Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2016, 07:10 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 05:44 AM)xear Wrote:  If that is true maybe you could make your argument for materialism concisely without name calling and highlight the exact points you have proven for materialism and I have failed to prove for biocentrism.


All observable life is made of matter and energy, and exists within time; no exceptions.


Has anyone ever observed anything that could be defined as 'life' without these properties? Has anyone ever observed anything that could be defined as 'life' creating matter, energy, or time ex nihilo?




Well fuck, you sure did show me homeboy... Drinking Beverage

Sounds like you are saying if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist.

I guess if you went blind, deaf, unable to taste, smell or touch you would cease to exist then?




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:12 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 06:38 AM)xear Wrote:   "So far it hasnt been disproven that matter, space, time and energy creates life..."

So let's be clear... your criteria for materialism is that it hasn't been disproven. And that critieria is unacceptable for biocentrism?

dishonest quote mining does not help your case

(05-09-2016 06:51 AM)xear Wrote:  Yes proof is a red herring, so we are discussing who has more reasonable beliefs. Exactly.

We are discussing who has evidence to support their beliefs and who believes without any evidence. You can spin it whatever way you like but you have irrational beliefs.

Quote:I think you are making a good point on this. Something can be alive without being aware. Plants may be alive without being aware, however it would seem they perceive water and sunlight in which case they would be aware as defined above.

Plants react but it is a purely chemical reaction. You have a very loose definition of awareness.

(05-09-2016 07:01 AM)xear Wrote:  If we are agreed that we are just discussing who has more reasonable unproven beliefs, then what is the criteria for reasonable?

Based on evidence. You have none.

Quote:It can only be something subjective to each person and therefore likely annoying to the next person as we've already seen in some of the exchanges on this thread.

Laughat

Your ideas are not annoying, just inane.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
05-09-2016, 07:14 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:01 AM)xear Wrote:  If we are agreed that we are just discussing who has more reasonable unproven beliefs, then what is the criteria for reasonable?

It can only be something subjective to each person and therefore likely annoying to the next person as we've already seen in some of the exchanges on this thread.




.

You continue to ignore the facts. You have no evidence, we do have evidence.

You have become utterly tiresome. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-09-2016, 07:26 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:10 AM)xear Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 07:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  All observable life is made of matter and energy, and exists within time; no exceptions.


Has anyone ever observed anything that could be defined as 'life' without these properties? Has anyone ever observed anything that could be defined as 'life' creating matter, energy, or time ex nihilo?




Well fuck, you sure did show me homeboy... Drinking Beverage

Sounds like you are saying if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist.

I guess if you went blind, deaf, unable to taste, smell or touch you would cease to exist then?

.

Wow, you are dense, YOU need to provide evidence for YOUR assertion that something can be alive that is not made of matter.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:28 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:You can demonstrate brain activity patterns that indicate various emotional states. You can measure the neurochemical levels, heart rate, adrenaline, etc associated with various emotional states. You can see the facial expressions, vocal tones, and action of people experiencing various emotional states. We have considerable evidence that love, happiness, and fun exist. We have no evidence for any "native dimension" where emotions originate; what we have is evidence that they are brain states that can be measured as well as experienced.

I think you have a serious problem conflating the label for the experience. "Love" is a label for a physical condition. It isn't some kind of force that invades the body.

"You can see the facial expressions, vocal tones, and action of people experiencing various emotional states."

Those are the effects of emotions. You cannot see emotions. Emotions are intangible. Intangible things can produce effects as you pointed out. Of a similar nature we cannot see life we can see the effects of life. Neither you nor I can tangibly prove life exists. We can point to the effects of life and infer it just as we do with those emotional states we can't see.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:32 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:28 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:You can demonstrate brain activity patterns that indicate various emotional states. You can measure the neurochemical levels, heart rate, adrenaline, etc associated with various emotional states. You can see the facial expressions, vocal tones, and action of people experiencing various emotional states. We have considerable evidence that love, happiness, and fun exist. We have no evidence for any "native dimension" where emotions originate; what we have is evidence that they are brain states that can be measured as well as experienced.

I think you have a serious problem conflating the label for the experience. "Love" is a label for a physical condition. It isn't some kind of force that invades the body.

"You can see the facial expressions, vocal tones, and action of people experiencing various emotional states."

Those are the effects of emotions. You cannot see emotions. Emotions are intangible. Intangible things can produce effects as you pointed out. Of a similar nature we cannot see life we can see the effects of life. Neither you nor I can tangibly prove life exists. We can point to the effects of life and infer it just as we do with those emotional states we can't see.

.

This idea is almost the same as the homonculus.

Would that give you any pause at all in accepting this nonsensical idea? Probably not. Facepalm

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2016 08:02 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:10 AM)xear Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 07:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  All observable life is made of matter and energy, and exists within time; no exceptions.


Has anyone ever observed anything that could be defined as 'life' without these properties? Has anyone ever observed anything that could be defined as 'life' creating matter, energy, or time ex nihilo?




Well fuck, you sure did show me homeboy... Drinking Beverage

Sounds like you are saying if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist.

I guess if you went blind, deaf, unable to taste, smell or touch you would cease to exist then?


Radiation in imperceptible to our natural human senses. But we know it exists, we can measure it, and we can observe it affect on other things.

Maybe you could ask the personal of the Fukushima Daiichi Reactor whether or not radiation exists?

Maybe go huff some odorless carbon monoxide and tell us how well that works out for you?

Get a clue dipshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-09-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:28 AM)xear Wrote:  "You can see the facial expressions, vocal tones, and action of people experiencing various emotional states."

Those are the effects of emotions. You cannot see emotions. Emotions are intangible. Intangible things can produce effects as you pointed out. Of a similar nature we cannot see life we can see the effects of life. Neither you nor I can tangibly prove life exists. We can point to the effects of life and infer it just as we do with those emotional states we can't see.


Emotions do not become ineffable magical bullshit just because you define them that way by fiat.


Emotions are complex chemical reactions. It's why you can help treat chronic depression in many people with medication. If they suffer from lower than average dopamine levels, taking medication that adds more dopamine into their system can help level them out and bring them up to a more normative and functioning state. If emotions were instead the supernatural dualistic bullshit that you're pushing, this shouldn't work; but it does. We have mountains of evidence (in the form of double blind tests and clinical trials) showing how effective it is, while you've got fuck all to show for your magical thinking.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
05-09-2016, 07:48 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 06:38 AM)xear Wrote:   "So far it hasnt been disproven that matter, space, time and energy creates life..."

So let's be clear... your criteria for materialism is that it hasn't been disproven. And that critieria is unacceptable for biocentrism

Please dont quote mine me!

My full sentence was:
Quote: So far it hasnt been disproven that matter, space, time and energy creates life, all availiable evidence points towards matter, space, time and energy createing life

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
05-09-2016, 08:08 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:28 AM)xear Wrote:  "You can see the facial expressions, vocal tones, and action of people experiencing various emotional states."

Those are the effects of emotions. You cannot see emotions. Emotions are intangible. Intangible things can produce effects as you pointed out. Of a similar nature we cannot see life we can see the effects of life. Neither you nor I can tangibly prove life exists. We can point to the effects of life and infer it just as we do with those emotional states we can't see.

Wow, you really are a dishonest fuck, aren't you? You asked about proving that love and happiness exist and I listed several bits of evidence that leads us to conclude that those conditions are identifiable. That does not in any way imply that the emergent properties that we label love, happiness, or life have are distinct things apart from the organism. They are definitions of the state of the organism.

You are the one claiming that life is some ephemeral thing that exists apart from the world we can measure and have yet to provide a shred of evidence for your claim.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: