Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(09-09-2016 07:18 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 06:56 AM)xear Wrote:  But I'm glad you brought up this question about whether a belief makes you happy. As you may note I said that [happiness] is not justification for a belief but a possible side benefit.

On the contrary:

(07-09-2016 05:29 AM)xear Wrote:  I could say "I had a vivid dream that told me there is a giant dragon on the planet Pluto and I will meet him when I die. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it." No real intelligent further discussion on it gets anywhere. You say I'm silly for believing such a thing, I say, it makes sense to me and makes me happy.

Oh my... the thought of eternal oblivion is beginning to sound better and better.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2016, 07:39 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(09-09-2016 07:34 AM)xear Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 07:18 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  On the contrary:

Oh my... the thought of eternal oblivion is beginning to sound better and better.


Awwww, whatsamatter? It bugs you that we aren't falling to our knees, converting because of your incredible wisdom?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
09-09-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(09-09-2016 06:56 AM)xear Wrote:  Harris did not prove anything. But to disagree with him I have to prove something... not exactly a fair playing field is it?


Let's play a game! Can you spot the difference?


Same Harris - Here's a basic rundown of how we understand consciousness works and why we're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, given our current evidence, mind-body dualism (and thus by proxy, the concept of souls and biocentrism) is entirely unfounded and not at all supported by the evidence.


xear - Well, science hasn't proven that my pet theory is 100% impossible (rather just destroyed it beyond a reasonable doubt), so don't I still get to pretend it's just as valid as all other beliefs, because I don't understand how logic and evidence work?



[Image: unpossible_fullpic_artwork.jpg]

Stay golden ponyboy.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-09-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
I've heard Christian scientists and some religious apologists use all of these arguments to explain how they have concluded that there is some vital force out there that they, for want of a better term, have called God. I couldn't possibly begin to agree, but I can see that such thought processes have a sort of inner coherence to people of certain psychological types, none of which is nutty or warped.

What is truly excruciatingly painful - almost as much as listening to some lunatic making excuses for crimes he or his nation has been involved in - is someone like William Lane Craig using warped versions of the same arguments to browbeat members of a live debate audience to accept that his "God" happens to be, canyoobaleevit!, the sort of deity you meet only in Protestant churches in the United States. And, of course, apologists like Craig go on to insist that, extrapolating from the nebulous conclusions their arguments have led them to, that this deity fathered a son, a clean-cut, collidge-ejjerkated sort of boy you find depicted in oil paintings on church walls across only the United States. And, of course, anyone who doesn't see the pressing need to worship the boy and his dad is absolutely condemned to enter on a life's course of monstrous wrong-doing. All of which merely emphasises a point I think I made earlier, which is that there are some cranks whose points of view are an utter waste of time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gert Heide's post
22-09-2016, 02:53 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(09-09-2016 07:34 AM)xear Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 07:18 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  On the contrary:

Oh my... the thought of eternal oblivion is beginning to sound better and better.



.

The good non heavens your pathetic anyone who can't find joy in what's real and needs to manufacture nonsense as a security blanket is pitiable indeed

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
22-09-2016, 03:16 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(09-09-2016 07:34 AM)xear Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 07:18 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  On the contrary:

Oh my... the thought of eternal oblivion is beginning to sound better and better.



.

Oh my the idea of languishing pointlessly forever sounds so much better then living enjoying life no matter how brief and having it matter because it's all there is . Then calmly slipping into a eternal state of unbeing no different then before my birth .The echoes of a life well lived or at the very least attempted resounding behind me.yup our option sounds so great Dodgy

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
22-09-2016, 06:37 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 03:16 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 07:34 AM)xear Wrote:  Oh my... the thought of eternal oblivion is beginning to sound better and better.



.

Oh my the idea of languishing pointlessly forever sounds so much better then living enjoying life no matter how brief and having it matter because it's all there is . Then calmly slipping into a eternal state of unbeing no different then before my birth .The echoes of a life well lived or at the very least attempted resounding behind me.yup our option sounds so great Dodgy

You seem firm in your belief. I may join you in that belief as soon as you explain to me how non-existence ( a non-condition which has no properties) produces life.

We're not talking about "nothing" here which is a possible condition of Being.

No one has ever experienced non-existence from a first hand perspective and no one ever can. So to say you will go into it at death is fantasy.

And since nothing can emerge from non-existence please explain why all life has not already dissolved into it, since it has to be a one way trip if you are really talking about non-existence.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2016, 08:47 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 06:37 AM)xear Wrote:  You seem firm in your belief. I may join you in that belief as soon as you explain to me how non-existence ( a non-condition which has no properties) produces life.

Non-existence produces nothing.

"Life" is a product of the natural universe.

Are you asking the origins of life? or the origins of the universe?

(22-09-2016 06:37 AM)xear Wrote:  And since nothing can emerge from non-existence please explain why all life has not already dissolved into it, since it has to be a one way trip if you are really talking about non-existence.

What is your definition of life?

Why should "all life" dissolve into non-existence?

Science understands life as a biological condition, consciousness a byproduct of chemical reactions. At death, the biological condition changes, those chemical reactions cease, the byproduct of both ends. Essentially, "you" stop.

This is what we understand through science.

Anything beyond that is merely wishful thinking. Unless of course, you have proof of a soul or afterlife?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
22-09-2016, 08:57 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 06:37 AM)xear Wrote:  No one has ever experienced non-existence from a first hand perspective and no one ever can. So to say you will go into it at death is fantasy.

Back with the strawman arguments, eh? Nobody has claimed that the individual will experience non-existence after death.

Quote:And since nothing can emerge from non-existence please explain why all life has not already dissolved into it, since it has to be a one way trip if you are really talking about non-existence.

We've been over this repeatedly. Individual consciousness comes into existence during the development of the organism just like a wall comes into existence when the parts are assembled. That consciousness ceases to exist when the individual dies just like the wall ceases to exist when it is broken up.

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
22-09-2016, 09:36 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 08:57 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 06:37 AM)xear Wrote:  No one has ever experienced non-existence from a first hand perspective and no one ever can. So to say you will go into it at death is fantasy.

Back with the strawman arguments, eh? Nobody has claimed that the individual will experience non-existence after death.

Quote:And since nothing can emerge from non-existence please explain why all life has not already dissolved into it, since it has to be a one way trip if you are really talking about non-existence.

We've been over this repeatedly. Individual consciousness comes into existence during the development of the organism just like a wall comes into existence when the parts are assembled. That consciousness ceases to exist when the individual dies just like the wall ceases to exist when it is broken up.

"Nobody has claimed that the individual will experience non-existence after death."

Well then what does Ordo mean by: "Then calmly slipping into a eternal state of unbeing no different then before my birth ." ?

"That consciousness ceases to exist when the individual dies just like the wall ceases to exist when it is broken up." Yes, that is your unprovable fantasy, nothing more. Backed by experience? No. Backed by a fertile imagination.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: