I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2015, 11:32 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Something something ad hoc.



Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 11:58 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(14-02-2015 10:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ...
then when you look at Romulus, 800 years BEFORE jesus, and you see the exact same hero god construct....ah, isn't mythology fun?

Big Grin

Even Kant couldn't entirely escape this meme.

He figured that while Christianity had Jesus dying for those pesky sins, literally saving the believers from death, he mused that the passion of Jesus was best understood as a moral allegory.

Poor ol' Kant thought that one can be awakened to the prototype of reason by a purported historical manifestation of the prototype (e.g., Jesus of Nazareth).

And we know where that leads... hero gods and idolatry. Dodgy

So, according to Kant, whether one is awakened to the prototype by reason or by history, both means of awakening can set one on the path of pure moral faith.

Kant reckoned that the ethical community “will need the presupposition of ... a higher moral being through whose universal organization of forces of single individuals ... are united for a common end”.
Such universal organisation, he figured, demands a public law-giver, who can:
(1) institute laws as part of a “prior sanction,” i.e. out of a genuine authority,
(2) know the heart, or genuine dispositional orientation, and
(3) exercise true justice.

Kant concluded that, “this is the concept of God”. Therefore, the ethical community “is conceivable only ... as a people of God".

Thus he cleverly linked together a few now debunked ideas... the hero god and the "how can you atheists be moral without god" moral prototype.

That Kant fella has a lot to answer for.

But we can forgive him. He lived BD not AD ... before Darwin not after.

In fact, he died on February 12, 1804... five years to the day before Darwin was born.

And that's a good excuse for ignorance.

Call_of_Nature can't offer the same defense.

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
15-02-2015, 01:11 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No, it isn't simple...but nature figured it out...and it figured it out with no vision and no intelligence...I will expect humans with vision and intelligence to be able to figure it out much quicker than nature, or should I lower my expectations and admit that nature is smarter than humans?

Almost everything in that collection of, lets call them, sentences makes utterly no sense. You are brandishing about your ignorance of the subject matter as if it were a mark of bloody pride. It's not a fucking puzzle box for nature to "figure out", nature was not sitting around with a bunch of lifeless rocks, with a copy of "Chemistry to Biology For Dummies", conducting experiments like a thinking agent.

What does "I will expect humans.....to be able to figure out (nature)...much quicker then nature" even fucking mean? You're so godsdamn wrong your not even wrong!

Are you disappointed with humans because nature figured out nuclear fission faster then we did? Are you disappointed with humans because we have not figured out a way by which we could create whole planets out in space?

For shit sake we are a part of nature, it's literally impossible for us to figure out anything before nature does you buffoon.

How did this get to 60+ pages your not even a good poe, you are waaaay to bad at this.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So is the belief of everyone on here that "believes" there is no God.
A lack of a belief is not a belief by the very definition of the word, nor does the rejection of your idiotic assertions mean the person doing the rejection must espouse the polar opposite of your, as previously mentioned, idiotic assertions.

Also your rejection of something that can be shown to be a fact (with dozens of relevant scientific fields in agreement, with almost all known evidence in support of, and with testable and reliable predictive power) as a fact is in no way similar to our refusal to except your belief with exactly ZERO predictive power, with no demonstrable results, with nothing coming close to independently verifiable and testable procedures.
It's just not.

Evolution is a fact. That your cognitive bias is unable deal with this in no way changes the demonstrability of biological evolution. We know more about the workings of evolutionary biology then we do about gravity, and if you have mistakenly convinced yourself of the shakiness of evolution you are welcome to stick your thumb in your mouth, blow really hard, and then float the motherfuck away.


(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Right, organisms evolve...but there is a limit to the evolution....
According to who? You? Kiddo you don't even have a basic grasp on the subject. Considering all life, this vast cornucopia of diversity, on the planet originates from single celled organisms I'd say that if there is a limit to evolution it's a rather high bloody ceiling.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  (even though I believe a dog and a wolf are the same kind)
Oh the good old answersingenesis "kind" word. How amateurishly quaint. Give an exact definition of what you mean when you say "kind". If you mean they are the same genus then you are correct, if you mean they are the same species then you are incorrect. If you mean something else then define it, then explain how you came to the conclusion, and then demonstrate that it is scientifically valid and consistent.


(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  wolf to a dog ..a dog to a wolf is cool....but a reptile to a bird? Not so cool.
This might come as a shock to you, a person so arrogant he thinks the whole damn universe was specially created just for him, but what you find "cool" is not a marker for..anything.
Modern birds are descendant from reptiles, this is not a subject up for debate. Multiple fields of science have proven this. Multiple times. Like.. a lot bro.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But lets save the evolution debate for another thread.
A debate would require you to have a basic grasp on evolutionary biology and not to make arguments based on what you think is intuitive, obvious, or...."cool". the ability to write with something other then your forehead would also be advantageous you bloody troglodyte.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Explanations by believers are based on evidence too.
They are absolutely not and more over the very book you claim to support says they should unequivocally not be based on evidence but on faith. I won't speak for every single believer out there but I will speak for your personal brand of idiocy on display here. You have provided not a single shred of reliable, testable or demonstrable evidence since you arrived.
You have provided:
Arguments from personal incredulity.
Arguments from personal experience.
Strawman arguments.
Arguments from popularity.
Confirmation bias, and boat loads of it.
Arguments from authority.
And a half dozen other fallacious bouts of prepubescent lunacy.

What you have NOT provided is anything resembling evidence. You have a definition of "evidence" so fucking loose I could fit both arms up to my elbows inside it and it would owe me $60.

Further more I would like to ask you how if the claims of believers are based on evidence, and thus factually sound, how they can all be accurate while also being largely contradictory and incompatible. Or should I just assume the default Christian stance and assume you believe only you have the REAL evidence and that the other religions of the world and antiquity had the right idea just the wrong god and add special pleading to your list of intellectually dishonesty?

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  As far as Zeus is concerned...I believe that the Greeks had the right concept, just the wrong God Big Grin
Oh look I can. Asshole.


(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Believers are just smart enough to know there is a limit to scientific methodology...and where science stops, metaphysics take over.
Oh yes very much so they just happen to be smart enough to know that when you can't prove any of the bullshit that comes pouring out of your mouth that the fault is with science and that Lo and behold! Over yonder lies a not-at-all suspiciously undemonstrable method for conveniently reenforcing all the things you already believed for no godsdamn provable reason.

Yes you're all so damn cleaver that when what you believe has not a bit of demonstrable evidence or factual support in reality the intellectually honest thing to do is create, out of whole cloth, an entire field of "study" that is untestable, unprovable, and undemonstrable that just so happens to support your current cognitive bias.

"How do I justify my unprovable system of belief is accurate? Why with another unprovable system of belief naturally!"

I'm glad you are alive today and not 100,000 years ago. Had you been alive during the formative years of our species you might have single handedly killed our entire species off with that level of cognitive disability. You actually have a harder time thinking logically then a group of people walking upright for the first time. Let that sink in. There was a man alive at one point learning to use a rock as a hammer for the first time that would more readily pass a basic intro to logic then you would. Impressive...in a way.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It does bring knowledge...it is called "theology"...which is the study of the nature (or concepts) of god(s)..now, that may not bring any knowledge for you, but you can't speak for all of the theologians out there.
A.) Considering you have yet to demonstrate that a god actually exists, theology gives us no more knowledge about a real god and his nature then fan fiction does about Harry Potters sex life.
B.) Unless you can demonstrate that your "knowledge" is accurate it remains cleanly and clearly in the realm of conjecture.
C.) I could event an alien race right now, the Kraxicalon, on a distant planet in an other part of the galaxy and start a field of study on them, Kraxology, and whatever discussion, debate, or study about the Kraxicalons that goes on from this day for the next 2000 years is not considered a body of knowledge until their existence is made evident through actually evidence. Just. Like. God.

You have yet to demonstrate the existence of any god so theology provides us no knowledge, just baseless conjecture.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We also know that the universe is not eternal, but it had a beginning, which is what believers have been saying for 4,000 years, and what science has just recently jumped on the bandwagon with us for.
Now you're just being an idiot on purpose, even if I gave you for the sake of this argument "the universe had a beginning" you still have to deal with...

A.) "What us believers have been saying" only if you remove all other context and data from the various creation stories. Do the Greek, Chinese, Hindus, and countless others as well, get to be considered correct from saying the universe had a beginning......as a giant egg? A great many believers have religions that teach that the universe came about...after the Earth. Or tell of the universe and its construction/birth from say water or fire or an earthen mound or an entire motherfucking giant ass tree.... things that you know...you need a universe to have. Do they get points for saying the universe had a beginning?

Your confirmation bias is showing again.....

B.) Also am I supposed to be impressed that of the two alternatives you are presenting (fallaciously I might add) here today: one being eternal or one having a beginning, our primitive and uneducated ancestors managed to get a 50/50 guess right? Woooooooooooooooooooooooow.
You know that might be actually relevant or impressive if they managed to actually get the cosmic timeline in the right order (they did not), or had a working understanding of the nature of biodiversity (they did not) but no oh no that 1 in 2 chance of getting the "right answer" could only have come from divine inspiration.
How lucky you must feel to be so easily impressed, your wife must be a resounding 2. Drinking Beverage

C.) Way to dishonestly misrepresent science and how it works with your little bandwagon remark. Either you don't know how science comes to conclusions or you don't know what "hop on the bandwagon" means.

D.) Lastly please feel free to offer testable, verifiable, and demonstrable evidence that, if the universe did in fact have a beginning, that that beginning can ONLY come about via a guiding and purposeful intelligence. The burden of proof is on you kitten.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Even if science was about to explain life from nonlife that STILL doesn't explain the origin of consciousness, or the origins of the universe.
Good thing those are all separate fields of study huh? No one here was saying that demonstrating abiogenesis explains the origins of the universe and or consciousness soooo....good..point...I guess.....Consider

Oh and while I'm here: consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently evolved brain. A notion supported by all modern data and tests.


(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So you (science) has at least three problems you have to iron out, and I don't think that it will ever be figured out.
And you still have ALL the problems left to solve cause you have not provided any demonstrable explanations for ANYTHING AT ALL EVER. You have offered unsubstantiated assertions and assertions, no matter how fanatically you believe them, are not explanations.
So we have about 3 problems left to iron out and you still have what? Several billion? Indeed I am positively shaking.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, then you have to deal with the origin of consciousness, which is a completely independent problem.
It's already understood, just clearly not by you. Feel free to pick up a book on the relevant subject.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So, what do we have here? That would be similar to you running through the woods from Michael Myers...you are running, and you are too fast, and he is too slow...and as you are running, you run upon a paved road, and you try to run from one side of the road to the other side, and as you get to the middle of the road...BAM, you are hit by a mack truck that is going 70 mph.

The point? Well, you got pass one problem, now you have a completely different problem on your hands, buddy...a problem that has nothing to do with good ole Mike Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
That is one of the worst analogies I have ever seen on this forum hands down, especially seeing as how right at the end of your comparison you make the point of pointing out that problem 2 has nothing to do with problem 1. You...you know how a comparison works right? It's extra funny because problem 2, your mack truck (you have the literary subtlety of ..well of a mack truck), is a problem that is already well understood by science.

Mean while you can't even get out of the cabin, because you can't explain (explain not assert) any of it. We left you behind a loooong time ago, as little meat chunks on the floor. Seriously kid...terrible analogy.

(14-02-2015 07:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There is no such thing as "randomness"...nothing "just happens"...everything is planned Big Grin
No.

(14-02-2015 07:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Because I don't pray to God FOR things...I pray to God for what I already have.
You just told us a story about you praying FOR a sign. You're an idiot or lier at this point, take your pick kid.
The point he was making is that you are engaged in confirmation bias and you are. You also have a sample size of 1, so a double dose of stupid. Yay. It would be a miracle if you asked to see that sign and you saw it while on the fucking moon.

You are also in violation of Occam's razor by like...entirely, but lets not even get started there.

(14-02-2015 07:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and while I do yearn for more, when the time is right, guess who I will be talking to???
Yourself.
Bitch.
Drinking Beverage

(14-02-2015 01:35 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  When you can go in a lab and create life from nonlife (you know, actual science), then I will be glad to go in a hospital and heal an amputee.
Wow. I hope you realize how much of a selfish hateful cunt that makes you sound. "Oh sure I could go into a hospital and heal sick and dying children, but I won't because of completely unrelated reasons, which focus on me not getting my way."

Boy am I glad your just a dime a dozen whack-job. And a poe. An obvious one too.

3/10

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
15-02-2015, 01:13 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(14-02-2015 10:22 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 07:29 PM)pablo Wrote:  Humans are part of nature, we are not supernatural, nor devine. Nature does not "figure it out" like humans approach a problem. Nature does not have human intelligence.
The natural world has no need to be in a hurry, it has a much longer lifespan than humans.

We have eyes for vision, which is something that (on your view) was needed for a better survival rates....if that is not "figuring it out", I don't know what is.

It's not, and thus you clearly do not.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
15-02-2015, 01:20 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(14-02-2015 10:37 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Apparently you lack basic reading comprehension skills. I said FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS I haven't prayed for anything, but I when I do pray, I thank God for all that I DO have...do you see that? 3 years?


See, that is what happens when you are so quick to attack, reading comprehension goes right out the door, doesn't it?

It must cause you didn't say that at all.

(14-02-2015 07:25 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 01:35 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  (What you aren’t divulging is just how many times you have prayed and nothing happened. Undoubtedly you’ll wave those off for “godly reasons”.)

Because I don't pray to God FOR things...I pray to God for what I already have. Fortunately, I've been blessed these past 3 years...and while I do yearn for more, when the time is right, guess who I will be talking to???

"I don't pray to god FOR things ...I pray to God for what I already have."

You write as well as you reason, which is not at all. Feel free to back peddle dishonestly from what you actually said though. Your kind always does.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
15-02-2015, 03:08 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(14-02-2015 11:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  .soon as I opened m eyes and looked to the front of the bus, we passed a McDonalds sign...

