I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2015, 10:21 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Can someone tell me why there are over 1100 posts on this god-forsaken thread and I still don't have a potato salad recipe. Dodgy

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
26-02-2015, 10:23 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 10:21 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Can someone tell me why there are over 1100 posts on this god-forsaken thread and I still don't have a potato salad recipe. Dodgy

I'll ask hubby to share his recipe.

He makes an ass kicking potato salad. Because yanno, it's all about the stuff that's really important. Tongue


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
27-02-2015, 02:08 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Hello again.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I said "some of you"...and if you are not included in that "some", then it doesn't apply to you.

Oh, okay good to know. Thumbsup

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am saying that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. Science is supposed to be based on observation, repeated experiments, and predictions.

Except... well the research and subsequent discovery of something like DNA seems to support the idea of evolution pretty well.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Observation: No one has ever observed a reptile-bird type of transformation.

I do believe you've been told before that you don't get 'Croc-o-ducks' happening.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Repeated experiment: No one has conducted an experiment that will allow for such a transformation.

Other than the interesting fact that avian anatomy is a dead ringer for certain types of saurian anatomy, yeah, nothing showing any relation between one and the other. It's your self creating the fiction of the 'Croc-o-duck'.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Prediction: No one has ever successfully predicted when such an transformation will occur.

Okay... now here's an interesting thing.

You make a prediction that 'No one can show a species changing into t different species (I'll ignore the whole 'Kind' thing for the moment as some one else is asking you about that definition) and YET you are happy to ignore demonstrable 'Ring species' as quite literally, one species can be seen changing through breeding gradients into another species.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  These are all facts...

No, what you keep posting are assertions. Some of which are kind of... silly...


(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now, you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe (not you personally, but in general), but don't make it seem as if it is a brute fact that this kind of stuff happens...you've never seen it happen, you've only seen animals produce what it is, not what it isn't.

Again, you're refusing to see anything other than your 'dream state' of things. However, this is shifting into 'Species/Kind' type of talking and some one else is asking you questions about all that.

Seems things went wrong with quoting and such. I can read all of the post after I've hit 'Reply'. Will be adjusting things as I go along.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, tell me what is the third option and we will add that one to the mix as well. That is the problem, you guys have the "anything but God" attitude...no matter how absurd it may be, or how unlikely it may be, as long as the answer isn't God, you will go for it.

But.. there's no evidence for any gods. Please, offer something up which can be seen as proof.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Taxi cab fallacy.

It is called law of excluded middle...either God did it, or God didn't do it...if you know of any other options besides these two, then enlighten me. I have reasons to believe that God did it...the God hypothesis has more explanatory power than the other option, plus the other option can be proven to be logically absurd.

Okay... what explanatory power does god have? What prediction can you make about god?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So it is based on these reasons why I believe that theism is true.

That's great and nice and all.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, I gave my reasons why, and I thought you'd directly address the reasons that I gave instead of just flatly stating that it doesn't make sense. So let me explain it again...

First off, I am talking about evolution without divine intervention, ok? Now, in order for evolution to occur, life had to already be here, right?

No, definitely not. As has been stated, repeatedly, before. Evolution deals with life and the changes their in.

Forget the 'Beginning' bit. Currently, there is life. (To which I'll assume you agree/Say yes.)

For a very long time there has been life. (To which I'll await your saying yes or no to 'Very long.')

Over every generation all down through said very long time changes have been taking place. Hence evolution.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So, abiogenesis may in fact be false...as it may NOT be possible for life to come from non-life.

While this is an interesting idea there's one small thing. The Geological records show that

A) Now we have life.

B) At one point on the planet there was no life.

So... life 'came' from some where. Now, you say a god did it. Great. That doesn't explain the 'How' of a god doing it. Do you see/understand my point here?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So, if abiogenesis is POSSIBLY false, then evolution is also POSSIBLY false, because if what evolution was dependent upon is possibly false, then evolution itself would have to be possibly false.

