Total posts: 3,457
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Prove it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I tried to sit down once, I almost immediately fainted, so... yeah. I suppose that that could work, I think its just my headspace, to be honest, I've just never gotten sitting down to work. Though juice is essential to be sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I -what-why...... I have to admit, I admire the fact that you knew all of that and enough to succinctly list all of their characterizations. I did read them all, I don't know who would be the best, but the first one probably relates to me the most, and that is the most I will ever explore that topic.
Thanks
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Well I mostly ask the question because people claim that god is where they get their moral authority
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Yes, I am very aware of when I'm about to faint. As for the first time, that would be when I collapsed into a grocery store front desk, specifically into those little candy sections directly in front and below the cash register, and I woke up 5 minutes later with my step-dad shoving a chocolate bar in my mouth.
It was strange to say the least.
Now as long as I eat healthily and keep my blood sugar levels stable I'm all good. Though its mostly just making sure it doesn't get too low. As for what to do, if I'm already aware that I'm going to faint, then what I do to prevent it is:
Gain stable ground, essentially try to establish my sense of balance
Close my eyes (Its more a mental thing)
Focus on one thing in particular, a thought, a feeling, a smell, a noise, etc
Calm my breathes
Give out a warning that I might pass out.
Once I'm less unstable, I'll slowly make my way to some juice or something
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Huh... I'll give you one thing, it does something to swap roles there, and I can definitely get behind that. I also appreciated some of the imagery and apt detailing. Maybe some more symbolization would be nice? Though the hairpin part was a pretty good example of that. The overall flow of the poem could have been better, but overall I enjoyed it.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Hm, I guess they wouldn't most times would they. Fair enough.
Again, this thread was supposed to be on moral authority, not necessarily that god even commanded people to kill gay people. But you know, side tracks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Huh, that's interesting, I'm hypoglycemic and use to faint a lot, so I was never allowed to have my blood drawn, so I never knew much on the subject. I don't even know what blood type I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What point are you even referring to by now? Because so far none of them have, you haven't rebutted in a particularly compelling, evidence-driven, or valid way. So which point are you talking about, lets actually see you defend it with proper argumentation.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well, you asked:
is this fraud or what?
I'm saying, as this conversation is proving, that it's clearly not voter fraud, so the answer to your question must be what.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Christians don't believe in "gay".
Okay, color me confused, what do you mean?
Do you mean they think you can't be gay?
That's not true.
Does it mean they don't care as you say later?
Obviously not, they do care, though often negatively.
The bible goes out of its way to say: These dudes are abominations
I really don't understand your point.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What
Created:
Posted in:
Come on, this is your chance, school me or whatever
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then ignore that - either god is the universe (I simply added in observable as a side thing that really shouldn't matter but I do anyways because I could), or x. As for the soul and psyche being analogous. I don't know what to tell you but that that is a literal claim, you have made an assertion, that a soul exists, and therefore must demonstrate it. You seem to be trying to stick to an old version of a definition of a word in order to get out of justifying it. But if your only justification for a claim is it's definition and not any kind of syllogism or anything of the like, then you're gonna need more evidence before we should reasonable be convinced.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Uuuh okay, does that mean because a word is one thing it can't also be another? I feel like whether a word is beautiful or not is up to the person, so couldn't all of those things be wrong?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Um... I wasn't trying to ask for an apology, I would appreciate it more if you just - engaged - you know - and proved it beyond a definition. Because if you're really not willing to budge on that part, then fine that's the definition of god, I don't really care that much. But then you have two options - A - God is just the observable universe so we really wouldn't consider that needing a name, or B - there are more dimensions than what are observable such a spirit realm or whatever, and you would have to prove that.
For what its worth, it's okay? Again, I feel like just not being so arrogant about your position is all I could really ask for, and only because you try to I'm being arrogant. Which.. I r really haven't been, and I know how to be arrogant in a debate, I definitely have not been.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How? You leave one source which I have completely discredited, only ran through a single line of my evidence, ignored evidence completely, and made a dozen fallacies, as well as either ignoring my posts or just not checking that I made them. You have not at all proven your points. Especially none of your previously claimed ones.
Created:
Posted in:
As popularly noted by Mopac, Tradesecret, etc, etc.. I am still in high school, and any knowledge I have beyond one is all research I do in my spare time and online college classes that I've started to take.
So.. I figure we have a unique and boisterous bunch of educated individuals here. Here you can leave me a post teaching me about whatever, leave sources for me to learn about the topic, start up a conversation to take me to school, etc, etc...
I thought it might be fun for you guys to brutally and metaphorically rip my throat out with your knowledge. Tear me apart and all of the gaps in my less than 2 decades born self I am. Long dramatic speech, long dramatic speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Theweakeredge: Philosophically, we must consider the state of mankind, behavior, and analyze from there on, why the nature of alternative energy will not effectively replace fossil fuels.
To be fair - its kinda all I talk about, philosophy, though more logical structure and such, I'm still a green philosopher, and one of the profile names I was considering was: AspiringPhilosopher, but whatever. My point is that I'm still learning about philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Haven't proven any of your points and give no real arguments against mine, your claims are baseless.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You know what, no, how about you get off your high horse and come be civil with the rest of us. You have literally said, over and over again, that nothing will change your mind.
You are the one being arrogant here, and ought to be more humble. I have admitted that I could be wrong, I even tried to grant your positions and you failed to take advantage. Any perceived arrogance is strictly you projecting.
I'm pretty tired of you doing all of this fallacious talk and not backing up what you say, as well as making groundless accusations of me and other people. Whenever i give you an
out or a way to be charitable, you don't respond in kind.
Please get down here from you oh so heavenly position and be like the rest of us mortals. A good example of this is Tradesecret, though he was a little bit eh, he's been respectful throughout the discourse. You could learn a thing or two from him about language and such.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don't consider myself fully educated. I also don't take the words of random people I meet online that their experts because they say they are and copy and paste quotes. Maybe you are an expert, I wouldn't know and never have claimed to, and I have been as humble as can be. I've repeatedly asked for you to prove your point and you don't. You say you study the language and yet you don't understand what begging the question is, how its pretty important that each word of a definition be defined as the definition that applies most topically. Constantly insult me and fail to ever have a proper conversation. I respect you wishes and end the debate, and yet here you are still insulting me because apparently that wasn't good enough.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, yes they do. They live in a democracy after all.
should the government ever have the power to kill innocent people? No.
Also, really, that's your example, abortion. If you want to use your own example, then as you admit, abortion isn't murder.
How about this - you can call abortion murder, and I can call what those sects want murder.
Sound fair?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Well then you must know nothing of psychology or philosophy, regardless if you've gone to dismissing my arguments, then I suppose I should do the same.
We can agree to disagree.
Have a nice evening... morning... night.... whatever time it is.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Funny how the only people who insist that we should be stoning people to death are the non-Christians.
You obviously weren't paying attention, there are entire sects of Christians who think that homosexuals should be murdered by the government.
Also, the oxford is put together not only experts, but an entire academic institution, hence why we should prefer it: Not to mention, the oxford dictionary does not support your definition, you use a certain definitions that do not aptly fit the definition as given, and the Merriam is explicitly quoting religious individuals, not expertly putting the word together, but again, even if it was the definition, it would still be begging the question
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If I'm being incredulous to you, then I could just say the exact same thing in response. That's not a valid argument, just because your opponents don't agree with you that doesn't mean their "incredulous" as you put it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I agree science is for nerds, considering we are talking on an online debate website in a forum thread, I would call all participants nerds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
Hello! Welcome to the site! On the top of whatever text box you happen to be writing in, there should be a toolbar of sorts, if you look over to the 4th icon, it should be a pair of quotation marks, simply click that once, and type the quote in, or type a single letter, then copy whatever text you wish to quote.
As for open text writer, I do believe that to be the case, I would suggest copying it over from google docs, as it saves your progress and is easily copy-ble.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Um.. yes, yes it does, as I have literally explained over and over again. Also, where is your evidence, do you have any evidence to support your conclusions at all? Oh, I see you are simply being the literal definition of unreasonable. You are stubborn and not willing to change your mind whenever evidence is presented.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The definitions whenever originally asserted were thrown out because they assume their conclusion, which is not valid nor sound.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Because A) The definition from the dictionary is based on old religious texts, as evidenced by the quote and the "where it comes from" section in Merriam, and is, therefore, an assertion that one has to defend or be reasonable incorrect for making. And the Oxford straight up doesn't agree, you have to interest a nonsensical definition of a word within your definition in order for it to match your definition. My point is, most experts, religious and otherwise, do not define it as you have, because they realize that it is begging the question.
Athiest rebel against the assumption that there is a god, not against reality, that would be the people assuming their to be an unproven aspect of reality, aka, the theists who rebel against reality.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The problem is the definition you're using. Nobody accepts that definition so by their definition of god they would indeed be atheists. I don't even accept that definition of god and I study philosophy, most philosophers don't accept that definition of god, etc, etc... And btw, because you claim that someone is a nihilist whenever they don't accept god, ou are implicitly making a claim, which does mean you still have a BoP.
Also.... you don't really answer my questions, I was being charitable and its all a bunch of circular thinking and fallacious reasoning.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Umm.... I suppose? Am I a victim of it? I've explained my position pretty in-depth, and it seems very different from your view of nihilism.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So, then we agree? At least at a basic level? We should care about the well-being of humans?
Created:
From our perspective, homosexuality has its root in idolatry. It has to do with the worship of created things. The form of a man. The feeling of sexual pleasure.
Okay so - it has to do with worshiping false idols, how so? All it is, is feeling sexual/romantic attraction to another male while being male. Could you also elaborate on what you mean by "Form of a man" and "the feeling of sexual pleasure"?
But what is the easiest way to fall into idolatry? Reject absolute truth, only accepting relative truths. What does truth become? This absurd thing that really amounts to whatever it is a person wills truth to be. Of course it is corrupting.
But I'm not willing anything to be true, I'm using corroborating evidence to verify every claim I make. I'm not pulling it out of thin air. I have reasons that are rational and justified. Also you mention idolatry again, why does it correlate to being homosexual and why is it that you only object to one way of falling into it? I don't accept relative truths except on a moral basis. I deal in facts.
If The Truth is your God, and you sincerely worship God, it has a much different effect on the psyche that worshipping any created thing. Worshipping created things leads to delusion, and the sliding further and further into delusion. Worshipping The Truth however, gradually makes one less delusional.
I don't worship anything in particular. Nothing actually. And I suppose accepting the truth would have the effect of making you less delusional, but why do you specifically have to worship it to get more truth?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Except its kind of not, especially not the form I specified.
I don't believe in any objective moral truths, I believe there are true things, and that there is truth in general.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If there is no truth and life is meaningless, then I will create my own reality! I will make my own meaning!From the orohodox perspective, this is how people come to worship idols. They abandon The Truth as being their God, and instead make some created thing their god.
I haven't addressed these so here I go - I clarified that I didn't accept that form of nihilism, so problem solved there, as for the "I will make my own meaning" Kind of, but not all the way.
I parse morality pretty easily - and I would the same way even if I did believe in god - that while there isn't a known objective standard which connects to morality, I would simply use an objective standard. We are humans are we not? Therefore we ought to do what benefits our species at the very least ourselves. From there I extrapolate that we ought to value human welfare (their well-being so to speak). That's how I ground my morality. And I promise you it does nothing but present ideas which are healthy for people. By definition.
As for the false idol, I don't know any specifics of your god. What do they do? What do they object to? What are they?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
- My response that I had accidentally put on the other topic (This is to nihilism)
- No, this is not what I meant, what I meant by nihilism (Since you seem to like Merriam Webster) is this:Definition of nihilism1a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless Nihilism is a condition in which all ultimate values lose their value.— Ronald H. Nashb: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths2a: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibilitybcapitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassinationSpecifically, 1b, would be the definition I ascribe to. I definitely don't agree with 1a, 2a, or 2b.
- Specifically of moral truths, now, I don't think we can be 100% certain about nearly anything, but I do believe there to be objective truths, so only the portion of "Does not believe truth or morality to lay on objective grounds" applies to me.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Cool beans
Good, I'm glad you agree there (This in reference to you saying you disavow conversion therapy) You say I'm unwilling to give your god a chance? Fine. Let's grant that position, that god is real for the sake of this conversation. Souls are real, all of that stuff. So. Why is being gay a mental illness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm moving all of my responses to one topic, because this is getting annoying, so I'll respond in the other one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You know what, let's grant that position, that I'm a nihilist. Okay fine. Let's say I am. So what? Disprove the point. Explain why there are objective moral facts about the world. Also here's what I'm looking for when I ask for evidence: Empirical evidence, sound, and valid syllogisms, etc, anything like that would do.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I actually do give charity to claims, do you not remember the two first pages where I let you present your entire theory? How I've literally asked over and over again for you to actual prove your stance but all you do is repeat yourself. Yes you do have to prove yourself, because like it or not, whenever you make a claim that god is as you've described you are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've presented, exactly zero.
Instead you put me in a box, that way you can dismiss everything I say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The actual fuck? Do you have any proof of that claim? Are you saying you support conversion therapy? Because that has been documented as abusive and atrocious. It is neither a mental illness nor a choice.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I'm like this exactly because I care about the truth, I'm skeptical of things that don't give valid evidence to support them. Like you've given no justification beyond the bare bones for any of your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Most civilized people had enough sense to realize that this type of abberant sexuality is harmful. Sure, there were exceptions. Doesn't change the fact that it is maladaptive and harmful to society.
Are you claiming that being gay is harmful to society?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, there was never an event whenever they declared it to all the world, I'll give one thing to them about persecution, they were clever about it. Also, just a fact, nobody cared. Literally. Nobody cared about gay people, religions (which most people were under pain and penalty of death) thought they mentally deceased, it is also true that most historians were also religious. Therefore it makes sense that not very much historic record was documenting it. But through some European sources we see a couple of events that paint the picture clearly.
Also, no that s not the justification Hitler used either, Hitler was most likely at least neglected as a child, grown up with strict hierarchies, that would be enforced by his time in the military, where his views on antisemitism and hierarchy would combine, and well, we know how that turned out. Also any sources for the more killing of religious people? Any sources for that being Hitler's or the Soviet's justification? Or are you just pulling it from nowhere, like most things you try to claim?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don't find your definition convincing nor accurate. You are literally a record player scratched to repeat the same thing over and over again because you don't know how to actually refute arguments. And that's not an ad hominem, that's literally whats been happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Persecution of your people? For not getting to preach or be oppressive towards gay people? No. The difference is what you are doing could cause someone with depression to not trust medication or counseling and cause them to not trust anything really even medication for illness in general. Afterall if one industry is spreading such lies, why wouldn't another one? My point is, what you are doing is actually dangerous with no evidence to support your claims. Did you even bother to investigate my evidence? I would guess not, because you don't actually care what kind of evidence I present you, only of your own conclusion.
Also, no, the soviets said there was no god yes, but that was not the reason they did that, the reason they did that was that especially back then, the church had a lot of power, just as Hitler dismantled them, the Soviets looked to undermine any potential political influence that churches could have before it went to bite him in the arse. Which if you're trying to take over a country is essential. They happened to get the answer right to the soul question, doesn't mean what they extrapolated from there is actually accurate. That would be a non-sequitur and a false equivalence on your part if you came to that conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, none of your claims are actually backed up with any evidence, consciousness is very specifically a work of the physical body, hence why people lose it whenever they die.
Your misinformation can actually hurt someone if they were to ever buy into your malarky. Please go elsewhere with it, or prove it true using actually fcking evidence.
Created: