Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2016, 04:58 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Damnit, EK, stop typing faster than me! Tongue

"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
08-09-2016, 05:02 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

Not able to use quote function well atm.

1) lets all agree to use the terms 'Atheist', 'Agnostic' etc the way pretty much every one onbthis forum uses them and not your 'Special snow flake' edition/version.

2) Is there an actual point to your above, rambling thoughts/postulations?

People have repeatedly said 'Evidence'....... not self indulgent thought/word games(salad).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
08-09-2016, 05:11 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 05:02 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  self indulgent thought/word games(salad).

If we ever have a TTA get-together, I'm sooo gonna bring Letter Pasta Word Salad.

[Image: jaime_erable_640x390_salade_pate_alphabe...k=t14I4L5O]

R'amen.

"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
08-09-2016, 05:13 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
BTW xear, your entire point that you failed to make in this thread is a Tu quoque fallacy.

Even if your speculation was on equal footing (and it isn't) that doesn't mean that your speculation is right by default.

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
08-09-2016, 05:32 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  We're agreed on agnosticism as the only totally honest conclusion. Yes?

No. You have yet to present anything worthy of discussion. If the only positive point is "it makes me feel good", then I reject your proposition.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  We're agreed on speculation is what we are both doing. Ok?

No. You are attempting to manipulate the conversation. You are attempting to place both sides on an equal level. You have not yet made any argument that approaches a rational level.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  So now we are talking about what supports speculative evidence. I think someone said rational, testable, falsifiable. I'm surprised that no one said empirical.

You've already indicated that evidence is not your primary focus. You have stated that your feelings and emotions are more important than evidence.

And since empirical evidence is "acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation," then that would be rational, testable and falsifiable. Wouldn't it?

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  Let's try this thought experiment. You wake up in a dark shed with no windows and you have no memory... total alzheimers.

Let's try this: You stop making asinine analogies. Alzheimer's Disease is not comparable to a blank mind or total amnesia.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  If you are in a dream, in the dream you have no evidence there is a world outside of the dream. Does that mean it's true?

Facepalm we're all trapped in the Matrix. yawn.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  If you look at me you have no evidence that I know how to swim.

But if I read your posts, I have evidence that you have no concept of what you are talking about.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  No evidence of consciousness outside of the brain: proves nothing, says nothing and is a total red herring.

This is honestly painful to read. There is NO consciousness outside of the brain.
Consciousness is a byproduct of the chemical reactions taking place within our brains/bodies.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  There is another big detour that can throw our investigation off. That is pre-conclusions based on what we want to believe.

A perfect example of this would be Presuppositional Apologetics.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  I'm am always surprised when I hear of seemingly intelligent people who were caught by a Nigerian email scam. How can this happen? Easily.

How much did you lose?

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  When someone wants to believe something, they will discard all of the evidence against it and only look for evidence to support their desire.

Like, say, believing that your imaginary friend created the entire universe, loves you and is going to take you up to heaven and let you live forever in paradise?

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  If we have a pre-conclusion already, then it's simply not possible to arrive at a conclusion outside of our pre-belief.

Indeed. Drinking Beverage

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-09-2016, 05:43 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
There are several qualities of speculation, but other posters had this adressed already.

Arguing with knowledge we already have to justifiy unfounded wild ass specualtion/guess is either incredibly ignorant or dishonest (example with dark shed).
What Xear didnt get: its not about the result (is there a world outside or not?) but about the method to get the result. Nobody has the time or knowledge to investigate all wild ass assertions like biocentrism or theism or a literally a million other claims. Therefore, if we all follow a proven (in use) methodology to investigate all claims, then its easier to evaluate them, we are able to properly evaluate them at all respectively .

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 05:50 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 04:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  We're agreed on agnosticism as the only totally honest conclusion. Yes?

Nope. We just agree that agnosticism means one does not believe it is possible to know for sure if there is or isn't a god. I happen to hold that position.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  We're agreed on speculation is what we are both doing. Ok?

Speculation is only the first step in the scientific process, and even then it is based on observable phenomena. It is dishonest of you to try to suggest that the entire scientific process is speculation.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  So now we are talking about what supports speculative evidence. I think someone said rational, testable, falsifiable. I'm surprised that no one said empirical.

"Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). After Immanuel Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge (in contrast to a priori knowledge)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Note that last sentence carefully, because you seem to be confusing the two. We are speaking of the former, while you are relying upon the latter and trying to suggest that both are the same thing. We didn't use the term "empirical" because it means the same thing we were already saying, and would have been redundant.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  Let's try this thought experiment. You wake up in a dark shed with no windows and you have no memory... total alzheimers. It's pitch dark. You can't find a door and if you did find it, it would be locked. You speculate, is there even another world outside of this enclosed dark space? You have no testable, falsifiable, rational, or empirical evidence to believe there is any other world other than the inside of this shed and cannot from your present position arrive at any. You must conclude this is the sum total of the world.

And that would be the correct conclusion, pending additional evidence to the contrary. If we had a cellmate (shedmate?) who was just as blind/amnesiac, but who kept insisting that he knew about the world outside of our shed, we would be right to consider him delusional. Whether or not there actually is something beyond the shed is irrelevant to the knowledge of the two men inside. What would I say to a guy who said that the entire world outside our shed was composed of water, and we were a thousand meters under the ocean? Or that we were floating in deep space? Et cetera. There's a reason we don't buy into speculations about things that are without evidence and which cannot be tested.

You set up a truism (since we already know there's a world), deprive the occupants of the shed a way to detect what we already know, and then say, "Aha! But there really is a world out there!" Except that it could just as easily be true (from the POV of the shed's occupants) that they're surrounded by vacuum and a horde of invisible space dragons. Get it?

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  This "no evidence" idea is a red herring that completely throws things off the trail. For centuries, looking at a drop of water, they had no evidence there were living creatures in that drop. Because they had no evidence, does that prove there wasn't?

Not a red herring. If you had come to me in the year 1016 and said there were tiny things living in the water, I would have been right to demand evidence of this before I believed it. Again, what if your claim was that the water contained invisible the aether of life, which is why we needed it to survive? I would be just as right to be skeptical of that claim (and we now know it's total bullshit) as of the claim about the microbes. Regardless of what eventually turns out to be true, it is stupid to believe in a claim by another human being that is made without evidence.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  If you are in a dream, in the dream you have no evidence there is a world outside of the dream. Does that mean it's true?

I'm not sure what this question means. Presumably it's a repeat of the argument you just made, so I'll skip it.

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  If you look at me you have no evidence that I know how to swim.

True, but I know a good way to test that hypothesis. Big Grin

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  If I look at you I have no evidence you know how to make toast. I can look at you and find no evidence you know how to play ping pong. No matter how many tests I do on you I still can find no evidence. No evidence of consciousness outside of the brain: proves nothing, says nothing and is a total red herring.

You do understand, right, that the moment one makes an assertive claim as to the truth of any of those things, we can indeed demand evidence?

"I can make toast!"
"Okay, prove it."

(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  There is another big detour that can throw our investigation off. That is pre-conclusions based on what we want to believe. I'm am always surprised when I hear of seemingly intelligent people who were caught by a Nigerian email scam. How can this happen? Easily. When someone wants to believe something, they will discard all of the evidence against it and only look for evidence to support their desire. If we have a pre-conclusion already, then it's simply not possible to arrive at a conclusion outside of our pre-belief.

You realize, of course, that you're the one pushing the Nigerian scam, right? You're telling us to accept, without evidence, that you're royalty and in need of a little of our money in order to get a big reward down the road. Come to think of it, that's pretty much religion in a nutshell.

You are Projecting your fault onto us by claiming we just "want" to believe that there's nothing beyond this universe. Horse-shit! There are lots of atheists who wish there was a heaven, or an eternal creator who loves us, or whatever. We just don't think it's reality, after listening to the claims made by our fellow human beings, looking at the (lack of) evidence presented, and/or breaking down the logical fallacies used to support the proposition. This is why we all say we will believe as soon as good evidence is presented.

You are the one who wants to believe, and so you do, and you do it by telling yourself that we're all really just guessing... but I have news for you. You are the guesser. We are refusing to guess. That's the entire point you've been making, with your shed analogy, etc.

We don't have all the answers. We don't even pretend to have all the answers. But what we do know is that humans like to make shit up, either to comfort themselves or to control their fellow human beings, and we're skeptical of all supernatural claims until we have some solid evidence that "supernatural" is even a thing.

Without a priori knowledge of the supernatural, there is no reason to even suspect it is real. Sorry to burst your bubble, pal.



empirical:
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.


In the case of dealing with consciousness, it [consciousness]can be altered, observed from inside and experimented with. That's what I meant by empirical and I'm surprised it's not considered, that's all.

As far as beliefs go, I just mentioned a caution about all beliefs mine included. I do not want you to believe or disbelieve anything. I don't care. It matters not at all to me.

As far as the shed analogy, you said you would be right in not believing in an outside world just as you are right in not believing consciousness can survive death. I guess that is true enough, as I said we are not talking about facts or provable things... we are talking about possibilities. In the realm of facts only the agnostic is right as far as I can see.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 06:06 AM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2016 06:11 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  We're agreed on agnosticism as the only totally honest conclusion. Yes?

That depends on the specific claim. You make so many that it is hard to keep up. In a very general sense I agree in that all conclusions are based on the available evidence and open to review if and when new evidence is found.

Quote:We're agreed on speculation is what we are both doing. Ok?

Again, it depends on the specific claim and the evidence being offered. With regard to consciousness being a product of the brain we have considerable evidence for that being the case so any "speculation" is well-founded. The speculation that consciousness exists apart from living matter has no evidence and is not a reasonable conclusion. As EK said, not all speculation is the same.

Quote:So now we are talking about what supports speculative evidence. I think someone said rational, testable, falsifiable. I'm surprised that no one said empirical.

Empirical was implied when I said demonstrable, repeatable, consistent evidence.

Quote:Let's try this thought experiment. You wake up in a dark shed with no windows and you have no memory... total alzheimers. It's pitch dark. You can't find a door and if you did find it, it would be locked. You speculate, is there even another world outside of this enclosed dark space? You have no testable, falsifiable, rational, or empirical evidence to believe there is any other world other than the inside of this shed and cannot from your present position arrive at any. You must conclude this is the sum total of the world.

This "no evidence" idea is a red herring that completely throws things off the trail. For centuries, looking at a drop of water, they had no evidence there were living creatures in that drop. Because they had no evidence, does that prove there wasn't?

You are completely missing the point. Before evidence was found it would have been irrational for anybody to believe that there were living things too small to see in a drop of water. It doesn't matter one bit that it later turned out to be true. The time to believe something is when there is evidence for it and not before.

Quote:If you are in a dream, in the dream you have no evidence there is a world outside of the dream. Does that mean it's true?

Of course not; within the dream it may be reasonable for the dreamer to believe it is happening but when you wake up you have the additional evidence needed to understand what was happening.

Quote:If you look at me you have no evidence that I know how to swim.

If I look at you I have no evidence you know how to make toast. I can look at you and find no evidence you know how to play ping pong. No matter how many tests I do on you I still can find no evidence. No evidence of consciousness outside of the brain: proves nothing, says nothing and is a total red herring.

I have evidence that many people know how to swim, make toast, and/or play ping pong. Those are common abilities and if there is a need to know I can ask you to demonstrate or describe the activities to determine if you specifically know how to do them. Before asking I may have enough evidence that it is reasonable to assume you probably do know with the caveat that in your specific case you might not. I do know how to test the speculations which makes them falsifiable ideas.

In the case of consciousness outside the brain we have no evidence of that ever happening, no mechanism to support how it could possibly happen, and no way to test the speculation. You are free to speculate that it happens but can't be rationally justified in believing it.

In your own example, the guy in the room speculates that the room is embedded in concrete and is satisfied that since nobody can disprove the idea it is OK to believe because it makes him feel safe. Whether or not it is actually true is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he has good reason to believe it.

Quote:There is another big detour that can throw our investigation off. That is pre-conclusions based on what we want to believe. I'm am always surprised when I hear of seemingly intelligent people who were caught by a Nigerian email scam. How can this happen? Easily. When someone wants to believe something, they will discard all of the evidence against it and only look for evidence to support their desire. If we have a pre-conclusion already, then it's simply not possible to arrive at a conclusion outside of our pre-belief.

Which is why it is important to look at all the available evidence to see if your conjecture is supported. In the case of biocentrism, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it unless you ignore the stuff you don't want to see.

Under biocentrism, please explain how we only see consciousness when brains develop, how we see it affected by physical injuries and illness, and how we don't see signs of it after the brain dies. It all makes perfect sense if consciousness is a property of the brain and makes little or no sense if it is imposed externally.

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
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
08-09-2016, 06:09 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 05:32 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  I'm am always surprised when I hear of seemingly intelligent people who were caught by a Nigerian email scam. How can this happen? Easily.

How much did you lose?

Laughat

Bowing

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
08-09-2016, 06:16 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 04:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 03:37 AM)xear Wrote:  If you look at me you have no evidence that I know how to swim.

True, but I know a good way to test that hypothesis. Big Grin

I'm not entirely proud of how much that made me laugh.
Angel

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
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: