Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2016, 07:02 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
I can go by personal experience. I have never experienced non-existence. Since I have not experienced it and know of no one that has experienced it firsthand... I believe it doesn't exist and can't happen.

I can view my dogs bodily death. But I can't view his existence or his non-existence. So observation one way or the other is out of the question.

Existence cannot pop out of non-existence since non-existence doesn't exist and has no properties. But why can't existence pop into non-existence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 06:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 04:47 AM)xear Wrote:  .... but believing in imaginary things is the very thing atheism does.

Atheism is not accepting any claims of a god existing. Skepticism is not accepting claims for which there is insufficient evidence. Neither requires believing in anything imaginary.

Quote:Atheism says that when we die there is no afterlife.

No, atheism says that there is no good reason to believe god claims. It is possible to be an atheist and believe that there is an afterlife. Atheists can be just as deluded or irrational as theists, just not on the claims of gods.

Quote:We simply go into nonexistence. But no one has ever experienced nonexistence. Nonexistence doesn't exist. It's imaginary. Like Santa Claus. Having faith in an imaginary thing that doesn't exist is the most faith driven expression in the world.

An individual's consciousness begins to exist sometime during gestation. Before the brain develops there is no "I" and all the evidence points to it dissipating when the brain dies. It requires no faith or belief in something imaginary to look at the evidence we have and see that there is no mechanism for preserving the memories and the mind after death.

You are right that nobody ever experienced their own nonexistence because that's a paradox. We do observe that people who used to exist no longer exist in the same way that we observe that when buildings are torn down they no longer exist. The organization of parts that defined the building is destroyed just like the pattern of thoughts that define the individual is destroyed.

When you can show any mechanism by which the mind is preserved after death, or even any evidence that the mind is somehow preserved by an unknown mechanism, I may start to believe it is possible. Failing that, the only reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence is that there is no afterlife.

Quote:At least theists have some basis in their faith such as near death experiences recounted by millions.

NDEs are not evidence of an afterlife. They are evidence that dying and recovering brains create strange dreams that are usually based on the individual's beliefs and expectations and the influence of their culture and surroundings. Using NDEs to support belief in an afterlife is, when the evidence is looked at objectively, just wishful thinking.

Nice post, thankyou. You said,
No, atheism says that there is no good reason to believe god claims. It is possible to be an atheist and believe that there is an afterlife. Atheists can be just as deluded or irrational as theists, just not on the claims of gods.

That's very cool, perhaps I am an atheist after all. Certainly most god believers are nutcases.

But the question then becomes, how do you define god? If god is defined as existence then ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:12 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:09 AM)xear Wrote:  But the question then becomes, how do you define god? If god is defined as existence then ...

I shall do it now. Easy.

An idea.

"Ideas are a dime a dozen"
Kerouac.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
01-09-2016, 07:27 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:02 AM)xear Wrote:  I can go by personal experience. I have never experienced non-existence. Since I have not experienced it and know of no one that has experienced it firsthand... I believe it doesn't exist and can't happen.

Do you acknowledge that non-living things can cease to exist? If so, where do you draw the line and why?

Quote:I can view my dogs bodily death. But I can't view his existence or his non-existence. So observation one way or the other is out of the question.

The question is what evidence you have that your dog's mind still exists in any form? We have a great deal of evidence that functioning brains are required for consciousness and no examples or evidence that minds can exist without a functioning brain. What reason is there to believe that they can, let alone that they do?

Quote:Existence cannot pop out of non-existence since non-existence doesn't exist and has no properties. But why can't existence pop into non-existence?

Nobody is talking about existence popping out of non-existence. that is a strawman argument that only serves to cloud the issue.

When you take a pile of bricks and build a wall the wall begins to exist. The wall did not exist before it was assembled even though the bricks did. When you take a sledgehammer and knock it down the wall ceases to exist. The "wall" is the specific arrangement of bricks that exists for a specific period of time. It did not exist, then it did, then it didn't.

As a fetus grows the brain develops and the sense of "I" begins to exist in the brain. The child did not experience non-existence but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't exist until it developed. At death the brain stops working and at that point it appears that the memories, personality, and everything that made up the "I" dissipates. The person did not exist, then it did, then it didn't. The fact that the individual doesn't experience the periods before and after existing is meaningless.

You talk about it as if the mind was a physical thing that suddenly appeared out of nothing and I think that's where you are wrong. If you think about the mind as an arrangement of matter and a pattern of electrical activity it is easy to see how it can come into existence and also how it can cease to exist.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
01-09-2016, 07:33 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:09 AM)xear Wrote:  But the question then becomes, how do you define god? If god is defined as existence then ...

I don't define god except as any of a number of apparently fictional characters. I have seen no good evidence that anything that would qualify for the label of a god actually exists.

If you define god as "existence" then I suppose I believe in that god since I accept that existence exists. I just find that pointless since we have a perfectly good word for existence and calling it "god" adds a lot of unsupported assumptions like being conscious and intelligent and having a purpose. If you mean to include attributes like that then I do not believe; if you don't then just call it existence.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:41 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:27 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:02 AM)xear Wrote:  I can go by personal experience. I have never experienced non-existence. Since I have not experienced it and know of no one that has experienced it firsthand... I believe it doesn't exist and can't happen.

Do you acknowledge that non-living things can cease to exist? If so, where do you draw the line and why?



Quote:I can view my dogs bodily death. But I can't view his existence or his non-existence. So observation one way or the other is out of the question.

The question is what evidence you have that your dog's mind still exists in any form? We have a great deal of evidence that functioning brains are required for consciousness and no examples or evidence that minds can exist without a functioning brain. What reason is there to believe that they can, let alone that they do?

Quote:Existence cannot pop out of non-existence since non-existence doesn't exist and has no properties. But why can't existence pop into non-existence?

Nobody is talking about existence popping out of non-existence. that is a strawman argument that only serves to cloud the issue.

When you take a pile of bricks and build a wall the wall begins to exist. The wall did not exist before it was assembled even though the bricks did. When you take a sledgehammer and knock it down the wall ceases to exist. The "wall" is the specific arrangement of bricks that exists for a specific period of time. It did not exist, then it did, then it didn't.

As a fetus grows the brain develops and the sense of "I" begins to exist in the brain. The child did not experience non-existence but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't exist until it developed. At death the brain stops working and at that point it appears that the memories, personality, and everything that made up the "I" dissipates. The person did not exist, then it did, then it didn't. The fact that the individual doesn't experience the periods before and after existing is meaningless.

You talk about it as if the mind was a physical thing that suddenly appeared out of nothing and I think that's where you are wrong. If you think about the mind as an arrangement of matter and a pattern of electrical activity it is easy to see how it can come into existence and also how it can cease to exist.

No I do not acknowledge non-living things exist. Non-living things do not exist. We talk about their existence as if they do, but they don't. If I hold up a glass we say it exists... but it only exists because it borrows existence from you and I... it has no properties of existence in itself.

You said, "The person did not exist, then it did, then it didn't."... obviously so, but I am not talking about people. I am talking about existence which is invisible. If I show you a picture of a dog sleeping you do not know if it is alive or dead. Why? Because aliveness is invisible. We know aliveness can express through forms... dogs, humans etc. but since it is invisible to begin with we can't say existence cannot exist without forms which it may.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:49 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:41 AM)xear Wrote:  No I do not acknowledge non-living things exist. Non-living things do not exist. We talk about their existence as if they do, but they don't. If I hold up a glass we say it exists... but it only exists because it borrows existence from you and I... it has no properties of existence in itself.

You said, "The person did not exist, then it did, then it didn't."... obviously so, but I am not talking about people. I am talking about existence which is invisible. If I show you a picture of a dog sleeping you do not know if it is alive or dead. Why? Because aliveness is invisible. We know aliveness can express through forms... dogs, humans etc. but since it is invisible to begin with we can't say existence cannot exist without forms which it may.

Then I do not understand what you mean by 'existence'. To me it is another word for reality and I accept that there is an objective reality because every scrap of evidence I see supports that conclusion.

The glass exists. If there was no consciousness to perceive the glass it would still exist. The picture of the dog exists whether the dog is currently alive or not. The picture of the dog is evidence that the dog did exist whether it still does or not.

I do not pretend to understand how consciousness (which is as close as I can come to guessing what you mean by existence) arises. As I've said, it appears to be the product of a functioning brain and while it is ephemeral in some ways it seems to be based on the electrical and chemical processes in a functioning brain. I see no evidence that it is anything supernatural or apart from the rest of physical reality (what I mean by existence).

Are you saying that you are a solipsist?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:51 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:33 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:09 AM)xear Wrote:  But the question then becomes, how do you define god? If god is defined as existence then ...

I don't define god except as any of a number of apparently fictional characters. I have seen no good evidence that anything that would qualify for the label of a god actually exists.

If you define god as "existence" then I suppose I believe in that god since I accept that existence exists. I just find that pointless since we have a perfectly good word for existence and calling it "god" adds a lot of unsupported assumptions like being conscious and intelligent and having a purpose. If you mean to include attributes like that then I do not believe; if you don't then just call it existence.

I absolutely would define god as existence so it looks like in my view you are a theist and we are on the same page.
And you are absolutely right, the confused got a hold of the word god and for reasons of power and control turned it into craziness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:56 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:51 AM)xear Wrote:  I absolutely would define god as existence so it looks like in my view you are a theist and we are on the same page.

Well, since we apparently have very different definitions of "existence" it seems that we are not even in the same book.

Quote:And you are absolutely right, the confused got a hold of the word god and for reasons of power and control turned it into craziness.

I don't recall saying that.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:57 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(01-09-2016 07:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:41 AM)xear Wrote:  No I do not acknowledge non-living things exist. Non-living things do not exist. We talk about their existence as if they do, but they don't. If I hold up a glass we say it exists... but it only exists because it borrows existence from you and I... it has no properties of existence in itself.

You said, "The person did not exist, then it did, then it didn't."... obviously so, but I am not talking about people. I am talking about existence which is invisible. If I show you a picture of a dog sleeping you do not know if it is alive or dead. Why? Because aliveness is invisible. We know aliveness can express through forms... dogs, humans etc. but since it is invisible to begin with we can't say existence cannot exist without forms which it may.

Then I do not understand what you mean by 'existence'. To me it is another word for reality and I accept that there is an objective reality because every scrap of evidence I see supports that conclusion.

The glass exists. If there was no consciousness to perceive the glass it would still exist. The picture of the dog exists whether the dog is currently alive or not. The picture of the dog is evidence that the dog did exist whether it still does or not.

I do not pretend to understand how consciousness (which is as close as I can come to guessing what you mean by existence) arises. As I've said, it appears to be the product of a functioning brain and while it is ephemeral in some ways it seems to be based on the electrical and chemical processes in a functioning brain. I see no evidence that it is anything supernatural or apart from the rest of physical reality (what I mean by existence).

Are you saying that you are a solipsist?

So you are saying the glass exists from its own point of view? If not then its only existence is borrowed from living entities.

My point with the picture of a sleeping dog is that the picture does not indicate if he is alive or dead. Therefore aliveness is invisible. We can see the effects of aliveness [movement] but not aliveness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: