Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2016, 06:33 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(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.

There are points that you have proven for biocentrism? Making unsubstantiated claims is not evidence, let alone proof, especially when you can't point to anything that is better explained under biocentrism than it is under accepted science.

(05-09-2016 06:03 AM)xear Wrote:  Without proof you just have another belief.

Proof is a red herring. Without evidence you have just another useless belief. With overwhelming evidence you have a reasonable belief. There is a difference.

And I'm still waiting to find out in what way plants are aware.

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
05-09-2016, 06:38 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
"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?

So we have two beliefs that have not been proven. The materialist belief will be proven as soon as science creates its first life form out of only matter, space, time and energy... i.e. not coming from another life form.
So far that has not happened.

So, in the meantime we just have a discussion of which belief makes more sense... isn't that correct?

We are now just discussing which unproven and possibly unprovable belief makes more sense.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 06:51 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:Proof is a red herring. Without evidence you have just another useless belief. With overwhelming evidence you have a reasonable belief. There is a difference.

And I'm still waiting to find out in what way plants are aware.

Yes proof is a red herring, so we are discussing who has more reasonable beliefs. Exactly.

How are plants aware?

aware: having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.

alive: (of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead.

Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
"the origins of life"
synonyms: existence, being, living, animation, aliveness, animateness; entity, sentience, creation, survival, viability.



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.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 06:58 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?

So we have two beliefs that have not been proven. The materialist belief will be proven as soon as science creates its first life form out of only matter, space, time and energy... i.e. not coming from another life form.
So far that has not happened.

So, in the meantime we just have a discussion of which belief makes more sense... isn't that correct?

We are now just discussing which unproven and possibly unprovable belief makes more sense.

.

So did you even notice the following statement after that quote?

Quote:...all availiable evidence points towards matter, space, time and energy creating life
Have we anything observed, verifiably, that is evidence for biocentrism? Consistent with biocentrism only!

That means the burden of proof is upon you, but there is evidence that life comes from matter.

Look in the mirror, you are made of matter, you are alive.

If you have evidence of something not made of matter, but still alive, provide that evidence. Drinking Beverage

We already know that this isn't possible and you have no evidence, the evidence for materialism is axiomatic.

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
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-09-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
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.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:04 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(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

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:06 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:That means the burden of proof is upon you, but there is evidence that life comes from matter.

What is that evidence again?





.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:06 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.

False equivocation.

Your belief is unfalsifiable, you stupid wanker. Drinking Beverage

[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, 07:09 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:06 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:That means the burden of proof is upon you, but there is evidence that life comes from matter.

What is that evidence again?





.


All life ever observed is composed of matter. Life is, at it's most basic form, just very complex chemistry. Life is matter and energy and chemical reactions.

But nothing has been observed that can create matter, energy, or time ex nihilo; let alone anything that would fit the definition of 'life' as we currently understand it. Kinda hard to be alive without the chemicals reactions that compose life, such as before the existence of matter itself (if such an existence was even possible or ever existed).



How do chemical reactions create matter, energy, and time out of nothing? Your move fucknut.

[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, 07:10 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: