I would say not, for the reason that we do not see someone's past as the reason to value them. Example: Slavery. It is important to note that beyond the slave's skin-color, they were seen as lesser because of their past experience in Africa (It being far less developed in all). This prompted the slaveholders to treat them as property, as they couldn't understand the European lifestyle yet(this difference in experience).
*Modern Day* Do you think slavery is right? It seems quite rightly to have been extinguished if the past standard is not sound.
The thing about using pasts to determine value is that even those with a past can be deemed less valuable (and harmed).
Another question: Would you like to be discriminated against because someone thought your past was less valuable? (Your elders for example *though probably politicians these days XD*)
A good exchange this is becoming! Rare on the internet,
To Truth!
-logicae
I see,
it is true that younger people lack experience that their elders have in the world. The question then becomes whether or not your experience determines the value of your life.
I agree it seems that we indeed care about relating with each other (fashion, peer pressure) and we certainly do praise contributions to society, but is that all? But who wants to relate to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao and who wants to be known for contributing destruction? This list seems to lack one fundamental backbone that gives both meaning. It is good that in the end we care about things, whether it is to relate to someone in a good way or to contribute something good to society, we search for our purpose in it all.
On the subject of abortion, you say that babies aren't relatable nor contribute to society, but you miss that important last question: Are they good? (Not like did they preform the moral act good, but are they in themselves valuable) Human life has that innate value, which is why we look first to protect newborns for example, we know that they are beyond material value like gold and also is why we look down upon those that hurt or kill, we see value in each other beyond our actions or superficial looks.
Perhaps this is why we are struggling to see the value in those that are hard to see, as you said, babies are not relatable, Indeed they are not, which is why many of them are killed each year(I think we know the numbers well). Like abominations before it (slavery, mass killings of every kind and shape), abortion is once more as PGA puts it an excuse to commit a horrendous act based on a difference of the person. Indeed it is and it needs to be said that many are waking up to this fad of an excuse for genocide.
I'm not sure about the debate, but I found this topic quite interesting. These are quite fantastic stats, I think we can all agree on that. Now what this means is a much harder to answer question, perhaps indicating something or another.
Hard to say though,
Regardless I thank both debaters for their time in this,
Agreed. The great Milton Freedom once said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Welfare is Warfare on everyone else who is stolen from. Indeed it makes no sense that a corrupt and bureaucratic centralized power (our federal government) would do a better job helping people than us as the local community.
I agree Alec. Taking a step out of the whole economic issue (which you can certainly make against the wall) It seems odd to exclude people who are in need (and no, this does not mean a wall = exclusion, but it directly represents keeping these people out, which is indeed exclusion) Now this statement is heavily contested, which I find also odd, because people don't just leave behind their home, family, and give up everything to just move thousands of miles into a foreign (and quite hostile) land, they do it because their situation is dire. Evidence of this of course comes in the form of migrants from war torn, poor, and failing countries such as Venezuela, Mexico (add in a good portion of Central and South America), the Middles East (for obvious reasons), and most of Africa.
Contrary to many that support the wall, I think it is not horrible to let these people in to struggle for a better situation and grow to be good hardworking citizens. If they don't, then they are no worse than the criminals we currently have. It is simply a part to whole fallacy to discount the many desperate and hard working migrants for the few criminals widely publicized on big media and social media.
But even this ignores the crux of the issue: Whether we as a country have an obligation to help our neighbors. I think this question is simply answered in your daily lives. Whenever you see that guy on the side of the road with the flat tire or that old lady asking for help to reach a store shelf, you are actively engaging to help your neighbor. This is also applied to a greater scale as well, as migrants are just our many neighbors in need. Can we not at least let them have the same opportunity to struggle as we do?
I think we should,
you guys tell me what you think,
Glad to hear your are considering it! I had intended this debate for those who had strong views on the wall, but I wouldn't mind debating anyone so long as they are ready with a case for it.
Well said Lazarous! I had yet to find someone who explained the shortfalls of the theory of evolution in a chat like environment like this, but you have laid it out well (a unicorn in this online world). Though I think we both know it would be hard to have an in-depth conversation about it with most people now, as they hold this belief as a part of themselves, I think it does not hurt to put it out there.
Hey Nemiroff, nice to see you are active! (I certainly can't say the same)
("Saying something doesn't exist isn't a positive claim")
Why? You are positively asserting something's nonexistence. All a positive assertion is, is a claim to the truth. (God exists is a truth claim and God doesn't exist is also a truth claim)
("Proving that something doesn't exist is impossible")
That's not true, we do it all the time. For example, we can prove that a flat earth does not exist by showing that a round one does. The flying spaghetti monster and other tales (notice we know that they are tales) are positively false because we know they were made up.
God however is different. You cannot side step the evidence pointing toward God (The argument from Contingency, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The necessity of a creator for fine tuned design...etc). Take the Kalam for example. What do you find wrong with it? We need to stop pretending like evidence for God does not exist, rather we need to evaluate if it is true or not.
I would caution that you understand both Theist and Atheist make positive claims. The Theist states that God exists and the Atheist states that God does not exist. Both truth claims require evidence.
"None can prove the impossible"
Agreed. What is impossible and why? These bare assertions are positive claims themselves and require reason.
Ah, but that is perhaps a misunderstanding of the origin and meaning of purpose.
I think it won't hurt to discuss it here, if you and I will try and find it together.
What is purpose? See if you can answer that one. I will try.
The first definition I find on google says it like this:
"the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists."
This definition makes sense as with anything that is created, it has a purpose. Take computer programming for example. Every program (game, bank account, calculator...etc) has a purpose for existing. This debate site for example has set purpose as an open debating platform purposed for thoughtful debates.
If we take this truth to God, than we see that his "program" of creation also has purpose. Science is the most obvious way we discover nature's various purposes. All life lives like a computer program, purposed to grow, reproduce, and die. Every atom, cell, and other components of life contains various purposes like the different parts of a program.
A leaf for example contains veins that bring nutrients and converted sunlight to a tree. The roots of a tree bring water to the tree. The seeds of a tree are purposed to spread the tree's DNA(a fascinating world of complexity in its own) in order for it to grow in other places and etc...
What about us? If God's creation has purpose as demonstrated, then we too must have purpose. Religion (The study of man's response to God) is how we can explain our purpose, but that is a topic for another time.
I'm glad we agree then that the destination is required for the journey. But you seem to question the meaning of life and, importantly, the existence of God. Our ultimate journey, our life, requires also a destination that will determine whether or not we have meaning.
If God exists, than we have purpose to live our lives to a meaningful end created by this all powerful creator.
If God does not exist, than our journey ends at the grave and ultimate meaning is illusory.
The question becomes "does God exist". A question for another time.
It was nice discussing this topic with you RationalMadman. I hope you well in your own journey and that you blow off all that steam you acquired on this site. (I haven't done anything close to as many debates as you have and am still tired of it!)
Perhaps you missed my answer. I didn't say that one who falls in love has a goal of falling in love. I said that:
"Someone who falls in love has the end goal of meeting his love."
It is clear that lovers want to act on their love, that is the end goal of love.
"inexplicable" means un-explainable. I think what lovers do is pretty well known and doesn't need explanation.
"and what comes along with it." -This is precisely what the destination is.
"I am not sure you're 'thinking' rather just out to 'prove' a semantic tautology."
I'd hope not (please show why this is the case), but I could simply counter assert this ad hominum fallacy to you. Since it proves nothing but a character attack, I think it is best left in the mud.
To "live for" something means you have a goal in mind, that something is the goal.
It is an oxymoron to say "You live for the near-future with no real goal". If you live for nothing, you do not have a journey. Your journey is only what you make of it.
"the destination in mind when falling in love with someone is to experience the love, there's no real destination for wanting it or pursuing it beyond it, in itself"
-Someone who falls in love has the end goal of meeting his love. That's the goal.
"the same goes for the stages in training and every day you get out of bed to do it just because you want to no sleep your life away or deteriorate, regardless of whether or not you end up as a wrestler."
-The journey is not guaranteed to reach the destination, correct. But the end goal is still to become a wrestler, "whether or not you end up as a wrestler".
I can simply do everything in life in vain, but is that a journey?
We need to understand that a journey is moving with a purpose to an end goal.
Dictionary.Cambridge states that the definition of journey is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to travel somewhere:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/journey
Notice that in "journey" we have a destination in mind. You have to have a destination, a reason, for going on a journey or else it is not a journey but instead a stand still.
There was no journey.
You cannot have a journey to nowhere, but anyone on a journey must have a destination in mind.
For a college student it is a degree for example.
"Equally, a terrible journey can appear at first to have a great destination but the very horror of the journey snowballs into a hatred of having become trapped in that destiny."
Agreed, it is important that we recognize that there is a destination. No one ever said "I'm going nowhere" as an answer to explain their journey.
True, but they have a goal in mind, a reason for training. No one trains for something without first figuring out what that something is.
My question for you is 'do best' in what? If you do something for nothing, then everything you do has no purpose.
Both of you I thought made fair points, but I cannot vote because I do not see a clearly defined objective for the debate. It seems as though Pro went down the debate is good or bad route and Con debated that debate distracts from truth. I think you guys should have agreed on what exactly you were differing on.
Is it not because the destination matters that the journey is given a purpose and so matters? Take training for wrestling for example. Would this training not be in vain if the trainer had no reason to use the training?
Religion is no different. The journey then is important only because the destination is vital.
my position on that title is that you must assume exponentially more in order to justify an Atheist world view. Take scientific truths and laws of the universe for example. The Atheist must assume everything just popped into being from nothing, giving no explanation for any of it. That to me takes more faith than to say that the universe has a source.
Perhaps I see where you are going here. On one hand I see far too many people take people's opinions in the field of science for granted. On the other hand I can understand why, in biology for example, a biologist would know more than you on his subject and so you can get his view, and expert opinion, on that subject. If a scientist however, has an opinion that is outside his own field, you should disregard that opinion as coming from an expert in the field. Instead you should ask for why the scientist has that opinion.
You must balance between an appeal to authority fallacy and someone's expert opinion. Regardless though, you should always ask for the reasoning behind an opinion, else it lacks foundation.
I usually don't comment on these kinds of things, but what does "Right" and "Left" mean?
Is it political like Republican and Democrat? Is it designating types of world views such as Right for limited government and Left for expanded government? Is it conservative vs liberal, or what?
It seems like everyone has some type of definition, but we attack each other without recognizing what they are.
I can certainly see why you would use debate as a type of peer review, but is that all it has been diluted to? Everyone seems to ascribe to this new notion of "polarization" where one's ideas becomes a part of them and attacking those ideas is similar to an attack on the person.
I think we can agree debate was meant for something more, at least a way to find light in a controversial matter.
I would say not, for the reason that we do not see someone's past as the reason to value them. Example: Slavery. It is important to note that beyond the slave's skin-color, they were seen as lesser because of their past experience in Africa (It being far less developed in all). This prompted the slaveholders to treat them as property, as they couldn't understand the European lifestyle yet(this difference in experience).
*Modern Day* Do you think slavery is right? It seems quite rightly to have been extinguished if the past standard is not sound.
The thing about using pasts to determine value is that even those with a past can be deemed less valuable (and harmed).
Another question: Would you like to be discriminated against because someone thought your past was less valuable? (Your elders for example *though probably politicians these days XD*)
A good exchange this is becoming! Rare on the internet,
To Truth!
-logicae
Trying to bump this. Anyone know anyone interested in this topic?
To Truth!
-logicae
I see,
it is true that younger people lack experience that their elders have in the world. The question then becomes whether or not your experience determines the value of your life.
Thoughts?
To Truth!
-logicae
Interesting question, mind if I add a thought?
I agree it seems that we indeed care about relating with each other (fashion, peer pressure) and we certainly do praise contributions to society, but is that all? But who wants to relate to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao and who wants to be known for contributing destruction? This list seems to lack one fundamental backbone that gives both meaning. It is good that in the end we care about things, whether it is to relate to someone in a good way or to contribute something good to society, we search for our purpose in it all.
On the subject of abortion, you say that babies aren't relatable nor contribute to society, but you miss that important last question: Are they good? (Not like did they preform the moral act good, but are they in themselves valuable) Human life has that innate value, which is why we look first to protect newborns for example, we know that they are beyond material value like gold and also is why we look down upon those that hurt or kill, we see value in each other beyond our actions or superficial looks.
Perhaps this is why we are struggling to see the value in those that are hard to see, as you said, babies are not relatable, Indeed they are not, which is why many of them are killed each year(I think we know the numbers well). Like abominations before it (slavery, mass killings of every kind and shape), abortion is once more as PGA puts it an excuse to commit a horrendous act based on a difference of the person. Indeed it is and it needs to be said that many are waking up to this fad of an excuse for genocide.
Good question,
To Truth!
-logicae
I'm not sure about the debate, but I found this topic quite interesting. These are quite fantastic stats, I think we can all agree on that. Now what this means is a much harder to answer question, perhaps indicating something or another.
Hard to say though,
Regardless I thank both debaters for their time in this,
To Truth!
-logicae
Agreed. The great Milton Freedom once said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Welfare is Warfare on everyone else who is stolen from. Indeed it makes no sense that a corrupt and bureaucratic centralized power (our federal government) would do a better job helping people than us as the local community.
Great thought,
To Truth!
-logicae
All the better lol,
Take care man,
To Truth!
-logicae
I agree Alec. Taking a step out of the whole economic issue (which you can certainly make against the wall) It seems odd to exclude people who are in need (and no, this does not mean a wall = exclusion, but it directly represents keeping these people out, which is indeed exclusion) Now this statement is heavily contested, which I find also odd, because people don't just leave behind their home, family, and give up everything to just move thousands of miles into a foreign (and quite hostile) land, they do it because their situation is dire. Evidence of this of course comes in the form of migrants from war torn, poor, and failing countries such as Venezuela, Mexico (add in a good portion of Central and South America), the Middles East (for obvious reasons), and most of Africa.
Contrary to many that support the wall, I think it is not horrible to let these people in to struggle for a better situation and grow to be good hardworking citizens. If they don't, then they are no worse than the criminals we currently have. It is simply a part to whole fallacy to discount the many desperate and hard working migrants for the few criminals widely publicized on big media and social media.
But even this ignores the crux of the issue: Whether we as a country have an obligation to help our neighbors. I think this question is simply answered in your daily lives. Whenever you see that guy on the side of the road with the flat tire or that old lady asking for help to reach a store shelf, you are actively engaging to help your neighbor. This is also applied to a greater scale as well, as migrants are just our many neighbors in need. Can we not at least let them have the same opportunity to struggle as we do?
I think we should,
you guys tell me what you think,
To Truth!
-logicae
Glad to hear your are considering it! I had intended this debate for those who had strong views on the wall, but I wouldn't mind debating anyone so long as they are ready with a case for it.
Keep searching where the evidence leads,
To Truth!
-logicae
Hello Everyone! Please remember to be respectful and do have fun! :)
To Truth!
-logicae
Well said Lazarous! I had yet to find someone who explained the shortfalls of the theory of evolution in a chat like environment like this, but you have laid it out well (a unicorn in this online world). Though I think we both know it would be hard to have an in-depth conversation about it with most people now, as they hold this belief as a part of themselves, I think it does not hurt to put it out there.
To Truth!
-logicae
Hey Nemiroff, nice to see you are active! (I certainly can't say the same)
("Saying something doesn't exist isn't a positive claim")
Why? You are positively asserting something's nonexistence. All a positive assertion is, is a claim to the truth. (God exists is a truth claim and God doesn't exist is also a truth claim)
("Proving that something doesn't exist is impossible")
That's not true, we do it all the time. For example, we can prove that a flat earth does not exist by showing that a round one does. The flying spaghetti monster and other tales (notice we know that they are tales) are positively false because we know they were made up.
God however is different. You cannot side step the evidence pointing toward God (The argument from Contingency, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The necessity of a creator for fine tuned design...etc). Take the Kalam for example. What do you find wrong with it? We need to stop pretending like evidence for God does not exist, rather we need to evaluate if it is true or not.
To Truth!
-logicae
Hello.
I would caution that you understand both Theist and Atheist make positive claims. The Theist states that God exists and the Atheist states that God does not exist. Both truth claims require evidence.
"None can prove the impossible"
Agreed. What is impossible and why? These bare assertions are positive claims themselves and require reason.
To Truth!
-logicae
Ah, but that is perhaps a misunderstanding of the origin and meaning of purpose.
I think it won't hurt to discuss it here, if you and I will try and find it together.
What is purpose? See if you can answer that one. I will try.
The first definition I find on google says it like this:
"the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists."
This definition makes sense as with anything that is created, it has a purpose. Take computer programming for example. Every program (game, bank account, calculator...etc) has a purpose for existing. This debate site for example has set purpose as an open debating platform purposed for thoughtful debates.
If we take this truth to God, than we see that his "program" of creation also has purpose. Science is the most obvious way we discover nature's various purposes. All life lives like a computer program, purposed to grow, reproduce, and die. Every atom, cell, and other components of life contains various purposes like the different parts of a program.
A leaf for example contains veins that bring nutrients and converted sunlight to a tree. The roots of a tree bring water to the tree. The seeds of a tree are purposed to spread the tree's DNA(a fascinating world of complexity in its own) in order for it to grow in other places and etc...
What about us? If God's creation has purpose as demonstrated, then we too must have purpose. Religion (The study of man's response to God) is how we can explain our purpose, but that is a topic for another time.
What do you think?
To Truth!
-logicae
I'm glad we agree then that the destination is required for the journey. But you seem to question the meaning of life and, importantly, the existence of God. Our ultimate journey, our life, requires also a destination that will determine whether or not we have meaning.
If God exists, than we have purpose to live our lives to a meaningful end created by this all powerful creator.
If God does not exist, than our journey ends at the grave and ultimate meaning is illusory.
The question becomes "does God exist". A question for another time.
It was nice discussing this topic with you RationalMadman. I hope you well in your own journey and that you blow off all that steam you acquired on this site. (I haven't done anything close to as many debates as you have and am still tired of it!)
Rest well my friend,
To Truth!
-logicae
Perhaps you missed my answer. I didn't say that one who falls in love has a goal of falling in love. I said that:
"Someone who falls in love has the end goal of meeting his love."
It is clear that lovers want to act on their love, that is the end goal of love.
"inexplicable" means un-explainable. I think what lovers do is pretty well known and doesn't need explanation.
"and what comes along with it." -This is precisely what the destination is.
"I am not sure you're 'thinking' rather just out to 'prove' a semantic tautology."
I'd hope not (please show why this is the case), but I could simply counter assert this ad hominum fallacy to you. Since it proves nothing but a character attack, I think it is best left in the mud.
To Truth!
-logicae
To "live for" something means you have a goal in mind, that something is the goal.
It is an oxymoron to say "You live for the near-future with no real goal". If you live for nothing, you do not have a journey. Your journey is only what you make of it.
"the destination in mind when falling in love with someone is to experience the love, there's no real destination for wanting it or pursuing it beyond it, in itself"
-Someone who falls in love has the end goal of meeting his love. That's the goal.
"the same goes for the stages in training and every day you get out of bed to do it just because you want to no sleep your life away or deteriorate, regardless of whether or not you end up as a wrestler."
-The journey is not guaranteed to reach the destination, correct. But the end goal is still to become a wrestler, "whether or not you end up as a wrestler".
To Truth!
-logicae
I am perplexed by this statement:
"You can have a journey to nowhere."
How can you?
I can simply do everything in life in vain, but is that a journey?
We need to understand that a journey is moving with a purpose to an end goal.
Dictionary.Cambridge states that the definition of journey is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to travel somewhere:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/journey
Notice that in "journey" we have a destination in mind. You have to have a destination, a reason, for going on a journey or else it is not a journey but instead a stand still.
To Truth!
-logicae
Indeed. I would be interested in this debate if the title had 1941 Germany (before the invasion of Russia). Would you debate that?
To Truth!
-logicae
There was no journey.
You cannot have a journey to nowhere, but anyone on a journey must have a destination in mind.
For a college student it is a degree for example.
"Equally, a terrible journey can appear at first to have a great destination but the very horror of the journey snowballs into a hatred of having become trapped in that destiny."
Agreed, it is important that we recognize that there is a destination. No one ever said "I'm going nowhere" as an answer to explain their journey.
True, but they have a goal in mind, a reason for training. No one trains for something without first figuring out what that something is.
My question for you is 'do best' in what? If you do something for nothing, then everything you do has no purpose.
To Truth!
-logicae
Why thank you! I sure hope it does.
To Truth!
-logicae
Both of you I thought made fair points, but I cannot vote because I do not see a clearly defined objective for the debate. It seems as though Pro went down the debate is good or bad route and Con debated that debate distracts from truth. I think you guys should have agreed on what exactly you were differing on.
To Truth!
-logicae
How odd.
Is it not because the destination matters that the journey is given a purpose and so matters? Take training for wrestling for example. Would this training not be in vain if the trainer had no reason to use the training?
Religion is no different. The journey then is important only because the destination is vital.
To Truth!
-logicae
I take it that you would like to be on the Con side of things?
If so, you may pick any of those resolutions. I would be happy to join one if you made it.
To Truth!
-logicae
I am.
What do you have in mind?
To Truth! -logicae
Indeed,
my position on that title is that you must assume exponentially more in order to justify an Atheist world view. Take scientific truths and laws of the universe for example. The Atheist must assume everything just popped into being from nothing, giving no explanation for any of it. That to me takes more faith than to say that the universe has a source.
Hope that helps,
To Truth!
-logicae
Welcome all!
To Truth! -logicae
I must say the toucan was the height of this "rigorous" debate. XD
To Truth!
-logicae
Perhaps I see where you are going here. On one hand I see far too many people take people's opinions in the field of science for granted. On the other hand I can understand why, in biology for example, a biologist would know more than you on his subject and so you can get his view, and expert opinion, on that subject. If a scientist however, has an opinion that is outside his own field, you should disregard that opinion as coming from an expert in the field. Instead you should ask for why the scientist has that opinion.
You must balance between an appeal to authority fallacy and someone's expert opinion. Regardless though, you should always ask for the reasoning behind an opinion, else it lacks foundation.
To Truth!
-logicae
@Wylted
XD
I take it that this is inspired by my debate?
Good question by Con about what about debate this debate is about. (kind of a tongue twister :)
To Truth!
-logicae
@RationalMadman
Hello RationalMadman,
Are you sure and ready to debate and defend the position that God does not exist? That was a quick pick up.
To Truth! -logicae
Well done guys.
To Truth!
-logicae
I usually don't comment on these kinds of things, but what does "Right" and "Left" mean?
Is it political like Republican and Democrat? Is it designating types of world views such as Right for limited government and Left for expanded government? Is it conservative vs liberal, or what?
It seems like everyone has some type of definition, but we attack each other without recognizing what they are.
To Truth!
-logicae
Sorry about the dropped first round RationalMadman! I was absent and should have posted sooner.
To Truth!
-logicae
@Ragnar
Hello,
I can certainly see why you would use debate as a type of peer review, but is that all it has been diluted to? Everyone seems to ascribe to this new notion of "polarization" where one's ideas becomes a part of them and attacking those ideas is similar to an attack on the person.
I think we can agree debate was meant for something more, at least a way to find light in a controversial matter.
Regardless though,
To Truth!
-logicae
@LordLuke
Hello,
What do you mean?
-logicae
@omar2345
Hello old friend! Yes I am.
To Truth!
-logicae