CreateDebate


JaeB's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of JaeB's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Point out exactly what you think I plagiarised. And it's not just Sagan i paraphrase - if you spent not a lot of time researching in the scientific community you'd see tremendous point borrowing throughout my arguments - this does not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person, only someone who fears being seen as "wrong." You've made it plain you have no interest in rational debate. Goodbye.

2 points

Point out exactly what you think I plagiarised. And it's not just Sagan i paraphrase - if you spent not a lot of time researching in the scientific community you'd see tremendous point borrowing throughout my arguments - this does not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person, only someone who fears being seen as "wrong." You've made it plain you have no interest in rational debate. Goodbye.

1 point

I copied my OWN writing - that's not plagiarism lol (the short number of sentences from other sources could hardly be considered plagiarism lol... ad hominem101)

Actually anything proven is scientifically proven. Science is merely testing and documenting the results, simple as that. Science can refer to either the body of knowledge or to the way of thinking; skeptically interrogating your surroundings. Mathematics is the language of science (all math is science.) There is no other kind of evidence but scientific evidence as all evidence which is actually evidence has been determined to be true via the scientific method (testable, replicable, verifiable). (Pure logic and theories may remain but doubt must be suspended between possible conclusions in the absence of definitive evidence.) Anything else is bullshit.

You clearly have no interest in or are incapable of rational debate. "Honestly, coming from you, I'm really not that offended." Lines like that come from people who don't debate things to arrive at a common understanding of what's really true - more important to that mindset is being seen as "right" or just offending those who don't agree with them - which is deeply corrosive to intellectual discovery. I've not once made an attempt to offend you - but I do find you highly ignorant and I state this only in hopes it inspires you to notice and perhaps overcome it (no offense intended - as far as I can tell your ignorance is honest.)

p.s. It's not that I couldn't make the remote correlation between your Obama analogy and the point I had made - but it was so absurd, personally bias, and unrelated that I didn't humor it lol. The point I made is; it's apparent to anyone, who takes the time to consider, that all religions in all their different flavors have been invented entirely by humans. Your point is not anywhere near that, and though I see the parallel you were attempting to draw it's just so far off from being analogic... it's outright stupid.

1 point

I had intended to hit dispute. Sorry I'm new on the site :).

2 points

"First, let me make clear that I find it difficult to take seriously a person who copied and pasted a completely unoriginal page long argument... twice."

That in and of itself would not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person. The argument I wrote then copied, applied to both separate debates and is completely unrelated to any point being made here. That's what's called an ad hominem.

You provided no evidence at any point for anything.

"Because I actually understand what their religious texts mean, unlike you."

You might not see it but the implication made is you have some insight into "what their religious texts mean" others do not fathom as well as assuming a full understanding of their intellectual capacity and state.

"The religious texts are ambiguous (to some degree) in their interpretations, across the board of all (claimed) religious believers."

"I was talking specifically about the Bible."

Religious texts include the bible... lol

"You believe the writer to have a certain meaning and context, which you feel you've "accurately" deduced."

Yeah... Okay, sure... It's somewhat of a theory, one with plenty of evidence. You can call me ignorant as long as you call believers in the Big Bang ignorant as well."

It has zero evidence. Evidence is scientific - there is no science in scripture. I'll copy paste from another post I made just for you, as it applies here as well ;). "Atheists consider any evidence presented and go along with what's proven to be true scientifically. Then search for more questions to find out more about the cosmos (eg: 2+2=4, testable, replicable, verifiable - scientifically proven.)" And how is it you think people who theorize the big bang as plausible are in some way ignorant just for thinking it....? The level of your ignorance astounds me.

"How this doesn't unequivocally expose to people that it's all a bunch of made up stories I find perplexing.

Some people think Obama is a Muslim, some think he is the anti-Christ, some think he is an alien, some think he is a double agent, some think he is a puppet, some think he's having an affair... Most of that is obviously bullshit, so is him being president bullshit as well?"

Uh... hum it seems we got a little off topic there.

3 points

"As for myself? I don't consider myself religious, but people can label me religious if they want me too, they are just wrong if they do label me religious. I hate religion but love Jesus."

Puzzling.

Do some homework, get off the fence.

1 point

"Because I actually understand what their religious texts mean, unlike you."

That statement shows you do not require evidence to make claims.

You do not hold supreme understanding over religious texts - and it's overwhelmingly ignorant to assert you do. The religious texts are ambiguous (to some degree) in their interpretations, across the board of all (claimed) religious believers. You believe the writer to have a certain meaning and context, which you feel you've "accurately" deduced. This is why we have thousands of different brands of Christianity (and other major religions) - largely from people starting their own religion as their interpretation is somewhat different from the current community. How this doesn't unequivocally expose to people that it's all a bunch of made up stories I find perplexing.

1 point

"The cosmos is also within us, we're made of star stuff. We are a way, for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan

"You are the universe, expressing itself as a human for a little while." - Eckhart Tolle

We are just some of the things hydrogren atoms do given 13.7 billion years of evolution.

