Are you really going to stand here as a "Christian" and tell me that you think God isn't the path to salvation? If that's your point then fine, I'll just let you sit in your bubble of contradictions and be done with you.
I've understood you just fine, I just don't accept it because it's all hog wash. You do these same back flips anytime somebody pins you down on your double talk.
Do you actually care about arguing honestly speed?
"They simply have different ideas about how to accept Jesus. This is not actually that simple. The Bible clearly says how to accept Jesus and it is clearly not by man's efforts. Therefore if they believe it is by man's efforts then they are not of God."
That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. You're arbitrarily defining what you subjectively think a Christian should be. But you don't get to decide what a Christian is.
Most people would have just admitted that their logic applies to all three and been done with it. The problem is that you have a horse in this race and you subjectively don't want to admit that your religion is a hand me down from the big daddy religion.
Man Speed. This is the thing I hate about you. You just don't know how to be logically consistent. You double talk and double talk and it just makes you look silly.
I could say the same thing with Judaism, because you're too dense to realize that your logic will never get you the result you want here without contradicting yourself.
I could say that all three of them have the same path to salvation (God) But the Christian and catholics focus on the Jesus part an unnecessary amount.
You're not realizing that they all believe in the same God because Jesus is God and God is Yaweh.
Honestly, you're kind of boring me now. Are you going to actually try and be logical, or is this just a game to you?
I don't come on here to play games. I come here to have honest discussions.
Right there. So if I misread this, does that mean the Jews believe in the same God as you? Do you also acknowledge that they believed in this god before Christians did?
You don't get to say that the jews don't have the same god as you, because you're the ones who borrowed their god and their old testament to make your religion. There religions is older than yours and your religion even has jesus stating things about the old testament.
So are you saying that Christians don't believe in the Abrahamic God? Are you telling me that A Christian believes that Jesus is all you need for divinity and God is not required in the belief? You're telling me I could be a Christian and believe in Jesus, but not God?
If you say that Catholics are Christians because they share the same base tenant, then you if you're being logically consistent, you have to make that same conclusion for anything else in that same situation. So that means Judaism, Islam, and all Christian sects all count as the same base religion.
Logically, there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to be consistent.
If you start picking and choosing which ones are exempt from the logic, then you're committing special pleading.
Yes, all of them have the same underlying belief in the existence of humans. What's your point? I think pretty much every belief has that except for maybe solipsism in it's most extreme form.
Atheists aren't basing a religion on the existence of humans and believing in humans is not even a requirement of Atheism.
A) You have to contradict your logic to separate them which means you fall victim to reductio ad absurdum.
B) You admit they all apply equally and stand by your logic. (Thus swallowing the hard pill that you'd have to call them all the same religion by your own logic.)
Okay. So let's say I acknowledge that I'm only making my initial reference to the Judaic religion, would you then say that Christianity is a deviation? If not, then how can you say that Catholicism is?
Well, couldn't you take it a step further and say that Christianity deviated from Judaism and that means they're still Jews, but they believe a bunch of stuff that isn't support by scripture?
You said
"the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached"
first of all. I don't know how any moderator could establish what a reasonable person is. That seems arbitrary. Furthermore, I don't appreciate being told that I am lying or misstating anything. This is hog wash. I didn't even agree with pro's position and the only reason I voted the way I did was because Con admitted the topic. If I wanted to misrepresent the vote, I would have voted for Con or just a tie. I don't think this is fair moderating that I'm experiencing right now.
I don't see how I used a ridiculous conclusion. Not only did he admit to having Christian values, but I pointed out that pro supplied the logic that lead up to my decision. I don't see how I used any knowledge outside of the debate.
I don't understand. The voting policy says that I'm allowed to disregard arguments if I explained why. His other arguments we dismissed because he admitted the topic outright and nothing he said after changed that.
"It is very unlikely 96% of people are wrong. Get a better argument."
ad populum argument. Doesn't apply here.
100% of people used to think the earth was flat.
100% of doctors used to think that "hysteria" was a medical condition that made woman complain and prescribe vaginal stimulation as a cure which the doctor perform himself.
Also, even on subjects where I agree with him, he always adds fallacious caveats that kind of ruin the integrity of his arguments.
For instance, he makes great points on the subject of Identity Politics and transgenderism. However, he takes it too far and calls it a mental illness ignoring the fact that a specific effect can have more than one cause.
These things can seem little at first, but end up completely changing the conclusions that he draws in the wrong direction.
I don't know if I can give him that high of a title. Not because I think he's a bad debater. But I've never seen him take on too many serious opponents and he only excels at certain subjects.
Once you get him on religion or the economy, he's just awful.
I guess you like to talk smack about philosophy. But when I hit you with an actual philosophy from an actual philosopher, you just ignore it. I think you've revealed the fact that you don't know squat about philosophy and the word philosophy is just a throw away word that you use to sound like you know what you're talking about when in reality you don't even know something as basic as Hume's Guillotine. Sad.
You're full of crap.
Are you really going to stand here as a "Christian" and tell me that you think God isn't the path to salvation? If that's your point then fine, I'll just let you sit in your bubble of contradictions and be done with you.
I've understood you just fine, I just don't accept it because it's all hog wash. You do these same back flips anytime somebody pins you down on your double talk.
Do you actually care about arguing honestly speed?
"They simply have different ideas about how to accept Jesus. This is not actually that simple. The Bible clearly says how to accept Jesus and it is clearly not by man's efforts. Therefore if they believe it is by man's efforts then they are not of God."
That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. You're arbitrarily defining what you subjectively think a Christian should be. But you don't get to decide what a Christian is.
Most people would have just admitted that their logic applies to all three and been done with it. The problem is that you have a horse in this race and you subjectively don't want to admit that your religion is a hand me down from the big daddy religion.
get over yourself if you want real knowledge.
Man Speed. This is the thing I hate about you. You just don't know how to be logically consistent. You double talk and double talk and it just makes you look silly.
I could say the same thing with Judaism, because you're too dense to realize that your logic will never get you the result you want here without contradicting yourself.
I could say that all three of them have the same path to salvation (God) But the Christian and catholics focus on the Jesus part an unnecessary amount.
You're not realizing that they all believe in the same God because Jesus is God and God is Yaweh.
Honestly, you're kind of boring me now. Are you going to actually try and be logical, or is this just a game to you?
I don't come on here to play games. I come here to have honest discussions.
This is the problem. You want to apply one type of logic to Judaism, but another type of logic to Catholicism. You need to be consistent.
Okay then, Catholics and Christians have different paths to salvation. So that means they're different right?
That's not true. They believe in the same jesus as the Christians but they simply have different ideas about how to accept Jesus.
Right, they believe in the same god so they're the same religion. That's your logic I'm using
This isn't a difficult question, you're just dodging it because you don't like the honest answer. When that happens, it should be a red flag for you.
I didn't ask what they believed about salvation or their duty to god.
I asked if they believed in the same god.
Answer this then, does both of your religions require you to believe in the same God?
Does both catholic and Christianity require you to believe in Jesus?
You see the problem here?
right, so that means that both of your religions require you to believe in the Abrahamic God, so by your logic, they're part of the same religion.
"Yes, and Jews don't"
Right there. So if I misread this, does that mean the Jews believe in the same God as you? Do you also acknowledge that they believed in this god before Christians did?
You don't get to say that the jews don't have the same god as you, because you're the ones who borrowed their god and their old testament to make your religion. There religions is older than yours and your religion even has jesus stating things about the old testament.
So are you saying that Christians don't believe in the Abrahamic God? Are you telling me that A Christian believes that Jesus is all you need for divinity and God is not required in the belief? You're telling me I could be a Christian and believe in Jesus, but not God?
Hold up now. Don't you believe that Jesus is the Abrahamic God in the flesh?
If you say that Catholics are Christians because they share the same base tenant, then you if you're being logically consistent, you have to make that same conclusion for anything else in that same situation. So that means Judaism, Islam, and all Christian sects all count as the same base religion.
Logically, there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to be consistent.
If you start picking and choosing which ones are exempt from the logic, then you're committing special pleading.
Yes, all of them have the same underlying belief in the existence of humans. What's your point? I think pretty much every belief has that except for maybe solipsism in it's most extreme form.
Atheists aren't basing a religion on the existence of humans and believing in humans is not even a requirement of Atheism.
There's only two ways this can go:
A) You have to contradict your logic to separate them which means you fall victim to reductio ad absurdum.
B) You admit they all apply equally and stand by your logic. (Thus swallowing the hard pill that you'd have to call them all the same religion by your own logic.)
Right, I could also say that. I could say that all three have the same underlying belief of the Abrahamic God.
Okay. So let's say I acknowledge that I'm only making my initial reference to the Judaic religion, would you then say that Christianity is a deviation? If not, then how can you say that Catholicism is?
How is Judaism a race? Hebrews were a race maybe. I'm not even sure what makes something a race to begin with. But that's a separate topic.
Well, couldn't you take it a step further and say that Christianity deviated from Judaism and that means they're still Jews, but they believe a bunch of stuff that isn't support by scripture?
Interesting
You think that strange? I think people can report their own votes, lol.
fair enough
You said
"the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached"
first of all. I don't know how any moderator could establish what a reasonable person is. That seems arbitrary. Furthermore, I don't appreciate being told that I am lying or misstating anything. This is hog wash. I didn't even agree with pro's position and the only reason I voted the way I did was because Con admitted the topic. If I wanted to misrepresent the vote, I would have voted for Con or just a tie. I don't think this is fair moderating that I'm experiencing right now.
I don't see how I used a ridiculous conclusion. Not only did he admit to having Christian values, but I pointed out that pro supplied the logic that lead up to my decision. I don't see how I used any knowledge outside of the debate.
I don't understand. The voting policy says that I'm allowed to disregard arguments if I explained why. His other arguments we dismissed because he admitted the topic outright and nothing he said after changed that.
Putting down my lawn chair.
Dope.
I'm going to attempt to lay down beastie and thorough vote for this.
I like it.
Putting down my lawn chair.
I like the idea of referencing earlier battles.
I think we all expected wrap recipes
Even though that accomplished nothing. It still felt good to get points :)
reading this battle in hindsight was fun.
What a deliciously paradoxical debate.
Got my lawn chair.
"How else will you find data of how many actually saved lives?"
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
You're saying that you have X way to find data and if another way can't be found, then X stands. That's not how it works.
Either the data is good, or it's not. The absence of other data does not make your data better.
It could be the case that we can't get any data on it at all.
I could say the same thing about the flat earthers of old or the doctors who were experts in their field but still didn't understand medicine.
Ad populum won't get you anywhere. Lose the surveys and come back with real data.
"It is very unlikely 96% of people are wrong. Get a better argument."
ad populum argument. Doesn't apply here.
100% of people used to think the earth was flat.
100% of doctors used to think that "hysteria" was a medical condition that made woman complain and prescribe vaginal stimulation as a cure which the doctor perform himself.
96% of nothing is still nothing.
that elephant line made me laugh hard. No. It didn't come back. :(
lol
Also, even on subjects where I agree with him, he always adds fallacious caveats that kind of ruin the integrity of his arguments.
For instance, he makes great points on the subject of Identity Politics and transgenderism. However, he takes it too far and calls it a mental illness ignoring the fact that a specific effect can have more than one cause.
These things can seem little at first, but end up completely changing the conclusions that he draws in the wrong direction.
I don't know if I can give him that high of a title. Not because I think he's a bad debater. But I've never seen him take on too many serious opponents and he only excels at certain subjects.
Once you get him on religion or the economy, he's just awful.
Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. Go do your dodgy tap dance while I watch little tiny dancer.
Oh is that so? Put your money where you mouth is. Explain to me how Hume's Guillotine doesn't apply to your statements. I'm waiting.
I guess you like to talk smack about philosophy. But when I hit you with an actual philosophy from an actual philosopher, you just ignore it. I think you've revealed the fact that you don't know squat about philosophy and the word philosophy is just a throw away word that you use to sound like you know what you're talking about when in reality you don't even know something as basic as Hume's Guillotine. Sad.