we would have to discuss, and something I don't agree with. But I appreciate the opinion.
I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating a fact. Something that is supernatural or something that happens outside of the laws of physics, is not physically possible of existing. You would have to prove that some other realm exists, that that realm has some sort of ability to appear in the natural world, etc. This is how the world works, if you were to demonstrate another reality, it would not be, but you haven't done that.
And yes, I know how it is defined but I'm the one who gets to define my own observations and beliefs how I see them.
I could care less how you define it, according to the definitions of natural and supernatural, something happening supernaturally is literally impossible in the world of natural, if you were to prove that there was more than the natural, you would have some sort of grounding to stand on. This is akin to someone saying, "I know that homophobia is bigoted, but I define my own behavior and how I see it, and it isn't bigoted!" You can say that, but you would be factually incorrect.
Everything within creation happens within a matrix of laws though the dynamics of what may be possible may change, nothing happens that's impossible that is nonsensical.
"Though the dymanics of what may be possible may change." Prove that assertion, yes, our understanding of what is possible may change, and certain situations may change what we can possible do or not do, but the actual overall of that, you haven't proven that, nor have you proven that there is a situation that would make the supernatural possible in a natural world. So.. again, this means nothing, and is a claim into itself.
There's a distinction between what we normally perceive as physically possible within our known laws and that of spiritual encounters but it's only to make that distinction between what we normally perceive through the immediate physical senses.
You would have to A) Prove that spiritual encounters happen in actuality, and B) Prove that there is any distinction, you are claiming both, but you have proven neither, and again, given the entire impossibility situation, I would be inclined to not believe your claims. What other senses are their beside our physical ones? I know of no examples, do you have A) an example of that other sense, and B) proof that it exists?
However, everything that tales place within creation is possible because it must be by necessity. Only possible things can happen.
That actually proves my point, supernatural encounters are impossible, therefore they cannot happen. What a way to summarize my own response here. If you disagree, prove it.
END Fourth Paragraph Rebuttal
Created:
Posted in:
"You were wrong. Not only that, but even if you were to disprove this single example, there are other words that are combined to make new specific meanings. Not to mention, the literal definition of atheist, does not support your view. It doesn't matter how you cut it here, you're wrong."
And I concede that this specific example was not correct, I haven't seen that particular piece of research, considered me convinced in that regard. However, again, as I said in the excerpt above, there are more examples where the root word and additions don't mean the same thing as the new word:
"Every root word has a meaning and that meaning corresponds to the new word made from it. Be careful though, some root word combinations make less sense. Take the word “apology.” Its root word logos means "speech" or "reason," and the prefix apo means “away from.”
If you were to interpret the meaning of apology based on root words alone, you might think that it means "away from speech." That’s not a very good explanation for a word that is used to express regret or remorse. So understanding the meaning of the roots can help you in general, but it won't always provide you with a clear definition."
Not to mention, but once again, your own argument didn't exactly support your stance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What you dispute is the logical neccesity that if something is stolen from one group of people, then that lax-ness they would have gotten otherwise is given to other forms of people. There is no broad brush here, it is simple true inherently, saying, "All living things neccesarily have DNA" is not painting with a broad brush, its saying something that is neccesarily true of living creatures. This applies to white priviliage. You have never proven it doesn't exist. Your statics don't account for the fact that there are more white people than there are of any other race, so of course they have the most documented cases, readjusting for population, this isn't the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes... my evidence of that is the definition of homophobia, to which you claimed that anger at and fear are often intrinsically linked, to which I responded, sometimes in certain cases, prove that its the case in homophobia, and you went, "No... that's your burden" so... no, it is your turn to prove this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, making a case that because it happens "sometimes' that is factors into the equation is not logically coherent, it is true that systematically this happens. That is what makes white privilege a thing, again, I find your understanding of making valid points lacking. You have argued that sometimes people are deducted points because of x, y, or z, but it the frequency and wide spread inherent nature of say, b, that makes B a thing like white privilege and also.... again, you haven't rebutted 90% of my argument, just a single statement. Also also, sometimes is not an accurate representation- in the majority of the job market, having a lighter skin tone scores you more points inherently and having a darker one looses you ones inherently. You are being racist right now, by denying that white privilege exists, just a btw, you aren't right about this. Let's look at all of your rebuttals.
They are only ever in reference too one or two of my points made, usually not even my main point, perhaps one of my main points, but not the main point. On top of that, your rebuttals are often making some sort of assumption, not logically necessary, or you making a fundamental error in your logical process. The one you've made here is conflated each and every reason you might be discriminated against in the job market as the same. This is not true, there is more sexism and racism in the job market, then say, ableism. The frequency and inherent layer of the discrimination also matters whenever we are discussing this, and as my article points out, this is the case with race and the entire job market. So.... I'm having a hard time accepting any of your points as cogent, whenever they have this many flaws with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What? That is your burden to prove, that homophobia is like this a majority of the time. You have proven that anger can be linked to fear, not that is necessarily, where is your proof that is in the case of homophobia, because you have not done that suffciently. Not to mention, again, no mention of anything else, nor an actual rebuttal. Just an assertion and a non-sequitur, well technically the assertion is a non-sequitur, but that's not really all that important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I overall agree that we shouldn't take put that much money into the oil industry, but taking it away all at once is a disaster waiting to happen, a smarter plan would be transitioning the workers and budget across fields, that way the economy is fulfilled, people don't lose their jobs and become poorer, and we can actually use that money effectively, while stopping a source of misinformation.
Not only that, but that isn't the point. People often claim that "limiting free speech" is a slippery slope, and they are being obtuse. You're free speech is limited. Oh? You didn't know? You aren't allowed to make terroristic threats in public, and saying you will attack this or that person can also have legal charges levied against you. Whenever you are arguing in favor of human property, you will be censored. That's a hard line.
Dismissing a claim because of a bias against specific topics is not a cogent argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is able to be more than one discriminatory practice, asserting that there is a class divide does not necessarily mean that there is not a racial one. You are discarding other forms of discrimination simply because of classism, whenever there is very blatantly logically inaccurate. For example: While it is true that rich people in court are able to more easily escape charges than poor people, the same could be said of white people versus black people. There are multiple layers of discrimination and favor in this society, and saying otherwise really highlights either a willing ignorance, or a fundamental logical process. You simply saying: "Yeah well you're wrong" doesn't actually prove that I am, also, just a side point: Whenever everyone besides you gets deductive points, you are privileged for not getting deductive points. So... you're wrong there too, but people actually do have a favor of white people.... White privilege.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, a reason, not the reason. Not to mention that is not the only reason we could hate something. For example: I hate it whenever someone enters an idea into the stream of thought, only to say no one should criticize it, that doesn't necessarily mean that I fear that happening. Yes, that could be a reason, but you have not shown any evidence that this is what is happening in masse towards homophobia. You haven't proven anything accept that, "In some cases this may or may not be the case, as we get by speculation." Which isn't really evidence. But this is all not the point, whenever I first made this example, you called it a red herring, obviously this is not the case, and you never conceded that point. You were wrong. Not only that, but even if you were to disprove this single example, there are other words that are combined to make new specific meanings. Not to mention, the literal definition of atheist, does not support your view. It doesn't matter how you cut it here, you're wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is an assumption, maybe some people are afraid of gay people, but that does not necessarily mean the same that they are homophobic, you are committing a non-sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I never said that the exclusion of biases was the reasoning for white privilege, simply that they were the reasons in the first place. There is a bias against people who aren't white, and a bias for white people in the system of government. They have what is the opposite of racism. People assume that white people commit less crime than they do, people assume that they are less likely to be armed (blatantly false), they assume that they are more likely educated, they are more likely accepted into education and even jobs without the right credentials, and I could go on and on. Quoting a minority of white people or something like it does not at all mean that the majority are not privileged, or that compared to other ethnicities in the same struggles, that they are not more privileged then they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Black people were systematically made poor, they are not all poor, all white people are defacto privlleged due to the implicit and explicit biases of society, these points are not at all equivalent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ehh.... superficially they "agree", but any deeper inspection would reveal radically different A) reasonings for those opinions, and B) end goals for which to trust. Just because both the Greeks and the Native Americans both believed in polytheistic pantheon, that does not mean they "agree".
Created:
Posted in:
This is a Tweet from PragerU, December 21st 2020.
Inside is an compilation of alleged facts that are presented in a sort of argument for not removing the statues of Robert E. Lee. One of the things presented were as follows:
"Lee led U.S Marines to crush the attempted slave rebellion by radical abolitionist John Brown in October 1859."
This was framed as a reason why we shouldn't take down the statue by the way. They try to justify the argument a little later on after trying to give some background on the issue itself, the defense is.. well:
"considered it a 'a greater evil to the white man than to the black race' since 'blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa.'"
This is a Nazi tier argument... and is very much a pro-slavery position on PragerU's part. This channel is legitimately harmful, Free Speech is one thing, but this kind of rhetoric? It is what slave owners use to employ to A) Make themselves feel better, but also B) Justify it to other people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
It's supposed to be a oxymoron, not a very good one, but unfortunately my calling card, "DarkestLight" wasn't something that came to mind then, if I were to rename my account it would be Darkestlight
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Even taken in it's least assumptious state:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
There is no deductive reason to believe that that cause is an agent, as an agent is something which either exists or it doesn't exist, if there is no evidence to provide demonstration it is there, there is no reasonable reason to believe it is. In other words, all agency must be demonstrated as such, else there is no reason to believe that they exist. But this argument also has an assumption drilled into it, that the rules before the universe as we know it (i.e, pre-big bang and all) operates on the same rules as it does now.
This is an assumption.
From there you would have to demonstrate that something could never come from nothing, and we have no reason to believe that is true in the pre-big bang era. Those are some of my basic problems with the KCA, but i have even more problems with it's form that is often cited much more often in the realm of trying to prove god. Which has god as a necessary part of it for some arbitrary reason or another. None of these reasons are given deductive conclusions, they are just inserted so that the god that the argument supposedly proves fits their own.
As for a debate? Sure. I'd be open to having one, I don't think you would get very far with it, but that's just my opinion.
Created:
-->
@crossed
This nurse was allergic to the vaccine.... people are always allergic to the vaccine, in fact I'm fairly certain that that nurse was disappointed because they couldn't have the second dose. Because she knew that it wasn't the problem of the vaccine, but her being allergic to it. Also, as people have already discussed, Natural News is not a reliable source for anything.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Oh my! Is that a conservative putting people in boxes? I am sooooo surprised...
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Yes.... ignoring all context and cherry picking statements...... you are truly the most brilliant thinker to ever exist....
Created:
-->
@ethang5
That doesn't address my point, and speaking from it psychologically it is true that sometimes people who are "brain washed" are not aware; however, it is not only more often true, but it informs a more effective way of brain washing for the person to be aware that they used to think differently and their mentality was "corrected", thus making them become more defensive whenever approached with what they used to believe or when casting doubt on their current beliefs. It is all about deconstructing the person's reliance on their own thinking, that they are flawed fundamentally or ultimately their own thoughts are incorrect, and letting some higher authority make the decisions for them. This is how the military operates, and it is a necessary part of the conditioning of soldiers. So brain washing can be done for some "good", not that I am personally in favor of it, but I recognize the realistic need.
What you are probably more accurately referencing is a dynamic change in perspective, from "Abraham Lincoln is a great president" to "Abraham Lincoln is an evil slave owner." Regardless of the view you see of him, either is likely to be biased to favor one side, personally I see the man as a mixed bag. I'm not quite confident on whether he owned slaves or not, but due to how the white house and the presidency was often synonymous with slave use, it most likely true that he did own slaves. It is also true that Abraham Lincoln did not initially want to remove slavery from their bondage due to it being, quite, "unconstitutional to do so". I find such an excuse disgusting at best. On the other hand, he is the president that led the most dynamic change for captive slaves in the history of the United States, and freed millions of slaves. So while his overall actions were good, his intentions are not nearly as bold as people assume them to be.
He is a hypocritical and fundamentally flawed person, but who overall did some brilliant things, as I said - a mixed bag
Created:
-->
@ethang5
As someone who goes to public high school, none of the things you said they teach are things they actually teach. In fact, they teach a lot of what you think they should teach! My history class put heavy emphasis on Pearl Harbor, and nearly none on the bombs, treating them as an obvious good, that creationism is a scientific theory (its not), etc, etc.. Though perhaps my school is unique in the US Education system, I also don't see any evidence pointing towards your claims either. While it is true that a lot of universities lean left, it is not true that this correlates with a bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. Or can be used to make a comparison "or" show the dichotomy of something. However, or, can also be used to show the addition of something similar to and in certain functions, even if I were to agree that this definition is making a comparison, it would be pressumptious of you to declare the things being compared: deistic and theistic, therefore, even if I were to accept that, you still wouldn't be correct in asserting as you have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Except, did you notice the difference? It did not say, "Or *insert adjective here* gods" it said, "or any gods" Key part being the "s" at the end, I would argue that is in reference to the plural account of gods not making a distinction between theistic and deistic gods, otherwise there would be a clear modifer before the word gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But you understand that no where in the dictionary definition does it preclude deistic gods from the definitions? Because you haven't rebutted that. If you are trying to get at something, I believe in NO gods, deistic or theistic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hence
"a-theist"
means something different from
"atheist"
If you were to simply apply the prefix "a" to the word "theist" you would get "not a theist" but atheist is not just that, as is evidence by the definition of the word, it is something completely new. Meant to describe someone who lacks a belief in god(s) or actively disbelieves these notions. You inserted the word theistic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no "colloquial" I'm speaking of, I am using the definition of atheist. You are actually using the colloquial interpretation, as I mentioned with my example of homophobe (which is using the structure of one word to relate to another word, which is the key in analyzing your approach to what atheist means, hence, not at all a red herring and is very relevant to the conversation at hand) just because base words and suffixes can combine to mean something, that does not mean the new word follows suit, this is one of the most commonly criticized parts of the english language actually (that and how context can make certain grammatically incorrect sentences actually correct over the proper sort). So, looking at the definition you have provided, what part of this excludes deistic gods from the definition? I see nothing of the sort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Mm, special pleading and moving the goal post are slightly different in what they are referring to, (note: there was no previously agreed upon goal, you have something you interpret as that goal, as do I, clearly we see them as different), but yeah, no problem. I have made my position clearer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, and from context, it is very apparent that I am talking about Atheists in general, not to mention, NONE of your evidence points to what you are trying to prove, and you ignored that part. That is you assuming something. Quick nitpick also, Moving the goalpost is an informal fallacy, not a logical fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You cut out another part of my sentence, you have no proof that this was what people are referring to in a BROAD stroke, the number of times you have cut off context from an argument in order to make your rebuttal seem more solid, makes it, at least to me, seem very likely to be intentional. I suppose it could be seen as insulting, but to me it just clears the air. "This is what is happening" not to mention, a fraction? Unlike you I address your entire point. Either way, your "proof" proves my point! It does not prove yours, not only does that not exclude theistic gods, but there is literally part of it that says, "In a wide sense" therefore speaking of most often. The part you misconstrew not only doesn't prove your point, but it is only applied narrowly!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
In other words, you have no evidence that anything you're saying is accurate and that I should just blindly follow what some random dude says on the internet? Suuuure, how about I look at the other people who actually provided evidence to back their claims up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Nah nah nah, that's not how a claim works, if you are to assert a position then you have the necessary burden to provide evidence otherwise we can dismiss the notion. That's how the burden of proof works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you not notice the wording, instead, I did attack your argument. Thus, this can't be applied to my argument in general, as you are incorrect here: It is an ad hominem is used against a person making an argument, insulting them instead of addressing the argument, I neither ignored your argument nor insulted you. I was pointing out that you were being dishonest by ignoring the actual reasoning behind a claim, then ad hoc claiming it to be a fallacy, whenever it is no such thing. Not to mention I am talking on the BROAD sphere of atheists, using the actual definition, and no where does the definition limit the "goddage" to only theistic, you are assuming so because you are correlating the definition and the base word arbitarily. You have no actual proof that this is what people are referring to in a broad stroke.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
We should distinguish public high school history from public college history. High school curriculum are more subject to the concerns of elected school boards and parents with a wide range of political agendas. Colleges are also public schools to an important extent but are more likely to teach multiple perspectives and then require a critical analysis as output.
Fair enough, then consider this question: How accurate is the history taught in high school? High School is an important part, or at least it supposed to be, of a person's formative learning. It's supposed to build the fundamentals for more specialized fields by giving a broad education on the general subjects of the world. It is also true that a good amount of people do not go into college or much more history than they get in high school. Not to mention introductory courses are much more likely to have biased teachings, which is what the majority of students would get.
I would guess that inaccuracy in US public school educations stems more from sins of omission than sins of self delusion particularly given a national culture that despises nuance- politically charged issues are generally glossed over or simply omitted.
(Note: I pretty much agree with what was said above this quote, so I didn't address it)
While it is true that a lot of history that is misrepresented in US history books is by omission there are also times where it blatantly lies, there is a line between leaving something out, and suggesting something that isn't to be is, if that makes any sense. To explain myself - yes, effectively what the history lessons did was omit this survey and the views of several military officials as well as the historic fact that the Japanese were likely to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, suggesting that they were the only way to end the war is a lie. If they were to leave it at, "the bombs were dropped after Truman's order" then it could be considered a lie of omission, but most programs deliberately point to the bombs being the only way to minimize casualties and put an end to the war. That sort of effect is why I think you are mistaken.
To make any really fair comparison between countries, you'd have to compare teachings stripped of any national political interest- a nearly inconceivable task.
I should make myself more clear, I don't particularly care about a comparison between America and some other country, I care about what America is spouting at it's students versus the Truth, or, at least as close to the truth as we can get. I more than recognize that sometimes in history the precise or even general truth is hard to come to, but I do think that it is very apparent that the US system can do much better than it can. I don't think this is really relevant, there doesn't need to be a comparison between countries to evaluate the accuracy of the history taught.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Of course there isn't an endless amount of money, but if you want anyone to care about your position, then provide sources to back it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay? I never that they can't, I was saying in general, being an atheist meant that you didn't believe in any gods, you're actually incorrect too. I'm not saying your argument is wrong because your dishonest, I'm just pointing out that your dishonest, it is only an ad hominem if I declare your argument invalid because of your dishonesty. Besides, I could just say your argumentation is dishonest in general, then it can't even be a ad hominem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wrong, I got rid of your middle term and pointed out that it could mean either of these things, you discounted them entirely, that is you being dishonest. Again, you seem to miss the point, this is not going off-topic, I am talking about the definition of Atheist, and I am using the definition of homophobe to relate to it, you apparently do not know what off-topic or red herring means, because this is an analogy used to make you see reason. Just because the word "theist" is in Atheist, that does not discount the god referred to as theistic, just as in the word homophobic, the phobic does not mean they are scared of gay people, you are simply wrong here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No! I was making an analogy, it is the SAME thing, just because one word with words inside of it had one meaning, that doesn't mean the new word retains that same meaning. Explain exactly how that's a red herring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you ignore one of the words in your own definition. Let's take another look at it shall we:
Atheism can be narrow or wide in scope; that is, a person can be a narrow atheist about the existence of a particular divine being, such as Zeus. Or a person can lack belief in the existence of any supernatural beings
ATHEISM CAN BE NARROW OR WIDE IN SCOPE and LACK BELIEF IN ANY SUPERNATURAL BEINGS
I was speaking of atheism on a whole, therefore regarding to the "wide" definition, you are for whatever reasoning confining it to a narrow atheist, also.... a particular divine being? How does that discount deistic gods? It doesn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you ignore my point with the word homophobe? As usual, ignoring arguments are you? This is why I refused to answer in the other thread, because you always refuse to engage with more than some specific thing, ignoring the arguments before that, not to mention, your other resource literally agrees with me (Also Lexico is an Oxford dictionary.... smh)
Created: