- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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 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.
an afterlife, a transcending soul, a higher power.
So, you think God is a person?
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] 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.