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.

6 points

Really? This seems to be a bit much. Srom already said he is feeling isolated and attacked, why take this extra step, do you just want to chase away anyone who disagrees with you?

2 points

As apposed to theism, which requires believing something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true? How exactly do you define "stupidity"?

1 point

'God' isn't being capitalized as a pronoun in the debate choices;

I was referring to every instance of the word "god" being capitalized in your rebuttal, not the debate options.

Can you provide a definition of 'God' that is applicable to both Odin and Yahweh?

A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

How, exactly, can you dismiss actual existence in manifest reality as a property of a concept?

Maybe an example will help, there is the concept:

After the death of Hitler, his brain was reconstructed and implanted in an advanced robot, this entity is called Robo-Hitler. Robo-Hitler exists.

If we could demonstrate that Robo-Hitler does not exist, what part of the concept did you misunderstand?

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

are you speaking of Roman Catholicism ??

They would be included under the label of Christian as I understand it.

are you agreeing w/ me about atheism suppressing other ideologies ??

Being an atheist doesn't require one to suppress or eliminate other ideologies, or even want to do so, similarly to how being an atheist doesn't require a belief in evolution. Both are common in the atheist community, but not necessary to being an atheist.

1 point

This debate is not specifically about the Christian God;

I can't be blamed if people use the proper noun "God", which refers to the Christian god, when they should be saying "a god" or "gods". I can only reply to what is presented to me. The noun "god" isn't capitalized.

Does the concept of 'Odin' reflect the same concept of 'God' as does the concept of 'Yahweh?' Or are they both called 'Gods' using completely different definitions and understandings of what the term 'God' means?

They both fall under the same definition of "god", much like how humans and dogs both fall under the same definition of "mammal".

Please explain to me how something being inaccurate with regards to reality is anything other than a misunderstanding.

The concept of any given god is completely separate from it manifesting in reality. I understand the concept of Bigfoot, if I believed that Bigfoot existed, but if it was demonstrated to not exist, the concept of Bigfoot didn't change, I didn't misunderstand the concept.

For all the arguments I presented in my last post, you can't easily replace "Christian god" with any other god, or just the generic noun "god". I didn't base the arguments on the Christian god specifically, I was only trying to address your argument as it was presented.

1 point

Being agnostic is like trying to solve an impossible mathematical equation, we know that the equation exists because we can see it but we can't figure it out, we know there is an answer but until we can solve it we remain unknowing or agnostic about that mathematical equation.

I like this analogy, but I believe the conclusions you drew from it are incorrect. Someone proposing that a god exists is like someone proposing that the answer to that math problem is 11. You can't solve the problem so you don't believe it is 11, but because you can't solve the problem, you can't completely rule 11 out. I don't believe there is a god, but I can't completely rule it out because it isn't self contradictory. That position is labeled as agnostic atheism.

1 point

fact is: atheism is an ideology that seeks to suppress and eliminate other ideologies it opposes ... just as Islam and or Nazism

Don't forget Christianity, that ideology suppressed and eliminated other ideologies long before Islam and Nazism.

1 point

Clearly Muhammad was/is/will be a time traveler... and no one can prove he wasn't/isn't/won't be!!!

Stryker(849) Clarified
4 points

Attacking? Do you mean the presentation of arguments that demonstrate the logical errors you have made when coming to your conclusions?

1 point

It's actively believing that a God doesn't exist.

That website has misrepresented the atheist position to you. There is a difference between I believe "X" is false, and I don't believe "X".

You: The number of hairs on your head is even.

Me: I don't believe you.

You: Ah ha! So you believe that the number of hairs on your head is odd!

Me: No, not believing that there are an even number of hairs on my head is not the same thing as believing there is not an even number of hairs on my head.

It is classified as the seven things on what makes up a religion, it contains which is Narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.

Neat, there is one thing that makes up an atheist, not believing in the existence of any gods, that's it. You can believe extra dimensional beings seeded life on Earth and our purpose is to buy and store as much cheese as possible while proclaiming that evolution is a lie, and as long as you don't believe in any gods you are an atheist.

Here is an explanation on why Atheism is a religion and it contains all of the seven things in detail and it gives proof.

I read the site, it is inaccurate. I would be happy to address a few of what you think are their strongest arguments or "proof", but it would take a long time to address the page's entirety.

2 points

Gnostic Theist: I know god(s) exists.

Agnostic Theist: I believe god(s) exists.

Agnostic Atheist: I don't believe gods exist.

Gnostic Atheist: I know gods don't exist.

1 point

It's ok I made my point. I suspect that you get it but won't concede.

You made a logically flawed point, and questioning my intellectual integrity doesn't help any.

If you think it's ok to assume "the universe" exists. as opposed to say infinite multiverses, I won't try to convince you otherwise.

The claims that "the universe exists" and "infinite multiverses exist" are not mutually exclusive, in other words, it is possible to believe both without any contradictions.

These exchanges would go a lot smoother if you would stop making assumptions.

1 point

So if God's the only one with the rulebook and the reasons for rules being in said book, why is it your guys' place to judge them?

Well, I can judge them because I am capable of judging something, just because an entity has the power to enforce it's own rules doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

If he hasn't given a reason, it's likely that he just pulled the rule out of nowhere to test you guys in the Old Testament.

I would be interested to read how you concluded that this is likely.

Jesus said that the OT laws don't apply anymore...

Please support your assertion with Biblical Scripture.

1 point

If God, in fact, does not exist, wouldn't the statement 'God is misunderstood' still hold true in respect to theists?

Individuals can misunderstand the concept of the Christian god, but because the Christian god hasn't been demonstrated to manifest in reality, it's definition cannot be a misunderstanding, because it is accurate by definition.

As such, wouldn't that stance require a lesser burden of proof than 'God does not exist?'

My position is that it is impossible for the definition of a concept to be a misunderstanding. The impossibility of the Christian god to not exist hasn't been demonstrated, so on one side we have something that is impossible, and the other we have something that is possibly possible. Even if it was demonstrated that the Christian god exists, that would only put the two claims on equal footing, both impossible.

Even if God does not hold any concrete existence, God still exists as a concept; considering God to hold a concrete existence when God is merely a concept would certainly seem to be a misunderstanding.

The concept and whether soemthing that matches that concept manifests in reality are two different things. Any attempts to include that the concept manifest in reality would have to be demonstrated. If it isn't demonstrated, and the concept was demonstrated to not manifest in reality, then the concept was inaccurate with regard to reality, but not misunderstood.

1 point

We are on a debating website already, there is no need to put a link to another.

1 point

If assuming that God exists is begging the question,

No, to question "our" understanding of a god is begging the question because it presupposes that this god exists to be misunderstood.

then so too would assuming that something we call the universe exists, wouldn't it?

I am not at all interested in having a discussion about whether or not the universe exists.

1 point

Please define your terms, afterwards I would be happy to address your debate.

1 point

Damn it to all those who recognize my brilliance before I have time to re-read it a few hundred times to ensure there are no errors or ambiguity.

Steps down from his most highest of horses.

I would like to clarify that while books do manifest in reality, they are merely sculptures of the concept "book". Please reference my argument regarding the unicorn illustration.

2 points

I reject your authority on the matter. :)

If this isn't something you would like to discuss further I'm fine with that, but I want the last word. If I propose that we change the label "pizza" to instead reference apple baked salmon, we would still need a label for the old concept of pizza.

Who do you think I should ask to find out if the concept of say, "love" qualifies as god?

You wouldn't ask anyone, you would reference it's definition. An emotion experienced by some forms of life does not qualify as a god. When people say "god is love", they are either leaving part of said god's description out, or using the word "god" incorrectly. Love is not an entity.

do you assume that the minority demographic who view god as say "A literary device used in various religious narratives to exert power over lazy minded people, and every now and then inspire introspection like no other" are less correct somehow?

I don't assume it, it can be demonstrated. All one needs to do is reference the definition of a "god".

I don't follow you, please rephrase

A label used for an entity that can be demonstrated to manifest in reality is directly tied to our understanding of that entity, for example, the label "Dog" is a direct pointer to the physical manifestation of a dog, so the definition or description of "dog" changes with our understanding of dogs.

The label "unicorn" is directly tied to how "unicorn" is defined. The label "dog" is directly tied to the species of mammal which we have labeled "dog". "Unicorn" is a pointer to a definition, "dog" is a pointer to a manifestation within reality.

To the contrary, "unicorn" is tied to fairy tales. Fairy tales are real, you can pick one up at a book store. They just describe things that are only imaginary.

No, the label "unicorn" is used in fairy tales, either accompanied by it's definition, or referencing it's definition. I will agree though that books manifest in reality.

Unicorns aren't just defined, they are illustrated.

Their illustrations are based on their definition. If I present you with an illustration of a pie, and assert it is an illustration of a unicorn, you can demonstrate that I am incorrect by referencing the definition of "unicorn".

Does this restate your point...."A label with an unrecognized referent is unintelligible"?

No, my point is if you want to change the definition of "unicorn" to three winged cheese spider, we are no longer discussing the current label "unicorn", so there was no point is bringing up unicorns. If you want to change the definition of "god" to something else, it serves no purpose to reference a new definition in the context of the current definition.

The proper way of going about why you are trying to do is as follows:

I have a concept of "X", let us discuss this concept, oh, and I'm labeling it "god" because I like the way that word sounds.

2 points

For a god to be misunderstood, it must be demonstrated to manifest in reality, otherwise it would just be question begging.

1 point

There have been records in the past of SeaWorld not providing the orcas ample amount of food,

If this is true, my position is that should be corrected, and those responsible punished.

being in a tank thousands of times smaller than the ocean

If this in some way causes harm, it should be corrected.

to me qualifies as effecting "the orca's natural ecosystem".

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referencing the natural ecosystem of wild Orcas. For example, if there aren't enough of them to keep their population healthy, I would be apposed to taking any more from the wild, and would encourage those holding any Orcas in captivity to release them until the population is healthy.

The tanks often have chipped paint which the orcas eat.

Again, if this is true it should be corrected.

The current conditions of their captivity is irrelevant to whether they should be held in captivity at all, I am only addressing the latter.

1 point

That's beyond my knowledge, had you not included the part about lying I wouldn't have presented an argument. There is at least one denomination (Seventh Day Adventist), where I studied for a while, and they believe that the only unforgivable sin is to continuously commit a sin for which you are repetitively asking forgiveness. As far as other denominations, if you honestly believe that you won't do it again, repent, and for some reason are unable to stop the aforementioned sin... well I don't know.

I would imagine the standard Christian answer would be something like "If you are unable to stop repeating a sin, you must not have a personal relationship with Christ, and that is the definition of a Christian." On the other hand, a Calvinist would likely respond by saying "You're actions were predestined in order that God could demonstrate his perfect justice to his elect."

Christians, did I get close?

1 point

Unless the sin they keep repeating is lying, the person lying about not committing the sin again would be committing at least one more sin than the other person. If the sin is lying, then they would be equal, as all sins are sins against the Christian god.

1 point

Superb argument, stellar in fact, except of one thing, Ruazenith is the Lord of our existence, and along with other â—‹new, the existence of everything within our universe. Luckily for you, Ruazenith has no interest in those who choose not to follow, they will simply be lost to time. It's not too late if you to work for persistent existence, Ruazenith is lord, all you have to do is work with us to achieve this universe's Final State.

1 point

Well. My best defense here is to ask why homosexuality is a sin. The bible just states that it is bad, but refuses to explain why.

Ah, the Euthyphro Dilemma, "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?". While this is usually a great tool when in discussion with a theist, it is no defense here.

You see, because of the way you have structured this debate, we are assuming the existence of the Christian god. God makes the rules and the punishment, and has the power to enforce them. How God decides what is a sin is irrelevant in the context of this debate, and ultimately unknowable, at least until the Christian god can be demonstrated to exist.

1 point

When discussing the Bible, I try to take the perspective of the person I am discussing it with, I find that is more productive, and educational for myself. I also enjoy listening to inter-Christian debates about passages in the Bible, and how they are to be interpreted. What I'm trying to get at is there are arguments for many ways to interpret scripture, but I leave that to those who actually believe it.

As for debates, I take them literally. When Cartman said your analogy was flawed, you didn't correct his labeling your statement an analogy.

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

Firstly, what does the word "roost" mean in the context? Secondly, why do you care about being down-voted? Just curious.

Stryker(849) Clarified
2 points

There was no Ad Hominem committed by me.

I would like to correct myself, but can't edit my comment so I shall do so here. Calling Thewayitis a "dumbass" was not an Ad Hominem fallacy because it wasn't used as an argument, but your second statement was.

I think I figured out why all your ideas stink. You have your head up your ass.

I will concede that because this isn't a direct reference to the original argument, it could just be an insult, and not an Ad Hominem fallacy, it's hard to tell when I have my debate colored glasses on.

2 points

So I went to the debate to read all of this in context, and this is how I have interpreted it:

Thewayitis makes an analogy about knowing the source of electricity, implying it is important, I believe this is a reference to, or interpreted by Cartman as a reference to, the source of the Big Bang. Cartman responds by stating that it is okay not to know the source of the Big Bang because it could very well not have had a source.

This is followed by an Ad hominem fallacy by Thewayitis, which seems to reference the aforementioned analogy. Cartman reads this literally and states he can't leave the universe to see the generator, or source of the universe, prefaced and ended with Ad hominem fallacies.

Conclusion: I interpreted the analogy as well the reference to "leaving the room" in the same way I believe Cartman did, and understand the point he was trying to make. With that said, these silly confusions wouldn't happen if people would refrain from Ad hominem fallacies, and would just clearly explain themselves if they believe to have been misinterpreted, or ask the other person to clarify any statement that may be ambiguous.

1 point

Cartman, Stryker, thousandin1, all log in when you do. A series of coincidences, or alias of yours. The latter seems more logical.

Lol... lol... xD... I just started using this site again about a week ago, and when I'm active here I'm usually online every few hours, if only to check on things. I usually see Cartman on most of the time, and thousandin1 less. I see you on far less, so it would make sense that you see us log in because we frequently do. I have no outside connection to either of them and we rarely if ever chat over messages... lol...

2 points

Ignorance fallacy is a misnomer; Knowledge itself is a proof of God. Consciousness is awareness, how could we become conscious and aware, if we did not exist? We had to first exist, then be taught or given knowledge of that existence; again pointing to a creator as source.

I agree that we have to exist to be conscious, but disagree that we have to be taught or given knowledge of that existence. We can be taught or told (that is stated, or "given" rather than taught) knowledge, or we can learn by observation, an outside agent isn't required.

Ignorance cannot begin life, life cannot be born from ignorance.

Would you please explain what you mean by this?

It is unreasonable to state that reason can be created from unreasonable sources, such as chemicals and rocks. How in the world of reason could reason itself be born from imagined explosions in empty space?

Assertion based on an argument from ignorance.

Explosions cause destruction, not life! That is unreasonable.

This demonstrates an intentional characterization of several scientific theories, or simply a lack of understanding about them.

Awareness becomes awareness, when we become conscious, and we can only be conscious of, those things we are conscious of,

Agreed

therefore consciousness cannot be originated from unconsciousness.

This conclusion does not logically follow your argument because your argument doesn't make reference the origination of consciousness.

2 points

How can increasing complexity be born from no complexity? How can we evolve from absolute nothing?

Argument from Ignorance Fallacy

Evolution is a result of design that was intended to grow and change, which points to a designer. Complexity points to a more complex existence , because intelligence, complexity, consciousness, has to have a cause before they take effect. They did not cause themselves.

Unsupported assertion.

To avoid infinite regression, there must have been a consciousness that was always conscious, and that began our conscious existence. Which would mean that first consciousness is the most powerful; and power explains our existence, much better than some wild lucky big bang blast from nowhere.

To claim that complexity requires a more complex entity, and then to say that entity does not require a more complex entity is an example of the logical fallacy referred to as "special pleading".

Reason explains why consciousness could not have evolved from brainless nothing. Reason MUST be birthed from reason.

Unsupported Assertion

Please present arguments for your currently unsupported assertions. I've attached a link to a list of common logical fallacies for your reference.

Supporting Evidence: Common Logical Fallacies (owl.english.purdue.edu)
Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

The range of observed phenomena that The Big Bang theory is said to explain is commonly misunderstood. The passage below outlines what is covered under The Big Bang theory. I would be happy to explain anything further if this isn't sufficient to demonstrate why The Big Bang constitutes a theory.

The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law. As the distance between galaxies increases today, in the past galaxies were closer together. The known laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures.

While large particle accelerators can replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently, the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

Source: Wikipedia

4 points

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Source: notjustatheory.com

1 point

Looks like the end was cut off. .

1 point

He needs to learn about proper punctuation and capitalization. It would also help if he could form a logical argument rather than just state assertions. Never before have I encountered someone so incapable of holding a logical discussion.

1 point

Obviously nothing that I can say to you will change your mind, so I won't try to change your mind.

Rather than make assumptions, you should try to defend your position, or invalidate mine. This is a debate website after all.

But I find it sad you can't understand the fact that an embryo is not a living person.

I think you have an extra not in there... Here again you are making an assumption, I never said any such thing. But I find it sad that you enjoy the taste of orphan meat.

See, when someone fabricates a position that you don't hold, it does nothing to progress the discussion. For the record my position of embryos as a living person is based on your definition of "living person".

2 points

What about this man's other good deeds, like charity, church, and love of his neighbors? Does that not matter in the eyes of God?

If one refuses to repent of their sin, any good deeds are irrelevant.

Is EVERYTHING null and void when a Gay Man enters the picture?

I believe I clearly stated that this is in regard to all sin, not just homosexuality.

1 point

A "lack of belief" is a logical statement to hold in regards to anything you lack a belief in, I can't think of any reason the concept of a god would be treated any differently than unicorns or moon cheese, but welcome someone to propose a few for my consideration.

1 point

It is very clear in the Bible that engaging in Homosexual acts is a sin. Like with all Christian sins, the only way to be forgiven is through repentance, and a necessary part of repentance is understanding that you have sinned, and not to have the intention of repeating it.

1 point

Does killing someone who is less developed make it right, or justify it?

I hold the position that any action taken against an entity incapable of perceiving negative stimulus is amoral.

It is not our decision to end a life. It is God's

Until "God" has been demonstrated to manifest in reality, this isn't a compelling argument.

What if you were aborted?

I wouldn't have known and would have been incapable of caring.

1 point

So long as their confinement doesn't effect the Orca's natural ecosystem, isn't exorbitantly expensive, and they aren't caused unnecessary suffering, I'm not aware of any reason to not keep a low percentage of the population of Orcas in captivity.

1 point

Nope .

Supporting Evidence: Solar FREAKIN Roadways, are they real? (youtu.be)
1 point

This is the single greatest thing I have ever read. :D

Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

Nobody seems to want to defend there position with anything other than assertions, it's a little frustrating. I have no idea of he actually existed and created this debate to find out.

I'm happy to be your first, hopefully this isn't just a one time thing for you ;)

0 points

Assertions and ad hominems does not demonstrate one's intelligence. Are you capable of putting forth an argument?

2 points

You may be able to make a case for the concern of others who's well-being directly effects us, but the well-being of someone who lacks the influence to negativity impact yours demands no such concern.

1 point

you are not "aware" of much

Perhaps not, why don't you explain this "Campaign for Immorality" I seem to have missed.

money is "amoral" ... sex is either moral or immoral

Is this just your guess, or do you have an argument to support this assertion?


1 of 13 Pages: Next >>

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