Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Never claimed they were, I'm saying that they are English translations of other measurements, if the periods of time at the beginning of the bible weren't talking about days, then they wouldn't have said days, to conclude otherwise is to make unnecessary assumptions. It is not, however, an assumption to say that a day is a day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Also incorrect, as I mentioned before, other measurements were kept in English translated units, therefore if the units of time were not days as we understand them, they wouldn't be called days, please address the rest of the actual argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Wrong answer, actually debunk these starter citations or your entire point is mute, you have no logical reasoning for supporting your claim. Debunk these claims or no dice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
But if you're referring to humans, then yeah, what PressF4Respect said
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Flawed - "Having or characterized by a fundamental weakness or imperfection."
This means that the being described, god, has a or is characterized by a fundamental weakness or imperfection - which directly contradicts the idea that god is perfect, I imagine that's the perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Busy, my Dual Credit classes are being painful, any advice for water potential in biology? High School as I've talked about, and some sort of combination between a philosopher and psychologist.
Created:
Posted in:
What are some things you want to chat about but never seem to be able to? Maybe its not something big enough to fit into one topic? That's all right, you can do that here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Explain - as in - debunk decades of years of peer-reviewed study, modern biology, all of the fossil records, etcetera, etcetera, here are some starting sources:
Created:
Posted in:
The reason why we know at least the writers of the bible thought that the earth and all of its inhabitants were created in days is that there are other measurements in the bible, there are different measurements for length, width, etcetera, etcetera, if it wasn't days, then the bible wouldn't have said days, otherwise you'd be assuming things unjustifiably.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
So I'm guessing this "Wylted" fellow has a history here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Uuuh, for the first one 10? Common denominators perhaps?
1, 2, 5, 20, 1, 4, 5, 20
So 10?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The problem here is what you're testing, abstract intelligence, which is the precise problem with IQ tests
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
That you have no idea what you're talking about.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
What no, they are primary sources, do you not understand how historicity works? Clearly not. There are no data collections that can be verified for that time period, and no way to verify what you are saying is accurate, your own source contradicts you with the point that child slaves were not fed well at all, the evidence points to you lying, I have provided sources, you have not demonstrated that you have investigated anything. Due to you literally repeating yourself, I think I follow Ragnar, you think your right, great, have fun with that. If you want to actually debate, make a debate and talk about getting your own judges that you choose, sense you don't seem to trust anyone on this website. Have fun with all of that.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
The point you haven't addressed is that primary sources are the ONLY reliable way to prove x correct or incorrect whenever it comes to these things, the evidence we do have does not support your claims, the "sources" you have, again do not support your claims, the best they do is contradict you, these are primary sources or linking to primary sources which holds the actual preponderance of the evidence, I have fulfilled my burden by providing sources to prove my assertion, now it is your turn to actually investigate something.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Except whenever we are talking of an agent, that requires evidence otherwise the logical conditional is not sound, which is as much of a test as a proposition's validity. If the presumes are not demonstrate as true, it is not true.
Whenever we are talking of definitions, before this abstract definition of god (which my preferred definition is at the very least a very powerful agent,) definitions require justification whenever there is already a word in the same language that describes it. God and universe are two separate concepts and the attempt to conflate them is at a base level dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, still not, especially if you ascribe a mind to it, an agency must be demonstrated to exist. If one is to "misinterpret" the definition of such a god without a mind, it is the same as a the universe and to rename it would be fallacious without justification, if one says that Spinoza's god has a mind then that requires demonstration. Either way it doesn't work. Spinoza's god isn't one, at least not how god is defined, and if you were to warp it how you want, then it would especially not be true.
My point is that this mind hasn't been demonstrated to exist, there is no evidence that supports that claim, and if we just have spinoza's god be the universe, then we already have a name for that, the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The distinction is that science is practically objective, it's one of if not the most objective pathways to determining truth, it isn't a set of facts per se, its a pathway to gathering them. And no it isn't objective in that regard, but in others, it is, such as, "true without minds" etcetera, my point is it is either objective or practically objective depending on how you define objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The definition of PRINCIPLES requires a set of rules based on TRUTH.
No, it doesn't. One of the definitions of principle does define it as you say, but the one that applies to morality? No, you're cherry-picking your definition here.
Principle - "Morally correct behavior and attitudes."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, that's not my point, of course, something doesn't have to be a mind for it to have "created" the universe. However, these adjectives imply a mind, again, no, even if I were to buy this literal technicality, that doesn't excuse having all power, or being everywhere at once, this concept is literally everywhere, that implies a mind an agent, as what you are mistaking as being everywhere and is everywhere. That's the mistake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It doesn't it requires justification. If someone is implying that a mind exists which created the universe that is an assertion and requires evidence to assert. All-knowing? Now the definition of knowledge is a long and arduous conversation that still isn't philosophically very stable, but we know at a bare minimum that this thing has to be able to store knowledge, therefore it is at least a supercomputer which can process all knowledge, however using Occam's Razor, that is another assumption, and therefore should be less preferred than the mind sort. Either way it isn't justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Incorrect
Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Creator
All of these imply a mind, an agent, especially the creator bit. So no, it is not applicable, as a mind is not demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Spinoza's god doesn't apply. Ever. Its a philosophically dry point that seeks to relabel something that doesn't need a relabel and is dishonest at the very best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
It is both circular reasoning and a non sequitur, you can be wrong in multiple ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
I never changed my mind, I have consistently thought you non-sensical and nothing about pointing out your logical fallacy was contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Exactly, amoral, as in not something that is either moral or immoral, you literally just agreed with me and then mocked the belief. Its controversial because of patriarchy, that should be pretty obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yeah, honestly I just couldn't. I tried, I really did, I can't help but wanna jump in the debate myself, ya know? If I'm voting for a debate by itself that's all good, the debate already ended, but this... Honestly, I knew no one would bring up my position. That the fetus is both alive and that abortion is amoral.
Created:
Posted in:
First of all, I never used rape as sole proof of anything, that was never my position. Second, you have no evidence that what they were trying to do was to abandon the argument, as they clearly readdressed it in their next post, thirdly, it definitely doesn't apply to me.
Also, the difference in all of those cases that make your arguments nothing more than false equivalences is the fact that one is biologically within the body the other isn't, they are different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
At this point I don't think you understand how to comprehend basic sentences, and that isn't a slight at you, what you just said is nonsensical, its wrong, a non-sequitur, what you said in the beginning, "A true god is true is equal to truth" is the same thing as saying, "God is true because god is true" we are saying it in different ways but they mean the same thing,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
How about this - I want you to define red herring and explain how it applies to rape in this instance.
Created:
Posted in:
The mother freely elects to “serve as life support” when having the child, that is the inherent responsibility of motherhood”
This is wrong for so many reasons. First of all, one could argue that one has the inherent responsibility of donating blood to another person. The argument doesn't depend on that, second of all: NO. Rape, women can easily and are easily coerced into having children, the woman can be irresponsible - in which case it could very easily be argued that they were not aware of this responsibility and would have denied it had they known (hence the case with teenage pregnancies), there are so many different reasons why this is just flat out wrong.
“Second, even if the voter buys that by existing the baby has somehow done wrong, consider that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. Violating someone’s right to life is black & white.
This is incorrect, hence all of the debate over the death penalty. Obviously, if different actions can have one receive more or less harm, and death be a result of harm enough, then it isn't black and white. Yes, someone is either alive or dead, but the actual "violation" is not.
Life is the prerequisite to all other natural rights, so the punishment is proportional even if it is death.
Hm.. this is framing the problem incorrectly. Obviously, you have to be alive to have any rights, that's a fact, however, lets consider the following: If we treated this as the basis for all rulings then that means any case in which a "right of life" is violated there is no justification, as it is necessary for any other rights to exist. If someone kills a violent mugger in self-defense, well that person wouldn't even have the right to defend themself if it wasn't for the fact that they were alive, that's immoral. Do you see the ab absurdum baked in?
For instance, those sentenced to death have taken the lives of many people (i.e. in exchange for taking the lives of others, the perpetrator forfeits their right to life in response).
Does that mean if someone acts in self-defence they've forfeited they're right to life? No, obviously not, there are clearly circumstances where it is warranted to take life away.
On the other hand, it is universally agreed to be an unjust practice to execute over minor grievances.
Minor grievances? First of all, this assumes that the case of someone's bodily anatomy on the literal deepest level is minor in any regard, which it isn't. Second of all, it wouldn't matter if it was universally agreed upon, it still wouldn't necessarily be true. Now I agree with it, but you can see MisterChris's fallacious thinking whenever it comes to moral arguments.
My liberty and pursuit of happiness are impeded in small ways daily (such as the fact that I must follow traffic laws when I drive, or the fact that I am not allowed to bring my orange juice into the movie theatre).
So.. you're saying that a DRIVING VIOLATION is equivalent to PREGNANCY? That's your argument here? They clearly are not equivalent, for as they said. this is a small impedement, whereas pregnancy is a constant for at least 9 months, 24/7. This is a false equivalence.
These small inconveniences do not warrant me lining up everyone who has wronged me and shooting them in the back of the head, especially since many small sacrifices I make in liberty I make for the greater good (imagine how many lives people would take if they didn’t follow traffic laws).
Again, this is obviously a false equivalence on MisterChris's part.
The woman sacrifices the right to kill her baby for the greater good of having a child… and finally the minor inconvenience a baby brings is not warranting death.”
This is not at all what's happening, as abortion does not mean, to kill a baby, abortion means to terminate a pregnancy. Which could result in death of the fetus, or a cee section.
PART 2 to come
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Look, I get you don't understand history, let me explain something: We don't have accurate or unbiased data collection fo 1600 to 1800s, so we use our only evidence we have, documents. These are all primary or secondary sources, which are the best sorts, and if two independent sources collaborate each other, that typically means that they are true. Especially if the sources of these sources agree with each other. Thats how history works
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Because abortion isn't necessarily ending a life. Its terminating a pregnancy, and there are different ways to do that, but beyond that, let's take a hypothetical into consideration.
There's a child, your child, that's dying. They need a blood donor to live, you are a match. But you are not forced to donate your blood. You have the right to refuse. The same goes for abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As in, wanting to have sex with other dudes? I don't think half have that, but I could be wrong. There isn't a definitive way to measure that except to ask people, and that wouldn't be conclusive. So I wouldn't really make an assertion either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No, I quoted it from someone else, I agreed with the studies and the conclusions, some of his reasoning is a little suspect but not ultimately important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Ever heard of circular reasoning? X is true because x is true. That's what you're doing here, its fallacious and wrong
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
That also doesn't matter, whether the fetus is alive or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
No, you actually haven't proven anything. All of your reasoning is circular, non-sequiturs, or simply begging the question.
Created:
I can't remember the specific name of the IQ test, but I didn't just take a random one online, I had to get a whole bunch of mental screening done and they had me take a whole bunch of different IQ tests, they wanted to see if I was mentally functioning in certain regards due to past underdevelopment, specifically my frontal lobe not fully developing for a while.
Not to mention, its semantic because you cherry-pick a single point from the source and ignore the rest of it.
And the bad because it's bad is is saying, "IQ testing is flawed because it doesn't accurately measure intelligence" in the laziest way possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Prove that, on balance, theists are smarter than atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Right? I feel like that's a pretty universal position, maybe some white supremacists and the like don't hold it, but most people do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
I think you did well, I just didn't buy the arguments, so I don't think Im a favorite to win or anything.
Created: