CreateDebate


Stryker's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Stryker's arguments, looking across every debate.
Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

of course it is meaningless since the compilation of chemical reactions which would individually attempt to ascribe meaning to it is lost in death.

I agree to a point, but even without death, I think the question of meaning is ill formed.

The only problem I have with they google definition of "life" is that it fails to recognize the dying process which overshadows "life" from the moment "life" of any organism is conceived.

I either don't understand your point, or disagree. Death is a completely separate issue, and something that isn't necessary to life. Death is only common because it is evolutionary advantageous.

Both for things to die naturally which benefit their genes, as well as for the genes of things that kill other things for what they are composed of.

If none of it has meaning, there is no reason to live

The reason to live is because some things are enjoyable.

there is no reason to live and no reason to allow others to live if they are hindering your enjoyments of life....and you feel the risk of retaliation is less that the gains you would have by removing or injuring other people.

Sure, seems to show in human history.

Survival of the fittest is all that matters if life has no meaning, right?

"matters"?

1 point

The idea of mass murdering human beings appalls me,

And? An action that isn't immoral can be seen as appalling.

even in the conditions you listed. I see no way that this could possibly be humane.

Humane? That isn't what I'm talking about, not sure why you keep bringing it up?

What I am saying is a ban is a clear line in the sand. By only banning factory farming, people will always be tempted to put profit above animal welfare. This is why animal welfare fails and abolishment is better.

By banning factory farming but allowing small, organic, so called "humane", and free-range farms you introduce a conflict of interest. The animal's welfare versus profit. Abolishment has no such disadvantage.

This is a poorly structured argument. Both "abolition" and "animal welfare" would be laws, and some people will put profit above legal retribution, so they both fail for the same reason. You talk about the welfare of animals like it's something most people care about, they don't and legislation won't change that. This is a question of Profit vs. Law.

1 point

Stryker I'm certain you are almost entirely alone on the first claim.

That Vegan, is not an argument.

As for the 2nd the profit motive is at work. People who use cheaper and more inhumane methods will have the advantage.

Odd, it seems you are now supporting my original argument for this debate. Not sure how to respond.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

So you find life meaningless. ...can you elaborate?

I understand "how life", and can't find anything pointing to the "why life", that may prove to be an incoherent question.

are you saying life means physics act on matter and nothing more

Yes?

so you believe there really is no such thing as life

These two definitions popped up when I Googled "define:life"

I have no objection to either, and accept the existence of both.

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

the existence of an individual human being or animal.

and life means nothing at all?

I have a hard time reconciling this question due to phrasing, the closest to an answer I can give is I see no reason to believe that life has any inherent meaning.

1 point

Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? Nope

I disagree. If you have an isolated group of people, all who only have ties within the group, and executed them in such a way to be both painless and with no knowledge of the demise of their group-mates, I see no objection on the grounds of immorality.

it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.

There are animal products that don't require the killing of an animal. For example, I could raise chicks with the care I would kittens, and once ready, I could collect and consume their savory menstruations without having caused anything to suffer.

I would like to note that I never used the words "humane" or "execute/slaughter", so your objection doesn't really seem aimed at me.

2 points

None of the four links provided attempt to claim bees are capable of suffering.

Please try again.

1 point

I have yet to encounter a compelling reason to attribute any external meaning to "life". The necessary result of physics acting on matter is good enough for me.

1 point

My opposition to animal products are the methods used to obtain them. If worldwide bans were a thing, I would support one on factory farming, but not on animal products in general.

3 points

I define immoral as "the intentional causing of unnecessary suffering."

With that in mind, I reject the resolution as insects are incapable of suffering.

1 point

I think I would have enjoyed hanging out with her as odd as that may sound, I like her sense of humor, and she is nice. Her drawbacks, mainly misunderstanding an argument or taking it personally doesn't really apply to the people I choose to associate with as I filter what I am willing to discuss based on those I am with.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

Just to be clear, please re-answer the questions with the following clarification.

When I say belief in an entity, I am referring to holding a belief that "the concept you have is matched by something that manifests in reality."

and to speed things along as I am in the middle of my work week and can't get on as much, Question One is a logical tautology, Question two is the one we can have a logical discussion about. I could be wrong about question one, but if you can demonstrate it I will give you $10.

Stryker(849) Clarified
2 points

I bet you can even figure out what I said despite the awful typo.

1 point

Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity suggests that the universe [as we know it] had a beginning but the universe [as we know it] wasn't eternal.

There, I fixed it. The universe as we know it consists of three dimensions of space, one dimension of time, some snazzy physical constants, and a bunch of stuff we don't understand yet. We have yet to have an answer, or any demonstrated scientific theory, as to what happened "before" the Big Bang, or if temporal terminology doesn't apply, what "caused" the Big Bang.

4 points

It would help if you understood the syntax of our shared language. You see, the work "bill" on it's own could very well have multiple definitions, but luckily for us we out language allows for context, because other words can help us decipher this trickster language of ours. You're silly joke demonstrates this nicely, as well as that you know everything I just wrote, so why would you choose to look so foolish by presenting this?

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

Question One:

If I believe in an entity with the necessary quality "X", and you believe in a being that does not have that necessary quality, would you agree that we do not believe in the same entity?

Question Two:

Is it possible for an entity to have quality that is necessary to the concept of that entity?

I'm doing this in the form of questions, there is no need to defend you position until I state a conclusion, all that is required is answering the questions.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

I wouldn't say scholar. I do spend a fair amount of time listening to inter-Christian debates, Christian apologetics, having conversations with Christians, as well as attending various churches. I feel as though I am well informed about Christianity as well as with the Bible, although I don't make a habit of reading it on my own, I prefer to understand how Christians interpret it.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

I see, I looked into it and it seems to be pretty complected, but non-violence does seem to play a large part.

This leaves one question though, had they had superior violent weapons to use against The British Empire and Muslim League, would it have been more effective than non-violence. This could be measured by comparing the outcome that would have been most favorable for India to the outcome they received.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

india got its independence under the guidance of Mahatma Gandhi who followed non violence all throughout his life.

Would you please elaborate on this point?

1 point

Ummm... Cool story bro? What's the debate about?

1 point

Fuck really?! Now I feel bad, what if he is actually debating with people, but none of us take the time to translate his arguments.

Is swearing allowed? I just realized I didn't actually know and this seems as good a way as any to find out.

1 point

I would put having a four year liberal arts degree slightly above a four year consecutive work history. You have to take minimal maths, science, history, and English classes to get the degree, other than that they both only show you can stick to something for four years.

0 points

Non-violence has never been a better weapon, even just your fists are a better weapon than non-violence.

1 point

Isn't the god of your mythology the one that destroys the nations of the world? Doesn't Satan just give a guy some boils and kill all his kids or something?

2 points

This is probably the best I can do for a logical contradiction, demonstrating a logical argument to not be sound is easy, but finding an example of a logical contradiction isn't.

All cows can fly, Bessy is a cow, therefor Bessy can fly. There is no logical contradiction here, but it isn't sound. All the premises have to be true for the argument to be sound, and Bessy is in fact a turtle.

Anyway, is the linked debate acceptable?

Supporting Evidence: Critique from atheists please (www.createdebate.com)
Stryker(849) Clarified
2 points

Woops, I was going to demonstrate that your ontological argument wasn't sound, but this challenge is to find a logical contradiction. My mistake, I should have read that more closely. brb lol xD

2 points

Alrighty, lets play.

Is the linked debate fair game? If so, I would like to start with making sure I use your definitions for my questions. I need the following words defined as you use them in your debate description.

Worship

Non-existent

Being

God(s)

Appropriately

Existence

Truths

Know

Supporting Evidence: atypican's ontological argument (www.createdebate.com)
1 point

What about when you jump and it takes you to a conversation between you and the person you jumped to? Sometimes I have received a message from the person shortly after, other times I never get anything or don't even know the person in a way that would lead them to message me.

2 points

I think it has a lot to do with nostalgia. I have many fond memories of reading from books, most take place at night as I tried to position my gameboy light attachment to light the pages. Even as enamored with technology as I am, I still prefer a physical book.

I have similar nostalgia for cartridge games, something today's children will likely not understand due to the increasing popularity of just downloading games straight to your consoles. The is a gaming bar I go to that has a Super Nintendo, I know the feeling you are talking about, I had it when I requested one of my favorite games and they brought out the original cartridge version of if, downloading it to my 3DS would never give me that feeling.

Not really sure why I replied, I usually don't unless to dispute. I guess I want people to understand that your statement is accurate.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

I believe it was because he was male, but there is no way for me to demonstrate it. The problem in my uneducated opinion would have been having two mothers. While my one fills an important role, the second wouldn't have filled my father's because the reason I was comfortable talking to him about, for a lack of better terminology, "guy things" was because he is a straight male. Again, I am only speaking from my own experience, had I not had a male figure in my life I may have felt differently.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

Which is why I asked what we are debating, diabetes has been demonstrated, aspartame poisoning hasn't. I need something to consider. What about the chemical composition of aspartame leads to the hypothesis that it is poisonous to humans?

1 point

I haven't found much justification that one is necessarily better than the other, I have but one thought on the topic. There are things I was only comfortable discussing with my father, because of this, I would conclude that it would be best for a child to have a parent of the same gender and possibly the same sexual orientation. With that said, life isn't perfect, people die, leave, or are just terrible parents and I have no objection to one or more adults of any orientation to parent children.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

I meant to say it has never been confirmed medically that aspartame is in fact poisonous.

Okay, if not demonstrated by medical science, in what way has it been demonstrated to be poisonous to humans or other organisms genetically or chemically similar to humans?

1 point

Aspartame is a cancerous chemical that is often found in our gum or soda's mostly diet. I know that scientists have fed aspartame to monkeys and within a few days the monkeys ended up dying.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

1 point

Aspartame poisoning: Has never been confirmed to be a dangerous poison to humans

I'm sorry, what are we debating exactly?

I prefer regular Coke

Stryker(849) Clarified
2 points

How would you convince them that humans do (share a common ancestor with modern primates)?

Alrighty then, these are the steps I would use to demonstrate humans and modern primates share a common ancestor.

First I would confirm that the person I'm speaking with has no objections to evolutionary theory. I would then confirm that they accept that evolution covers all change in "life" after abiogenesis. After confirming this I would confirm that they understand that all "life" that evolves from a single instance of abiogenesis would necessarily share a common ancestor.

This would leave only a single objection open to the person I am speaking with, "Can you demonstrate that both humans and modern primates evolved from a single instance of abiogenesis?". If asked this I could conclude that the person has accepted evolution by a means other than learning about it, and would suggest they study up a bit. I would also tell them that a nice collection of evidence for common decent can be found on Wikipedia.

Supporting Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent (en.wikipedia.org)
1 point

Of course it's true!

Source: Debate description

Assume for the sake of argument that evolution has been demonstrated to be accurate and true.

Stryker(849) Clarified
2 points

Please define "universe" and "multiverse".

Universalism describes "what transpires" as a unified "whole" or "all", as a singularity. In doing that, assumption of a beginning and an end is necessarily involved.

This isn't what I asked for.

Therefore a universe, by definition, cannot be infinite.

I wouldn't know as you have yet to present a definition of universe.

Multiversalism proposes a multiplicity as opposed to a singularity and isn't necessarily restricted by "closed system" think.

Again, this isn't what I asked for.

I attempt to engage in discussions with you because you display a type of modern sudo-philosophical world view that has, in my observation, become increasingly popular. By having discussions with you, I intended to understand this view and locate what I hope is a single logical error for the purpose of easily correcting those I encounter in the future. Your insistence of making assumptions about my position, disregarding definitions, and refusing to stay on topic has made this an increasingly laborious activity, with no real progress to be made. On July first I will be happy to engage in further discussion with you, but up until that time I will spectate as others attempt to demonstrate your errors in logic. Hopefully at a later time we can have a productive conversation, but now is not that time.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

Capitalism of the word 'god' is pretty common amongst English practitioners of monotheistic religions. This is not limited to the Abrahamic religions; another example is Sikhism. Writings such as 'The God Problem' (can't locate a link at the moment, may edit it in later) also capitalize it and use it generically rather than deal with specific individual gods from various mono or polytheistic religions. But as you said, it's not really relevant to the debate.

You have demonstrated your claim to my satisfaction. I concede my point that the word "god" being capitalized refers to the Christian god in all cases. I was incorrect, my apologizes.

What does alien mean if not 'life that did not arise on earth? Most, if not all religions assert their god(s) to be living, so wouldn't that make every god an alien?

I was unclear. I was attempting to distinguish between an alien and a supernatural entity. If there is no difference, or the two are not mutually exclusive, then I will concede that point for the sake of this discussion as I may be using a more restrictive definition of "alien" and it really isn't important to this discussion.

As for lack of worship... have you ever been to a comic convention? And for a more literal version...

If there are people who worship Superman, their concept of Superman is different than the original concept, as the creator of the original concept conveyed it as fictional. The altered concept of Superman may qualify as a god, but is a different concept from what it is based on.

As such, whenever two individuals who hold different concepts of 'god' are using the term, each is misunderstanding 'god' in terms of the other persons concept. The concept of 'god' as spoken by a Christian is fundamentally different from the concept of 'god' as spoken by an Atheist. Neither concept has to be incorrect for misunderstanding to take place.

Perhaps we have just had a misunderstanding. I'm not claiming that one person is unable to misunderstand another persons concept. My position is as follows:

For any given concept, there either is or isn't a manifestation in reality that matches that concept. Some concepts are developed based on manifestations in reality, and the concept changes based on our understanding of the manifestation. An example would be Earth, while once thought to be flat, we have since learned that our concept of Earth was misunderstood or incorrect, and have corrected it. Other concepts are not based on something that have been demonstrated to manifest in reality, these concepts cannot be a misunderstanding because the concept itself is self referential. An example would be Superman, the originator of that concept cannot be misunderstanding Superman, because his concept is correct by definition. Even if we discovered a manifestation in reality that is similar, but not exactly the same as the concept of Superman, the concept of Superman still wouldn't me a misunderstanding, because the concept of Superman is self referential.

I am objecting to the idea that "God" is misunderstood, because for any concept of "God" to be misunderstood, there must be a manifestation in reality that is being misunderstood, and as the concept of "God" is not based on a manifestation in reality, the concept is correct by definition. You can misunderstand my concept, but I cannot. If you understand my concept, it is impossible for any impute of information to demonstrate that my concept is a misunderstanding because my concept if correct by definition.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

So like I can have a unicycle with infinite wheels?

Please define "universe" and "multiverse". I will address your other arguments after we clear this up.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

Sigh... I was going to include a line about that we are not discussing physically attacking Hitler, but thought that might be patronizing.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

Okay, what about your knowledge of Hitler leads you to doubt that he would listen to a logical argument? Or why you think attacking him personally would be more effective?

1 point

I doubt Hitler listened to logical arguments.

What brings you to that conclusion?

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

What if you were a jew. You would still just attack his belief?

It is always better to attack the belief, because beliefs strongly influence behavior. Regardless of Hitlers preconceived notions about me, the presentation of a logical argument is going to be more effective.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

So I don't see the problem.

That's okay, I have no problem disagreeing. Srom was, wrongfully, feeling attacked when confronted with many counter arguments. Now Srom is actually being attacked and I'm here to support him because this debate is completely uncalled for.

I don't think you should hesitate figuratively attacking someone if they have a belief that can be very insulting or demeaning others. ...there are several people who've killed in the name of the bible, and in the name of the christian God. To name one extreme example - Hitler.

If confronted by Hitler I wouldn't attack him personally, I would attack his beliefs. This would lead to me having an complete understanding of them in order that I could point out the errors in logic. I believe this would be more effective in persuading him to change his beliefs.

1 point

First of all, I don't think I attacked anyone.

I believe the following would qualify as an attack, there is no need to bring Srom into this.

So thank you, Srom. Without your ridiculous belief

Second of all, that's a stupid statement.

You are welcome to disagree with me.

1 point

I like pets that I can mount on my shoulder. My cat does this and the only down side are his claws. I suspect this problem would also occur with lizards, plus, I prefer snakes because they function in a way I find interesting.

6 points

Attack the beliefs, not the person who holds them.

1 point

Capitalizing 'god' also does not always refer to the Christian God, but rather is a generalization when referring to various Gods as an individual entity for the sake of simplicity;

I would be happy to concede this point if you can demonstrate this claim, otherwise it isn't really relevant to this debate.

the context of my statements should have been sufficient to indicate that I was not speaking specifically regarding the Christian God.

I missed that, my apologies.

I'm going to drop 'deity' from the definition as it amounts to a tautology.

Agreed.

This definition is just as applicable to superman;

I'm not aware of Superman being worshiped, but if he was then I would agree he might qualify as a god, although by "superhuman" it may be referencing "supernatural", which Superman isn't, if I'm correct about him being an alien, and not supernatural.

it's not specific enough.

I would be happy to consider your alternative definition.

That is not a concept- this statement makes the assertion that the entity 'Robot-Hitler' exists, in respect to manifest reality.

This is exactly my point, whether something that matches the concept manifests in reality isn't part of the concept.

If 'Robot-Hitler' was known to exist, then the concept communicated by the term 'Robot-Hitler' would be quite different than the concept communicated should 'Robot-Hitler' be assumed to be a fictional character.

Agreed. Once something that matches a concept is shown to manifest in reality, the concept is then directly tied to that entity and any changes in the understanding of the entity are applied to the concept. When there is a concept that doesn't have anything matching it manifesting in reality, the concept can't be misunderstood because the concept is correct by definition.


1 of 25 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]