And...having answered all your points in sequence you can see how the above statement is simply not true.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Abiogenesis can't be false, with evolution being true,...that is the point, because the latter is dependent upon the former. When you think about it, it is kind of like you, as a person...your existence is dependent upon external entities (your parents)...if the entities that you owe your existence to didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist, right? It is the same thing with abiogenesis/evolution...you are right, they are different things, but one depends on the other.

You repeating it and using simple, but poor, analogies doesn't add anything.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, look at the definitions you just gave...you don't see how evolution depends on abiogenesis? There can be no gradual change over time without there being life forms to change...you don't see that??

You've got to, I don't know... 'Step back'? Seriously. Just concentrate on the evolution part of things and try and understand what is going on with it. Then, after you've got the understanding, you can start wailing on abiogenisis. Smile

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, well let me ask you this...if abiogenesis is false, could evolution still occur?? Just a simple yes or no would be fine.

A simple 'Yes'. Again, forget about 'The beginning' and take up the tale half way through.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No. The above is now your assertion about things.

I'm not asserting anything yet. Just pointing out the 'X' does not equal 'Y' aspect of wht you're constantly claiming.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Which is equivalent to saying "Before life can change (evolution), it has to come in to existence first (abiogenesis)".

No, I've never posted that. I've never said that. Again... start thinking about evolution some where in the middle of the tale about life on Earth and perhaps you'll some to a better understanding of it, 'kay? Smile

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Please explain how evolution could occur if abiogenesis is false.

The way people have already explained it happens (Currently, not *Hand wave* some where n the past.)

*Call_of_the_Wild wrote stuff. But the message boards are giving me error messages abut the length of my reply.

Same idea, different sentence structure.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  See, if you don't believe in God, then evolution is the only game in town...on your view, evolution MUST have had to occur, because you need to find some kind of naturalistic reason why we have life/species. So it is no wonder why virtually all unbelievers believe in evolution...it is all they have to go on.

Wait (Turning things around a little) does that mean that because there are believers who DO accept evolution as true... You've now got a problem? Consider

Since... it can now be demonstrated that your "Black or white" answering/thinking style has hit something that doesn't fit within the parameters?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The problem is, they accept it by faith. All you've ever seen is animals produce what they are, not what they aren't...

I swear I am getting so sick of the 'Croc-o-duck' thing. So.. go off and explain to me how god bothered with 'Ring species' and well talk about evolution more.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And if you want to believe that long ago, before no one was around to witness it, animals began to produce offspring different than what they were, then fine, believe what you want...but it is intellectually dishonest to call it science, and it is intellectually dishonest to call it a fact.

Dafaq?

No... stop with the 'Croc-o-duck'. Enough with the 'Croc-o-duck'. It doesn't work that way, okay.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You are relying on the unseen...which is what us religious folks call...FAITH.

Except... I can see physical mutations as evidenced as a gross change between parent and offspring (In some cases) I can also see things such as 'Ring species' etc. If the answer was 'God did it' then you have to provide an answer of why god does it. Something a lot better than 'Because that's the way god does it." because that sentence doesn't actually tell people anything.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Lets say the brain is made up of matter

Okay... the thing inside the skull space is made of matter, yup.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...now, whatever matter you'd like to call it is up to you...that isn't the point, the point is, where did consciousness come from??

Okay... your sentence has kind of 'spread' over a wider meaning than I think you've intended.

There's a difference between 'Currently conscious' and 'Development of conscious'. So, lets try and keep those two terms/ideas separate, okay?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That is the theory, but what I want is evidence for the theory.

So... to which side of the two questions do you want an answer for? You now understand there's two questions, right?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Because all I would have to do is ask how did it emerge, and wait on you to struggle to give an answer. In science, it isn't enough to just throw answers out there...you have to be able to test it...experiment...so, where did this emergent property come from, and why....I mean, it could have been just as easy to NOT have emerged, so what caused it to emerge???

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Of course, first you would have to prove abiogenesis to be true as it relates to consciousness as well. I will wait.

Seriously, stop with the trying to tie fekkin' abiogenesis into every thing. Heck, you show me how you can get up in the morning without abiogenesis. Since, if abiogenesis isn't true, you can't get up in the morning.

* I've probably put all the context in that last sentence back to front, or what ever, but you get the drift, right?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Second, there are plenty bodies in the morgue that have brains, but no consciousness. So if the consciousness can be gone, and the brain can still be there, then the brain and the mind are obviously two different things.

Right... but their brains (All the matter) inside the skull is , like, rotten and stuff. You get that, right? I mean, literally, once you turn off the organic systems things instantly start to break down at a cellular level. You understand that, right?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Third, if you have scattered pieces of brain matter on a table, and you shaped and molded it into a perfect brain again, where would you get the consciousness? You have the brain, but where is the consciousness??

No, this analogy isn't working or making sense. It's actually working against you understanding what 'Thinking' is all about.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If you wanted the brain to think of a black cat, how would you place the thought of a black cat into the brain??

Dafaq?

No, really? You haven't seen the pictures of MRI scans showing the synapse firing pattern when images are registered? Really? What do you think neurons do? What are neurons all packed into people's skulls actually for, then?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The thought of the black cat is not a physical entity,

See above.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It is a mental entity...so how would you place this mental entity inside of the physical entity to get the two to correlate in a way at which the brain is thinking about the cat??

It... it, just doesn't work the way you're thinking (Argh! 'Think-ception' Hobo )

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Fourth, if we are nothing but complex chunks of matter with neurons running through our brains, then we don't have free will.

No... seriously.. what else do you think is inside people's skulls? You keep typing words indicating that you seem to be insisting that there's this 'Something else'? What IS it?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When a person commits a crime, the person is only acting according to the formation of neurons in his brain. The neurons are operating based on natural law, so when the neurons is formulated in a way to make a person want to commit a crime, and the person refuses to commit the crime, then that person is violating natural law, but wait a minute...how can a person naturally violate natural laws?

Dafaq?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Fifth, if there is a man that is wanted for murder and he is on the FBI's Most Wanted list...and one day, you woke up, looked in the mirror, and you found yourself inside of this man's body, and right when you were trying to figure out what is going on...the FBI bust through your door and arrest you...and they say, "Sir, you are under arrest for first degree murder"....are you a murderer? You are inside of the man's body, but "YOU" didn't commit the crime, did you?

No, wait. Other than that movie with John Travolta and Nicholas Cage (Face off) there's the problem of... well, heck.. how do you know I'm a guy? Fek! Just realizing I don't have to sit down to pee would be earth shattering!

Seriously, think your analogies through a bit better. A person suddenly awaking in such a situation would simply ask to see a Shrink because they'd be thinking that they aren't even sane... Let alone any sort of murderer.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "YOU" are more than just a body..."you" are a soul...your mind is independent from your body.

Great comment. Point to the soul. We can detect the fundamental particles of reality. What's a "Soul particle"? Where do "Soul bits" float around at?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I said that science deals with shit only after it has gotten here?? Please explain how the statement is wrong or is this just another example of you making baseless assertions.

Because it's the research that has and is being done that's helping us make decisions/design things/ etc which we'll use in the future that's also important. The "Why study cancer now?" So that we can work out how it works and hence how it's going to work and hence be treatable in the future.

*Probably not a great answer to that particular question, beast I can think of on the fly... Consider

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Please make a prediction regarding the next time we will see a reptile-bird kind of transformation. You just said that science makes predictions, well, make this one.

I really think you're just adding the 'Croc-o-duck' thing to annoy people. Consider

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  They tell us about the past, but each claim is to be taken on a case by case basis,

How 'case by case'? Really? What's the gradient?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ... And it just so happens that in this particular case, I think science has it wrong.

Okay... but you will admit that science works, right? People are using evolution to make predictions and they are working out. Funny old world, in'it?

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The brain is made up of matter...again, whatever you want to call this matter is fine...doesn't really matter because my point stands...when I think of a black cat, there isn't a black cat inside my brain making me thinking it.

AH! I think I see where the 'Quoting' problem happened. Smile

So, yeah, please never mention the 'Croc-o-duck' again and lets talk about the space inside people's heads from now on, okay? Wink

I would never have been able to answer all this on my phone. Yay/Hoo-ray for keyboards! Bowing

Much cheers to all. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Peebothuhul's post
27-02-2015, 03:19 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 10:21 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Can someone tell me why there are over 1100 posts on this god-forsaken thread and I still don't have a potato salad recipe. Dodgy

Well, you could always start a Kickstarter campaign. Unsure

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 04:38 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 10:00 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 12:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Please identify any plausible mechanism of action which would allow me to survive my death.

Survive death? First, give me any plausible mechanism of action which gave the first living organism life...and the first plausible mechanism of action which gave the first living organism consciousness...and the first plausible mechanism of action which gave an entire universe its existence.

(08-02-2015 12:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So I guess what I'm saying is let's debate dualism. You start at a severe disadvantage given that many have tried and all have failed.

Yeah, lets "briefly" debate dualism...for starters, I have a question, when you are sad, is your brain sad, or your neurons sad? Which one is sad?? Laugh out load Please directly answer the question.

There was no "first living organism" you idiot. Are viruses "alive" ? You never even watched the video you claimed to have criticized did you ? There is no absolute boundary between life and non-life. There are transitional forms. Viruses are one.
Did you ever even start high school ? Rolleyes

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-02-2015, 05:12 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 10:00 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yeah, lets "briefly" debate dualism...for starters, I have a question, when you are sad, is your brain sad, or your neurons sad? Which one is sad?? Laugh out load Please directly answer the question.

Do you know what a neurotransmitter is? What we commonly refer as mood or emotions, or even emotional states, are simply the behaviour of your brain in consequence of a presence or lack of certain chemicals that act as neurotransmitters. Even if there is a problem in "receiving" these chemicals, and the amount of them is just fine, the mood can be influenced.

Dopamine is one such chemical, and its release is associated with good mood. When you eat chocolate (but this happens for many other things like sex, food, even music), your brain releases dopamine, which results in a better mood.

Now you know why sad people eat a lot of ice cream.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
27-02-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 10:00 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yeah, lets "briefly" debate dualism...for starters, I have a question, when you are sad, is your brain sad, or your neurons sad? Which one is sad?? Laugh out load Please directly answer the question.

Your brain is very sad. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-02-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
You are your brain, and sadness is a physiological-chemical response to certain stimuli.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 10:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:48 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Call of the wild is thick as a brick.

I don't think he is thick at all, I think he is well aware he is wrong and exactly how he is wrong. Look how he responds to the question asked of him by Girlyman by.... ...not answering it at all. He does not even try, because he knows he can't. He diverts the question with one of his own, and then runs away from the question that was asked of him with zero effort put int o answer it, or even pretend like he can.

Diverts and runs? Someone crack a window. Drinking Beverage

Is he ignorant? Sure, absolutely. Does he lie? All the damn time. Is he unaware how terrible he is at this? No not at all, I don't buy his feigned "I'm the best no one can touch me" act at all. A man who actually believes he has real answers does not need to say shit like this:
(26-02-2015 01:32 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I reject whatever it is.
He knows exactly how stupid and uninformed he is but he enjoys jerking our chain. He's just here to disrupt.

Anti got banned for shit exactly like that.

Whiskey, I normally agree with you but in this instance I really think you have over estimated chucklefuck's intellect.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 10:21 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Can someone tell me why there are over 1100 posts on this god-forsaken thread and I still don't have a potato salad recipe. Dodgy

Anj! I was thinking of turning this into the time honored debate about the proper way you cut a sandwich, it was then that I remembered anything other than a diagonal cut is blasphemy so there can be no debate! Tongue

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: