CreateDebate


LichPotato's Waterfall RSS

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

"You acknowledge your inability to know the best course of events and yet stipulate what the best course of events would be?"

Perhaps I should have been more clear: I cannot conceive of the specific timeline of a "perfect" Universe, but I can broadly describe its nature (as above) by extrapolating from moral concepts. It's similar, if I may present an analogy, to extrapolating the characteristics of the concept of infinity; one can do it, in extremely general terms, but it, as a concept, is inherently alien to our reality, and is thus incapable of comprehension.

"Further, my view of a creator is not that of an overbearing tyrant that feels the need to control everything."

As previously stated, this discussion specifically concerns Monotheistic theology, which does indeed present the concept of God as being an active agent in the world.

"I imagine that a God, if/when taking any action on his creation at all, would merely gently guide people."

Sounds like a derivative of Deism, and, if God does indeed exist, that would be the belief set most consistent with observable reality.

"Firstly, you assume that omnipotence makes impossible events possible."

It does, by the very definition of the term.

"In addition, if suffering didn't exist but pleasure still had significance, we cannot even imagine such a reality. Since we cannot even imagine such a reality how are we to compare and contrast it with our current reality?"

To reiterate, I'm not discussing specific possible events; the only comparison I'm making between the two is in terms of morality, and even then the only relevance this possesses to my argument is which one's greater in terms of morality and fortune.

"Dictated? So you don't believe in free will at all? Obviously as a psychologist I am aware that there are environmental, genetic, social etc. influences on behavior but taking a stance of pure determinism requires belief."

I'm simply referring to the physical nature of the human psyche. Obviously people act of their own volition, but their will, which is not random in nature, is continually formed and influenced by a variety of factors, the nature of which I'm sure you're far more familiar with than I am. Of course, that means anyone could theoretically do anything, but that doesn't follow along the lines of reality; for example, I could theoretically attempt to execute a bank heist right now, rather than writing this post, but I possess no will to do so (in this case, my moral nature prohibits it), so I won't.

"If one accepts free will (admittedly also unprovable), however, one can see that God has no responsibility for the actions of his creations."

Assuming that reality is fundamentally regular in nature, which it must be (for reasons I'd be quite happy to elaborate on in another post), it follows that God created the Universe with exact knowledge of the repercussions of its actions. Rejecting God's responsibility for the outcome of these actions is, to reiterate from my previous post, morally analogous to blaming the firearm for the murder, since it didn't stop the murderer from firing it.

"Atheism certainly isn't a lack of a worldview, everybody has a worldview. One could be an agnostic atheist and not hold any belief on the existence or non-existence of God, however they would still hold a worldview."

In what context? I must admit, I'm somewhat confused as to your meaning of the term "worldview".

"Moreover, in your statement that "theism is inherently self-contradictory", you are demonstrating atheism in a non-agnostic manner. In other words, your assertion implies you don't believe a God is even possible, rather than simply lacking a belief that one exists."

My original post specifically condemned the idea of a Theistic God. If Theism were the only belief set in which God could exist, then yes, that would be the case.

"Just so you know, I used to be a Christian, then became a militant atheist, then an agnostic atheist and now I'm theistic."

I'm sure there's quite a story there.

0 points

Or, given the specificity and regularity of these downvotes (near-simultaneous, exactly the same in number, and all targeting exclusively my posts that contradict yours), the only rational conclusion is that you abused multiple accounts to downvote my posts, presumably to compensate for your arguments' inability to hold water.

1 point

Failing to hold a particular position on a given issue does not imply one takes the opposite stance on said issue. Atheism, the term literally meaning "lack of Theism", is a failure to take a position on the existence of God. Disbelief in God's existence (a definite claim that shares the burden of proof) is properly called "Antitheism", being the direct opposite to Theism.

This is something of a long-winded manner of describing a simple set of two dichotomies: regarding a given issue, one either takes a position on that issue, or doesn't. In the former case (this dichotomy is a subset of that option), one either takes a positive stance on the issue in question, or takes a negative stance. But a prerequisite to the latter dichotomy is that one takes a position on a given issue to begin with, which Atheism explicitly denies.

2 points

Other than several posts (exclusively those rebutting yours, interestingly) all receiving exactly five downvotes near-simultaneously? Seems legit.

1 point

"You simply need to make logical assessments and claims that make sense."

Do you have any specific examples, or are you going to follow along the lines of Dermot-style argumentation, and simply claim my fallaciousness with no basis?

""An omnipotent god must choose a 'moral path' according to me" is as bad of an argument as is possible"

Fortunately, I've not made that argument, as I've explicitly and repeatedly stated.

1 point

"Everytime someone demonstrates that you are a pseudo-intellectual, you ban"

If that we're the case, everyone taking the "I disagree" position in this debate would be banned. As you are the only person banned from this discussion, it follows that your statement is wholly false, like your other statements, but this one is by far the most blatantly inconsistent with reality, and as such is worth responding to.

1 point

You're right; there's just no recovering from a mortal blow like this.

LichPotato(362) Clarified
1 point

Perhaps I should have been more clear; the initial assumptions and context of the terms used (specifically "Morality" and "God") were derived from Monotheistic theology. Of course, without a "holy book" to go by, the concept of "God" becomes far less concrete, and therefore more inclusive of characteristics like the absence of omniscience or omnipotence.

1 point

"I notice that, not only are you capitalising random words"

I'm not sure that proper nouns and indications of Monotheism over Polytheism (as is the case with "Deity") constitute "random words".

"after it was explained to you very precisely,"

That you say that both as if it's true and that it wasn't you engaging in said "explanation" is, I must admit, quite amusing.

"unaware that part of having debates is acknowledging when your argument is wrong."

I'd be happy to do so, if you could prove it in a rational, rather than baseless, manner.

"A man who cannot admit error is a man who cannot learn."

I'm sure you know all about that.

"This probably explains why all your posts are thin on reason"

Other than the fact that my accusations are pointed, you have yet to make any specific accusation against my reasoning, and the majority of my original post consisted of categorical extrapolations?

"You can find synonyms easily through Google."

Or through reading for years, as I have. Call me an elitist, but I'm of the opinion that eloquence derived solely from third-party resources is meaningless.

"Reason however is a bit more difficult to come by. You can't fake that."

That certainly doesn't stop you from attempting to do so, does it?

1 point

I must say, I find it quite amusing that all of my rebuttals to your statements in this debate magically received exactly five downvotes. That you're abusing this platform's features to decrease the apparent intellectual value of your opponent's position belies the invalidity of yours.

0 points

"First of all, I have no idea how any human with such a small amount of information and such limited ability to process said information is making such a claim. (Please note I'd describe myself as such too) How would you know what the "best" reality would look like? It's like how a child only wants to eat sweets and ice cream for every meal: they don't know what's best for them and neither do we."

I don't possess this information, and I didn't claim to. I can, however, logically extrapolate from given information; the "best" possible course of events, being set up by an omnipotent, omniscient Deity must be universally perfect, and therefore homogeneous in terms of morality and fortune of outcome. As history does not follow along these lines, it follows that these assumptions are inaccurate.

"Evil, immorality and misfortune are all necessary phenomena."

We're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient entity here. If suffering is an immutably necessary prerequisite to our existence, it follows that God is not, in fact, omnipotent. If it was, it would, by definition be capable of creating reality in a manner that did not require suffering, in which case its existence is deliberate, thus tying into my original point.

"Finally, one must realize that if life has free-will then things can never be perfect."

This follows along the lines of the prior argument. Further, "free will" does not abdicate God of responsibility for the effects of its actions; our actions are dictated by our genetic predispositions, coupled with environmental circumstances, both of which God orchestrated with full knowledge of their implications. Denying this is intellectually analogous to abdicating a murderer of responsibility for their actions because the firearm they used to commit the act didn't refuse to fire, despite having ample opportunity to do so. Sure, it could, but that course of action would be contrary to its inherent nature (in this case, being an inanimate object, rather than thought based on the aforementioned parameters). It's simply asinine.

"However I think when you realized your worldview was incomplete you latched onto another incorrect worldview simply because it incorporated the dissonant piece of information: the existence of suffering."

Atheism (when using the term accurately, as is so often not the case nowadays) is, by definition, a lack of a worldview. To what are you referring, then?

-3 points
-4 points
-5 points
-4 points
1 point

If you're so interested in debate, why abuse multiple accounts?

1 point

"Your position is flawed in that your criteria for what is best may not be relevant from an objective, omniscient standpoint."

This statement is only valid if one simultaneously claims the entirety of historical reality to be capable of being considered the "best" possible course of events to take place, a position I doubt you, or anyone, holds.

"It is also somewhat problematic to assume there is a code of conduct (morality) for the being who is the standard for all codes of conduct. If God has morality, then God is beholden to concepts that are derived from some other standard."

The morality in question (as I implied in my original post; perhaps I should have explicitly stated it) is, in regards to this debate, derived from the "holy books" held as either the explicit or inspired word of God. My overarching claim being that a Theistic God is a self-contradictory concept, it's only natural that the moral standards in question are claimed to be derived from God.

"God is arguably supra-moral, in which case your position doesn't hold."

For the sake of clarification, as the term is somewhat vague, will you please clarify the definition of "supra-moral"? Further, can you present evidence from the aforementioned "holy books" that this term, rather than it's conventional counterpart, applies to the Theistic concept of God?

1 point

I will not dignify your argument with a response. Your use of multiple accounts to bypass a ban for atrocious behavior to continue said behavior is only further indicative of your disinterest in civil, rational discussion.

1 point

"If God knows the future then he is no longer omnipotent because it means he can't change his mind about what happens in the future. If he can change his mind about what happens in the future then he no longer knows the future."

To start off, these assumptions are made by Theists, not myself. Your insults are therefore meaningless.

Further, your statement assumes the future to be immutable, which itself necessitates the lack of omnipotence of God. In simpler terms, your argument comes to the conclusion that God cannot be omnipotent because it cannot be omnipotent. With this clear lack of knowledge regarding simple logical fallacies (in this case, circular reasoning), I think a debate platform may not be the best venue for one of your ilk.

"Have you considered that it is because God decides on what is moral, not some random narcissistic idiot on the internet who is too stupid to debate people without lying and/or distorting the facts?"

Moral values based on Monotheistic holy books (excepting certain acts encouraged by the Quran) are contradictory with historical reality. Who said I was determining the meaning of the term "moral"?

"Are you aware that you are stupid? I ask this seriously. If you are aware and are just having a little bit of fun then that's fine. But if you actually think rambling pure gibberish at people is a sign if intellect then, with respect, I think you belong in a psychiatric institution."

Once again, you demonstrate your clear disinterest in civil, rational discussion. As those virtues are necessary prerequisites to meaningful debate, it follows that no interaction with you will result in such, and it is therefore pointless. This, combined with your obnoxious, thoroughly unnecessary personal attacks is justifiable grounds for banning you from this discussion. I repeat: I'm banning you for y ou e inappropriate behavior, not your position.

1 point

Do you have any substantiation for your claim, or do I just "need more faith"?

1 point

Do I even need to explain how this post serves no purpose but to substantiate my point?

1 point

"Morally correct is a subjective terminology. It's meaningless because it is different to each individual."

We're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural entity here. Are you claiming God to be less than all-knowing?

"God isn't bound to anything that you deem to be "the best"."

Other than that all Monotheistic religions insist it to be a moral entity. If the results of its actions aren't moral, how can it be so?

You do realize you can present more than one argument in a single post, right? Or are you just spamming?

1 point

"You pulled a random accusation of bias out of your asshole."

Are you serious? Bias is prejudice for or against an entity (be it a person, population, or organization). Are you seriously claiming that your original post is not indicative of bias?

"It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to understand the implications of that statement."

Oh? We've yet to "discuss" the implications of your acknowledged bias, so why are you assuming my lack of comprehension?

"Your insults only show your own childishness and stupidity."

That was not itself an insult, but a condition of the next phrase in that sentence (I.E. "if... then"). Why you apparently feel the need to add another baseless insult here is beyond me.

"So failing to agree with your completely baseless accusation which was not supported by anything remotely resembling evidence is "absurd"."

The only "evidence" I would need to substantiate my point that your original post is biased is the definition of the term, and the post itself. Both are objectively observable and easily accessible, and I've already pointed out how they're related. Must I go into explicit detail?

"You are deceitfully isolating the word "bias" from your initial attack, which also concerned my civility and my wit."

More projection; the only reason I reference the accusation to the exclusion of the other two is because you've apparently decided to fixate on it. I'm simply rebutting your statements.

"This is dishonest and stupid."

Failing to provide all points made equal attention is "dishonest and stupid"?

"Also dishonest and stupid is pulling random accusations of bias out of your idiotic asshole and expecting other people to disprove them."

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "random". My accusation of uncivility should be fairly obvious, since your original post consisted of quite literally nothing but baseless insults directed towards Conservatives, while my accusation of lack of wit, while somewhat subjective, was based on the supreme lack of diversity in said original post: all of those statements can be summed up in one of three sentences: "Conservatives are wrong", "Conservatives are idiots", and "Conservatives are deceptive". This singularity quite early on reaches the point of redundancy, hence lack of wit.

"Let's not because the only person who enjoys reading the idiotic, convoluted gibberish you type is you."

That you're focusing on my writing format (which, interestingly, you have yet to provide any specific accusations against, other than "it's bad") rather than my point itself speaks volumes of the legitimacy of your position.

"so I do not have a fucking clue why you are using a debating site. You are an idiot."

Given the intellectual dishonesty on display here, I wonder that myself. Actually, come to think of it, you've yet to provide any specific accusation against an argument of mine, instead dismissing everything with some variation of"it's wrong, that's self evident fact, and you're an idiot". In my experience, that's invariably indicative of faith in one's own beliefs (in this case, hatred for Conservatives), which is so unfathomably strong as to completely overpower reason and decency. As that's clearly the case, I believe I'm done here. One can only beat their head against the brick wall of madness for so long, after all.

1 point

"This was when you randomly pulled the word "bias" out of your asshole and tried to use it as a weapon."

I pointed out that your post was obviously biased, which you yourself acknowledge is the case.

If you pay any thought to what you write (which is highly questionable), you may have noticed that you both claimed my remark regarding your bias was the basis for a rebuttal (which is in of itself absurd) and that it's entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I feel I shouldn't have to point out the self-contradictory nature of these statements. If you're going to be rude and call others retarded, you could at least have the decency to be consistent.

"The sad thing about your infantile circular argument is that it applies to every fact in the known universe. Bananas are yellow? You're just saying that because you're biased."

What are you talking about? Let's take the two statements I was referring to, and use them in the manner I stated:

"but the reality is I am biased against Conservatism because it is stupid" (your statement)

"Stupid and morally wrong" in your thoroughly unsubstantiated opinion." (my statement)

Now, where's my claim that you're wrong because you're biased? The only mention of bias was on your part, and bore no relevance to my claim of your argument's invalidity.

"Like I mentioned once already, you are a petulant child using playground rhetoric and expecting a serious reply."

The irony is not lost on me.

"Such as everything you have thus far said."

Care to explain how, or are you going to persist in your utterly unsubstantiated attacks?

"You decided to start a "meaningful discussion" by ignoring the topic"

As above. Further, how is making a statement regarding the characteristics of your original post irrelevant to it?

"and using sarcasm to launch a series of unprovoked personal attacks?"

Holy mother of projection! A simple comparison: which is an "unprovoked personal attack", A. making a sarcastic remark regarding the characteristics of an asinine, thoroughly unsubstantiated personal attack on the subscribers to an entire political ideology, or B. said personal attack, not to mention all the baseless namecalling that follows it?

"Why not just post your opinion about the topic instead?"

I believe I did.

"So you expect not to be called names"

Given that this is a debate platform, that would be what one hopes for.

"in response to your unprovoked personal attacks? "

I love how you state that as if your original post was anything but that.

1 point

"You implied (falsely) that I think Conservatism is stupid because of bias"

And when was this? I don't recall having claimed to know the motivation behind your arguments.

"but the reality is I am biased against Conservatism because it is stupid."

The sad thing about this statement is that the one it's supposedly refuting itself serves as a perfect refutation to it.

"I'm going to ask you to stop saying stupid things to me."

Such as?

"Your "sarcastic slights" had nothing to do with the topic."

Other than (particularly in the case of civility) serving to facilitate a meaningful discussion, which you appear to have no interest in?

"You offered no argument,"

Because I require none. I'm not taking a stance here, I'm simply pointing out the unsubstantiated nature of your post.

"but instead attempted to seize the moral high ground"

Given the rampant, baseless namecalling on display, I doubt that was ever in question.

"You are nothing more than a petulant child."

Oh, do go on.

1 point

"Of course I am biased against things which are stupid and morally wrong."

"Stupid and morally wrong" in your thoroughly unsubstantiated opinion.

Note: the term "bias" usually implies unfairness in the prejudice in question. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't using it in that fashion.

"You threw three red herrings out there (witty, unbiased and civil)"

I fail to see how sarcastic slights qualify as a distraction tactic, particularly when I had little else to say anyway.

"to try to fool people into believing I wanted to achieve these things,"

This based on what? How can you claim me to be implying anything with my statement other than that your original post holds none of the aforementioned virtues?

"when all I actually wanted to do was tell the truth."

Are you claiming the aforementioned virtues (specifically civility) to be of secondary concern?

"You should try it sometime instead of having a tantrum whenever someone criticises your faith."

To start off, this statement not only mischaracterizes Conservatism, which is a political ideology and not, in fact, a faith-based belief set.

Further, how can you justify claiming my "having a tantrum"? Last I checked, I'm not the one hurling entirely unsubstantiated abuse at those who differ from my political views.

Finally, the term "criticism" implies the expression of disapproval based on specific actions; your first post amounted to no more than meaningless, ambiguous namecalling.

"Your apparent theory that Conservatives should be able to do anything they like to the world and the others in it without suffering "bias" is quite clearly fucking ridiculously stupid."

Agreed. Unfortunately for your straw-man argument, however, this is not a position I, or, I would imagine, any Conservatives hold.

While I hesitate to speculate on this absurd notion's origins, I suspect it to have been conjured up from the madness that is the byproduct of your social echo chamber.

"Do you take the same position when you talk about Maoists or Stalinists you snivelling hypocrite?"

If I don't take this position with a political group you're lumping me into (and I most certainly don't), why would I do so with those I disagree with?

One thing before I end off: much as you think it may be, a debate website is far from an appropriate medium to vent unwarranted anger towards those you disagree with. I understand it can be frustrating to man-children like you who throw a hissy fit when they don't get their way, but this isn't going to solve anything.

1 point

Men and women traditionally have specific roles in society, and both psychology and psychology reflect this: while there are always exceptions, men are typically stronger than women, and vary quite a bit more in regards to intellect (women are far more consistent in this respect). Further, men have traditionally been considered more expendable than women (largely due to the fact that the reproductive capability of a population is far more dependant on the number of women than men), and usually serve supporting roles (such as childcare and housework), while men are typically the "bread winner" of the household, performing more, and often dangerous, work.

This, of course, means that treating the two sexes entirely equally will result in problems for both, an example being young boys receiving poor grades in school for acting out due to natural hyperactivity.

1 point

To start off, Democracy is, as far as I know, a dead political system. What we have here in the US is a Constitutional Republic with Democratic leanings.

Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand, the "leader" of a first-world nation is (supposedly) simply the representative of the views of the majority of the population. When powerful corporations and organizations become involved in politics, things get messy, but that's the basis for it.

2 points

Looks like nothing's changed in the two months I've been gone. Actually, that's not entirely accurate; looks like you've stopped bothering to elaborate on your debate titles.

2 points

A witty, unbiased, objective, and civil argument. Oh, wait, it's a steaming pile of unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks on Conservatives.

1 point

"However I would disagree that they are the ones earning that term. Its been applied by a media that skewers perception rather then actual numbers. I agree that sterotype exists, I would say that they (Muslims) did not earn it, it was applied. Just like African Americans didn’t earn “single parent families” as reported but skewered by the media and others to straw man there society."

Last I checked, all mainstream news networks avoid controversy (especially regarding Islam) like the Plague. Since when do they portray Islam as inherently violent?

"Why is that when white Christians attack individuals they are lone wolves and have mental conditions"

To start off with, what does race have to do with this? The people groups in question are specific Monotheistic religions.

Further, these people have those labels because they acted alone, demonstrated severe mental deficiencies beforehand, and acted in complete contradiction with Christianity (which you appear to be correlating with them).

"yet when non-whites attack they are terrorists?"

To reiterate, who said anything about color? Are you implying race is inherently connected with religion?

"How do you (specifically you) say one is a terrorist and one is not"

When did I state that?

"when they both claim to be acting for god"

Name a single "Christian" mass-murderer, attempted or otherwise, who claimed to be fulfilling God's wishes.

"and to terrorize individuals who they disagree with on a religious means? "

The difference between the two is that one is a system of absolute Monotheism (meaning no tolerance of any other belief is allowed, usually on pain of death in Muslim-majority countries), while the other is based on secular, psychological abnormality.

"You are more likely to die by the hands of a white supremist then a muslim terrorist since I was born."

Your chances of being raped are also fairly low. Does that mean it's not an issue? Of course not.

"You still have a lot more hate crime against Muslims n America then by muslims."

First of all, the only reason that's the case is because Muslims are far outnumbered in terms of population.

Second, try looking at just about any Muslim-majority country, and you'll find any and all deviant beliefs or behaviors persecuted violently. Narrowing your viewpoint to only the US is like claiming a terminally cancerous organ is healthy because a significant amount of non-cancerous tissue still remains in it.

"Additionally the usa killed more civilians in the middle east last month (April) then isis in there bombing, and almost all the guns used in the conflict were supplied to both sides from USA."

Your substantiation for that claim being...?

"So yes, Christians and white males commit crimes in the larger numbers and in equal in crimes per capita as muslims."

In the US, that's entirely possible. Again, simply look at any Muslim-majority country, and tell me it's a peaceful, accepting culture.

"There have been several genocides Bosnia Serbia was Christian, Russia killing gays is Christian motivated, the new anti-gay laws in several Christian nations, the holocaust was Christian, the child rape crisis in all churches (not just RC), the sexual abuse of ministers is about 30% regardless of faith organization (see spotlight)"

Assuming all those claims are true (which you have no basis for), those actions are inherently contradictory with Christianity, whereas Islam is an intrinsically violent religion.

"Just saying, the bible promotes slavery in old and new testament, and was a justification for slavery in the usa civil war."

The connotations of "slavery" have changed drastically since Old Testament times. Back then, it was essentially being hired off as a servant by one's parents; a far cry from its modern meaning. Even then, this was under Levitican law, and therefore does not apply to Christians, who are under the New Covenant of the New Testament.

"IT tells rape victims to marry there assaulters."

That law is somewhat more tricky in its implications, but the claim you're making regarding it requires a very generous interpretation of the text.

" It promotes the killing of non-believers in old and new."

Oh? Do tell.

"I know right. So im not sure how to answer this completely."

Given that "Muslim" and "Islam" both refer to a particular religion, and neither a race nor specific organization, what confusion is there?

"I do., the claims are false and unsubstantiated and your connection is flawed."

Care to explain how crime, particularly rape, in the majority of Scandinavia has skyrocketed since the floodgates of "refugees" were opened, or how videos of said "refugees" acting aggressively towards anyone entering their newly-claimed territory are flooding the internet? Quite the conspiracy you have on your hands, there.

"The real issue was income inequality and gender roles."

What do any of the things you listed have to do with income inequality and (biologically objective) gender roles?

"Europe has several areas where integration worked find. However France put all the muslims in one area, gave them no jobs, dependent on the state and made it hard for them to integrate into society or even get full time employment. Even more so, gave them no means to actually get ahead. This was the same in the Serbian Bosnia conflict and Chicago. In places where integration was promoted and opportunity presented it went much better with no significant rise in crime or violence. You can use Canada as an example, the crime rate of immigrants is lower then the norm and the boon to the economy has been demonstrably a benefit."

Do you have any basis for this claim? If so, feel free to demonstrate how economic hardship explains the above behaviors.

"how do you black or bold some text?"

Typing "" on both sides of the text in question makes it bold. The option to do so (and others) is listed under "↓ Show Help" when posting.

EDIT: One interesting thing of note is that about a quarter of Muslims in the US believe using violence to punish those who offend Islam is morally justified, and a fifth stated violence is an appropriate measure for spreading Shariah Law (https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/). That's just in the US. In countries with higher populations of Muslims, the number only increases, and dramatically so.

2 points

"Muslims as a group are not actively trying to win a stereotype type."

Perhaps "earn" would've been a better term.

"The black swan argument? Or is it white swan. There have been several white Christian attacks in the last few years"

Except those are rare, "lone wolves" who clearly have severe mental conditions. The Quran, on the other hand, is a hateful book quite literally filled with violent decrees against nonbelievers. Where's that in Christianity?

"Are you referring to Muslims as a race, a religion, a specific organization? Since there is no overriding org, I disagree as your definition."

What definition? None was given in the OP.

"The actual question I care about not if something is perceived. I care if something is true."

Then why not take a look at Europe, where so-called "refugees" are literally taking over territory. Their tribalism has become so terrible that even emergency services won't enter areas designated as "no-go zones".

1 point

"Actually any religious theocracy or belief based system of governance is generally less better off then there counter parts. It not just muslims. If there is an increase in secular values, or the state has a secular system of governance it tends to be better off in economic, education, over all wealth and health care. . ."

To begin with, how does this contradict my point? The only theocratic states in existence nowadays, as far as I know, are Islamic.

Further, what basis is there for the claim that secularism is specifically responsible for increasing the standards of a given society? Last I checked, it's a relatively new phenomenon, and thus has no historical basis for comparison.

1 point

"Explain how the lifespan at that time was 4 times shorter than ours."

Call me crazy, but such trivialities as culture, civilization, technology, and medical innovation may have had something to do with it.

2 points

"We don't naturally need it to survive!"

Is that why meat, dairy, and eggs are the easiest complete proteins to obtain?

"How did our ancestors even live then if they "needed" it."

Depending on how far back you're talking, they did; almost exclusively, in fact. And, surprise surprise, they were much healthier than when mass-agriculture came into being.

"Vegans also survive today without eating anything from an animal and they are perfectly healthy even more so than people that base there diet on meat."

Your basis for this claim being...?

"Also our ancestors might of needed teeth for oh you know... self defense!"

Because why use your limbs, which have much longer range and are infinitely more versatile, when you can expose your vulnerable head so you can use your teeth to defend yourself, in all likelihood suffering extreme brain damage in the process?

"Also if you look up "Plants with Protein" or "Plants with Calcium" You will see a long list of them."

How about plants with complete, healthy proteins?

"Also if you look at our intestines you will see that they relate to herbivores intestines more than a carnivores."

And? Do I need to repeat the fact that humans are omnivores? Since when does general physical resemblance equate to irrefutable correlation?

1 point

"Animals feel pain. Plants don't at least on a conscious level. Animals also understand a lot more than you think. So no It is not ethical."

How does the fact that animals are capable of feeling pain invalidate the ethicality of any consumption of meat? From what I understand, slaughtering can be quick and almost painless.

"Also genetically we are herbivores as we have molers meant for grinding leaves and plants not meat."

Interestingly, we also have canines and incisors, which are meant for tearing meat. That's why humans are classified as "omnivorous"; because they're built for both (although one does require both fat and protein to survive: the nervous system requires the former to maintain itself, and the latter is, among other things, a key component in muscle growth). How, exactly, does that make us "genetically herbivores"? If consuming meat were inherently alien to our biology, why do we naturally require it to survive?

LichPotato(362) Clarified
1 point

If I recall correctly (and as you acknowledge in your last statement), I was previously on your ban list for some time. Now, being quite prideful of both my mannerisms and rationality, I can't say I've ever been "deceptive," "childish," and "vulgar," particularly on a debate site. Would you kindly inform me, then, as to the reasoning behind my ban?

1 point

I considered whether responding to this post of yours was worth the time; fortunately, I have nothing better to do, and I'm actually somewhat impressed you finally provided evidence. Let's begin, shall we?

"Your first lie was exposed regarding your misuse of the term hypothesis"

That being? How can you accuse me of misusing a term you've thus far refused to define?

"and then your confusion was demonstrated by you admitting that Evolution was not a hypothesis."

First of all, the quote you used explicitly contradicted your claim. After you used it, I again explicitly contradicted your claim, so how, exactly, have you proven your point?

Second, even if you were correct, isn't admitting to one's own self-contradiction admitting to having lied? As that's the case, why do you use this to accuse me of lying and my allegedly misusing the term "hypothesis" (which implies confusion)? Seems to me you yourself are confused in regards to your accusations.

"This is your usual little dance and a pathetic tactic used by creationists to avoid accepting that evolution in FACT so let's have some facts regarding my claim"

First of all, to reiterate, a scientific hypothesis (or derivatives thereof [theories and laws]) is incapable of being a rationally irrefutable fact. The closest it can come is being supported by the majority of facts derived from objective experimentation and observation.

Second, these "facts" are circumstantial at best. Let's go over each one:

1. Common Ancestry: Claiming this interesting phenomenon (that certain groups of animals and fossils assumed to be their direct ancestors have certain similar, apparently arbitrary traits) proves Darwinian Evolution falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization; it necessarily implies that, because certain animals have certain similar traits, they must also have other similar qualities (such as ancestry and conception). At best, this evidence is circumstantial, and even then has nothing to do with the actual hypothesis itself (it has no bearing on whether mutation is capable of indefinitely accruing, the fundamental contention regarding Darwinian Evolution).

2. Observed Change in Species: This argument is one of the more common ones, and essentially claims that, because Natural Selection (an observable phenomenon) takes place, Darwinian Evolution (an unsubstantiated hypothesis) must also take place (more commonly referred to as "Macro- vs micro-evolution," though I believe I've already pointed out my preference for the former, as it's far more clear). In short, this argument is meaningless: it relies solely on an abuse of ambiguity, and in no way substantiates the fundamental premise of Darwinian Evolution that mutation is indefinitely capable of accrual.

3. I'm not entirely sure what to say about this one... The only point it conceivably has is to tie into the first point, which I've already demonstrated the invalidity of.

"Comparative anatomy is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments."

Already pointed out the problem here.

"The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.
"

Or, and just hear me out for a second, those traits are simply pretty handy ones for creatures to have. That doesn't necessitate Darwinian Evolution.

"Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe, helps solidify Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor. 
On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another."

Again, circumstantial evidence at best. This doesn't necessitate Darwinian Evolution, either; Natural Selection itself perfectly explains this (of course species in similar environments would select similar traits).

"Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms."

Once again, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that these similar patterns are simply an efficient means of structuring an organism. It proves nothing.

"Modern examples of biological evolution can be measured by studying the results of scientific experiments that measure evolutionary changes in the populations of organisms that are alive today. In fact, you need only look in the newspaper or hop online to see evidence of evolution in action in the form of the increase in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

This argument, once again, abuses the ambiguity of the term "evolution" to take an obvious fact (Natural Selection) and equate it to an unsubstantiated hypothesis (Darwinian Evolution).

"Radioisotope dating estimates the age of fossils and other rocks by examining the ratio of isotopes in rocks. Isotopes are different forms of the atoms that make up matter on Earth. Some isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, discard particles over time and change into other elements. 
Scientists know the rate at which this radioactive decay occurs, so they can take rocks and analyze the elements within them. Radioisotope dating indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is plenty old enough to allow for the many changes in Earth’s species due to biological evolution."

Radioactive dating is far from reliable: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

"You've already asked your question regarding alteration via mutation in your last debate so why are you asking again ?"

To what question are you referring? You've demonstrated yourself capable of quoting, so why not do so when context is required?

"Regarding facts the definition I gave is accepted by rational beings you claiming the accepted definition is absurd demonstrates your continued confusion over the simplest of definitions i will attempt to explain it very simply for you yet again ,"

The quote you provided was thoroughly flawed, as I rationally pointed out. If you were to do the unthinkable and explicitly and rationally point out some flaw in my definition, I'd be more than happy to oblige.

"In science , there is no such thing as ' irrefutable proof ' . Unlike religion , true science always accepts the possibility that some new evidence may appear that changes what we previously believed , if that happens , we change our understanding accordingly ."

That depends heavily on what the object of the "proof" is. If said object is a scientific hypothesis (the relationship between the two being causation), certainly. If, on the other hand, the object is an observation, rather than an explanation (I.E. "The Sun, from our perspective, moves across the sky during the day" [a fact] vs "The Sun, from our perspective, moves across the sky during the day because the Earth rotates around it" [a hypothesis based on objective observation]), objectivity is definitely within reach.

"There is convincing evidence of human evolution that so far has not being undermined ."

"Convincing" is largely subjective. Someone who wants something to be true, for example, is likely to be more easily convinced by a given piece of evidence substantiating that thing. Perhaps a more useful term (though even less rational in this context) would be "rationally convincing".

"Nothing else accounts for what we see , I've made a claim stating that there was a vast body of evidence in support , now I can provide links to various sites or recommend reading material , you might be better off starting at the basics as you seem totally unaware of the various excellent sites and resources that cover the topic in more detail even though I and other have given you various links to sites in the past .

You may want to start with the basics so for you I would recommend Evolution for dummies , if you find this primer a little ' tough ' give me a shout and I will talk you through it ."

As I read your thoroughly condescending post, I can't help but amusingly recall your avid fixation on "you is" being a valid form of "to be". Not really an argument, just a musing.

Anyway, let's take a look at the site, shall we? Actually, after quickly scanning it, there doesn't appear to be any new information here. Never mind, then (I can only repeat the same arguments so many times rationally unchallenged before I tire of it).

"facts to show percentages wise religions that deny evolution as fact , which demonstrates what percentage are ignorant as a denial of accept fact would be deemed ignorant in your case you wear your ignorance like a badge of honour."

Is that so? Because I distinctly recall pointing out that science is not monolithic; rejecting a single hypothesis is not equivalent to rejecting science itself. Further, I have no memory of you ever explicitly challenging this point, yet you still repeat it? Oh, joy, more of this. And here I thought we were making progress.

"It makes me wonder why people like you have not once had one peer reviewed paper published"

That in particular may have something to do with the fact that I'm not legally an adult (though, as you're clearly demonstrating, that's not much of a high bar nowadays), much less a scientist with years of research under my belt.

Oh goody, another link; and this one even betrays its irrational nature in the title!

The only points I can find here that address arguments I've actually used are 7 (regarding Abiogenesis) and, possibly, 11 (regarding the limitations of Natural Selection). The former disregards the fact that life, which is claimed to be created by impartial, unguided forces under largely random conditions, has yet to be synthesized by an intelligent, extremely technical force (man) under theoretically optimal conditions. It simply doesn't add up. The latter, on the other hand, subscribes to the aforementioned folly of abusing equivocal words, and is therefore relatively unmentionable.

Interestingly enough, the claims this article produces, keeping to the same vein of yours, have absolutely no substantiation: it cites no references, instead simply possessing these bare, entirely unsubstantiated statements.

"Saying I have a serious mental condition"

Assuming you legitimately believe in the truthhood of your self-contradicting statements, anyway.

"coming from a young earth creationist"

Who said anything about being a Young Earth Creationist? No statement I've made has either stated or implied that personal belief.

"who firmly aligns himself with the mentally unstable John Morris"

On what basis? Casually using an article from that source due to its convenience (it was the first result that came up, and I didn't particularly care) is not equivalent to "firmly aligning" oneself with said source.

"My moral superiority is based on the fact that I do not have to resort to the tired and lame exercise of claiming you have a serious mental condition which is typical of the type of more unsavoury Christian hypocrite on CD"

Actually, I believe you've more than once accused me of being delusional, which is itself a medically significant psychological ailment, but do continue.

Another interesting detail is that I didn't use my casual suggestion of mental illness as an argument; I was merely pointing out that honestly believing in your demonstrably false (not to mention ludicrous) statements would indicate as much.

"my intellectual superiority is demonstrated by knowing the difference between terms"

And, you appear to be forgetting, absolutely refusing to explicitly define said terms?

Yet again reminding me of your "you is" tirade. To this day, I'm still quite amused by it.

"You will of course not reply because my claims are factual"

Whoops, too late. I really must apologize, though; my usual timely replies have been curbed as of recent due to my increasing workload (and, to an extent, my growing boredom with your ranting).

"my accusations accurate and entirely rational , you off course will state the opposite as you do in every debate you're soundly defeated in and always use the self same ' get out of jail card"

And you wonder why I question your mental integrity.

2 points

Last I checked, you hold and maintain a somewhat extensive ban list of your more vocal opponents, so it's not terribly surprising that they don't respond to your statements (which are, quite ironically, almost exactly like those of certain other persons, if opposite in ideological polarity).

1 point

"First I will attempt to correct your continued confusion then I will demonstrate how you contradict yourself and deliberately lie using your words is that fair ?"

Not only am I a liar, apparently, but I'm also self-contradictory and confused? Great! If only you could provide any sort of substantiation for any of these accusations.

"Again your misunderstanding of basic terms is very telling In science, a hypothesis and a theory differs in that a hypothesis is a conjecture based on empirical observation or theoretical derivation yet unproven or by any experimental work, and that a theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested by many researchers and supported by strong evidence."

That's more or less what I stated. Your point?

"Evolution is a theory that has been repeatedly tested, supported by overwhelming evidence, and can be used to explain natural phenomenon very well."

Really? Care to provide any scientific experiment or observation that indicates genetic information is capable of indefinite alteration via mutation? Because I certainly haven't seen any.

"A fact is something that is postulated to have occurred or to be correct."

That's absurd; that definition implies facts are subjective.

"The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means)."

Yet again, almost exactly what I've stated. What's your point?

"Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence."

You're the one claiming the existence of this apparently vast body of data supporting Darwinian Evolution. It falls solely on you, making a positive claim and therefore having the burden of proof, to present this evidence.

"Here you are agreeing Evolution is not a hypothesis"

Really? In the quote you later add (the one I assume you're referring to here), I explicitly state that the term "scientific fact" is not intrinsically an oxymoron when applied to specific facets of science: objective observation and experimentation. Not once did I ever state or imply that a hypothesis is rationally capable of being regarded as a "scientific fact". How, exactly, does this make me a liar?

"So tell where have you or any of your fellow deniers demonstrated that the evidence supporting is wrong ?"

I never said anything remotely like that. What I have said, however, is that direct, irrefutable evidence requiring or even implying the validity of Darwinian Evolution is nonexistent. Those two statements are not equivalent, therefore attributing the former to me is fallacious.

"Again just to repeat myself again as you seem to ignore what I stated regarding fact"

Again, just to repeat myself, as you seem to ignore that I rationally demonstrated your statement regarding fact to be incorrect: facts are most definitely absolute certainty.

"Regarding facts and theories your misunderstanding of how the two terms are used by scientists is telling as I said and explained countless times Evolution is both fact and theory ."

First of all, if I'm misunderstanding the terms in question (which you have no basis for, but I'm sure minor details like that are beneath bothering you), how can I possibly be dishonest about them, as you also claim?

Second, I've previously pointed out exactly why "Evolution" is not "both fact and theory" (to reiterate: "Evolution" can refer to both Darwinian Evolution and Natural selection [the former being a hypothesis, the latter a fact]; just because both have the same synonym doesn't mean both are equally valid, or even related [for example, the term "lead" can refer both to a soft metal and the action of managing a group of people, two entirely unrelated concepts]), and you have yet to refute my argument. How, exactly, do you expect to win with nothing but repetition?

"So now you state that great liberties have been taken with the fossil record and baseless assumptions made ?"

Seeing as said substantiation requires the largely baseless assumption that particular fossils are related, yes.

"Ah I see that's the implication of my argument , whilst failing to acknowledge that I've stated to another poster on this thread that I'm married to a Christian and I've debated with some very intelligent and well read Christians , I'm demonstrating and have indeed proven that religions breed ignorance as in Evolution deniers you're a living breathing example of what I claim ."

Really? You insist multiple times that "you is" is a valid second-person form of "to be", maintain that Darwinian Evolution is factual in blatant disregard of the scientific method, attempt to win debates by repeating the same baseless claims and accusations over and over, and yet you have the audacity to claim I'm the one breeding ignorance?

"Also there are more religions than Christianity and one only has to look at religions like Islam and ask does it breed ignorance and impede progress as a religion ?"

Because Islam is a barbaric, violence-based religion. Are you implying that because a particular religion "breeds ignorance and impedes progress", all religions do? If you're not implying this, then what relevance does this point have to the discussion? Redundant as this feels to point out, that reasoning falls under the fallacy of "hasty generalization".

"I know you don't care about stats or facts you've demonstrated that , funnily enough a fair proportion of American Christians are also climate change deniers , another demonstration of religion breeding ignorance ."

I'm not particularly interested in going into this matter at the moment, so I'll just point out that you have no basis for your implication that denial of Global Warming (or Climate Change, as it's now called) is equivalent to "breeding ignorance" and be done with it.

"Everything I've pointed out so far I've done so in a rational manner ,"

I'm having quite a hard time telling whether you're serious or not.

"I've backed all my claims up"

Such as?

"and my accusations about you lying I've proved by using your own words"

The one quote you provided failed to substantiate your accusation in the slightest, and even explicitly refuted it.

"So let's again demonstrate how easily you lie again in your own words in a previous encounter here you are ,"

Since when is a source considered "in one's own words"?

There's no point in explicitly refuting the rest of your statements; they're all vague, baseless accusations.

Once again, I'm questioning whether you legitimately believe what you're stating (in which case, given the blatant contradictions with reality [particularly in regards to claiming substantiation for all of your statements], it seems apparent you have a serious mental condition) or not (if so, what are you doing on a debate website?). Also once again, if you perpetuate your tirade of baseless claims and accusations, no rational discussion is possible, therefore I will discontinue this discussion. If, on the other hand, you're willing to be, at the very least, rational, I'd be happy to continue. Given our previous engagements, however, and your apparently fanatical fixation on your perceived moral and intellectual superiority, I doubt it.

1 point

"Evolution is not a hypothesis"

Its substantiating evidence is circumstantial at best (seeing as the scale on which it allegedly takes place precludes observation), and has several fundamental flaws (my favorites being the lack of any evidence, despite our vast body of knowledge, of a species' ability to mutate into a dissimilar species and experiments attempting to substantiate Abiogenesis failing, particularly under theoretically optimal [and, quite frankly, generous] conditions). A scientific theory, which would be the next step up from a hypothesis, is a hypothesis substantiated by the bulk of current data. Seeing as current data is largely either indifferent to it or discredits it, one cannot rationally claim it to be a theory. It follows, then, that it's a hypothesis.

"and who mentioned irrefutable fact ?"

Perhaps I should have been more clear with my wording: any concept is inherently refutable; my meaning of the term "irrefutable" was "rationally irrefutable", which, while redundant (seeing as a fact is, by definition, an objectively verifiable piece of information [or sound logical extrapolation thereof]), would be somewhat more clear.

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty."

This alleged scientist's own statement contradicts their point; if facts and theories are two exclusive concepts (which I have no disagreement with), then how can Darwinian Evolution be both? It's rational suicide.

"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."

There most certainly is. For example, when I make the statement "the vast majority of the ocean is comprised of water", objective observation by numerous persons dictates that it is indeed an absolute certainty.

"The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world."

Mathematics and logic are themselves abstract concepts, and therefore capable of objectivity, but they can (and are) both soundly applied to reality as we know it. If a mathematical or logical proof is entirely unrelated to reality (as this alleged scientist appears to be claiming must be the case), it is meaningless and therefore irrelevant to science. And yet, such proofs are the very backbone of science. It follows, then, that mathematical and logical proofs are capable of directly correlating to reality, and since they are in fact objective, it follows then that objectivity can be applied to reality.

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. "

Ah, I see. Here we hit the common issue of Darwinian Evolution vs Natural Selection (often referred to as "Macro- vs Micro-evolution", though I find the former to be much clearer). This argument is, depending on its usage, what is often referred to as a "bait and switch": it begins with a factual definition of a term, such as "Evolution is an observable phenomenon; animals have been seen adapting to their surroundings via mutation" (in this statement, "evolution" refers to the process of Natural Selection, which is an objectively verifiable phenomenon), and then abuses the equivocality of that term in an attempt to substantiate the concept expressed in the alternate meaning with the objectivity of the concept expressed in the original meaning, in this instance abusing the term "evolution"'s two meanings of "Natural Selection" (the observable phenomenon) and "Darwinian Evolution" (the unsubstantiated hypothesis). In short, the fact that these two concepts share the same name (though one is typically capitalized while the other isn't) does not make them equal in validity.

"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry."

The only possible basis for this claim is historical evidence, in this case being the great taking of liberties regarding baseless assumptions with the fossil record.

"No , I never stated what you claim as in if one rejects Evolution one also rejects the entireity of science so why are you lying ?"

That's a necessary implication of your argument; your claim is that "religion breeds ignorance and impedes progress", clearly relating to science. Your only substantiation for this claim is that particular religious groups are particularly likely to reject Darwinian Evolution. Assuming you would also claim your supporting evidence to be directly related to your claim (which I'm sure you'll agree to), it follows that you're claiming a relationship between rejecting Darwinian Evolution and "breeding ignorance and impeding progress". My point was simply that that claim, which is necessarily implied in your argument, is absurd.

"The stats I posted are from PEW research center and demonstrate the ignorance I speak of ."

I don't particularly care about the statistics; as I pointed out, they bear no relevance to your central claim. Ironically, even now, you're coming ever closer to explicitly claiming a (nonexistent) relationship between rejecting Darwinian Evolution and rejecting science as a whole.

"That's funny considering our last encounter where you claimed that the scientific community refused to acknowledge or give a fair hearing to creationist rebuttals of Evolutionary theory ; I think you will find the circular reasoning will be entirely yours as deliberately lying to make your position seem justified has not worked either ."

I certainly would if you pointed it out in a rational manner, rather than simply repeating the same baseless claims and accusations over and over again.

"Feel free to post up,your usual counters from answers in genesis or have you a new source ?"

Your apparent obsession with my (admittedly lazy) use of that particular source is somewhat confusing; is that the only legitimate criticism you found of my statements, and are therefore clinging to it, or have you simply added it to your aforementioned list of baseless claims and accusations?

1 point

Claiming biology to be entirely based on Darwinian Evolution is absurd. The only relevance the latter has to the former is an explanation of origin; it's not a prerequisite for anything relating to the actual study, particularly in regards to medicine, other than possibly history.

Even if some magical correlation does exist between Darwinian Evolution and medicine, it still doesn't imply causation; the two are not equivalent.

2 points

Where to even begin?

Let's start with the readily apparent: Darwinian Evolution, being a scientific hypothesis, is incapable of being rationally regarded as irrefutable fact. It follows, then, that anyone believing it to be such holds an irrational belief, and either doesn't understand the scientific method or chooses to ignore it.

Further, the fundamental premise of this debate is flawed: it assumes that, because a good many religious persons reject Darwinian Evolution, that they also reject the entirety of science (thereby being ignorant and, apparently, impeding scientific progress), the implication being that rejecting a particular scientific hypothesis is equivalent to rejecting science as a whole. As one learns when being taught the basics of science, this is absurd; a scientific hypothesis can be rejected for a multitude of reasons (such as insufficient supporting data or significant data to the contrary), and in doing so, one makes no statement whatsoever about science as a whole; in other words, science is not doctrinal.

Even if the above were entirely false, the argument presented in the OP is fundamentally flawed: on top of the aforementioned issues, it implies that acceptance of Darwinian Evolution is the cornerstone of all science, a self-evident absurdity.

Unfortunately, pointing this all out yet again will, in all likelihood, prove ultimately fruitless. Assuming the original poster responds, I expect more of the same circular reasoning built on baseless assumptions.

2 points

"Possibly, but if they don't have time they can delegate this responsibility to someone they broadly agree with."

Is that not the very definition of a Representative Democracy?

"This would weaken the voting power of those who are uninformed and strengthen that of those who are informed while still maintaining fairness."

How, exactly, would your proposed system ensure the informed possess the most voting power? Just because one person designates another to share their voting power doesn't mean the latter person is necessarily more informed than the former.

"I'm not sure it would, we deal with regular voting just fine"

On a State or County level. We, as a people, only ever vote on a national level once in four years, and on a single issue. Just imagine, with our current legislature, how much more time and resources voting on many federal issues every year would require.

"All that would change is the amount of info on each ballot."

And frequency of voting, that being the issue at hand. Unless, of course, you'd be willing to have a single, massive period of voting annually or semi-annually, in which case every single issue requiring a federal vote would necessarily be put on hold for at least several months. Our government is slow enough as it is; can you imagine waiting the better part of a year to decide whether we're, for example, going to go to war or not?

"I think wherever possible government should be as localized as possible (central government is of course necessary for some functions). As such I would suggest that the majority of proposals would be voted on at the district and state level."

They are. In fact, as far as I know, the majority of States already have democratic voting systems for the majority of State issues (Texas being the one exception that immediately comes to mind).

1 point

With a country whose population numbers in the hundreds of millions over fifty politically separate arbitrary designations of land, requiring or even allowing every single one of those people to take part in every single decision made by government would be a nightmare; for a start, much more of people's lives would necessarily be taken up by researching the best course of action to take on a given issue. Further, voting on said issue would take an astronomical amount of time, resources, and manpower to facilitate.

In short, it's necessary to designate figures to represent the people; those who can reasonably spend the majority of their time on these issues because it's their career. Lowering the number of voters in the system by an order of 500,000 clearly negates the aforementioned costs, bringing them down to easily manageable levels.

1 point

They both have their place: books greatly assist the development of one's vocabulary (and, depending on the book, general knowledge), while video games either serve to improve one's reflexes (skill-based games) or or logic-based problem solving (strategy-based games).

In regards to their purpose as specifically entertainment, it mostly comes down to preference. One is a linear, non-interactive story (which has its own charm to it), while the other can be just about anything under the sun.

2 points

A couple things I forgot to mention in my previous post:

1. Even if your argument concerning media were entirely true, it would still lend no credence to your claim regarding oligarchical genocide.

2. Keep in mind, the dichotomy presented in this debate is whether Capitalism or Communism is the better economic system; my position is that Capitalism is the superior of the two, therefore yours, in refuting mine, is necessarily the opposite (the position that Communism is the superior of the two). And yet, you have failed thus far to either contradict my statements regarding the latter (specifically my mention of the aforementioned oligarchical genocide it invariably causes), or even present any merit of it whatsoever. Even if you can irrefutably prove Capitalism to be a terrible economic system (which is, in my opinion, rather unlikely), you'd still have to demonstrate Communism to be superior to it to substantiate your side.

2 points

"The news that we're given from our media...(statement shortened for the sake of brevity)...people need to wake up and learn that this is true."

While I agree that conventional media is a poor source of information, your argument would've worked quite a bit better several decades ago, when conventional media was actually relevant. Nowadays, with the wonders of the internet and the freedom of information that comes with it, conventional media is all-but obsolete, excepting the few elderly persons who still give it credence.

"I don't know if your sources are credible, but according to the last report the Census Bureau conducted more than 45 million people live below the poverty line."

I don't doubt that, but what does it really mean? Let's take the FPL (Federal Poverty Line) for a household with a single person: $11,880 yearly (https://obamacare.net/2017-federal-poverty-level/). This household would have to make $227 per week ($11,880/52) to achieve this, which, at minimum wage (as I've previously pointed out, and as you've thus far neglected to rebut, in our competitive economy, you have no excuse not to have a job), comes to a grand total of... 31 hours per week ($227/$7.25, the latter being the current federal minimum wage). And that's for the less than one percent of the population which theoretically depends on a minimum-wage job to survive. Having personally done a cost-of-living project, I can safely conclude that depending on a minimum wage job (which, as previously pointed out, is a rarity) is viable, if not comfortable. For one, you could drastically reduce living costs by splitting an apartment with a roommate, using inexpensive means of travel (such as cycling, which is most certainly an option in a city), and frugally spending.

"If you don't believe that listen to this, The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP (food stamps), counted almost 43.6 million people in the program in April 2016, the most recent data available."

Food Stamps, like just about every other federal welfare program, are extremely vulnerable to abuse. Why, for example, spend money on food when you could spend it on trivial interests or sheer impulsiveness? All it does is largely unconditionally provide people a means of spending more money.

"Many people that receive food stamps have a full time job, they work from 9-5 if not longer and still need food stamps to be able to get by."

Care to provide any actual examples?

"SO explain to me how this system works, people work hard and long and still can't get by without help."

Remember how the US stagnated in the early 1900's while the rest of the world innovated continuously, producing wonders such as cheap steel production and the first motor vehicles? Me neither, seeing as both inventions (and many more) were purely American exploits.

"It's not the government alone that's involved, it's the corporations that lobby the government. Billion dollar corporations lobby both parties and so they hedge their bets. So it doesn't matter who wins, in the end they get what they want."

Lobbying has nothing to do with Capitalism itself; it's an illegitimate political practice, not a fundamental facet of a free market.

"but it's not illegal if you call it lobbying or campaign donations."

It most certainly is, regarding donations, anyway. Entities, by law, have restrictions on campaign donations. I recommend you look up the relevant legislation.

"Loopholes are not illegal warren buffet admitted to using legal loopholes and only paying a lower rate than his employees."

First of all, the IRS, a government organization, is solely responsible for ensuring taxes are paid as they should be. If they're not, the fault lies with them.

Second, even with such an apparently low tax rate, the top ten percent of earners, to reiterate, account for the majority of tax revenue. Even if rates are comparatively lower, the only thing that really matters is actual revenue, which, given your own admission of their frankly absurd wealth, is quite disparate between groups of taxpayers.

And when we did have a 91% tax rate our budget was at a surplus, can you guess where our budget is now?"

Are you implying that tax rates on the rich is the sole, or even major, factor concerning the federal budget?

"I used to live in Jamaica Queens, a lot of my friends only got to eat in school and pretty much ate little to no food at home."

Not to make light of the presented circumstances, but given the fact that Jamaica is a middle-class NY neighborhood, and the previously stated financial statistics, I dare say the cause of those childrens' lack of food was a lack of financial responsibility on the part of their parents. Besides, if Food Stamps are so great, why didn't they just apply for them?

"Every single one of them raised their hands, so deeply offensive did they find the notion of any tax increase at all, even one that would allow enormous progress on another goal they claimed to hold dear."

Tell me, when has the government throwing more money at a problem (with no responsibility or accountability, as it appears to be terminally incapable of creating) ever solved an issue in a reasonably efficient manner, or even at all?

LichPotato(362) Clarified
1 point

The latter.

Don't mind this text; I simply need to fill the 50 character minimum.

2 points

To begin with, my previous post was on the "incorrect" side due to an apparent error in the post it rebutted (which was on the "Capitalism" side, despite "disputing" my original post, which was on the same side).

Further, in my opinion, the "points" system is entirely meaningless; the validity of the side of an issue has nothing to do with either its popularity or how many arguments are posted on its behalf.

1 point

If any country possesses nuclear weapons, which at least one always will, maintaining the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction becomes a necessity.

2 points

"Well, actually there is much much genocidal oligarchy it is just hidden from the public. "

How, exactly, does one go about hiding the discriminatory mass-murder of the political elite from over 300 million people?

"The 20 richest people in the America have as much wealth as the bottom 152 million people in America."

Your point? The total wealth of the populous is far from static, so it's not as if certain people possessing more resources means there're less for everyone else.

"Our form of capitalism has never worked for the poor and it's starting to fall apart for the middle class."

Define "poor". Last I checked, less than three percent of the population works at minimum wage (and if you're not working, you have no excuse for poverty; there are plenty of companies that hire unskilled, untrained labor [in fact, such a company, under said conditions, is how I recently acquired my first career]), and of that three percent, over three fifths of which are enrolled in school, and even ignoring them, only a quarter of the remaining, older minimum-wage workers fall below the poverty line. How, exactly, does the system "not work for the poor"? (statistics: http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents) )

"Capitalism is good in theory but that's not what we have today."

Agreed, though for clearly differing reasons. In my opinion, the government's far too involved in our economic system for it to function correctly. In other words, the problem, in my opinion, is our economy leans too far towards Communism to thrive.

"Today corporations can buy elections..."

Which is entirely illegal; responsibility for failure to enforce campaign and bribery legislation lies entirely on the government's shoulders.

"...and write legislation..."

Can you provide any example of this that doesn't fall under my above statement?

"...that's not capitalism, that's fascism."

Well, the definition of Fascism is actually quite convoluted, but sure, why not? The only purpose this statement has is to contradict your earlier statements; if we are indeed Fascist, it follows we're not Capitalist, and therefore your accusations against it are irrelevant.

"We used to have capitalism, in the 1940's the rich paid 91 % income taxes, today they're paying close to nothing or in some cases nothing, due to extensive loopholes that were sent in place by the lobbying super rich."

Which is, to reiterate, illegal. Further, a progressive tax system is inherently anti-Capitalist, as it punishes success and therefore deincentivizes it, and is therefore inherently contradictory to the system.

"The rich keep all of the money, pay none of the taxes.

The middle class keep none of the money, pay all of the taxes.

The poor are just there to scare the shit out of the middle class."

Other than the fact that the top ten percent of earners in the US account for more than half of all tax revenue, while the top one percent account for around a fifth? Meanwhile, the bottom fifty percent of earners account for three percent of all taxes. I have to reiterate: how, exactly, does the system fail? Where are the unwashed masses of starving children dying in droves in the streets beneath the gold-plated skyscrapers of the rich you appear to be alluding to?

1 point

To begin with, Capitalism is the only economic system of the two that hasn't ended in genocidal oligarchy, so I'd say that's a fair indicator of how this is going to work out.

Second, the human psyche is built around incentives; people, like all other life, are not arbitrary beings. When a person engages in an activity, they do so because they acquire something from it, be it financial stability (occupations), a sense of moral justification (compassion and charity activity), or, quite frequently, the body's own built-in hormonal incentive mechanisms.

It follows, then, that an economic system which inherently relies on incentives will be more effective than one that either discourages them or even disregards them completely. Capitalism, without government intervention, is built on the notion that opportunity creates productivity and all the benefits that follow (wealth, technological innovation, and education, to name a few), while Communism is based on the idea that the government understands more than the people in every meaningful context, and should therefore dictate the entirety of their economic lives. In short, this is a terrible idea: not only does the government have no reason whatsoever to please its citizens (especially since, historically, they've almost exclusively been enforced by strength of arms), but the populous has no incentive to produce or innovate. If the government only allows you so much wealth, regardless of your accomplishments or lack thereof, why bother trying? Fundamentally, Communism not only disregards human nature, but entirely relies on an overwhelmingly moral, selfless citizenry and government, and is therefore entirely unrealistic, existing accurately only in the minds of the hopelessly optimistic, whose disregard of both history and human nature can only be described as delusional.

1 point

I suppose that, given the inherent feeling of wrongness one develops when hearing or being subjected to wrongdoing (as opposed to indifference, which would indicate normalcy), it follows that the population is generally moral.

2 points

I'm personally indifferent towards the moral aspects of this issue (I couldn't care less what legal status two consenting adults wish to possess), therefore my argument is solely from a legal standpoint. In short, the Supreme Court, being an entity of the Judicial branch of government, possesses no Constitutional (and therefore legal) authority to create law, which lies exclusively in the grasp of the Legislative branch. Given this, their arbitration (as opposed to interpreting a law to such an effect, which falls within their jurisdiction) is illegal, and should therefore be abolished.

1 point

Men are inherently much greater risk-takers; while this does lead to higher conviction rates among them, it's also a crucial facet of the innovations we've made as a species. Sure men contribute disproportionately more to crime, but they also disproportionately drive science and technology as a whole, both of which are incomprehensibly crucial to society's function.

2 points

That argument assumes Medicaid to be crucial to the survival of a great many people. Here's a hint: it's far from it.

LichPotato(362) Clarified
1 point

Is your post an acceptance of my offer, or are you confident enough in your knowledge to be unwilling to pursue the issue further?

1 point

"You are a piece of work.. You SAY my question is loaded.. You SAY it's irrational.. You SAY it's unfair.."

All of which are demonstrably accurate.

"Then you go ahead and answer by admitting that science IS indeed LEFT WING because it's taught in COLLEGE, and we ALL know how left wing college is.."

If you'd care to read my statement in its entirety, I blatantly reject your claim on a rational basis.

Since I'm apparently forced to repeat it, my argument follows as such: just because colleges hold a particular stance on a given issue does not mean that science itself belongs to that stance. My logical basis for this claim is taking your logic and substituting terms; in this case, the overwhelming fragility of the views of college students.

1 point

Yet another loaded question with no dichotomy (or any semblance of fairness, for that matter) presented in regards to the sides one can take.

That aside, let's begin:

Right off the bat, the assumption intrinsic to the question at hand (that "right wingers" believe science to belong to the political Left) has no basis whatsoever. No sources, hearsay examples, or even supporting text are provided by the OP. This assumption, therefore, is entirely baseless.

Further, I myself, being what the original poster would refer to as a "right winger", have never believed science to be the domain of the political Left. I would even go so far as to say that I know of no so-called "right-winger" who claims this. It follows, then, that not all "right-wingers" believe this to be the case, and thus the OP is fundamentally flawed.

This is entirely conjecture, but I'm guessing the basis behind this debate (irrational as it is) is the overwhelming tendency of academia to lean towards the political Left. Of course, if you're to make this correlation, you must also recognize that academia (specifically colleges and universities, where a good deal of the aforementioned science is facilitated) is the infamous home of so-called "snowflakes", usually adult students whose beliefs are so fragile as to require protection from other points of view, climaxing in the form of "safe spaces". Does this mean that scientists are all "snowflakes"? Of course not. The same applies to political stances; in other words, so what? Correlation is not equivalent to causation, much less the shared belief set of a political party.

1 point

"What a hair-splitting, question dodging, pedantic, smarmy little worm."

What a thoroughly unsubstantiated, pointlessly insulting phrase (it's not even a complete sentence).

"He asked you do you agree with the video."

Not once did they ask me that. The only statement they made that could possibly be construed as a legitimate question was "Why do right wingers get their news from YouTube?", which was not only obviously rhetorical (and therefore not a legitimate question), but a clear example of hasty generalization, which I explicitly pointed out, not to mention a loaded question.

"But you're either too thick or too slimy to read between the lines and answer directly."

Unlike yourself, who goes out of their way to baselessly attack others over nonexistent accusations? Clearly, the moral superiority here rests firmly on you.

So much for challenging my statements on a rational basis.

1 point

"Believe something different" than what, acquiring the entirety of one's knowledge of current events from YouTube, as you claim all "right wingers" do?

1 point

Why are you using a single, self-proclaimed "troll" as the basis for a hasty generalization including all "right wingers"?

LichPotato(362) Clarified
2 points

Is that why Muslim-majority countries are barbaric patriarchies? Because they're "innocent, loving, caring people"?

1 point

"I never said the US was solely responsible. I said mostly. Not the same. I do know China is the leader."

And you see no issue with either of those statements? Okay, let's do a little math here. Let's say the US is responsible for 75% of CO2 emissions (keep in mind this is purely a thought exercise; I'm not actually claiming it to be this number); if China has a higher CO2 output, which it does, then it would be responsible for more than 75% of CO2... Oh, wait... That's over 150% in just those two countries alone. In case you're not aware, 150% is a statistical (and physical) impossibility; it just doesn't make sense.

"As for the rest of your arguments, I mean , I don't know how to respond because your reaction is the very reason I believe the world is better off without the US. What exactly are you disagreeing with ?"

None of your previous statements had anything to do with the world being better off without the US as a whole. As for exactly what statements of yours I disagree with, I'd have hoped my rebutting specific quotes was clear enough. Is there something I'm missing?

1 point

Having Asperger's, I'm personally aware of the (by no means universal) connection between the two. It's entirely possible that the stereotype of the socially inept genius originated from the disease.

1 point

"US is mostly responsible for most of climate damage"

Other than the fact that China produces almost twice as much CO2 as the US?

"But what is the point of fighting against something if the one of big leaders doesn't believe in it?"

Because, not only do the US's restrictions mandated by the Paris Accord achieve hardly anything (Trump said fulfilling the mandates would lower global temperatures by 2/10ths of a degree by 2100), but the same mandates allow other countries (primarily China, India, and Europe) to vastly expand their polluting industries. In other words, the Accord seeks little but to put the US at an economic disadvantage.

"I mean his administration won't even pay for his people's well being"

As the government is meant to do; healthcare is a good, not a right.

"I think water and air for us was bound to get worse the day Trump got elected. But maybe let's not bring the world down with us..."

Even if CO2 caused significant global warming (which, given the hundreds of other variables affecting the climate which are far more significant, is absurd), why would the US be solely responsible for their actions, while the rest of the world, despite the Accord allowing them to increase polluting industries, be innocent of any wrongdoing?

1 point

Assuming a non-zero chance of life spontaneously springing into existence (of which no evidence whatsoever exists), sure.

1 point

After having read your arguments, I'm compelled to ponder whether you're actually interested in a rational discussion. Ignoring my statement with vague assertions, then baselessly claiming God to be "imaginary"? Disputing my statements based on nothing but slight ambiguities? Much as I love debate, I'll pass on this one. There's no possible productive outcome to be had here.

1 point

"First and foremost, E=MC^2 states a relationship between matter and energy and does not state in any way that matter can neither be created nor destroy."

I was simply pointing out that, as shown by that equation, matter and energy are interchangeable in regards to the first law of Thermodynamics.

"Secondly, it is the first law of Thermodynamics that makes it all possible."

I explicitly stated as much.

"Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God."

God, by definition (specifically possessing the quality of "supernaturality", or non-physicality), is not bound by the laws of physics, including Thermodynamics.

"Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were."

Impossible. Due to the second law of Thermodynamics (if you're not familiar with its implications, just Google "heat death of the Universe"), the Universe cannot have simply always existed. Entropy can only ever increase (and does), and, as the Universe definitionally possesses a finite amount of energy (and thus capacity for entropy), therefore, after some finite period of time, the Universe will be saturated with entropy. As this has not yet occurred (life does indeed exist), it follows that the Universe has existed for a finite period of time.

"Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur."

The simple acids you're referring to may be (incomplete) components of organisms, but tossing a few planks into your backyard and building a shed are two entirely different things. In other words, life is inherently much more than the sum of its parts, therefore a simple mixture of its components (assuming you even have all of them; no experiment, even under ideal Darwinian conditions, has been able to produce all necessary amino acids to create life) is not equivalent to it.

"From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve."

To reiterate, there's no evidence that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely.

1 point

First and foremost, "natural" (or physical) processes are fundamentally incapable of creating the Universe. Why? Because natural processes follow the laws of physics (specifically the first law of Thermodynamics), which prohibit the creation or destruction of energy (and, as proven by Einstein's famous equation, "E = MC^2", matter), an inherent prerequisite to the Universe's creation.

As for Darwinian Evolution, I'm forced to disagree: not only is there no evidence to substantiate Abiogenesis (in fact, experiments attempting to credit it, such as the Miller experiment, failed to do so, thus having the opposite effect), but that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely has no basis whatsoever, in either observation or experimentation.

1 point

Or, if you actually take the quote at face value, the Founders simply didn't want the rights listed to be construed in a manner that limits the rights of a given group.

Why the Founders would consider healthcare as a God-given "right" is beyond me. Last I checked, the document they created was an attempt to set up things in such a way that those who had the will to succeed would, not taking from the successful to buy votes from those unwilling to work.

1 point

Sexuality is inherent in the human psyche; pornography, graphic depictions of sexuality, only feeds that pre-existing facet of our minds. It, like anything else, can become addicting; that's not an intrinsic property of pornography, but, again, of our psyche. People who lack a healthy social life often rely on particular substances or content to replace their sociality, leading them to abuse said substances or content. That's not necessarily the fault of the substance or content (illegal drugs lie on the worst end of the spectrum; video games, social media, pornography, and even food are possible subjects), but of the person abusing them.

One could, for instance, just as easily argue that food is a "legal drug" because many people abuse it, therefore we should ban or regulate its use. In other words, nonsensical.

Not to mention the question of how you would even begin to enforce a ban on it. Last I checked, the government censoring media is a sign of tyranny.

1 point

To begin with, the latter is much more personally damaging, while the former, assuming you're not actually in the vicinity of the disaster when it occurs, is largely collateral.

As to why the government would pay for one over the other, I'd argue that the government is not responsible for reimbursing you for personal loss (that's what insurance is for).

LichPotato(362) Clarified
1 point

Given the lack of an inherently supernatural nature of its doctrine, I'd say it's more of a cultural movement than a religion.

1 point

Can you please define "value" in regards to this discussion in precise terms, please? Your two qualifying examples were both based on immediate, neutral observation.

1 point

From what I understand, cancer has no definitive, general cure because the illness itself is as diverse as its victims; in other words, there are as many kinds of cancer as people who suffer from it. Throwing more money at the problem (on top of the $5.4 billion already budgeted to it) is rarely an effective solution, especially when the government (which has demonstrated no regard for either efficiency or accountability) is involved.

1 point

"The first class are beliefs concerning how things are, in this class, there are many beliefs which are held with equal and utter certitude. My belief that I am sitting in a recliner as I type this response is no more or less certain to me than that I am typing on my cell phone. And these beliefs are as strong as they can get, but they are not of a religious nature."

Would political ideology, for example, fit under that category?

LichPotato(362) Clarified
1 point

"I doubt that I understand this question. I wll say that I think values (beliefs concerning importance) that are virtually identical can be expressed and explained in wildly different ways."

To rephrase my question, can a given person or group simultaneously hold more than one "most strongly held belief", or is that position exclusive? The real question (in regards to our prior discussion) is whether a person or group is capable of going to war for multiple reasons.

Moving onto a somewhat different line of questioning, what, exactly, leads you to believe your view of religion to be superior to its overwhelmingly accepted meaning?

1 point

"believing the "natural/physical" portion to be generally inferior to a non-physical portion. (not just different)"

That ideal is far from universal as far as religions go; in fact, to my knowledge, only one commonly recognized religion (Gnosticism) practices it.

"They believe that one or more entities exist that are superior to humans"

The term "superior to humans" is extremely ambiguous at best, so I can't agree.

1 point

How, exactly, is making an absurd statement such as "if I were God, I'd do things differently" "pointing out a huge flaw in [Creationist] beliefs"? That statement is absurd because God is omniscient, and created people in a particular manner, therefore if you were God you would do exactly the same thing.

1 point

"people can share strong beliefs like "the main reason people debate is to prove their intellectual superiority in relation to their opponent(s)", but since these kind of shared strong beliefs aren't necessarily relevant to ones most deeply held values, They do not form the basis of ones religion as I understand it."

But how does one determine what a given group's most strongly held beliefs are? Further, are multiple beliefs capable of simultaneously holding this position?

1 point

"It would almost seem that you disagree with my position that valid conversational meaning only requires two people to jointly recognize a phenomenon and come to terms on an acceptable symbolic and/or linguistic word to refer to it. Is this the case?"

Agreeing upon a particular definition of a term for purposes of a discussion is also an option.

"Would a "higher power" be any thing or being that is more active or capable than others?"

A "higher power" refers to an entity or entities with supernatural quality or qualities, universally (if there's an exception, I'm unaware of it) regarded as having created the world.

"And of "supernatural", I have trouble enough understanding the meaning of natural, can you explain that...then how some things or beings can be thought of as "more natural" or "of a greater nature"?"

The term "supernatural" applies to concepts which are non-physical, or not bound by physical laws. That's really all there is to it.

"I appreciate your patience here. I am not trying to be difficult. I really struggle to think clearly about the meaning of these terms."

Don't worry about it; given the abstractness of the discussion, clarifying one's terminology is only appropriate.

"Just trying to establish what each "side" is for"

Understood.

1 point

"In your conceptualization of religion, do you really think " higher power" is specific enough?"

Given the broadness of the term, I believe it's appropriate.

"If my defining religion as "Group classification according to shared sacred values" and further that sacred means " of the highest value" is circular, as far as I can tell, it is only in the sense that all definitions are circular."

Defining religion as "a group of people who share 'sacred values'", then defining "sacred values" (in part) as "the views religions hold" is circular, as the concept of "religion" can only, with those definitions, be expressed in terms of itself.

"I am wanting to challenge this common view with a less common view that I think is superior."

Yet you have done nothing whatsoever to substantiate your conclusion, other than point out that you hold that opinion.

"I think if you were being fair, you would say..."If that is what religion is taken to mean then yes all wars are religiously motivated""

I've done so, though perhaps not terribly clearly, when I pointed out that, using your terminology, your argument falls solely under (the inverse of) the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which is an issue with the soundness of a premise, not the structure of the argument.

"Since you consider yourself religious I am very surprised you hold that some people are not religious."

While I would argue that not all people are religious (as evidenced by anti-theists, who subscribe to the inverse of religion), it would seem, in my experience, that everyone holds faith in something or another (an example being anti-theists, who hold faith in God's nonexistence [which, being belief without basis, is by definition faith]).

"The most popular interpretations are not always the most optimal. I think if you take me up on my challenge to seperate socratic interviews you will at least see the untenability of your view, even if I can't convince you of the superiority of mine."

Challenge accepted.

"Why you won't say something like..."according to that unorthodox definition..sure" I only have my strong suspicion."

As previously pointed out, I believe I already did.

"You really don't think that group has its own "brand of intolerance"?"

An all-inclusive group, by definition, is incapable of intolerance.

2 points

I'll state my position clearly and simply: the only meaning a given term has is what is universally (or all but) accepted by the population, be it local (regional dialect) or national/international (language).

With this in mind, the meaning of the term "religion" is universally agreed to mean something along the lines of "belief in a supernatural, or 'higher', power", the important bit being the term "supernatural". Why is this important? Because my opponent's definition of the term "religion" (being the issue at hand) includes meanings inherently irrelevant to its universally agreed upon meanings, I.E. includes any group of people with strong, like beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong; misrepresenting your statements would be contrary to a meaningful discussion), not necessarily beliefs of a supernatural nature.

This misdefining the term is following inversely (yet no more rationally) along the lines of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Another example of this erroneous reasoning would be to claim that "All leaders have beards. My substantiation for this claim comes from the fact that all leaders in the past have had limbs, and limbs are beards, therefore all leaders have beards". The error in this syllogism comes not from an invalid structure (I.E. the conclusion not logically following from the premises), but from an untrue premise (I.E. "limbs are beards").

LichPotato(362) Clarified
1 point

What, then, exactly do you mean by "imagine"? To conceptualize an idea, one must comprehend it, no?

1 point

"The "actual" definition of religion is IMO misleading in that it is not broad enough to be inclusive of all the various faiths, in particular non-theistic faith groups."

Faith and religion are two separate concepts: the latter implies the former, but the opposite is not necessarily true. Faith can be directed at any concept, be it physical or otherwise, while religion is specifically faith in a "higher power".

"As to the charge that I wasnt forthright with my (supposedly wildly unorthodox view) if you look more carefully you will see that my later explanation was but a rephrasing of my first. "

Your original definitions of "religion" and "sacred values" were circular (the former being expressed in terms of the latter, and vice versa), and therefore ambiguous in the extreme. Further, until recently, you had in no way defined the term "religion" to include non-supernatural concepts.

"Interesting to note that you considered the first explanation reasonable."

I never once claimed your reasoning to be sound. In every post I've made in this debate, whether explicitly or otherwise, I've condemned your claim as fundamentally flawed.

"Also interesting to note is that people who are admittedly religious don't take issue with this view of religion,"

Based on what study, carried out by whom and with what sample size? I consider myself a religious person, and I take issue with your "unique" definition of the term, so what do you base this claim on?

"I think refusal to admit this simple point is a barrier to what could be fruitful comparative dialogs."

I've thus far failed to "admit" to your claim due to the fact that your definition of the term "religion" encompasses concepts wholly irrelevant to those expressed by the term's objectively recognized meanings.

"In my experience it doesn't take very long to expose underlying contradictions so long as questions are answered without obvious attempts to obfuscate. Its very likely that once exposed the person being interviewed will refuse to acknowledge the revealed logical contradiction, but I am ok with that. I actually want to find out about any logical contradictions underlying positions I hold, and am soliciting your help. I hope that anyone who agrees to allow me to scrutinize their position(s) would do so with the same hope."

Having read through Plato's "Gorgias", I wholeheartedly agree. Why you appear to feel it necessary to bring up this point, however, when you have yet to make any such accusation is a matter of great mystery to me.

"You see my view of religion as too broad or inclusive..and I see your view as too narrow or exclusive. Possible fallacies aside, would you agree that this sums up our disagreement fairly?"

That's a fair assessment.

"I remember once reading religion described as being one's "particular brand of intolerance". Surely you must admit we all have religion of one sort or another on THAT view..:)"

Assuming your use of the term "religion" to subscribe to meanings universally agreed upon, I'd have to disagree; given the doctrine of Universalism's (a wishful attempt to meld all facets of theism, and therefore inherently all-inclusive) existence.

LichPotato(362) Clarified
1 point

"The problem with logic is it ignores all real and legitimate additional details which mitigate whether it is correct or not."

If a logical statement fails to take into account details relevant to it, to the point where either its premises are false or its conclusion is not implied by the premises, it's unsound. That's not a fault of logic, but of failing to use it correctly.

1 point

Assuming the terms "unimaginable" and "incomprehensible" to be equivalent, most certainly: a couple great examples are the concepts of "infinity" (for which we have no analogue) and "i", which is equivalent to the square root of negative one (√-1). As such things are incomprehensible, they are therefore unimaginable, and thus unimaginable concepts are indeed capable of existing.

1 point

"Heres the thing..to me religions are alliances of people based on what they hold sacred.So it is what you hold sacred that constitutes your religious beliefs."

Perhaps including your unique definition (which has absolutely no relevance to the actual definition of the term, which loosely refers to the belief in a supernatural power) in your original post would have been helpful.

"If you would (as I would) agree to have your view on the nature of religion scrutinized via socratic questioning I believe I could reveal an underlying logical contradiction."

By "Socratic questioning" are you referring to Socrates' unique style of argumentation via asking questions which lead his opponent to agree with him, or some other, more esoteric function?

"If you could explicitly show me where my logic contradicts itself (using socratic questining) I will paypal you $10"

Your logic (excepting a particular statement) does not, in this context, contradict itself, it just falls apart; your original argument (using the common usage of the term "religion", which I think is fair) falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization as previously clarified, and altering the term "religion" to something it has never meant and using it as a qualifier to make your argument sound falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which is fallaciously misdefining a term and then abusing said term to apply it to (or, more commonly, exclude it from) another term to validate a false claim.

"Only those that are seen as a serious threat need to be stamped out"

Who's to say that all other religions aren't a "serious threat"? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?

"If the group accepts being politically neutered, and refrains from challenging the authority imposed on them they are allowed to live, its that simple"

That's not a religious basis, that's a dictatorial one.

1 point

"To many, membership in a powerful group is a sacred value"

A trait it shares with religious beliefs, which means said religious beliefs are not necessary for effectively engaging in a war, therefore causing your argument to fall apart.

"As far as conquering states allowing religions to persist so long as they agree to be subordinate, I dont find tbat surprising at all"

My point was that, if war has only ever been started for religious reasons, and one of the goals of any religion is to spread, then wouldn't the nation(s) engaging in the war necessarily stamp out all opposing belief? How does the existence of historical acceptance of religious belief in spite of conquering fail to contradict your central argument?

"When you talk of whats worth fighting for you talk of what you hold sacred, when you talk of what groups hold sacred you are talkimg about religion."

But religion isn't the only belief that's "held sacred", as you acknowledged in your previous statement.

1 point

So, you're telling me that you have a right to have the government confiscate money from everyone (including you) so they can provide you with whatever "care" they choose, while both removing your choice from the matter and hiding how much you're paying for it.

With a government that's shown itself to be both financially and organizationally irresponsible, what could possibly go wrong?

1 point

"Rather is asserts that the most fundamental beliefs/values ARE by virtue of their status in a personal system of priorities, by nature religious"

So, because, in your opinion (you've yet to provide any substantiation), religious beliefs are the most fundamental ones, no others can be used to support a war?

Even if this were universally true (which is absurd; think of the ancient Romans, for example, who were bound more by politics than their religious beliefs), who's to say that other beliefs are not strong enough to allow someone to engage in a war? Ever heard of World War II? You know, the one where Hitler united Germany under the banner of National Socialism (as it was called before the term "Nazi" was coined), a purely secular doctrine?

Going back to the example of ancient Romans, if their wars were motivated solely by religion, then why would they allow their conquered nations to continue practicing their own religions as they saw fit? Not to mention the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, both of which were purely ideologically motivated, along with countless other conflicts all over the world that were based in economic and/or territorial gain, nationalism, retaliation, independence, proactivity, or any other number of reasons. Why you're focusing on religion and disregarding any other cause is beyond me.

1 point

This response is not to gratify you, but to clarify the situation at hand to anyone else who may read this:

"May I remind you in our first encounter regarding Evolution I was indeed civil and answered all your questions fairly and clearly it's only when you deliberately lied and resorted to insult that the mood changed ."

Not once in our first "discussion" did you hold any veneer of civility, nor present any credible evidence to support your claim. Your overarching substantiation for any given claim was, as I remember all too well, "X is true because X is true", or, more disappointingly, "X is true because 'rational people' agree that X is true".

"You also banned another from your last Evolution debate for no reason other than to save face"

I assume you're referring to Cartman? The only reason I have ever banned another person in a debate (them included) is because they have demonstrated a clear lack of interest in civil, rational discussion, specifically after having been explicitly asked to do so after descending into baseless personal insults. That person specifically, after having been banned for failing to follow along these perfectly reasonable parameters, sent me private messages filled with more baseless insults and attempts to provoke a reaction. In short, my reason for banning them was anything but "saving face"; censorship, in my personal philosophy, is a last resort.

"in future instead of acting in this cowardly manner why not bring up a good argument instead ?"

In what way, exactly, is banning someone acting wholly inappropriately from a debate, and then privately offering to continue the discussion if they agree to be civil and rational (at which point being baselessly mocked and insulted) acting in a "cowardly" manner? The answer, of course, is not at all: once again, you insult me with no basis or purpose other than to provoke a reaction.

1 point

This argument basically boils down to the following statements:

1. People will only fight in wars if said wars are supported by their fundamental beliefs,

2. Religious beliefs are fundamental beliefs,

3. Therefore, all wars are supported by religious beliefs.

For the sake of brevity, I'll skip the formal logic (the problem here is pretty obvious to those familiar with it) and cut straight to the point: this argument falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization. In short, this argument assumes that because religious beliefs are fundamental beliefs, they must account for all actions supported by fundamental beliefs. This disregards the fact that other fundamental beliefs than religion exists; ideology and nationalism come to mind regarding the basis for historical wars.

1 point

"You've taken the first part of this to mean that I agree with you. That's not the case. I am describing here, to you, the process of mutation, selection, and speciation, bearing in mind that it is humankind who apply taxonomic classifications and differentiate between "species". Easier to explain it in a step by step process than to bombard you with jargon."

If I recall correctly, you never explicitly stated mutations to be capable of altering a species into a wholly dissimilar one, nor have you provided any evidence supporting the notion that mutations can simply "build up" indefinitely.

"It most definitely does substantiate (partly at least) evolution by natural selection. If a species which was not present at an earlier time period, becomes present, it must have derived from a species that was there before it. Otherwise, did it pop out of thin air?"

What about the Cambrian Explosion? You tell me.

"Please ... disassociate yourself from this crowd if you want to undertake scientific debate."

Fair enough. I suppose I should've taken time to discern the credibility of a given source.

EDIT:

This may sound somewhat strange, since we're opponents, but I'd like to say that I greatly appreciate your use of both legitimate reasoning and civility (especially after just having been reminded of a particular someone who understands neither). I find engaging in discussion where my beliefs are challenged on a rational basis and, occasionally, altered, to be a most rewarding experience, especially since such discussion is so terribly infrequent.


1 of 4 Pages: Next >>

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