Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
Debate Room / Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Last post by Lukvance on Yesterday at 08:30:10 PM »
I will answer to you here since it's getting out of hand in the debate challenge thread.
I totally agree with you. Good thing that it wasn't what I was supposed to debate there. You seem to want to change the subject too. The subject is very simple "does God exist" I don't have to prove that something is independent to prove it's existence. I never had to and never will I have to.
By definition, existence means to have actual being or to be real.  In order for this to be the case, it must exist outside and be independent of a person's mind, otherwise it cannot have actual being/be real.

For example, Darth Vader does not actually exist.  Even though there are people who dress up as Darth Vader, who take on his role for movies and the like, he is not an actual person.  He is dependent on people to keep him in their imaginations.  If every human being who had ever seen or heard of Darth Vader were struck with targeted amnesia, then he would vanish without a trace.

Whereas George Washington actually existed.  There are historical records of him, things he did in the world.  If every human being who had ever heard of him were struck with targeted amnesia, he would still have existed, and the things he did would still have happened.

Quote from: Lukvance
Ps: I am not saying they were wrong in their judgement.
I'm saying that like you they made a mistake on the subject of the debate. They both thought the debate was "Does god exist independently?" and argue from that point when I was arguing from another point, closer to the subject.
No, you just had a different idea of what the subject of the debate was than they did (when you act like every person who had a different idea than you was mistaken, that comes across as arrogance).  The 'mistake', if mistake it was, was that none of you made sure to be on the same page before you began it.  So instead of blaming them for making a mistake, take it as a lesson to be learned from.

Quote from: Lukvance
I would have judge the same thing if I was them. I would have also agree to change my verdict upon realizing the assumption I made on the subject. Even if it was only to retract it and maybe even suggest the two debaters to create a new debate this time making sure they are debating the same thing.
But, that's me.
So why didn't you suggest that?  The way you came across (and to a degree, are still coming across) is that you were correct and everyone who didn't agree with you was wrong.
That's because people are still telling me that I lost. They being unreasonable tend to push to not be reasonable either.
Let me ask you something. Do you believe that Love exist? If not, why aren't you lying when you say that you love someone? I mean if you say that you love someone and you know that love does not exist then you will be telling a lie right?
In the same manner. God exist. I agree with you, not like "George Washington". Saying that God does not exist would be telling a lie.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Atheists, How Did Christianity Start?
« Last post by 12 Monkeys on Yesterday at 08:24:17 PM »
Welcome back Jeff
General Religious Discussion / Re: Atheists, How Did Christianity Start?
« Last post by JeffPT on Yesterday at 07:56:13 PM »
I guess I can not prove Jesus to you. What evidence would you accept, anyway? Would you have to feel his nail marks like Thomas? Is that the only thing that can possibly prove Jesus to you?

When it comes to the belief in Jesus, you have to have a shared starting point.  That starting point, for everyone, is the bible.  At the very least, I think it is safe to say that everyone agrees Jesus is a character in a book.  Whether he was real or not, he was definitely a character in a book. 

Now, be honest with yourself here... If you went into any library in the world and found a book (other than the bible) that claimed one of the characters (say, the author's great, great grandfather) died and rose from the dead, would you immediately lean toward the book being fact or fiction?  And what if it said that 500 people saw this man a few days after he died, but none of those 500 people ever came forward to corroborate?  And what if the book said that a couple went to his grave a few days later and it was all dug up and nothing was there? Would that be enough to actually convince you that this man rose from the dead? Of course not. The author could simply be making it up.  People make stuff up all the time. 

Now ask yourself what sort of evidence that the rest of the book would have to contain in order to convince you that the person actually rose from the dead.  It would take a lot, right?  If you want to know what it would take to convince me that Jesus really died and rose from the dead, then just think about what it would take for me to convince you that my great, great grandfather did it.  It wouldn't be flying plates, bloody walls, visions of the great, great grandfather, dreams, emotional highs, or anything else like that.  It would take evidence. 

If you are using anything short of that same criteria when it comes to Jesus, then you are suppressing your very own skepticism in favor of confirmation bias, and you're simply funneling your personal experiences through that confirmation bias position.  People in every religion do that.  I know you don't think YOU do that, but nobody thinks they do that.  Nobody. 

Given the evidence, it's just vastly more reasonable to think it's all made up and that you're just like all the other religious people out there.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Atheists, How Did Christianity Start?
« Last post by 12 Monkeys on Yesterday at 07:32:51 PM »
Median, how has Skeptic come to the Jesus conclusion without first ruling our demons either posing as Jesus or leaving him to conclude Jesus without analysis first?  Without Skeptic doing self analysis he can't rule out demon deception.  Skeptic, of course jumped to the conclusion of Jesus. Skeptic could be spreading a false gospel for demons because he failed to actually be well....... skeptical, how is that for irony?
Biblical Contradictions / Re: Appointed once or twice to die
« Last post by Mooby on Yesterday at 07:14:25 PM »
"It is appointed for man to die once, unless God wants some to die twice".

No wait, that second part is not in there.
Nor is this second part:

"Is is appointed for man to die once, and this applies to each and every human who ever exists with absolutely no possible exception ever."

There's no contradiction in the appointed single death being the natural order of things, with supernatural intervention being capable of circumventing this rule.  And this is most likely what the author intended, the audience understood, and pretty much everyone who reads it infers as the author and his audience would certainly have been familiar with exceptions such as Elijah and Lazarus.

The wording of Matthew 27 suggests it was a one-time event, though it does not specify how long the appearances lasted.  It does not seem like they were given a full second Earthly life, though the text really doesn't say for sure one way or the other.  Lazarus presumably was restored to his prior mortal life, in which case he would be subject to natural death.  Though, again, the Bible doesn't say.

I'm occasionally tempted to speculate about what clutching at straws to make a dubious charge of contradiction says about the claimant's confidence in their own position.  But as I try not to make assumptions about people, I usually resist this temptation.
I answered your question. It was along the lines "how can I know it is God who caused the event?" and the answer is along the line "by studying God".

Your answer is empty.  “Studying God” does not show that “God” caused the event, just as studying Harry Potter does not show that Harry Potter caused magic.

Your answer is a dodge.  Your answer is a diversion.  You are dodging the fact that you have no evidence.  You are using theology as a diversion from the fact that there is no evidence.

Your counter argument should be to provide the evidence which supports your claims.  Failing to do so only continues to validate the argument that you do not have this evidence, and therefore believe without evidence.

If "it's a logical fallacy" is not your counter argument on the method used by Catholic Church, what is? Knowledge of the process to detect God? You can learn it in theology.

Obviously, the Catholic Church using logical fallacies is the counter argument.  Additionally, the Catholic Church has not demonstrated any means of detecting “God” and is thus incapable of determining that “God” was the cause and therefore has no method.  You are expecting me to come up with a means to do what not even the Catholic Church can do. 

Learning the mythology will not help unless there is a means to actually detect “God”.  Not knowing how something happened, then determining if “God” was prayed to, does not qualify as a means of detecting “God”. 

Miracles happen in a certain kind of way and environment. These can help determine that it was God's touch therefore the proof is in the miracles. The proof is in the event would be more politically correct.

Your words are worthless unless you can provide a source or evidence that supports your claims.

What proof?  How many times are you going to dodge this question? 

All we know for sure is that scientists have no known explanation  for how someone was cured.  That is all I know, that is all the scientists know.  I can find no proof of anything.  Where are you seeing proof at? 

For fucks sake. You keep rewording the same non-answer over and over again.  Do you even realize you’re dodging?

Of course, you don’t understand what falsifiable means, do you? You can’t think of a way to prove the rock didn’t come from aliens can you?

Yes I do. Yes I can. This is not the subject.

More unsupported claims and more dodging.  My questions are precisely related to the subject at hand and are valid points which make your logic fallacious.  Your conclusions are unsupported, illogical, irrational and fraudulent.  You have completely ignored every point, counter argument and problem and dodged having to acknowledge them.

If you’re going to believe something, don’t you want it to be clear as a sunny cloudless day that it is true?

Yes I do. And it is.

You’ve given me no reason to believe you’re being truthful.  You’ve dishonestly attempted to use your ignorance of science to equivocate science with mythology.  Yes, as of now, that is all your religion and “God” are, nothing more than a mythology.  You’ve exposed yourself as a fraud by pretending to understand science when you do not.   Your answers have no credibility with me, so your three word answers are empty unsupported claims, which seems to be all you have.  I’ve given you plenty of chances to regain some shred of credibility.

Do you think that the Higgs Boson exist?

Whether I think it exists or not doesn’t matter.  Science has found that the Higgs boson particle exists and I have many reasons to accept (and no reason not to accept) the conclusions drawn from decades of research and testing using the scientific method. 

I have no reason to accept (and many reasons to not accept) the conclusions drawn by the Catholic Church as I’ve seen no evidence to support their claims. 

There are studies that have been made before proving it's existence. Weren't the people studies made on "something that does not exist" at the time?
We call the field who studied the Higgs Boson. Physics.
We call the field who studied God. Theology.
Based on those study. Armed with the knowledge of what a Higgs Boson is and how it should behave, we found it at the LHC.
Based on those study. Armed with the knowledge of what God is and how he should behave, we found him at Lourdes.

Again you continue to falsely equivocate something which can be shown to exist with something that cannot be shown to exist.  Repeating this false equivocation is nothing more than an argument by assertion at this point.  You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of anything to this point.

If you don’t understand my counter argument, I’ll make it easy for you and explain what it is, my counter argument is that you lack the knowledge to be able to justify your claim.   How can anyone make a comparison when they do not understand what it is they are comparing?

Your comparison is not supported by facts or logic.

Please, please, refrain yourself from insulting me about the Higgs Boson. I know it's tempting as the comparison is daring but let your counter arguments speak for themselves instead of supporting them with hidden or not hidden insults.

Pointing out your ignorance regarding the Higgs boson particle and the science behind it is not an insult.  It is merely an observation of the current discussion and all of the posts you’ve made regarding the Higgs boson particle showing said ignorance.   Ignorance just means a lack of knowledge.  Do you know everything?  I assume your answer would be no, so therefore you are ignorant of something.  I am in the same boat, I am ignorant of things.  There are things I know very little or nothing about. 

The difference between us Lukvance is that I don’t use my ignorance to justify my beliefs like you do.  I for instance am ignorant of the works of Shakespeare and therefore do not go around claiming that Stan Lee is comparable to Shakespeare. 

Ps : "source as to what there method is for determining that “God” is the cause" = Theology.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the use of the word source here. 

When I say source, I mean documentation and or information that supports your claims.  Something I can at least review for myself.   Theology is the study of religion and “God”, which is all well and good, but where exactly would I find the documentation, data and evidence that demonstrates that “God” was the cause of claimed miracles?

I am unable to find the documentation, data and evidence which demonstrates that “God” was the cause.  Currently, all I have are stories about miracles and scientists stating that they don’t know what the cause was.  From what I have, I can only conclude that scientists don’t know the cause, and then the Catholic Church said “Goddidit”.   
General Religious Discussion / Re: Atheists, How Did Christianity Start?
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 06:52:25 PM »

A relationship with Jesus has the exact same effect on a person's life as a relationship with Allah, Brahma, Shango or Papa Legba. According to skeptic, it is impossible for a person to tell if they have a relationship with Jesus or a relationship with a demon pretending to be Jesus. Other gods and demons cure people of addictions, save marriages, prevent houses from catching fire, locate lost dogs and heal cancer at the same exact rate as Jesus. Even Lukvance says that other beings besides the Catholic god answer prayers and perform miracles.[1]

What no theist can tell us is how someone is supposed to know for sure what fixed the problem. Was it prayer to Jesus, prayer to a different god, a demon, an alien or random chance? Every religion can produce their experts, priests, theologians and all have believers who say it was their god. But they cannot say how they know. They all expect you to have faith..... &)
 1. Interesting that none of these beings ever grow back amputated arms or legs.
this article cover the philosophy of miracles, good examples and round up of the ideas and great resources/links, all philosophy based;

Chatter / Fact surfing - Random Enlightenment
« Last post by jdawg70 on Yesterday at 06:48:48 PM »
I suspect that others here suffer from a similar compulsion...

I like to look random sh*t up.  Google, Wikipedia, book stores, libraries...I have this weird thirst to know stuff, and, frankly, by and large, the topic, subject, or theme of said stuff does not play a significant factor in how thirst-quenching a tidbit of knowledge is.  I just want to know whatever about the reality that I and my fellow sentient creatures occupy.

So welcome the the Fact Surfing thread: post a random fact of any kind that piques your interest for whatever reason[1] and a citation for that fact.  Yes, Wikipedia will be considered an acceptable source but if possible do better/more direct/more primary.  Deep facts, shallow facts, silly facts, awe-inspiring game.  Yes, just as channel surfing is the lazier way to watch TV[2], so shall this be the lazier way of learning random crap.  If there is anything the 21st century has taught us, it is that if you want to both reduce the amount of work you do and foster the potential for interesting emergent behavior, you crowd-source your sh*t.

Now...I don't necessarily want to stomp disagreements on the validity of a fact into the ground (I mean, what the crap kinda fact-related anything stifles dissent), but I don't want this to turn into some kind of orgy-of-arguing thread.  Voice your disagreement, give a quick quip as to your reasoning for the disagreement, and PM/spawn a new thread related to that disagreement if it suits you and the opposition's fancies.

We'll see how long this lasts.

Hedy Lamarr was co-author to a patent for early spread-spectrum and frequency hopping techniques in wireless communication systems.

 1. "I think it's kinda neat!" is a perfectly acceptable reason.
 2. As TV is already, essentially, a lazy activity.
He thinks we're desperate to prove something that isn't true.

Projecting much, Kenny?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10