Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2016, 05:52 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 05:39 AM)xear Wrote:  As it says from the original poster on this thread, post number 1:

"Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist."



This is by far one of the more difficult arguments to counter....

I shall counter it now.

Prove it.

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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
06-09-2016, 06:30 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:Please understand that we get this a lot from Christian posters... when we make points that they dislike, they choose not to address the points we have made but instead take umbrage at foul and/or abusive language as we express our frustrations at people who make assertions without evidence, or at those who state things that are patently false and then won't listen to the debunking replies. It's a means of dodging the real issues, and it's dishonest... further infuriating us.

Ok, I get that but please read the very next post on this thread after yours by Banjo who has countered the infinite loop argument with his own brand of logic and you might understand that the other side may share some of the same frustrations. It doesn't help to have it descend into a name calling match or insults.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 06:41 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 06:30 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Please understand that we get this a lot from Christian posters... when we make points that they dislike, they choose not to address the points we have made but instead take umbrage at foul and/or abusive language as we express our frustrations at people who make assertions without evidence, or at those who state things that are patently false and then won't listen to the debunking replies. It's a means of dodging the real issues, and it's dishonest... further infuriating us.

Ok, I get that but please read the very next post on this thread after yours by Banjo who has countered the infinite loop argument with his own brand of logic and you might understand that the other side may share some of the same frustrations. It doesn't help to have it descend into a name calling match or insults.

.

I didn't swear? Mother fucking arsehole dickhead dropkick I am. Big Grin

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
06-09-2016, 06:54 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  
(05-09-2016 10:39 AM)unfogged Wrote:  You have no understanding of what constitutes evidence. Nothing about your little thought experiment suggests another "dimension" of any kind nor does it contradict the idea that life is a description that we apply to organisms that exhibit certain features.


Gee, did I hurt your delicate sensibilities? What a shame. Provide evidence for your claim and stop being dishonest in your quote mining of responses and you will get treated civilly. Keep dodging the issues and making unsubstantiated claims and you deserve no respect.


I'm saying life, consciousness, being, whatever you want to call it, is permanent... it always is.

You are saying that is wrong and you will get out of consciousness when you die. You have no evidence of anyone who has ever got out of consciousness and come back or that it is even possible.

I have no evidence of anyone who stayed in it when they died. Neither of us could ever provide evidence for this.

It is up to each person to decide which makes more sense to them. You seem to be happy with the prospect of a future of oblivion. I'm glad for you. But don't think you have somehow proven that is a sure thing.

It's not a matter of feelings hurt... it's just that the internet is a big place and I personally enjoy civility. I'm not trying to force that on others, but since I have enjoyed your comments, thought they were interesting, thought provoking and insightful I thought I'd let you know how I roll.



.

Where does the consciousness of each new person come from? Consider

All of the scientific evidence demonstrates that conciousness is brain-based.
There is no evidence that it is not.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
06-09-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 06:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  Where does the consciousness of each new person come from? Consider

All of the scientific evidence demonstrates that conciousness is brain-based.
There is no evidence that it is not.

Zeus. Silly man. Wink

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
06-09-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 06:30 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Please understand that we get this a lot from Christian posters... when we make points that they dislike, they choose not to address the points we have made but instead take umbrage at foul and/or abusive language as we express our frustrations at people who make assertions without evidence, or at those who state things that are patently false and then won't listen to the debunking replies. It's a means of dodging the real issues, and it's dishonest... further infuriating us.

Ok, I get that but please read the very next post on this thread after yours by Banjo who has countered the infinite loop argument with his own brand of logic and you might understand that the other side may share some of the same frustrations. It doesn't help to have it descend into a name calling match or insults.

.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Rather than focus on my counter-arguments, you ignored them completely and then posted about who's hurting whose feelings. That is what brings these sarcastic retorts from the "peanut gallery", in this case Banjo.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
06-09-2016, 08:02 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 07:09 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(06-09-2016 06:30 AM)xear Wrote:  Ok, I get that but please read the very next post on this thread after yours by Banjo who has countered the infinite loop argument with his own brand of logic and you might understand that the other side may share some of the same frustrations. It doesn't help to have it descend into a name calling match or insults.

.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Rather than focus on my counter-arguments, you ignored them completely and then posted about who's hurting whose feelings. That is what brings these sarcastic retorts from the "peanut gallery", in this case Banjo.

Sorry, but I could not find a counter argument or question that has not already been addressed. If you don't agree with something I say the first time I assume it is unlikely you will agree any time after that.

Where was my consciousness before I was conceived? Already gone over it... consciousness always is, always was... I can't prove that, likewise no one can disprove it.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 07:09 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(06-09-2016 06:30 AM)xear Wrote:  Ok, I get that but please read the very next post on this thread after yours by Banjo who has countered the infinite loop argument with his own brand of logic and you might understand that the other side may share some of the same frustrations. It doesn't help to have it descend into a name calling match or insults.

.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Rather than focus on my counter-arguments, you ignored them completely and then posted about who's hurting whose feelings. That is what brings these sarcastic retorts from the "peanut gallery", in this case Banjo.

Peanut gallery????

My answer was as serious as the question.

"Judge a man by his questions, not his answers" Voltaire.

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
06-09-2016, 08:15 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 05:48 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  I'm saying life, consciousness, being, whatever you want to call it, is permanent... it always is.

How's that? Where was your consciousness before you were conceived? Was it in two halves?

(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  You are saying that is wrong and you will get out of consciousness when you die. You have no evidence of anyone who has ever got out of consciousness and come back or that it is even possible.

I have no evidence of anyone who stayed in it when they died. Neither of us could ever provide evidence for this.

No, but as I showed above, we do know that consciousness is a product of neurological function. Before your brain developed, you did not have consciousness apart from it; after your brain ceases to function, you will not have consciousness apart from it. To show otherwise would be an assertive claim, and would require specific evidence that it is possible, let alone likely.


(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  It is up to each person to decide which makes more sense to them. You seem to be happy with the prospect of a future of oblivion. I'm glad for you. But don't think you have somehow proven that is a sure thing.

Nothing is ever a "sure thing", in biology. We have only degrees of confidence based on evidence and repeatable experiment, period.

However, it strikes me as overwhelmingly likely that the notion of our selves continuing after death is no more than the ego of a self-aware animal coupled with the drive of all beings to survive (and wish to keep surviving). As I said, it would require serious evidence of some ability of a "soul" (or whatever you want to call it) to enter our being, at some point during fetal development, for me to believe that I have one now and that it would persist in some way, apart from the function of my neurons.

(06-09-2016 05:15 AM)xear Wrote:  It's not a matter of feelings hurt... it's just that the internet is a big place and I personally enjoy civility. I'm not trying to force that on others, but since I have enjoyed your comments, thought they were interesting, thought provoking and insightful I thought I'd let you know how I roll.

Please understand that we get this a lot from Christian posters... when we make points that they dislike, they choose not to address the points we have made but instead take umbrage at foul and/or abusive language as we express our frustrations at people who make assertions without evidence, or at those who state things that are patently false and then won't listen to the debunking replies. It's a means of dodging the real issues, and it's dishonest... further infuriating us.

You are kind of making it sound like, "of course we are frustrated since we are right and theists are making wild crazy claims they can't prove, not us."

When it is pointed out atheists have no proof either usually the argument is some form of "we don't need proof, you do."

You may note that Albert Einstein, someone not generally thought to be a complete idiot not only believed in god but was a pantheist, the polar opposite of atheism.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2016, 08:21 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-09-2016 08:15 AM)xear Wrote:  When it is pointed out atheists have no proof either usually the argument is some form of "we don't need proof, you do."

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. In other words, you. Do you have any? If not, STFU.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: