I highly doubt that Sparrow is an alt count for type 1 as a voter has alluded. If so, then type 1 has two perfectly split personalities because people can fake names and info but they can't fake micro cues in their writing. For instance, anybody could spot me on an alt account based on several factors in my grammar that I probably don't even know I'm doing.
yeah but my problem was that you didn't go the extra step to show why a metaphorical Christian would shun "all" magic beliefs. to me it still seemed like the state of being a Christian would entail at least some supernatural belief. It mainly came down to the fact that I thought your rebuttals could have been more complete I guess.
I'll hit you with this topic after this one's settled if that's cool.
I would say yes, proving one thing wins it for me but it has to be something non arbitrary because can you really call a name true in the epistemological sense? maybe a priori, but generally the concept of truth doesn't become contentious until you add the physical element and I would argue that logic is meant to apply to the physical so I would have to show that the truth applies to the world. At least that's how I see it.
Fun fact. There is a guy in my town who used to patrol a specific neighborhood in my city wearing a Spiderman suit and this guy is like a local hero in that neighborhood. I don't think he ever really does anything though. I've never heard of him catching any one or even calling the cops but maybe I just don't watch enough local news, lol. I think he's more like a neighborhood watch guy but that's the closets I could ever imagine to actual vigilantes. The "kill you for the sake of justice" antihero types don't do well in society.
I don't care if you do more than five questions, but just keep in mind that I need space to reply so if you over do it, I'll have to not quote your questions directly to make space.
Little tip. You can use some of your questions as rebuttals for my last rebuttal. It helps in case there's something I brought up you wanted to address.
I would take it, but I'm trying to take on more serious debates at the moment and I don't want to overstock on debates. In the future though, I'll be down.
Well, When I say Objective morality, I mean it's objective in that situation because I believe in Moral Particularism. But that wouldn't really apply to this debate because I still think the situation itself is "absolutely moral or immoral" assuming we know all of the moral variables.
well to me and you, it would just be like therapy or something. But some people add the extra meaning behind that and maybe it acts as a placebo or something, I don't know. I was never a hardcore Christian. I was only soft indoctrinated.
Like if the act of prayer made someone happy, that would be a direct tie to religion that would not necessarily be a specific religion. Or if the act of being religious (i.e. having a list of practices that you always acknowledged) might make you happier.
That's fine, As long as you're still supporting BoP for any claims you make. Not a big deal either way. I have an aggressive tone in my debates, lol. It's the nature of competition
Yeah, I noticed that people just end up quoting each other down to the end and the debates are hard to follow, So I figured two rebuttals for each leads to a circle anyway and some live debates have question rounds so I wanted to try it a few times. good luck.
It happens. I lost a daily chess match for an online tournament the other day because I went 3 days without checking it and the guy happened to move fast after spending 2 months taking 3 days per move. I was super sad about it. But it's cool because I still won the tournament round, lol
Well there were prongs of our arguments that met up, so there was enough discourse to go around, but it did fizzle out quicker than normal because we weren't on the perfectly same track.
The only difference for me that I see going of your title and description is that I believe consciousness is a property of one or more particles.
Everything I'm about to say is just my opinion except for the very next statement I make.
Everything that has been known to physically exist is made from particles.
Following this logical, it is my opinion that consciousness is in contained within a particle.
There is good scientific evidence that consciousness comes from the brain.
This ultimately leads into my presupposition that consciousness starts off as this small fuzzy thing that has it's on "agent" inside of it viewing things at a primitive level.
I don't know what this would feel like, but I tend to equate it to what a blind person sees or what a deaf person hears (which is not nothing)
I think this is a good example because these are cases of the sensory organs being detached from one's agency so if agency was in a particle and the particle had no sensory organs, I imagine the senses would be like static, which is what people missing sensory organs experience.
I believe that human minds are just big collections of these primitive particles.
Now don't confuse this with a nerve ending.
This would be more like a part that is somehow connect at the end of the line of sensation.
I think it makes more sense because our body is not just one living thing. It's a collection of living things and our senses are not this linear thing that happens in order, it's this big chaotic mass of sensations that we somehow feel with near perfect precision.
Senses are so keen that having something within 10 feet of you can have enough effect for you to sense it even if you don't look at it or hear it.
I'm not saying this is true.
I'm just saying that after looking at all of the evidence for myself, I have come to believe this and I cannot bring myself to not believe it.
Me and your are 100% on the same page here. I go with the softer topic of "everything is particles" But this is ultimately what my argument leads to. Can't wait to hear your points.
Don't sweat the format, We're having fun and being polite. I used to mess up formatted debates all the time because I was used to youtube comment battle before this.
The only real new thing I added was the interrogation round. They do it in live debates and I thought it might be fun because I feel like questioning during the rebuttals gets lost in the folds and voters would have more fun reading the debate if it isn't just 5 rounds of quoting. lol.
It was a fun debate and my opponent took a practical approach as opposed to when I posted this on DDO and my opponent basically argued that the act of female nudity was immoral because society said so.
Your approach had a little more rationalization to it because I could sometimes see situations on private property where it wasn't just outright sexism.
I would also like to point out that sometimes not every statement needs a direct rebuttal. Some rebuttals will rebuttal whole concepts which ultimately leads to certain ideas being thrown off the table indirectly. If we had to rebuttal every single statement, debates would be too complex for anyone to read and then summarize in their heads.
Thanks for the verification. I only thought it was him because of his profile pic. Once I compared there debate styles, I suspected I may have been wrong, plus he made multiple references to himself on DDO which would be strange if he was incognito.
As for Speedrace's sources, I'm not sure I really need to address them at all and I don't want him to feel like he's being ganged up on by taking your tips, but I do appreciate it. Even if Christianity did make people happier on average, happiness is ultimately subjective and cannot be easily measured by science. The objective practical disadvantages far outweigh any mere happiness especially when we consider that atheists can easily be happy without taking on that baggage.
I highly doubt that Sparrow is an alt count for type 1 as a voter has alluded. If so, then type 1 has two perfectly split personalities because people can fake names and info but they can't fake micro cues in their writing. For instance, anybody could spot me on an alt account based on several factors in my grammar that I probably don't even know I'm doing.
yeah but my problem was that you didn't go the extra step to show why a metaphorical Christian would shun "all" magic beliefs. to me it still seemed like the state of being a Christian would entail at least some supernatural belief. It mainly came down to the fact that I thought your rebuttals could have been more complete I guess.
The one thing would have to be true and apply to reality at the same time.
So I can't say A is this because I defined it that way and then say it's true simply because I defined it.
You read and agree to the terms in the description correct?
I'll hit you with this topic after this one's settled if that's cool.
I would say yes, proving one thing wins it for me but it has to be something non arbitrary because can you really call a name true in the epistemological sense? maybe a priori, but generally the concept of truth doesn't become contentious until you add the physical element and I would argue that logic is meant to apply to the physical so I would have to show that the truth applies to the world. At least that's how I see it.
This should be fun to watch. I think you got this Sparrow. Just aim for the eyeball. Things seem to hate being hit in the eyeball.
I mostly just wanted to share the story, lol. Do your thing bro.
Fun fact. There is a guy in my town who used to patrol a specific neighborhood in my city wearing a Spiderman suit and this guy is like a local hero in that neighborhood. I don't think he ever really does anything though. I've never heard of him catching any one or even calling the cops but maybe I just don't watch enough local news, lol. I think he's more like a neighborhood watch guy but that's the closets I could ever imagine to actual vigilantes. The "kill you for the sake of justice" antihero types don't do well in society.
I don't care if you do more than five questions, but just keep in mind that I need space to reply so if you over do it, I'll have to not quote your questions directly to make space.
Little tip. You can use some of your questions as rebuttals for my last rebuttal. It helps in case there's something I brought up you wanted to address.
I would take it, but I'm trying to take on more serious debates at the moment and I don't want to overstock on debates. In the future though, I'll be down.
lol
you read the format I assume?
maybe. We'll see. I don't mind tackling the unpopular side.
I had 3 characters left, lol.
you and me would ultimately agree on morality besides maybe particularism and the source of the objectivity if that makes sense
So I'm not sure if you could really take Con side unless you took some weird skeptical argument because you can't argue for subjective morals
Well, When I say Objective morality, I mean it's objective in that situation because I believe in Moral Particularism. But that wouldn't really apply to this debate because I still think the situation itself is "absolutely moral or immoral" assuming we know all of the moral variables.
For
well to me and you, it would just be like therapy or something. But some people add the extra meaning behind that and maybe it acts as a placebo or something, I don't know. I was never a hardcore Christian. I was only soft indoctrinated.
agreed
Like if the act of prayer made someone happy, that would be a direct tie to religion that would not necessarily be a specific religion. Or if the act of being religious (i.e. having a list of practices that you always acknowledged) might make you happier.
That's fine, As long as you're still supporting BoP for any claims you make. Not a big deal either way. I have an aggressive tone in my debates, lol. It's the nature of competition
Btw, you made me want coffee so now you're gonna have to wait the extra ten minutes for me to hit the store on the way home, lol.
I like your intro on that Statement. I'll make my reply my first priority right after I drop my kid off at school.
True, of course there could be a direct tie that is not named specifically. Are you certain that there is no connection at all?
Can't wait to see it
I'll just mix up my argument a bit, lol.
Not at all
I had some typos in my questions, sorry about that.
Questions 3 is suppose to read "physically impossible" not "possible"
Please message before accepting if the format is difficult to understand and I will explain it better.
Yeah, I noticed that people just end up quoting each other down to the end and the debates are hard to follow, So I figured two rebuttals for each leads to a circle anyway and some live debates have question rounds so I wanted to try it a few times. good luck.
You read the Description right?
It happens. I lost a daily chess match for an online tournament the other day because I went 3 days without checking it and the guy happened to move fast after spending 2 months taking 3 days per move. I was super sad about it. But it's cool because I still won the tournament round, lol
Not talking about the debate, but rather a bunch of PMs that RM sent me after the debate.
Well there were prongs of our arguments that met up, so there was enough discourse to go around, but it did fizzle out quicker than normal because we weren't on the perfectly same track.
Very Mature, I suppose that was your way of rebutting me since you couldn't get past A = A which even Matt Slick eventually could do.
Thanks for the debate sir. Even if we disagree hard. :)
Indeed. We can't help what we believe. We can only make more inductions to improve the basis upon which we think.
Oh good, if that's the case, then you're completely illogical and everything you say is just mouth noise. Have a nice delusion.
The only difference for me that I see going of your title and description is that I believe consciousness is a property of one or more particles.
Everything I'm about to say is just my opinion except for the very next statement I make.
Everything that has been known to physically exist is made from particles.
Following this logical, it is my opinion that consciousness is in contained within a particle.
There is good scientific evidence that consciousness comes from the brain.
This ultimately leads into my presupposition that consciousness starts off as this small fuzzy thing that has it's on "agent" inside of it viewing things at a primitive level.
I don't know what this would feel like, but I tend to equate it to what a blind person sees or what a deaf person hears (which is not nothing)
I think this is a good example because these are cases of the sensory organs being detached from one's agency so if agency was in a particle and the particle had no sensory organs, I imagine the senses would be like static, which is what people missing sensory organs experience.
I believe that human minds are just big collections of these primitive particles.
Now don't confuse this with a nerve ending.
This would be more like a part that is somehow connect at the end of the line of sensation.
I think it makes more sense because our body is not just one living thing. It's a collection of living things and our senses are not this linear thing that happens in order, it's this big chaotic mass of sensations that we somehow feel with near perfect precision.
Senses are so keen that having something within 10 feet of you can have enough effect for you to sense it even if you don't look at it or hear it.
I'm not saying this is true.
I'm just saying that after looking at all of the evidence for myself, I have come to believe this and I cannot bring myself to not believe it.
I've seen that link before. How do you know that's his argument?
Me and your are 100% on the same page here. I go with the softer topic of "everything is particles" But this is ultimately what my argument leads to. Can't wait to hear your points.
Freudian Delusion R3
It wasn't direct, lol.
Make sure you read the end of my R4 before you reply. I wrote guidelines about the best way to set up the Interrogation round.
Don't sweat the format, We're having fun and being polite. I used to mess up formatted debates all the time because I was used to youtube comment battle before this.
The only real new thing I added was the interrogation round. They do it in live debates and I thought it might be fun because I feel like questioning during the rebuttals gets lost in the folds and voters would have more fun reading the debate if it isn't just 5 rounds of quoting. lol.
It was a fun debate and my opponent took a practical approach as opposed to when I posted this on DDO and my opponent basically argued that the act of female nudity was immoral because society said so.
Your approach had a little more rationalization to it because I could sometimes see situations on private property where it wasn't just outright sexism.
I must have missed this comment. No problem man. Life happens.
I would also like to point out that sometimes not every statement needs a direct rebuttal. Some rebuttals will rebuttal whole concepts which ultimately leads to certain ideas being thrown off the table indirectly. If we had to rebuttal every single statement, debates would be too complex for anyone to read and then summarize in their heads.
Thanks for the verification. I only thought it was him because of his profile pic. Once I compared there debate styles, I suspected I may have been wrong, plus he made multiple references to himself on DDO which would be strange if he was incognito.
As for Speedrace's sources, I'm not sure I really need to address them at all and I don't want him to feel like he's being ganged up on by taking your tips, but I do appreciate it. Even if Christianity did make people happier on average, happiness is ultimately subjective and cannot be easily measured by science. The objective practical disadvantages far outweigh any mere happiness especially when we consider that atheists can easily be happy without taking on that baggage.
Hmmmm. Maybe. But I doubt it.