Total posts: 130
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
There's a clear difference between the two. Gucci Gang has over a million dislikes and is also a meme. There's a difference between a meme song and a good song. Take blinding lights as an example. It's a good song and isn't memed on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Lucid dreams has 6 platinum awards, 630 million YouTube views and one and a half billion streams on Spotify
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Your reality is clearly the one which is warped.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it would be good to add a section at the end to conclude where the debate is more like a conversation, in the sense that the speakers are both allowed to speak. This way, points can be refuted more directly and rebuttals can be given easier. Usually, with this quick pace conversation, it's easier to determine a winner as faulty points are instantly pointed out.
Just a thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You tried to interview me? I'm sorry but who are you? Have I ever spoken to before? You must clearly be of little importance if I don't even know you.
I told you I had no interest in talking to a sock
wtf are you ok?
Sorry, but I find you ridiculous.
Sorry but who are you? I've never seen you debate or participate in any forum's outside of religion, of which you continuously misrepresented the BoP.
What exactly do you want to interview me about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Maybe because he doesn't want to be interrogated infinitely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I'm pretty sure this is what Sam Harris believes.
Created:
Posted in:
- Got a diploma when I was 12
- Ate 1kg at a self serve hot pot restaurant in one sitting
- Kicked out of science class because my teacher disagreed with my views on abortion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
By traditional standards I'm atheist.
Interesting, considering you've completed a few theist related debates.
As far as I am concerned, the same applies to all concept based belief systems.....But in this case, specifically satanism.
You clearly do not know what Satanism is. We do not worship the devil the same way theists worship God. Here's a short description provided by Wikipedia.
LaVeyan Satanism is an atheistic religion founded in 1966 by the American occultist and author Anton Szandor LaVey. Scholars of religion have classified it as a new religious movement and a form of Western esotericism.
LaVey was an atheist, rejecting the existence of all gods.[32] LaVey and his Church do not espouse a belief in Satan as an entity who literally exists,[33] and LaVey did not encourage the worship of Satan as a deity.[34] Instead, the use of Satan as a central figure is intentionally symbolic.[35] LaVey sought to cement his belief system within the secularist world-view that derived from natural science, thus providing him with an atheistic basis with which to criticize Christianity and other supernaturalist beliefs.[36]He legitimized his religion by highlighting what he claimed was its rational nature, contrasting this with what he saw as the supernaturalist irrationality of established religions.[37]
In essence, it's pretty much a joke. But nevertheless, I would appreciative if Satanism was added as a religion.
Created:
Posted in:
I would enjoy watching a live debate. Participating? Maybe when I've established myself as a capable DART debater first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What you have said is unfair. For you to support, I presume, Christianity whilst making attacks on Satanism is absurd. I can say Christianity is a "bunch of people with fantasy concepts in their heads" which I personally believe, without the undertone of aggression, to be true.
I recommend you reconsider attacking a belief on the basis that it is "wild imaginations" whilst standing up for Christianity. I can easily say Christianity is just a bunch of lunatics of whom have been corrupted by a belief with no support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
If this isn't some sort of joke, I recommend some English classes. I don't think gessis approves of your description of him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I stated the following
The problem is that there are two lots of positive assertions being made.So would you consider the prosecutor and defendant of a legal case to both be making positive assertions?Sometimes. If a prosecutor states that the defendant has broken the law and the defendant says I do not have the capacity of forming the intent to break the law. Then the burden falls firstly on the prosecutor, but then once the defendant raises this point which they are legitimately expected to do - then the burden shifts from the prosecutor to the defendant. I think the same thing applies in a manner in this particular discussion. Theists (although I think the reverse is more true) raise God. Then the atheist says - I have seen no evidence for God, therefore, the burden shifts - because the atheist is asserting positively that they have a standard they using to measure the existence or non-existence of God.So are you saying if I am accused of murder right now, walk into court and say (I quote from you, highlighted words being what I changed) "I have seen no evidence for me committing murder", the response I would receive from the judge would be "The burden shifts - because you are asserting positively that the prosecutor have a standard they using to measure the existence or reality of you innocence."This is complete jargon. The law always fundamentally works under the statement "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In no recognised legal system do I have bear the burden for proving something of which I have been accused of doing. I am always innocent until the prosecutor can prove otherwise. I do not need to defend myself if my opponent doesn't make an evidence based claim.In response to my excellent invisible dwarf analogy, tradesecret stated:People do not make dwarves the center of their universe.The importance of a being does not equate to it's validity. By your flawed logic, if I rallied up my dwarf believing friends and drilled it into them that the dwarfs created the universe, would that then mean they are real? Just because you believe your God is (without testable evidence) the centre of the universe, doesn't mean it is. (Just like how if I believed these dwarves were the centre of my universe, that wouldn't make them any