2 points

"However on average religious people have a better sense of morality." - What do you base that on when the scriptures for "the big three" religions especially are full of actual endorsements of murder and rape and misogyny, and every other evil thing a bronze-age man could possibly imagine?

3 points

"What if they aren't delusional? What a shocker that would be to all of the atheists."

The idea is that atheists are open-minded and the religious doctrines are the opposite. We approve of questions, knowledge seeking behavior, scientific discovery, education - the major churches of this world have openly declared war on these things. Atheists consider any evidence presented and go along with what's proven to be true scientifically. Then search for more questions to find out more about the cosmos (eg: 2+2=4, testable, replicable, verifiable - scientifically proven). Religions pretend to have answers for all of the unimaginably big questions - which is extremely corrosive to learning anything new, and dampers us intellectually as a species. We are starting to be able to answer very large questions about the cosmos - much in stark contradiction to the doctrines (which is not all that surprising given there is no science in scripture :P).

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: What are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or what you think could have beneficent social effects if it were believed; but look only and solely at what are the facts." - Bertrand Russell

It's not that the majority of atheists haven't considered the religious doctrines, it's that the majority of those holding religious beliefs haven't taken the time to learn what we know to be true - or refuse to even try (and often get extremely offended at simply being questioned.)

4 points

Extremely barbaric to impose upon an unaware being. Can't imagine how this could be seen as "OK" by anyone. People attracted to other species should seek council to avoid raping any unsuspecting animals... how fucked up can people be

4 points

"Atheists can't have any morals, because morals come from God, and the bible! That's why you're all so wicked..."

So what's the implication here? It's that religious people are moral, and atheists are not, because morality can only come from a supreme being who sets rules, and enforces them...

Every theist who has EVER said this is admitting that they themselves are only NOT killing, raping and stealing because they're afraid that God will see them in their moment of evil, and smite them for it.

"You atheists don't believe in heaven and hell, so why would you bother to NOT rape my girlfriend and then kill her? I mean, I'd have done it myself, but God would have punished me for it later, so instead I did the human thing and formed a caring relationship."

... What truly astounds me is just how frightening an admission this is. Surely, we've all heard this "myth" uttered by someone, haven't we?

And each time someone says it, what they're REALLY saying is "The only reason I don't commit unspeakable crimes is because I'm afraid of eternal judgment and torture. I'm dead-set on going to heaven, so no raping for me!"

It really is that scary. I tend to give even the people who make this nonsensical claim the benefit of the doubt that they're just ignorant, not terrifying close to committing a horrible crime, but what if they really meant it?

What if these people - who sadly represent the majority here in America - are really only NOT committing every heinous act they can think of because they're afraid of the cosmic judge in the sky who will hold them accountable for every misdeed? What kind of sociopath would genuinely ONLY not kill and rape because they know they'll get caught?

Well, next time someone asks you how an atheist can possibly have morals, take a good look. You've either met a moron, or someone capable of the most evil crimes imaginable if they thought for a second - as you do, dear reader - that god is a fairy-tale.

Atheists don't do good because we expect to go to heaven, or fear going to hell; Atheists do good because we want to.

Why don't all atheists commit murders and go on theft-heavy crime-sprees? Because we wouldn't like it if people stole from us, or tried to kill us... We have basic human empathy, just like most theists.

I genuinely don't believe even most of the people who ask such an incredibly insulting question honestly believe what they're saying, because how could they?

OF COURSE you don't need a holy book to tell you right from wrong - especially when the scriptures for "the big three" religions especially are full of actual endorsements of murder and rape and misogyny, and every other evil thing a bronze-age man could possibly imagine.

Us atheists are good people because we want to be. We don't treat people badly because we ourselves don't want to be treated badly. This isn't hard to fathom.

So next time someone asks you, as an atheist, how you could possibly have any morality, ask them as a theist how they could possibly be AGAINST stoning to death disobedient children. Or killing people for working on Sundays. Or locking women away during their period, for the protection of men.

THESE are the morals of the bible... If you THINK morality comes from a holy book, then holy shit, are you ever deluded.

If they don't rather quickly realize just how stupid a question they just posed to you, you need to run away; You've just met someone who only doesn't kill you because they're afraid of the seat that would save them in hell...

And for some reason, that psychopath thinks YOU have issues with morality. Go figure.

1 point

"Atheists can't have any morals, because morals come from God, and the bible! That's why you're all so wicked..."

So what's the implication here? It's that religious people are moral, and atheists are not, because morality can only come from a supreme being who sets rules, and enforces them...

Every theist who has EVER said this is admitting that they themselves are only NOT killing, raping and stealing because they're afraid that God will see them in their moment of evil, and smite them for it.

"You atheists don't believe in heaven and hell, so why would you bother to NOT rape my girlfriend and then kill her? I mean, I'd have done it myself, but God would have punished me for it later, so instead I did the human thing and formed a caring relationship."

... What truly astounds me is just how frightening an admission this is. Surely, we've all heard this "myth" uttered by someone, haven't we?

And each time someone says it, what they're REALLY saying is "The only reason I don't commit unspeakable crimes is because I'm afraid of eternal judgment and torture. I'm dead-set on going to heaven, so no raping for me!"

It really is that scary. I tend to give even the people who make this nonsensical claim the benefit of the doubt that they're just ignorant, not terrifying close to committing a horrible crime, but what if they really meant it?

What if these people - who sadly represent the majority here in America - are really only NOT committing every heinous act they can think of because they're afraid of the cosmic judge in the sky who will hold them accountable for every misdeed? What kind of sociopath would genuinely ONLY not kill and rape because they know they'll get caught?

Well, next time someone asks you how an atheist can possibly have morals, take a good look. You've either met a moron, or someone capable of the most evil crimes imaginable if they thought for a second - as you do, dear reader - that god is a fairy-tale.

Atheists don't do good because we expect to go to heaven, or fear going to hell; Atheists do good because we want to.

Why don't all atheists commit murders and go on theft-heavy crime-sprees? Because we wouldn't like it if people stole from us, or tried to kill us... We have basic human empathy, just like most theists.

I genuinely don't believe even most of the people who ask such an incredibly insulting question honestly believe what they're saying, because how could they?

OF COURSE you don't need a holy book to tell you right from wrong - especially when the scriptures for "the big three" religions especially are full of actual endorsements of murder and rape and misogyny, and every other evil thing a bronze-age man could possibly imagine.

Us atheists are good people because we want to be. We don't treat people badly because we ourselves don't want to be treated badly. This isn't hard to fathom.

So next time someone asks you, as an atheist, how you could possibly have any morality, ask them as a theist how they could possibly be AGAINST stoning to death disobedient children. Or killing people for working on Sundays. Or locking women away during their period, for the protection of men.

THESE are the morals of the bible... If you THINK morality comes from a holy book, then holy shit, are you ever deluded.

If they don't rather quickly realize just how stupid a question they just posed to you, you need to run away; You've just met someone who only doesn't kill you because they're afraid of the seat that would save them in hell...

And for some reason, that psychopath thinks YOU have issues with morality. Go figure.

1 point

You can't bend the definition of logical. It is not logically possible for a deity to exhibit omnibenevolence alongside omniscience and omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil as I stated in another post prior. Plain, simple, deductive reasoning. (Logical deduction: If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.) No amount of nonsensical ranting will affect facts.

"I'm glad that you can look at the world as black and white but sometimes one should be able to think deeper about a subject before claiming it a logical fallacy right away."

You religious people really need to get educated.

2 points

Yes, any other candidate is not rational thinking (probably)

4 points

A bizarre, highly individual, rationalization which allows you to keep a structured and consistant view of your god, and Earth as you know it to be (at times, distressingly bad.)

"God is all good, all powerful, evil exists, and it's not God's fault?"

"Yes, because God created man. Man disobeyed God and as a result of man disobeying God, sin entered the world. As a result of sin, we do evil things with what we say, do, and think." - This is completely illogical. You don't actually believe that do you? If something is all-good and all-powerful then anything bad, of any nature - by definition, cannot happen - logical fallacy101.

The brain has its own language for testing the structure and consistancy of the world. You can attempt to "pick" what you believe - that is, to go against the conclusion drawn by your mind, but you won't actually believe this and you'll be suffering with the disorder better known as denial. If the mind in question lacks critical thinking skills then illogical conclusions may satisfy the minds queries and denial may never be an issue - even more frightening.

3 points

"When people think of what their "god" creates they think of sunshine, puppies, shit like that... when a bomb kills a bunch of children or some buildings get blown up they say; "God works in mysterious ways." How is that mysterious..!? That's like the least ambiguous behaviour since the beginning of time." - Jim Jefferies

2 points

It is not logically possible for a deity to exhibit omnibenevolence alongside omniscience and omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil. This is one of those commonly deduced paradoxes which many religions invoke. There are countless obvious and poignant examples of logical fallacies between scripture and science.

"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions ... to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs..." - Carl Sagan

3 points

As though the most important thing about the people that inhabit those areas is that fact... The average person anywhere is more or less the same as the average person anywhere else. I feel that the question posed is corrosive to healthy thought processes and judgments and has no place in rational debate.

1 point

I just noticed that "Side: it is not in us" has a persistent value (I cannot leave it blank). Assume it to be blank as I disagree with the basis which form the argument sides.

Assuming there is only one "human nature" is not a logical standpoint - at least to draw any sort of valuable conclusion for a question so rich in ambiguity (imo) as this. The factors are many and often complex (environment, trauma, rebellion, religion, extreme circumstances, etc). It's instinctive if it means survival (fear, hunger, etc) so we might call those instances of killing the natural order of evolutionary biology (still ambiguous for my taste). My overall point is the seemingly limitless variety of perspectives existent in our collective minds on this Earth pretty much insists that circumstances so extreme will happen regularly (based more or less on the law of large numbers/averages). Harm reduction is the key.



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