Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Zephyr20x6's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Zephyr20x6's arguments, looking across every debate.
2 points

Marriage not reffering to any sort of physical object has no solidity to it in that context therefore is incapable of having any "hardness" :P

3 points

No the worst time to have a heart attack is during a play/movie where you are supposed to act out a scene where you have a heart attack ;)

I don't determine that "automatically" nor "assume" people are stupid, I determine how intelligent a person is by the evidence they give me. If someone behaves like an idiot I start to think of them as an idiot at least in some way or another... I do some pretty idiotic stuff myself though so, I can't say much...

like ?

Like I said, there are spiritual atheists

Indeed, but earlier you said spirituality was opposite of materialism, and with how blurry the definition of spirituality is, it can be, I was saying that because it is associated with those things I don't like to use the term spiritual. However believing in an afterlife, transcending soul, higher power is not necessary to not be materialistic.

But I believe in the same scientific theories as you. However, we have come to different conclusions. If you think that it is more logical to not believe in "God", then clearly the term in that sense is subjective. So, either we are both guilty of confirmation bias, or neither of us are. Science does not say whether or not "God" exists. What people conclude regarding a Creator is opinion-based.

Science isn't the only basis of truth, just the most efficient means of knowing. Science can't prove nor disprove god, nor has been able to show god to be probable, with this we have to rely on pure logic and reason to conclude whether or not god is worth believing. We may have all the same evidence, but in all honesty, I still am not convinced that belief in god is justified on logical grounds.

Also, when did I say "find a reason to believe in God"? That doesn't sound right. "Fine duh reason, asshole! Or duh lawd gonna sed ya tuh hell!" lol

Actually you did... "Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself." third last argument you made... you really need to reread the thread.

What I think of as wisdom, you think of as foolishness.

No what you seemingly claimed to be wisdom was actually confirmation bias. You seemingly have forgotten, or you haven't been keeping track the context of the entire thread...

I have looked at the evidence, and I have formed a conclusion. What have you done differently?

Supported my position with logic and reason.

Do we? The idea that life came from the lifeless is as much of a belief as the opposite idea, is it not?

yes it is, but to not believe we came from another being is totally logically justified. We can't assume that we have.

We didn't need to assume that all life needed the sun to survive either... We just did. However, we all have a sense of individuality that allows us to come to our own conclusions, so WE don't really need to assume anything. Different beliefs draws different assumptions.

Not all beliefs have to be based on assumptions, though I am sure we all have assumed, but the goal should be to assume as little as we can.

We also haven't seen them grow into advanced organisms.

If bacteria is "gaining" intelligence, doesn't that mean that intelligence was implied within it the whole time? If a flower grows from a plant, it isn't a flower coming from nothing. The flower was implied in that plant from the start.

We have evidence that they most likely have. Please tell me what you mean "implied within it"?

You are not setting up your arguments to be convincing. You are asking me to prove stuff, not vice versa. I have been trying to treat this more along the lines of a conversation, where as you wanted to turn it into a battle.

you disputed me

I offer up an idea, and then you slap it away saying something along the lines of, "that doesn't prove anything". Well, duh! That wasn't even my intention. You say that you accept my idea as an idea, but then in the following comment you say, "How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do?" The hostility that is implied in that comment is incredible, because there is absolutely no reason for it.

Well I am sorry that I assumed that you were trying to make an argument against me, where you attempt to logically justify yourself on a debate site, I guess I should have known better... I'm not trying to be hostile... I'm debating... on a debate site. You made an argument against me, obviously (because we are on a debate site, and that you made yourself out as opposed to me) trying to challenge my viewpoint, which I have no problem with, as long as you have no problem with me challenging yours. Therefore my natural reaction is to make an argument against you.

The main reason I keep going off topic to address how you are handling this debate, is because of comments just like that. Do you even remember what I said that triggered that response from you? I said this: "No, it is as simple as saying, 'Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else." All I was saying is that people come to different conclusions. It was basically an attempt on my part to let you know that even though we disagree, I still respect your opinion. I think this is my third time having to say this, but it wasn't a JAB!

Yet, within those same arguments you were still attempting to refute other points I was making, and were still disputing me, having me assume that too was also a point against me. My point towards that, which is perfectly respectable, is that there are still logical grounds between belief and non-belief, and I have been arguing that non-belief is simply more logical. I'm sorry I assumed that a piece of an argument against me, wasn't also against me, or rather within an argument disputing me, I was supposed to assume one singular point wasn't... I am so sorry about that... Geesh

To me it seemed as though you were implying that both atheism and theism is on equal grounds logically, and I made an argument against that, it's a debate site, people will disagree with you.

When you said it wasn't a jab at my atheism, to be completely honest, I thought that you thought that I was personally offended, and by "jab" you meant offense, not an argument.

Civility was probably too much to ask for, you're right.

How have I been uncivil? All I've been doing is making counter arguments.

I was pointing out how the holocaust was caused by the Nazis, so if the Holocaust were to have never occurred, maybe due to a more loving society, then the victims would not have actually been victims, and would have likely been happy. But then we go even deeper... Government, money, crime, racism, hate... All derive from humans, and they're all avoidable. We could unite and not have to deal with government corruption, we could get rid of money and share, we could accept everyone for who they are, and we could be kind to each other... But we don't do all of those things on a global scale, therefore we have unhappy people, and those very reasons are why people often commit suicide, which was your other example. Life seems inconvenient, because we made it that way.

How does any of this take away from the fact that our disposition towards life is subjective?

Right, and I was in the same place as you not too long ago. I was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I found my own personal reason to believe in "God", one you likely wouldn't understand. That's nothing against you, because I probably wouldn't have understood it a while ago either. I am not trying to convert you to the idea, I just want you to see that a theistic argument can work.

If a theistic argument did work, I'd be a theist. Or if by a theist argument can work, you mean that there can be arguments for the theistic position I agree, if you mean by work, you mean logically justify the belief in a god, I disagree. In either case, on a debate site, I'm going to counter you, if I disagree, or at the very least point out what I think is wrong with your arguments.

I stopped debating her when I realized she wanted me to do all her homework for her. It doesn't work like that, I back up my claims with evidence as should be expected, so she should back up her own claims with evidence. I'm not going to do research into her own claims, neither would she research my claims, if she can't provide actual evidence, that's her problem not mine. She's a big girl, she can do her own research, and if not, she's not worth my time.

Of course it's natural, it has natural in it's name, it's not just natural... it's SUPERnatural! ;) But you wouldn't have been able to get my soul anyway, I'm a ginger. :P

2 points

Like?

an afterlife, a transcending soul, a higher power.

So, you think God is a person?

fair point.

I thought you were implying it.

You assumed that when I said superstition.

I usually call it wisdom... But I guess you could call it that. Would trying to logically justify God's non-existence be "confirmation bias", as well?

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way."

It's not confirmation bias to back yourself up via logic and evidence, it is confirmation bias to go out of your way and try to convince yourself something is true. Earlier I said, I don't believe in god, because I haven't came across a reason, then you said I simply haven't found one yet, and I said if a reason is provided I will believe in a god, to which you said "find a reason to believe in god". That's confirmation bias. If you are trying to convince yourself god exists, if you are going out of your way to look for a reason to believe in god, you are searching for evidence selectively and interpreting it selectively for the bias that their is a god. Confirmation bias. That's not wisdom, that is something you learn in basic psychology that gets the best of us, but is in no way a virtue or wise.

No, it is a statement as to what we have observed. Would you have said that I had a bias towards the sun's light if I had claimed that all life needed sunlight to survive? No, until the 70's, that is what we had observed.

If you ignored all the evidence to the contrary, or interpret information in a biased way, to confirm what you believe is true. Rather than looking at all the evidence before forming a belief and then coming to a conclusion.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... That is something you are going to have to back up. This is stuff we have actually observed?

This is stuff we have evidence for.

If you want to plant an apple tree, you take the seeds from an apple... Which grew from the tree. We grew from the Earth, but why could it not have been that intelligence was implied in that initial point, just as apples are implied in the seed? The apple seed grew into a tree before apples came out of it.

I don't see why we need to assume intelligence is necessary or implied.

It is also observation at its finest. It can be falsified, though. Plus, I am not saying intelligence can only create intelligence as a fact, but as of now, that is all we have observed. Show me otherwise.

All biological life being produced from the earth? Bacteria gaining intelligence and becoming more complex? We haven't observed an intelligence behind these, so far as we can tell, that is intelligence coming from non-intelligence. To simply say "you don't know if their wasn't an intelligence behind that" is confirmation bias. No I don't know, but I have no reason to believe all the life here on earth had to come from an intelligent being, we've found them come about without ever finding any intelligence behind it.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the word "prove". I am not trying to prove anything. I am only offering up an idea.

And I accept your idea, as an idea, and a possibility simply from not being disproven. So what is the point in continuing this with me?

Oh, good grief, man! I am sorry that I am not convincing you, but we both know that you didn't come into this argument to be convinced. As that quote that Joe just posted said, when arguing, people tend not to listen to understand, they listen to reply. That is all I am getting from you. Even the stuff you agreed with, you have probably already forgotten.

I could say the same thing about you, you didn't come into this argument to be convinced either, and it is in my opinion a lot more obvious with you than me. I'm rather pretty confident debater but your arrogance here, reading through the thread, has rather surprised me, with all due respect.

No, it is as simple as saying, "Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else."

How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do?

It was not a jab at you for being an atheist. It was just me pointing out that there are reasons to believe in "God"... You just haven't found one. Is that really all that offensive?

It's not so much offensive, rather than a tad annoying, not contributing at all, and makes you seem rather arrogant.

What have I been doing this entire debate? I have been giving you several reasons and you keep coming back to this shit! If you don't agree, then so be it. I have found no reason to be an atheist, you have found no reason to be a theist... That does not mean I have not offered up ideas. If you don't agree with them, then fine.

It's a debate site, what do you expect? Yes I am going to disagree with you... But when you keep saying "you just haven't found a reason" as if it contributes to anything, or means anything at some point I feel obliged to point out it doesn't. I have listened, and accepted all your ideas, as ideas, if that is all you want to argue with me about, fine you win, but you have not convinced me, if that isn't what you want, you don't have to keep arguing with me.

And are those not human faults? We as humans have the ability to make this world a fantastic place... But we don't. Our ego has gotten in the way.

LOL, and you accuse me of not listening to you. The point I was trying to make is, the convenience of life doesn't contribute to logically justifying a belief in god, because the convenience of life is something that you feel towards life. It is subjective, your feelings about being alive doesn't at all contribute to making god more probable.

.

I don't even need proof to believe in a god, I just need something that at least makes god probable, not just a possibility, as I accept god already as a possibility until someone proves otherwise. I just need evidence, or one good argument that can stand up to scrutiny.

You don't my soul Joe? You can use it to make a deal with satan lol

I bid my soul. . .

Superstition is associated with irrationality and magic. A spiritual person wouldn't consider their beliefs irrational, would they?

No but most things that are associated with spirituality, are in my opinion, superstitious

And as far as magic goes, it depends on your definition.

a power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic

If there is a God, it isn't necessarily magic. Maybe by our standards, because we can't personally create an entire universe, but our human capabilities don't really compare to God's capabilities. He wouldn't think of his abilities as magic, I assume.

Did I ever say god was necessarily magic?

Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself.

So in other words try to logically justify god's existence... that's called confirmation bias...

Well, lets think of it that way for a minute. A continuous chain of intelligence. God gave us intelligence, something else gave God intelligence, something before that gave that thing it's intelligence, and so on and so forth. So when does it stop? Is it infinite? That would mean that intelligence has always existed. Does it stop at something that is unintelligent? Well, that would disprove my argument that intelligence can only come from intelligence. Can it be that the ultimate source of the higher intelligences is an eternal intelligence? Well, then what is wrong with the idea that the intelligence that created the universe is an eternal intelligence?

Fair point.

If we come to conclusions based on our observations, can we say that we have never seen intelligence come from something that is unintelligent? We have not seen an oak tree drop an acorn that grew to be a talking oak tree, or as far as we know, a thinking oak tree.

Yes we have, we have observed intelligent beings evolve here on earth, produced from the earth, and from stars, which are unintelligent. To say that isn't an observance of intelligence coming from non-intelligence, is itself, merely an assumption that an intelligence had to be, behind the things that created us. Observing intelligent things coming from intelligent things and going "Ha, only intelligence can produce another intelligence" and then observing intelligence with no evidence of intelligence behind it, and saying "There has to be an intelligence really far back that implemented this" is confirmation bias, at it's finest.

But the computers that we created came from an intelligence, and the intelligence that a computer has acquired is not necessarily real intelligence. Scientists and doctors have found that in order for people to make decisions, they need the part in their brain that creates emotions, to remain functional. A computer does not have any sort of emotion. And the intelligence that is uploaded into a computer, is knowledge that we have, but a computer can process it faster.

Considering you are talking about conscious intelligence, which is what produces intention, I concede that to be a rather fallacious argument.

If I were to plant an apple tree seed, everything that the tree will become is implied in the seed. I would not see it go from a little tree, to a big tree, and then wonder what the hell happened when it starts growing apples. The seed that had all of that within it came from a full grown apple tree though. This brings us to the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg, but instead of chickens and eggs, it is seed or tree. Well, ultimately a tree came into this world through growth, and then what it grew from ultimately came from the Big Bang. But within that point, was implication of everything. It had the ability to grow into everything that we see today. It is the seed of creation, and what if that seed was planted? However, with God, I do not think that it was a literal seed, but maybe a thought, which is a lot like a seed. If you were to write a novel, ultimately the seed of that novel was your mind.

How does this at all prove you point? Yes, things can be a product of intention, but there is no reason that you have supplied here that intention is necessary.

You just haven't found a reason.

Yes, and until I do come across a logical reason to believe, I don't see the point in believing. Saying things like "You just haven't found a reason" doesn't contribute anything, just highlight why I am not a believer. This would be the equivalent to me saying "You just haven't seen the flaws in your reasons in belief yet" or in translation, and I mean this with all due respect "I'm right, and you're wrong, and you just don't know how". If there is a reason to believe in god, don't just tell me there is, SHOW ME THAT REASON...

Yet our population is growing. There are dangers, yes... But if we truly are eternal, like God, then what do we have to worry about?

I never said that humans were eternal, if that is what you are getting at. Yes, our population is growing, the world is more convenient for us, than any other animal, because we have adapted to it.

It absolutely is convenient. We exist! How can it be any more convenient? Have you experienced anything better? The ego is what makes people look at it as inconvenient.

A suicidal person whom hates their lives wouldn't agree, or better yet, some of those whom were tortured in the holocaust wouldn't either. My point isn't that the universe is convenient or inconvenient, bad or good, shitty or wonderful. My point is, our disposition to the universe is rather subjective, and thus not a good argument for a god's existence. In other words, just because you appreciate your existence, doesn't mean that a god exists, your appreciation for your existence, is entirely a subjective disposition.

Superstition? Here is a quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is an atheist: "Not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us. I don't know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me."

A spiritual feeling can pretty much be summed up as a feeling of oneness.

It can be, definitely, and in that sense I suppose you could say I am spiritual, but generally spirituality is associated with superstition.

No. If he has always existed, he would not have come from anything. He would be the ultimate source of intelligence.

So intelligence exists, without it having to come from intelligence itself?

No, we have intelligence always existing. Maybe, like energy, consciousness can be neither created nor destroyed. Maybe it isn't intelligence being created, maybe it is the same intelligence just multiplying, or growing. This at least fits for my idea, which is that God is our higher Self.

So an intelligence that doesn't need another intelligence behind it?

You just haven't found a reason. There is a difference. By your mindset, we can say that it is safe to assume that there is no reason to believe anything regarding what created us, agreed?

Unless a reason is provided.

This sort of stuff only sounds crazy to people because they haven't taken enough time to think about it.

Intelligence came from an intelligence that has always existed, that is what I believe. However, I don't think our intelligence is separate from the ultimate intelligence. So, the intelligence that has always existed, is the only intelligence that has ever existed.

Think of it like water. I can pour water into separate cups, I can mix the water with different ingredients, I can make the water evaporate, I can freeze the water, I can do so many different things with the same water, and disguise it from what it ultimately is. When you drink tea or coffee, you don't think water... But the water is still there. Water from one bottle used to make coffee, tea, ice, steam... Is still the same water. So, like water, intelligence can be found "hiding" behind many different things... Humans, animals, insects... Some people even think that plants have some sort of intelligence, but what if it is all just one intelligence/consciousness that has taken several different forms?

I see what you are saying here, but by asserting that intelligence needs an intelligence behind it, wouldn't that also apply to an eternal intelligence? To assert intelligence needs intelligence behind it, you make eternal intelligence itself a paradox. Furthermore, we don't have evidence or reason to think intelligence requires intelligence behind it. We assume that because the product of our own intelligence, is the result of intelligent things, purposeful things, but that doesn't mean that all things that act intelligently need intelligence behind it. Also, does whatever intelligence need a GREATER intelligence behind it? We have created computers which are intelligent, not conscious, but intelligent, and in some ways more intelligent than us, we actually did come from an intelligence, the organism that we evolved from which was less intelligent, and the organism before that, being less intelligent, and so on. Intelligence doesn't necessarily need a GREATER intelligence, nor a less intelligence, and thus the most minimal intelligence could result from non-intelligence, no?

There may be. Without food and water we'd die. Without plants and animals, we wouldn't have food. Without the sun and water, we wouldn't have anything. Really, the conditions are just right... But the question is, is there a purpose behind all of it, or did we just luck out?

Luck out? the conditions that allow us to live, are the only conditions where we would be alive to be able to say "we lucked out" which is true, however slightly misleading. Of course we should find that the conditions that allow our lives exist where we live, that's just logical, but to allude to that being intentional... well... there is no reason to. 99% of the universe will kill us, millions of black holes are flying around the galaxy that would tear us apart, as well as stars that would obliterate us, meteores and asteroids, here on earth, life is about eat or get eaten, do or die, cretures bigger than you that want to kill, creatures smaller than you that can assissinate. We have removed ourselves from that to a good extent, but the universe isn't convenient for our existence. It is easy to look at all the things that are coincidentally convenient and go "gosh this world is so convenient" as easily as one could look at all the inconveniences of the world and go "gosh this world is so inconvenient", it's practically subjective either way.

that's not how evolution works. . .

I gave the definition of spirit, instead of soul, for that reason. You obviously don't believe in a soul, but the term spirit can be applied to your beliefs. You don't have to believe in a soul to be spiritual.

Sorry, my mistake. Then yeah, I don't disagree with being "spiritual" I don't like the term personally because it implies a belief in superstition.

Those theories are factual, yes... And that is why I said evidence.

One of the first things you learn as a science student is how often scientific theories are falsified. For example, we had assumed that all life needed the sun to survive, until the 1970's when we explored the dark depths of the ocean and found life! Scratch that theory. So although these theories are based on evidence, they are falsifiable, like you said.

Yes, they are best means of explaining the world around us, do get falsified and replaced, however the theory of evolution is the most efficient means for understanding the biodiversity of life right? The more evidence and facts your belief incorporates the better.

You're assuming God is bound by time, as in aging.

How can anything be bound by time? Time doesn't exist, you can't be bound to something that doesn't exist. Doesn't matter if god is eternal, or never aging, god is intelligent, and you asserted that intelligence can't come from non-intelligence, so god would have had to come from an intelligence no? If god didn't come from an intelligence, then we have intelligence coming from non-intelligence, proving intelligence can come from non-intelligence, making an intelligence behind our intelligence unnecessary.

People who have had NDE's say that they discovered that God is energy. Energy has neither a beginning nor an end.

If god is energy, god is an intelligence with no intelligence behind it, because it didn't come from anything, it always was.

No matter your belief, everyone agrees that something has always existed... So why is it hard to believe that "God" could have always existed?

Because their still isn't a reason to...

Ultimately, intelligence had a source, and whatever that source may be, it always existed.

So intelligence, came from an intelligence, that didn't come from an intelligence because it just has always existed. Totally legit.

Didn't you say that why and how only differ when there is a purpose or intent?

Yes. Purpose does exist, I was talking about purpose in the context you most likely meant it. There is a purpose as to why I am typing on this laptop, not necessarily their is a purpose to the existence of everything.

And those are often the philosophers people quote. However, I think the why question applies to most philosophers. Philosophers are thinkers, where as scientists are doers. Doers search for the how. Thinkers search for the why.

I would agree.

Spiritual- "of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things"

Spirit- "life force of person: the vital force that characterizes a human being as being alive"

Materialism- "focus on possessions: devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values"

So one can only be non-materialistic if they believe in a soul?

To an extent. I believe that the world is older than six thousand years because of dinosaur fossils. The existence of dinosaur fossils is a fact. But a lot of our beliefs are based on theories. I believe in the Big Bang and evolution because there is evidence, but they aren't facts. A lot of what people see as evidence against God, I see as evidence for God. So it all depends on the person.

No they are explanations, a scientific theory, is an explanation based on scientific evidence, that are falsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang aren't facts, but they are factual, they they are the most efficient means of explaining. They can predict what happens next, and accounts for all things we know.

The existence of a God doesn't have any more evidence against it than your beliefs, so what are you calling false? Ultimately, we have never observed an intelligent being come from something that is non-intelligent, so it can even be said that evidence for an intelligent creator is more plausible than there not being one... But we can't prove it. You can point out the evidence against the world's religions, that is fine, but there is evidence for an intelligent creator, and there is also, depending on the interpretation, evidence against an intelligent creator. Who can disagree with that?

If that is true, god would have to come from an intelligent being, and that being would have to come from an intelligent being, and so forth, resulting in an infinite regress. That isn't a very solid argument for intelligence behind intelligence being necessary.

Illusion- "something with deceptive appearance: something that deceives the senses or mind, e.g. by appearing to exist when it does not or appearing to be one thing when it is in fact another"

Would you say darkness is an illusion?

That is assuming that there is no purpose.

No, that is neither assuming either way. Their isn't a reason to think there is a purpose behind everything, that their is an intelligence, or intention behind everything. So we go off not assuming that.

But why do we exist? We didn't have to exist and we have a good idea of how we exist, but what is the reason? It could very well be that there is no reason, therefore the why question is unnecessary. Scientists often try and solve the how... Philosophers usually deal with the why.

Only philosophers that believe there is an intention or purpose behind everything.

Dude, we are making absolutely no progress. You appear to be disputing just to dispute.

I could say the same about you.

I think the main reason we aren't making any progress is because you are disputing definitions. As much as how and why seem like they can be used in place of each other, they actually can't... Not if you're trying to use proper English. When someone uses how, they are basically asking for a demostration. Using why, the person wants to know why something happened.

No to ask for a demonstration would mean to ask for someone to visually show how or why. I understand their is a difference between why or how, but only in certain contexts, you need to differentiate between how and why, are you implying that why is about the intention behind something, and how is simply the way it happened? If so, the question why, as you are using it, assumes a belief that may or may not be true, that their is an intention behind it.

I can see how someone could easily think of them as being the same, but they aren't, and if you were to answer a how question the same way you would answer a why question, then you are not answering them properly.

Not always, they can though, you need to specify what you mean by why, and what you mean by how, without them being equivalent.

The reason I typed up the difference between materialism and spirituality is because they are literally opposites. You seem to think that spirituality only applies to theists. Many atheists are actually spiritual, as well.

We probably have different ideas of "spirituality" and perhaps "materialism" to but I am pretty sure our ideas on the latter have a good amount of common ground. Their is no accepted definition of spirituality, so you could define what you mean by it.

Another thing, a belief cannot be objective, or else it wouldn't be a belief. Objectivity isn't related to personal opinion.

Fair point, I will concede that beliefs in and of themselves are not objective, but our beliefs can be OF objective things, and subjective things.

You also seem to be thinking that I consider my opinions to be facts, and you also seem to think that all opinions should be based on facts, or rather be facts... Making them not opinions.

No, I don't think opinions should be facts, but I do think they should be based on facts. Facts don't worsen your opinion they only strengthen it, so the opinion with the less facts but same amount of reasoning, is more fallacious or unsubstantiated, or false.

Also, this is related to our other debate, but you seem to think that to exist means something outside of presently being here and now, which can't be accurate unless you have created your own version of the word.

That is not at all what I meant, but I actually concede to your argument that time is nothing, I think it is a bit controversial, but I actually agree with you, time is nothing, however it isn't an illusion. But I would like to point out that I was never trying to argue that everything that exited before and after exists now, I was arguing that the past's existence would be the existence of things having happened.

It is one of those things that seems like it can work, just like how and why, but that would just be a misuse of the English language.

I can not answer your questions unless you differentiate your two questions, in ways that are not equivalent, so that I can understand how they are different. If I ask how I spilled my drink, someone may say "because I knocked it over by accident" and if I ask why instead, I may get the same answer, and both questions would have been answered correctly. The only time Why means something truly different from how, is when an intention or purpose is implied.

If this is going to continue the way it is, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree and move on.

I am fine with that, we can do that if you like?

Oh, good grief. Is a floating bunny sufficient proof for God, or can something else be evidence of God and we don't even realize it? If we discovered some new substance that just happens to be the same substance that God is made out of, how would we know? We don't have a God to go off of to know if we're observing something that is connected to God.

And your point is? Whether the evidence is lacking because we simply don't have it, or because it is impossible, a reason to believe a god exists, is still lacking...

How do you think beliefs work? They're subjective. I may believe that you are a female, but if you don't prove to me that you are a male, how would I know? Evidence isn't proving that a God doesn't exist either, so maybe it would be best for you to just not form any sort of opinion regarding the source of creation.

If there was sufficient evidence for god's nonexistence, I would be a gnostic atheist, rather than an agnostic atheist. I don't need evidence against a god, to not believe, or not be convinced of a god's existence, there just needs to be a lack of evidence for a god. That is the most logical position.

Care to elaborate?

Some beliefs are subjective, some are objective. Depends on the belief.

What is the evidence? There is evidence against the Genesis creation myth, there is evidence against a talking serpent, against Greek and Roman gods... But what evidence is there against an intelligent Creator? None.

agreed, now what evidence is there for an intelligent creator? None. So we can't believe either way, we can't believe an intelligent creator exists, nor can we believe an intelligent creator doesn't exist, thus we are skeptical.

Why is looking for a reason. How is looking for a method.

Why= It landed on it's side.

How=I knocked it over.

How = It landed on it's side

Why = I knocked it over

I knocked it over is a reason, it landed on it's side is a method... it could go either way.

What substantiated reason do you have for not believing in God? Whatever you say could be interpreted differently by a theist, and used as support for their beliefs.

I don't need a reason... non-belief is the default position. My substantiated reason, is that their isn't a substantiated reason to believe in the first place, thus I do not believe.

Atheists (and people belonging to a religion) tend to think materialistically. Materialism is why we have wars... Money, oil, even religious wars. It is why we have crimes... Theft, murder, drug-trafficking. It is why we have both greed and poverty. Every government is run by materialists and we all know how corrupt the world's governments are. It is why our society is obsessed with fashion, appearance, cars, TV. It is why bullying and gossiping exists. It is responsible for depression and suicide. So many negative things. It's the reason why the world is going to shit.

You don't have to be materialistic to be an atheist, and you don't have to be spiritual to not be materialistic either. If you need spirituality to keep you from being materialistic, that's something you should think about. There are more important things than money, possessions, etc I agree.

Now let me explain spirituality, from my point of view, as well as many others. I see the entire universe as one, so everything is a connection of myself. I don't want to hurt anyone or anything, because ultimately I am doing harm to myself (self-defense is obviously a different story though.) This means that the ingredients in food that ultimately harm us, would not be included. Man-made pollutants would not exist. Hate is useless. It only leads to more hate. Arguing is useless, all ideas should be considered (Of course, I'm saying this while typing up an argument lol). Life should not be spent trying to acquire green paper that some old government dudes said equals life points. So, a spiritual society would be one of sharing.

Or just a philosophical society, with that philosophy.

We all work together. The crap that comes on TV, appears in magazines, the internet, etc. brainwashes society into being even more materialistic, so that shit would be gone too. It sounds disappointing, but TV isn't something that truly spiritual people are interested in anyways. It's life that interests them. Live life as if it is a ride, not a job. An adventure, not a burden. I use the internet because it is useful. I can communicate with people and I can obtain a vast amount of knowledge through it... But it is ultimately more useful in a materialist society than a spiritual one, but that could be reversed depending on the things users are exposed to. Materialists tend to think of past and future more than they think about now (maybe that is why you've been trying to convince me before and after exist lol). People that focus on now are happier. They aren't thinking "I can't believe what that asshole said earlier!" or "I'm going to let him have it when I see him later!". Those things don't exist, so no need to continue worrying about them.

We don't need spirituality to do that.

I better stop before I make this argument too long lol. I'll let Russell Brand explain the rest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kkpxi6MayY

We don't need spirituality to change the world, we don't need to convince ourselves something is true in order to motivate us to make the world better, if humanity needs fancies in order to motivate it to do better, then humanities problem is not that it doesn't have enough fancies, but that it is to unmotivated.

You can believe whatever you want. I choose to believe in God, because in my opinion that seems more logical... But we're only human, and I don't come programmed with knowledge of everything, so sometimes I stick with a guess that best suits me. I do not live my life with a fear of any sort of eternal damnation, but to me my personal realization that a "God" exists was a freeing thing. I didn't always look at things spiritually. I was much more materialistic before, and I still sometimes fall victim to materialism due to the society we live in, but my outlook, mood and joy I get out of life has significantly improved. Why question that?

I don't question living life more fulfilling, less on greed, and what not. What I do question is, the existence of a god, and an afterlife, those aren't necessary to be a better person.

You need a reason for both. They go hand in hand. I believe in God, therefore I don't believe an unintelligent whatever created the universe. You on the other hand, believe that the unintelligent whatever created the universe, but don't believe in God.

I believe SOMETHING created the universe, I don't believe it is unintelligent necessarily neither do I believe it IS intelligent necessarily. I don't need a reason to not believe, other than that there is no reason to believe. I was born non-believing, if the concept of a god never existed, nobody would believe, and they wouldn't need a reason, it being asserted doesn't make it necessary for their to be reason to not believe, unless a reason to believe has been shown.

I believe that we can come to a better understanding through spirituality, but that's me.

Well, if that is true, show me how. Of course this would require evidence for your spiritual claims.

How does a clock tick? Gears and different parts. Kind of like our brain and internal organs.

Why does a clock tick? Gears and different parts. Kind of like our brain and internal organs.

Why does a clock tick? It notifies us of each passing second. Each time the hand moves, it clicks.

How does a clock tick? It notifies us of each passing second. Each time the hand moves, it clicks.

So, why do we tick? Just about everything has some sort of purpose. Bees pollinate flowers, trees give us oxygen, rain waters plants, and so on. I personally believe we are here for spiritual growth.

Ahh NOW we are getting somewhere. Purpose can also just mean the function of something, but more often then not, it means the intention behind something. Why do you assume their is an intention behind everything? why do you think that?

A tree is known for what it contains. If an apple is the highlight of an apple tree, then we may be the highlight of Earth. But the apples didn't just appear on the tree. They grew from the tree, and from our point of view, that's the only use we have for apple trees. We want apples to keep growing because we have a purpose for them. So could it be that God wants humans to keep "growing" because he has a purpose for them? I think we need to look within ourselves to find out who we truly are, and like I said, I think God is our higher Self... So we're God exploring himself. Maybe God is trying to understand who he truly is.

But if humans (or other animals that eat apples) weren't around it would have no purpose. What makes you think there is a being that has a purpose for us?

My point is people don't need religion to control people.

I agree, but religion still has it's issues.

Okay the USSR killed people in the name of Atheists so do you think it should count.

No, because the countries atheism didn't cause those deaths, it was the countries political leaders... It is rather obvious. Why is it, when socialist/communist political countries happen to take place, harm is done in the name of atheism, but when you take that ideology out of the picture, it results in higher standards of living. If anything it should really only count for socialism/communism being combined with atheism.

I am simply stating that most people it wouldn't significantly effect.

It is still an issue though...

It's called the marriage penalty.

What does that have to do with same-sex marriage specifically?

I'm talking about Christianity.

I'm talking about all religions, including Christianity.

She is a pretty cool member to have around, we get along really great, and she is engaging, refreshing member to have. A little spoiled perhaps though :P

So not believing in any God can be used for it? The USSR wasn't very moral for their State Atheism?

The USSR enforces their views on people, because that is what gets them power, when the people agree with them on everything, when the people are forced to agree with the views of those in power it reinforces their power. Their is correlation between atheism and socialism/communism, but simply that, a correlation.

Funded by Kings along with the Pope. Also you could blame the USSR for the same thing. My point is saying your doing it in the name of something doesn't mean you are. It is a double-edged sword as it could also be used against the USSR State Atheism murders of Religious persons.

No, that is a good point, but if someone says they are doing it in the name of X, and they can't possibly be doing it for anything else, then I am going to take their word for it. Thing is, you can't use a lack of belief to justify anything, I can't say "I am going to do this because I don't believe in a god" but you can say "I am going to do this because I believe in a god that commands me to".

I believe in Theistic Evolution but I don't see why believing in Young Earth Creationism hurts kids as I was a Young Earth Creationist for a long time.

Well, it causes them to be ignorant of science, and stifles them in reality that way, it also stifles the scientific progress of society.

In the United States it sometimes hurts to marry.

What do you mean here?

Even if God isn't real I don't see how it's harmful.

Well I have pointed you to the harm (evidence) and how it is harmful (logic). You haven't refuted either.

Your point about people being sensitive?

People don't want to acknowledge the responsibility religion has for it's effects because they don't like the idea of acknowledging their religion having blood on it's hands. Not every christian is the same, not every muslim is the same, not every jew is the same, and they are not responsible for what results of their religion (unless they actually took part) but their religion IS responsible.

Okay, so what kind of evidence? How would you know if something proves the existence of God or not?

I don't know, you will have to show me... I won't believe in a god, I could request any sort of evidence, but there will always be a concept of god that is harder and harder to be capable of being evident. Even with a concept of god where evidence is impossible, that doesn't mean you believe it anyway cause evidence is impossible for it... it doesn't work that way...

And your beliefs aren't?

Depends on what beliefs.

And what are those reasons?

evidence...

No? Then why are you alive?

You have to differentiate between why and how. If I ask WHY something happened, and HOW something happened, in certain contexts they can mean the same thing. If I spill my soda, if I ask "why did my soda spilled?" the answer will be "because I knocked it over." if I ask "how my soda spilled?" the answer will be "because I knocked it over". Differentiate between why and how here is need.

Some people have a genuine reason as to why they believe in God

A substantiated reason? I'd like to hear it.

But both could be wrong. The person may not actually love you, and God may not actually exist.

agreed.

To people who believe in God, their reason why is not just because, unless they truly don't have a reason...

I think subconsciously it is, I have not come across a substantiated reason to believe in god.

But name one thing you believe in without having a reason to believe in it.

I try not to believe in things for no reason, of course I probably do, and I have, but I usually change my beliefs when I find they aren't on substantiated reasons.

Reasons aren't always good, but there are always reasons for beliefs.

Well of course... I find it strange you think I wouldn't realize that... I figured you'd understand what I meant, when I said "just because". Yes, they all don't believe "just because", some do, those have other reasons to substantiate. it, to make it more than "just because" because they understand that is wishful thinking, but I have yet to hear of a substantiated reason. A reason I said I won't believe "just because" is you are alluding to god not being able to have evidence for means we should believe in god anyway.

You can believe whatever you want! However, you can't hold a belief just because. That shows ignorance (I am not calling you ignorant as in stupid, just so you know) in your understanding of the other sides opinions. It suggests that you are so consumed with one view, that you refuse to understand the other

No, actually i genuinely try to understand the other view as much as possible, I am open to understanding why people believe in god, and I even at one point went through a phase where I tried to justify god's existence to myself.

The scientific studies that you use to back up your beliefs, I also use to back up mine. So what reasoning could you have that trumps mine? How is yours any less "just because" than mine?

I don't need a reason to NOT believe in something, I need a reason TO believe in something. I am not holding a belief. I am holding beliefs ABOUT your belief, but not an actual belief in god one way or the other. I hold the belief that I have not heard of any substantiated reasons to believe what you believe, and therefore it is erroneous to believe what you believe.

Like I said, all beliefs require reasons.

I agree, differentiate between why or how though in this context, because with WHY if you think what I think you mean, you are assuming another belief to be true, which is common with the belief in god.

Like I said, "at the core they are a mystery."

Agreed, but we do understand some, we may never fully understand everything, but that is the beauty of our world.

Psychology Today has a fascinating article on how time doesn't exist ;P

I trust physicists over psychologists on subjects that are studied by physicists rather than psychologists...

By the way, not HOW we tick... But WHY we tick.

What is the difference in this context?

Before the universe, there was no time (no earth or sun). With a universe or without it, eternity will continue. As I said, time is just an illusion.

time doesn't have to be measured by the earth's orbit, or turn in relation to the sun. That is simply measurement of time we are most used to.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

That doesn't make any sense. You can't experience something before it actually happens.

I meant to say after, we are not experiencing something before hand, we are experiencing it after

Something that exists occurs at this moment. The past happened... It isn't happening.

I never said it did, it's existence as something that HAS HAPPENED... does exist...

What is time beyond the word?

the before, now, and after.

No, it doesn't. No measurements exist. They are man-made concepts. It is a measurement of the space between one point and another. Does space (as in empty gaps) exist? Is nothing something? Could we have distance if there were no objects? In order for you to get from Point A to Point B, you need space between the two... So is space something or is it merely the lack of something?

I agree, but space still exists right? Darkness exists right? A lack of light exists, no? A lack of taken space exists, no? space is actually something, space-time can be warped, can be effected. Can a nothing, or a lack of something be effected, or affect something?

It is a man-made concept. Physics agrees with this. Is this a scientific argument that you disagree with?

Check my link above.

Imagine a world with no clocks, no numbers, no schedules... How would you know time?

How do you know about the before, now, and after... just wait, you will consciously experience time...

You could of course go off the earth's rotations, but when day becomes night, is it because of time or is it because we just simply rotated away from the sun?

Both, we were able to rotate away from the sun, because of time. Without time, nothing can happen.

The sun is light, and the absence of light is darkness. Time is just another measure of distance.

So how is it different than measuring distance? If we can measure distance as distance, and time is another way of measuring distance, what separates measuring distance as distance, and time as distance?

Exist- "1.be: to be, especially to be a real, actual, or current thing, not merely something imagined or written about;

Notice how it says OR there... that is kind of a key term there...

The argument exists because I can continue to access it. If it were to be removed from the internet and deleted, it would no longer exist.

You didn't answer the question, there was still an or, before I posted this argument right? If it was deleted, wouldn't their still have been a before this argument was posted?

So what is it then?

I'll say it as many times as I need to, the before, now, and after, that is what it is.

It's still circular reasoning... we know homosexuals are wrong because god says so, we know god says so because it is in the bible, we know the bible is true because it is the word of Jesus, we know it's the word of Jesus because the bible says so... It is circular reasoning with an extra step in it...

So it's back to circular reasoning ?


1 of 13 Pages: Next >>

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