more real)God is not in the same category as santa clause or imaginary creatures.Actually, Santa clause is an excellent person to bring up right about now. If I told you santa was real, and you said "there's no evidence", would it then be valid to say "You have made a positive assertion and the BoP has therefore shifted".God is a completely different matter. People all around the world place their lives into his hands everyday. They build entire philosophies and doctrines and religions around God. They don't do this with imaginary creatures as such - oh yes there is the Yedis or whatever they are called - but this is completely a mock religion in any event. And it started of in such a manner. To equivocate that with God is an absurdity.Notice the words I have highlighted.Allah is a completely different matter. People all around the world place their lives into his hands everyday. They build entire philosophies and doctrines and religions around Allah. They don't do this with imaginary creatures as such - oh yes there is the Yedis or whatever they are called - but this is completely a mock religion in any event. And it started of in such a manner. To equivocate that with Allah is an absurdity.If you switch the word "God" around with any other God from any other religion, the impact of you statement is still present, just directed from a different religion. If you want to truly prove God's existence, you need to find logic and reasoning which demonstrates that it is superior to other religions, instead of just vague statements of which can be applied to any religion.Besides this point, the actual arguments being made aren't good either. Just because there are doctrines (I assume you mean the bible) written about a cause, it doesn't mean it is automatically true, especially not the bible, a book of which has at least 3 errors on the very first page.I understand that it is impossible to prove a negative.You are a very confusing person. The above is exactly correct. It is impossible for me to disapprove of your God if you do not first provide some evidence for me to debunk. But alas, you go on.Yet, this is not what atheists are doing. In your case of an invisible dwarf, that is a negative thing. In the case of God, there is oodles of proof, it is not the amount of proof, nor the extent of it, it is the understanding and interpretation of it that is the issue.Oodle of proof? Where? Please, and this is genuine, if you really have evidence, atheists are more than happy to hear it.The person who believes in invisible dwarves does not say - everything proves its existence.Really? Is this an issue? I can easily add that to my analogy. Let's assume from now on that everything does in fact prove it's existence.p1. If I said that the nature of humanity is evidence, would you accept it? No.p2. If I said the existence of evil is evidence? Would you accept that?p3. If I said the existence of the universe is evidence, would you accept that? No.p4. If I said that the existence of absolutes is evidence. Would you accept that? No.p5. If I argued from first causes? Would you accept that? No.p6. If I argued from the probability that evolution is impossible would you accept that? No.p7. No. If I argued from the ontological position, would you accept that? No.p1. You need to evaluate your point, but I can already foresee where it is going.p2. I would say the opposite because of the "problem of evil", a strong case against an omni God. Nevertheless, I would like to hear why you believe evil is evidence of God.p3. You would have to evaluate, though I can say, scientific evidence has shown how the universe most likely came about.p4. Nothing is absolute.p5. Nothing came from something.p6. For you to think that probability is an issue regarding evolution shows you do not understand it. Evolution is a very simple thing which makes use of "survival of the fittest". I fail to see how this is an issue. In fact, I could use this argument against God, the fact that God is a very complicated being.p7. True. No. Because it's a bad argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6yH0QgwR6QOverall, I would be happy to hear about all your arguments, except for the ontological position because, though it does have a fancy name, is quite poor.Do you see the issue? Everything put up as evidence - and indeed even in isolation or as a totality the evidence is there. But this is not enough for you. You are not using a standard of on the balance of probabilities. you are not even using beyond reasonable doubt - your standard of evidence is way above what is acceptable in any sense of a proper test of evidence. You are asking for a standard where there are no lingering doubts - or indeed something of such persuasive weight that you have no alternative position.The issue is that no evidence has been provided, although there is another fundamental issue you have made, so I will clarify one point. There is a difference between evidence and assumption. Take the following example.If we time travelled 400 years back in time and dropped off an iphone, what reaction do you think will be caused. Obviously, this piece of everyday tech would become magical. How could these people explain these small slim screens? This is when one person suggests God. Clearly, since there is no other way it must be God.Though it may be logically sound for these people that God dropped the phone off, from our perspective, that would be incorrect. My point here is that even though there seems to be no other option, providing a logically sound proposal without evidence is not productive. If one really wanted to believe that God dropped of the phone, evidence would have to be provided. Is there a note? Was there a sighting? Are these credible witnesses? Can these people undergo questioning?Essentially this is how religion first manifested. People had questions and no answers. What's the solution? God. How did the universe begin? I dunno, God I guess. How did humans come onto the planet? I dunno, God I guess. How old is the planet? 10 000. Why? I dunno, God I guess. Just because it seems "logical" that God is the reason for all these things, as evidence cannot be provided, being "logically sound" is no use.Actually I know of several Muslims who claim that Jesus has saved them - and become Christians. Although they don't tell their family because they are fearful of being killed.Perhaps I didn't word myself well. As you place so much emphasis on "sightings", explain why Muslims see the Allah at all? Explain why Greeks saw Thor? Explain why Egyptians saw Osiris?
To which to said
Go and check out the European legal systems which use the inquisitorial system of Napoleon. France is one such nation. There the law is not innocent until prove guilty. When you say there are no such jurisdictions, you are incorrect.
Essentially dropping all points I have raised. So again, I thank you for you concession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
Simple question. Has religion done more good or harm to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
what? prison is the rehab center. You don't get released from prison and sent somewhere else.
Are you not aware of what a rehab centre is?
Nevertheless, this isn't the point of this forum. What do you think about the case of Brandon.I think the death penalty is pointless. I don't think it should even exist. so obviously I don't think Brandon should have been executed.
So if it was your parent's corpse of which were burnt to crisps by Brandon, what reaction would you have? Do you think Brandon "waking up" to his crime is enough? What if he instantly does regret what he did (like many killer). Does it take away the implications of what he has done? If a killer instantly and genuinely regrets burning two people, do you think it is reasonable that they don't go to prison at all as their mind is already cleansed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The point of criminal justice is that it serves justice through punishment. It is nothing to do with the offender being rehabilitated, it is about them being punished. Rehabilitation comes afterwards, when you are sent to a rehab centre.
Nevertheless, this isn't the point of this forum. What do you think about the case of Brandon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Created:
Posted in:
"End the death penalty"
"All life is precious"
"Stop state killing"
"Black lives matter"
"Justice for Brandon"
I have to say, hard core lefties get more and more confusing by the passing days. I was honestly appalled when I realised people actually wanted this murderer freed. According to BBC,
He was given the death penalty for his involvement in the murder of Todd and Stacie Bagley in June 1999.He was one of five teenagers accused of robbing the pair and forcing them into the boot of their car in Texas.They were shot as they lay in the boot by 19-year-old accomplice Christopher Vialva before Bernard set the car alight.
According to Kim Kardashian (yes, not very reliable, but the first list I could find of why Brandon shouldn't be executed).
1. He was 18 at the time.
An adult who can legally buy a shotgun, drive a car, drink alcohol and pay taxes.
2. He was not the shooter.
He's the guy who helped force a couple into the boot of a car and then turn them into pork crisp.
3. The prosecutor and of the jurors now support clemency.
I'm pretty sure I would change my mind pretty quick if I had an army of lefties stomping around making a racket of whom would definitely not be pleaded justice was served.
4. He’s spent decades in prison w/out a write up, helping at risk youth.
There's a difference between rehabilitation and criminal justice. Criminal justice is about punishing.
5. There’s bipartisan support for his commutation.
Doesn't matter. A court ruling is a court ruling.
*final notes
I'm worried that this whole matter is a race related situation. I'm quite certain that if the races were switched (Brandon was white and the victims were black), there would be outrage from the opposite direction. Lefites would almost certainly say "Look at this murderer, he burned a black couple for God sake".
How do I know this? Look at the reaction when Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defence.
Created:
On a probability standpoint, atheism more reasonable than theism/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The problem is that there are two lots of positive assertions being made.So would you consider the prosecutor and defendant of a legal case to both be making positive assertions?Sometimes. If a prosecutor states that the defendant has broken the law and the defendant says I do not have the capacity of forming the intent to break the law. Then the burden falls firstly on the prosecutor, but then once the defendant raises this point which they are legitimately expected to do - then the burden shifts from the prosecutor to the defendant. I think the same thing applies in a manner in this particular discussion. Theists (although I think the reverse is more true) raise God. Then the atheist says - I have seen no evidence for God, therefore, the burden shifts - because the atheist is asserting positively that they have a standard they using to measure the existence or non-existence of God.
So are you saying if I am accused of murder right now, walk into court and say (I quote from you, highlighted words being what I changed) "I have seen no evidence for me committing murder", the response I would receive from the judge would be "The burden shifts - because you are asserting positively that the prosecutor have a standard they using to measure the existence or reality of you innocence."
This is complete jargon. The law always fundamentally works under the statement "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In no recognised legal system do I have bear the burden for proving something of which I have been accused of doing. I am always innocent until the prosecutor can prove otherwise. I do not need to defend myself if my opponent doesn't make an evidence based claim.
In response to my excellent invisible dwarf analogy, tradesecret stated:
People do not make dwarves the center of their universe.
The importance of a being does not equate to it's validity. By your flawed logic, if I rallied up my dwarf believing friends and drilled it into them that the dwarfs created the universe, would that then mean they are real? Just because you believe your God is (without testable evidence) the centre of the universe, doesn't mean it is. (Just like how if I believed these dwarves were the centre of my universe, that wouldn't make them any more real)
God is not in the same category as santa clause or imaginary creatures.
Actually, Santa clause is an excellent person to bring up right about now. If I told you santa was real, and you said "there's no evidence", would it then be valid to say "You have made a positive assertion and the BoP has therefore shifted".
God is a completely different matter. People all around the world place their lives into his hands everyday. They build entire philosophies and doctrines and religions around God. They don't do this with imaginary creatures as such - oh yes there is the Yedis or whatever they are called - but this is completely a mock religion in any event. And it started of in such a manner. To equivocate that with God is an absurdity.
Notice the words I have highlighted.
Allah is a completely different matter. People all around the world place their lives into his hands everyday. They build entire philosophies and doctrines and religions around Allah. They don't do this with imaginary creatures as such - oh yes there is the Yedis or whatever they are called - but this is completely a mock religion in any event. And it started of in such a manner. To equivocate that with Allah is an absurdity.
If you switch the word "God" around with any other God from any other religion, the impact of you statement is still present, just directed from a different religion. If you want to truly prove God's existence, you need to find logic and reasoning which demonstrates that it is superior to other religions, instead of just vague statements of which can be applied to any religion.
Besides this point, the actual arguments being made aren't good either. Just because there are doctrines (I assume you mean the bible) written about a cause, it doesn't mean it is automatically true, especially not the bible, a book of which has at least 3 errors on the very first page.
I understand that it is impossible to prove a negative.
You are a very confusing person. The above is exactly correct. It is impossible for me to disapprove of your God if you do not first provide some evidence for me to debunk. But alas, you go on.
Yet, this is not what atheists are doing. In your case of an invisible dwarf, that is a negative thing. In the case of God, there is oodles of proof, it is not the amount of proof, nor the extent of it, it is the understanding and interpretation of it that is the issue.
Oodle of proof? Where? Please, and this is genuine, if you really have evidence, atheists are more than happy to hear it.
The person who believes in invisible dwarves does not say - everything proves its existence.
Really? Is this an issue? I can easily add that to my analogy. Let's assume from now on that everything does in fact prove it's existence.
p1. If I said that the nature of humanity is evidence, would you accept it? No.p2. If I said the existence of evil is evidence? Would you accept that?p3. If I said the existence of the universe is evidence, would you accept that? No.p4. If I said that the existence of absolutes is evidence. Would you accept that? No.p5. If I argued from first causes? Would you accept that? No.p6. If I argued from the probability that evolution is impossible would you accept that? No.p7. No. If I argued from the ontological position, would you accept that? No.
p1. You need to evaluate your point, but I can already foresee where it is going.
p2. I would say the opposite because of the "problem of evil", a strong case against an omni God. Nevertheless, I would like to hear why you believe evil is evidence of God.
p3. You would have to evaluate, though I can say, scientific evidence has shown how the universe most likely came about.
p4. Nothing is absolute.
p5. Nothing came from something.
p6. For you to think that probability is an issue regarding evolution shows you do not understand it. Evolution is a very simple thing which makes use of "survival of the fittest". I fail to see how this is an issue. In fact, I could use this argument against God, the fact that God is a very complicated being.
p7. True. No. Because it's a bad argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6yH0QgwR6Q
Overall, I would be happy to hear about all your arguments, except for the ontological position because, though it does have a fancy name, is quite poor.
Do you see the issue? Everything put up as evidence - and indeed even in isolation or as a totality the evidence is there. But this is not enough for you. You are not using a standard of on the balance of probabilities. you are not even using beyond reasonable doubt - your standard of evidence is way above what is acceptable in any sense of a proper test of evidence. You are asking for a standard where there are no lingering doubts - or indeed something of such persuasive weight that you have no alternative position.
The issue is that no evidence has been provided, although there is another fundamental issue you have made, so I will clarify one point. There is a difference between evidence and assumption. Take the following example.
If we time travelled 400 years back in time and dropped off an iphone, what reaction do you think will be caused. Obviously, this piece of everyday tech would become magical. How could these people explain these small slim screens? This is when one person suggests God. Clearly, since there is no other way it must be God.
Though it may be logically sound for these people that God dropped the phone off, from our perspective, that would be incorrect. My point here is that even though there seems to be no other option, providing a logically sound proposal without evidence is not productive. If one really wanted to believe that God dropped of the phone, evidence would have to be provided. Is there a note? Was there a sighting? Are these credible witnesses? Can these people undergo questioning?
Essentially this is how religion first manifested. People had questions and no answers. What's the solution? God. How did the universe begin? I dunno, God I guess. How did humans come onto the planet? I dunno, God I guess. How old is the planet? 10 000. Why? I dunno, God I guess. Just because it seems "logical" that God is the reason for all these things, as evidence cannot be provided, being "logically sound" is no use.
Actually I know of several Muslims who claim that Jesus has saved them - and become Christians. Although they don't tell their family because they are fearful of being killed.
Perhaps I didn't word myself well. As you place so much emphasis on "sightings", explain why Muslims see the Allah at all? Explain why Greeks saw Thor? Explain why Egyptians saw Osiris?
Created:
There's this one Covid denying guy named Akhenaten who, constantly says DART is a communist website run by Trump supporters. He's about the only person who's regularly online.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The problem is that there are two lots of positive assertions being made.
So would you consider the prosecutor and defendant of a legal case to both be making positive assertions?
The theist does assert that there is a god.The atheist asserts that there is no god. Or he asserts that he has found no evidence for the existence of God.
This is not how asserting works. By your logic, if I was accused for murder, I should be given the appropriate sentence if I am unable to defend myself. This is not how legal cases work. If I am just accused of something, the accuser needs to back up their claim, instead of saying "well you can't prove you didn't do you it". The person being accused is not asserting anything, they are simply defending their ground and maintaining the status quo.
To say that atheists are asserting there is no God is not accurate. It would be more sensible to say that they are simply neutral as religious people have failed to change their position with facts.
Asserting there is no god - might sometimes be understand as a negative. But in this case the statement is misleading.Atheists very often say "I have found no evidence for the existence of God". This is a positive assertion. Yet, they continue to flip it around.
This is incorrect. Saying "I have found no evidence for the existence of God" is not a positive assertion. A positive assertion is when one proposes a usually new idea. To say "I have found no evidence for the existence of God" is to simply say that I shall remain neutral and unbelieving until evidence is provided.
I shall give you an example. Assume that I started a cult where we prayed to invisible dwarfs of whom were intangible, inaudible, invisible and undetectable in any ways. Imagine that someone came to question it. They would presumably say "Where's the evidence, give me some proof". Would it then be wise to say "Well, as you are asserting the idea that there are no invisible dwarfs, you must provide me evidence as to why these dwarfs don't exist."
The dwarf denier will now be presumably frustrated. Clearly, if he stated that "I have found no evidence for the existence of invisible dwarfs", he would be making a a positive assertion. Right?
It seems extremely logical that the dwarf denier needs not to deny the dwarfs if nothing has been put forward to him. It also seems stubborn to say "well, the dwarf deniers are positively asserting the idea of no dwarfs so they therefore need to prove it"
It is an assumption based on personal experience.
I find it very interesting that when these so called "personal experience" occur, the people also conveniently see their own God saving them. You would never hear a Muslim claiming Jesus saved them, or a Christian claiming that Zeus has been sighted. Odd.
The burden of proof ought to be on both sides - this has been my argument from the start.
And I refute this claim.
Created:
Posted in:
Can someone explain this situation to me? This seems like a pretty simple question yet it has yielded much controversy. Just take a look a criminal court cases.
S1. I am suggesting that you murdered a man.
S1. Religious people are suggesting there is a God.
S2. Since I am making this suggestion, I must prove it.
S2. Since religious people are making this suggestion, you must prove it.
S2.1. As I have made a claim about you committing murder, you must refute it.
S2.1. As you have made a claim about religion being real, you must refute it.
It seems that religious people are going for S2.1, which is not only non compliant with the legal system, but is also illogical.
Why would I, as an innocent person, have to prove I didn't kill someone?
Why would I, an atheist person, have to prove God isn't real?
Created: