Wrick-It-Ralph

interesting 

lol, yeah.  I wonder if he realizes that nobody is ever going to take him seriously outside of people already indoctrinated in his specific belief? 

Okay cool then.  If that's what you call ultimate reality, then what you speak of is both incoherent and impossible.  I would agree that reality is eternal and nothing precedes time because time is an illusion that is created by space and motion.  Really, the term spacetime is a misnomer.  It should be called spacemotion. (copyright pending ;))

The rest of what you said is just factually false and therefore incoherent if you try to apply it to reality.  If knowledge was a calculator and your claim was an irrational equation, then the calculator would be flashing error right now. 

You're just assuming the other ones are spreading lies.  There is no difference between your lies and their lies.  That's just subjective on your part. 

You're right, it's not like other mystery religions.  Yours is much more dangerous and poisons a lot more minds.  So there's that.  In this sense, I'd prefer ones that are spreading lies. 

Couple things there. 

Nothing every begins or ceases to exist.  they just form or deform.  Every particle that ever makes up any given toaster will always exist, but at some point they might be mixed with a different set of particles in a different shape.  So by your definition, toasters are in fact ultimate reality. 

My contention stands.  Ultimate reality is reality as it actually is and you can call it god as much as you want and it's just as valid if I call god a toaster.  It's just a label.  there's no ontology behind the label to differentiate it from anything else.  

So "god" in this case is not anything divine at all.  Just another atom. 

There is a formal name for things that are uncreated.  They're called non existent.  That is to say they're imaginary.  Fake.  Abstracts that are embedded in deeper more convoluted abstracts.  Square circles.  Four sided triangles.  Silent noise.  These things are equally as true as god and equally false as well. 

I accidentally learned something about mystery religions the other day btw.  It only made me take your position less seriously than I did before.  I originally thought you were making up your definition of mystery.  But it's worse than that.  it turns out that mystery religions have been spreading lies for centuries.  

In philosophy, they would call this the difference between an assertion and a proposition.  I could say. 

God exist! and then say. 

Toaster's exist, but really, I mean god. 

These would be two different assertions, but since they both carry the same meaning, they would be considered the same proposition regardless of how I attempt to word it.  

Well if it's not actually god that you're talking about, but merely what reality actually looks like, then there's not contention on my part.  You can call ultimate reality anything you want if that's all you're doing is just naming it. 

Just know that naming it god doesn't make it divine in any way.  

I could call my toaster a horse and be semantically correct if I invent my own dictionary, but it's still just a hunk of metal that makes my toast no matter what I name it. 

Funny. 

Only if god is merely atoms.  Because to me, ultimate reality is what reality would look like if we could see it through a perfect lens.  Nothing god like about that. 

Of course from here, I'm guessing that we'd disagree on what ultimate reality is.  But instead of putting words in your mouth, I'm happy to just have you tell me if you're interested in discussing it. 

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what exactly is ultimate reality.  

If you're talking about intrinsic reality (reality as it truly is) then that obviously must exist because there is a reality and it has to look like something even if it's something stupid like a bunch of marshmellows or a herd of realicorns. 

I concur

fair enough 

I'm just saying this in response to your comment about black holes. 

I might be answering this out of context or my point is moot, but there are a few ways to sort the website's content better without have to eat up your space and processing as a much.  It would heavily depend on how debates are made though on the coding end.  Any data set that you guys use can be made into arrays and dolled out with for loops.  If this is done creatively enough, it can save a ton of space.  I'm not sure if this helps because I don't know how everything is laid out on the website. 

I imagine the debates themselves might be connected to some kind of macro function for space saving.  As for pinning and tagging things.  These can be built into the arrays or if the arrays are already being utilized, it could be built into the data structure of the link or thing in question.  For instance, if you want the debate to convey itself being a certain status without having to use a lot of functions.  You could have a built in generic variable that gets read on the spot so that it takes up less server space, but this might increase CPU.  Like I said.  I don't know if any of this will help what you guys are talking about. 

sorry.  accidentally sent.  

A FAQ would probably be a nice resource.  It's kind of a niche thing, but when it works, it works beautifully 

I was thinking for templates for the topic.  I think that would be resolution.  Other templates may be possible.  But I haven't really considered those (so you're ahead of me on that one.)

Yeah.  I ranted a little on there.  I suspected that not all of my statements would be relevant.  

If your goal is to assimilate the new members comfortably into the debart community.  Then the key would probably be to find an imperative to make them do that.  Maybe a medal for friend requesting people.  I know you already have some medals of that nature.  So it's tough to say. 

A FAQ

Everyone just ignore mopac.  He wants us to keep entertaining his rudeness because we like to prove people wrong.  But there's not point.  The real thing he wants is attention because nobody cares about his pseudo theism so we should follow suit and not care either.  

Maybe then he'll learn to be polite when nobody will talk to him anymore.

I don't think I asked you to compromise, so cool I guess? 

So you're argument is that you're smart and everybody else is stupid?  How philosophical of you.  I'm surprised they haven't given you the Nobel Prize yet.   If you're just going to sit here and insult people, then you'll get ghosted out of this forum and you can talk to yourself.  In fact.  I think I'll just block you if you continue to insult people and I would suggest anybody else who you insult to do the same. 

Maybe you'll learn you lesson when nobody wants to hear your rudeness anymore. 

False.  I do not resist education.  I'm the one who specifically said we should learn from each other.  I have always been willing to discuss this rationally but I'm going to die of old age before that happens because you're more concerned with personal attacks and bold statements over evidence. 

I agree.  He makes huge claims as if he was saying the sky was blue.  In his mind, these things are obvious to him, so he gets offended when it's not obvious to anyone else.  Much like a stubborn child would do what you don't play pretend with them the way they want you to. 

Oh, you're an atheist turned theist.  Okay that just means you're hopeless then.  I'm glad we could clear that up :D

I'm not sure that there's any point in arguing with Mopac.  When's somebody position is that they willingly choose to stop looking for answers and say that ignorance is truth, then there's not point in talking about it. 

That's what's happening here. 

God is Truth

God is a Mystery 

We can't know a Mystery only experience it. 

 Therefore God and therefor we should also stop looking for answers. 

This is the argument in a nut shell.  There's no logic to it. 

The limestone thing isn't something I pulled out of the ether.  It's a fairly well known experiment and they even know why it happens to an extent.  

The limestone sheets are basically shaped like shelves and it has just the right amount of space to help position RNA. 

I would agree that it's descriptive. 

I can't say for sure if it's an argument against nihilism, but it certainly seems like one. 

The notification delete system is kind of confusing.  Especially for a new member.  The only real issue with it is that there doesn't seem to be a way to delete individual notifications so that one can save the ones they haven't answered yet.  Other than that, it works just fine. 

Generic Ideas: 

If alt accounts are a problem (probably aren't I'm guessing)  Provisional ratings that lock privileges could help. 

If voting moderation is tough.  Certain moderation features could be made automatic. I think somebody suggested an auto forfeit one time.  

Resign buttons could be an interesting tool unless there's some way to abuse it.  It would help with traffic to get debates into the archives faster. 

Generic templates for topics could be useful for new members.  This could be a strict template that just gives you a classic one like "no gods exist' "socialism vs capitalism" things like that.  Or you could have one with part of the topic framed and they add in the nouns and verbs.  For instance.     "X ought to Y"  The first type of template is probably better. 

For the people who like medals there might be a way to uncap the medal system to make it feel like a constant climb instead of a static goal that ends at the king of the hill medal (not shaming this medal for it is not necessarily easy to get.)  Maybe do something like ribbons for being the "top 5 of the month" or something like that.  The ribbons could either be accumulated or move around after each update. 

Well.  For starters, it's not self evident.  If God was self evident, then we could witness him existing.  

Also, there is nothing in your description that helps to verify that it is actually worshipping the truth.  It is simply claiming to worship the truth.  

What if I said Satan was self evident and the truth and I'm worshipping him?  Would you believe me?  I'm guessing no.  So what should I believe you.  Justify it and I'll believe it.  It's that simple. 

What evidence do you have that truth is god besides defining it that way?  I could do that with anything. 

Truth is unicorns. 

Truth is potatoes. 

Truth is false. 

Truth is true. 

Honestly, do you really find this crap convincing?  

Nihilism is the belief that there is no intrinsic meaning in the universe.  This has nothing to do with God.  Intrinsic meaning could be something floating out in the universe or it could be something else but it doesn't have to be God.  Even if that was the case, it doesn't mean that every atheist is a nihilist.  Nihilism is a belief which means they have to believe the claim wiling, not accidentally through a series of maybes. 

Okay, so you picked a dictionary that had the first definition as a religious one.  I could probably find a dictionary that has it as a secular one. In fact. 

Oh look at that.  It's the 4th usage on this list, which was literally the first dictionary I found.  It looks like somebody was cherry picking. 

Is the church God?  Is the church omnipotent.  Why should I believe the church over webster?  Let's say I accept your definition, That just makes your definition a belief.  Can you support your belief? 

Who said I was trying to refute your religion?  I haven't even gotten to your religion because you haven't made an argument for it.  All you've done is define your personal word usages.  Which is not an argument but a preparation for one.  So what's your argument for your religion being true?  Why should I believe you over a muslim or a hindu or an atheist or even a Satanist for that matter?  You think your religion is so special that you get to come in here and just declare it true with no proof?  I don't think so.  Not on my watch.  You bring proof or you bring nothing. 

That's rich.  I'm the one who said we should set aside what's right or wrong and learn from each other.  You're the one who's spent this whole time name calling me and telling me that I'm wrong.  The irony of that might be lost on you though. 

Simply calling your religion truth worship doesn't make it so.  We're talking about a religion that condones rape and slavery.  If that book has truth in it.  Then it's the truth about god's evil plan to make humans suffer for his own amusement. 

Atheism is not Nihilism.  

That's just something that apologists say to make personal attacks because they're arguments are weak and they need to resort to name calling.  I'm only talking about the dishonest theists here.  Unlike you, I've actually met quite a few theists who actually care about truth. 

Nice story.  I think we've all had that journey at some time or another.  I didn't know about the failings of religion when I stopped believing, but when I did find out, it certainly helped to reinforce my lack of belief. 

There's nothing mysterious about marriage.  You laugh, but it's your definition that leads to strange ideas like that, not mine.  My definition of a mystery is the  colloquial one and there is no confusion over it. 

I think you're missing the point.  You're just taking every experience and naming it a mystery.  That's cool, but it's not giving us new information.  You might as well just say that Christianity is an "everything religion" because that's what your statements equate to.  I see these types of logical backflips often.  I'm willing to bet that you don't do those types of backflips with other logical things.  Don't you find it odd that you have to work so hard to justify your religion? 

A thing can be more than one thing.  Yes, technically, I experience a mystery, but I can also figure out a mystery.  

Who killed this lady?   It's a mystery.  I'm experiencing it.  Then I catch the guy.  So it's something that I experienced and something I figured out all at once. 

Your definition is technically true but assumes that it is possible. 

It's like a realicorn. 

a realicorn is defined as a unicorn that is actually real.   It's the same as yours.  

Objectively speaking, if somebody was to read both of our rebuttals and judge who was making a better effort to be honest, I think they would pick me.  The difference between us is that I'm giving reasons for my contention and you're simply just contending without any reasons.  

I don't have a problem with your neigh saying.  It's when you neigh saying and then don't provide an explanation. 

No if you intend to continue the conversation, then I would suggest you put aside the notion of who is wrong or right and simply just give honest and complete responses.  That is how we find truth. 

If you could provide explanations for what you say, then I might actually be in a position where I can't rebuttal you.  That's the point. 

You're just dodging my rebuttals.  If you can't specifically name one thing that I couldn't know about your religion as an outsider and then show me why that would logically have to be the case, then you're not doing anything but hand waving me away.  

Do you care about the truth?  Or would you rather just deny me?  Because if that's all you're here to do is neigh say, then you're wasting both of our time. 

How do you know that?  What if I do know your religion?  You're making assumptions.  

So on the first point.  You say I can't know because I'm an outsider.  That doesn't logically follow.  If you want me to believe this, you're going to have to show me something that you can know as an insider that I couldn't possibly know as an outsider. 

You're assuming that the freshman couldn't teach the professor.  What if the professor was unqualified and the freshman was an expert in that field who was going for a different degree?  The status of freshman and professor don't automatically give them knowledge that the other didn't have.  The titles are there for reasons outside of their intelligence levels.  

A tourist could know more than a local.  The tourist could be an expert on foreign culture.  Possibly have a P.H.D. in it, but simply never visited the country.  While the local could have literally no interest in local culture and knows nothing about their own area.   America is a good example of this because the foreigners are required to know more about the country than citizens do. 

Saying that I'm prideful and have know-it-all-ism are just personal attacks on me.  They have nothing to do with the truth of the matter.  This proves nothing accept that you think personal attacks prove truth apparently. 

Ahh yes.  I see this argument touted about quite often.  You're the master and I'm the student.  So how dare I know something that you don't.  How about we learn from each other instead of trying to make this a one way street?   

Okay, so you're redefining mystery.  By your definition, literally anything could be a mystery.  So your definition is vacuous.  It's the same as saying a thing is a thing.   Yes, that's technically true, but it doesn't give us new knowledge about anything. 

indeed. 

I love that series so much.  That god assessment that Dewey gave was spot on. 

From an outsider's point of view.  I too would find that very irksome.  I would put that in the category of accusing you of being a liar, which is probably the debate trick I hate the most out of all of them. 

That's an interesting question.  I would have to say that we indeed do not share this experience. 

As to why we don't share it.  I couldn't tell you.  I am aware of the argument but never had it used against me.  

On the few occasions that I have brought up my deconversion, I get different responses.  

A person on here presented something similar to what you said.  

They told me that if my mom had taken my salvation more seriously, I would have been able to see the truth better.  

That would be the closets to what you're talking about. 

Do you think that's an honest way to address my critiques? 

If I'm wrong, then you should be able to tell me why I'm wrong instead of just belittling my ability to make judgements.  

I could make the same statement to you. 

I could say that you think you know better, even though you don't.  

Surely, you can come up with a better argument.  Don't be lazy. 

Your assessment is not far off.  I've always considered myself lucky in this sense.  I'm not sure I would have been able to become an atheist if I was raised fundamental or became that way on my own.  

I wouldn't say that I never seriously considered it.  I had a fear of hell to some extent.  I believed in ghost.  Mostly because my Mom did and it was just one more axiom that I took from my parents.  I think that's just what kids do.  

I think the key difference for me was that I didn't try to live my life by my belief.  To me, it was just "god sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell" and The Bible teachings weren't really what made me believe this.  It just seemed intuitive to me. 

Honestly, things like accepting Jesus to get into heaven seemed ridiculous to me even when I believed.  I thought to myself.  "well, maybe that's true, but there has to be some other requirements"  

My rational mind was always in the background being the arbiter of how I believed. 

I think that's what made it so easy for me to become an atheist.  The very first argument I ever came up with after that was "You can be good without The Bible, so who needs The Bible" 

I think this was an indicator that all of my spiritual beliefs were morally driven rather than by doctrine.   I never got into the logical end of it until I got older. 

I had a similar experience after becoming an atheist.  

With my parents being Christians, I caught a lot of flak for my beliefs at home.  So one day I decided I should give The Bible a chance (like it was going to be the missing piece) and then started reading it.  I didn't even have to make it out of Genesis before realizing that there was no substance to this book.   Literally, there's a 4 or 5 page section where they just name blood lines.  The moral lessons are kindergarten level and the whole things sounds like a movie that should be in CGI.  

I think Sam Harris puts it best "Imagine how good a book would actually be if it was inspired by God"

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with your assessment about what a mystery is.  

A mystery, by definition, is unknown.  So to say that a mystery is truth is incoherent.  

If Christianity is truth worship, then why do their beliefs contradict each other?  Wouldn't that mean that they are worshipping false things as well? 

Communion is not a mystery in any sense of the word.  We know why people do it, so that's not a mystery.  We know what happens when people do it, so that's not a mystery.  We also know what it represents, also not a mystery.  

When you say that Christianity looks different from an outsiders perspective, I would agree but then say that it's a vacuous truth.  

Essentially, any belief system is going to look different from an outsider's point of view because the very fact that both of them have different beliefs necessarily means that they subjectively assess things differently. 

Furthermore, even people within the belief are going to see things differently because of their subjectivity.  So your entire point is moot.  You should have just said that everybody has different opinions.  

You specifically target western Christianity and say that it's unenlightened.  What makes your version so virtuous?  Wouldn't you just be a catholic?   Because that's not really high up on the tiers of palatable religions.  I'd rate Judaism as being exponentially more enlightened than Catholicism 

Lots of words were invented in ways that one might subjectively find idiotic, that doesn't change facts.  

The question is valid because people do indeed become atheists.   That is to say that people believe in theism and then stop believing in it.  This is simply just a fact.  Would you deny that this is true?  

As for the rest of things you said, it's clear that you hate religion.  While you are entitled to your opinion, those are all just subjective pleas and don't really shed any light onto this particular topic.   

It doesn't matter why any particular words was invented.  It only matters how we use the word in the present. 

I'm not a nihilist.  I can't speak for the others.  

I'm not running you off.  I said it will fall on deaf ears because I'm not in debate mode right now, it's not because I want to ignore your arguments.  

Languages are not an issue.  I can speak pretty decent Spanish and I have google translate for the rest, lol. 

Fine, I'll indulge you a bit.  What do you mean by mystery religion? 

You misunderstand me.  I don't deny that people can read jumble words when the first and last letters match.  That doesn't change the fact that we invented those letters evolved brains that became good at reading them efficiently. 

I'm not really trying to contest your assessment of meaning.  Obviously humans endow things with meaning.  That's just a fact.  My concern is trying to find out if the meaning that is contested in nihilism has merit to it.  This has nothing to do with subjective meaning because as far as I know, nihilists don't reject that. 

I wish my story was that rational, lol.  So what caused you to examine your beliefs like that? 

Inside a black hole huh?  That has some interesting implications.  I'm going to take a piece of that one home with me to chew on.  I usually would say that living a in a black hole would be fatal to life, but I'm going to put more thought into it than that. 

Out of curiosity, did you know that RNA is capable of creating itself on limestone?