Facepalm

Quote:and soon as I said the prayer and opened my eyes, the man stopped shaking.

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Helio's post
15-02-2015, 05:04 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(14-02-2015 10:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(14-02-2015 07:34 PM)pablo Wrote:  After reading your replies in this post, you must be one of two things CotW.
Incredibly stupid, or utterly and willfully ignorant.

You left out tall, dark, and handsome Thumbsup

Tall, dark, and stupid then. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
15-02-2015, 05:07 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No, it isn't simple...but nature figured it out...and it figured it out with no vision and no intelligence...I will expect humans with vision and intelligence to be able to figure it out much quicker than nature, or should I lower my expectations and admit that nature is smarter than humans?

What's with the personification of nature? Nature is not an entity, it has no intelligence, it's not smart, also it has no hobbies. It's not a person, it's just an empty term we have made up to encompass a wide range of things and concepts. It's a concept. And like others said, we are part of nature, we are not divine or something. So yes, we need time to figure out things.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So is the belief of everyone on here that "believes" there is no God.

Strawman.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Right, organisms evolve...but there is a limit to the evolution....wolf to a dog (even though I believe a dog and a wolf are the same kind)..a dog to a wolf is cool....but a reptile to a bird? Not so cool.

Limit? Prove it. Organisms change, and they do so according to the environment. Many creationists admit the little changes, but that's the same as admitting the larger changes. It's logical.

If something changes a little today, and a little tomorrow, then it means that in a million years all of these will add up and the change will be more than a little.

From when you grow up until you die, every minute you look the same as the minute earlier, yet after 5, 10, 30, 50 years you look different. Now, the analogy is a bit off because you're growing and not evolving, but you get the point: small changes in narrow periods of times inevitably mean a lot of changes in the wider periods.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Explanations by believers are based on evidence too. Believers are just smart enough to know there is a limit to scientific methodology...and where science stops, metaphysics take over.

Science has a limit, yes. It never claims knowledge when there is a lack of evidence to support it.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It does bring knowledge...it is called "theology"...which is the study of the nature (or concepts) of god(s)..now, that may not bring any knowledge for you, but you can't speak for all of the theologians out there.

As far as Zeus is concerned...I believe that the Greeks had the right concept, just the wrong God Big Grin

I'm not speaking about knowledge for me, I'm talking about knowledge for everybody. Objective data. It can be an interesting topic philosophically, but that's about it.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We also know that the universe is not eternal, but it had a beginning, which is what believers have been saying for 4,000 years, and what science has just recently jumped on the bandwagon with us for.

So far, that's what we know. But the Bible is pretty unscientific on that. The Bible claims that in the beginning there was already time, which science doesn't claim. Also the Genesis account has some information that is obviously inconsistent with reality (light before stars for example), I don't think taking Genesis to be literal is as reliable as you think it is.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will put it to you this way, Poly: Even if (and that is a big "if"), science was about to explain life from nonlife..hypothetically speaking, that STILL doesn't explain the origin of consciousness, or the origins of the universe. So you (science) has at least three problems you have to iron out, and I don't think that it will ever be figured out.

Again, hypothetically speaking, lets say that science has been able to figure out life from nonlife, right? Well, then you have to deal with the origin of consciousness, which is a completely independent problem.

So, what do we have here? That would be similar to you running through the woods from Michael Myers...you are running, and you are too fast, and he is too slow...and as you are running, you run upon a paved road, and you try to run from one side of the road to the other side, and as you get to the middle of the road...BAM, you are hit by a mack truck that is going 70 mph.

The point? Well, you got pass one problem, now you have a completely different problem on your hands, buddy...a problem that has nothing to do with good ole Mike Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

So you're saying that there are many issues to solve? So what? It's always been like that and will be for a very long time. Yet, science has advanced a ton, and it's the reason why you live under a roof and not in a cave.

Why you eat easily accessible cooked food and you don't have to go hunting with pointed sticks risking your life.

Why you have heating system instead of skinning animals for something to warm you.

And also why you can talk to everyone with a computer instead of using actual messengers or pigeons.

(14-02-2015 07:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That is obvious?

Besides the pictures he has posted, if you know which one is the adjective and which one is the noun in "Girlyman", then yes, it's kinda obvious.

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
15-02-2015, 05:08 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Funny thing about seizures, they always stop.
You either come out of it or you don't, but they always stop.
Prayer has absolutely no bearing on the outcome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
15-02-2015, 06:15 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(15-02-2015 05:07 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  From when you grow up until you die, every minute you look the same as the minute earlier, yet after 5, 10, 30, 50 years you look different. Now, the analogy is a bit off because you're growing and not evolving, but you get the point: small changes in narrow periods of times inevitably mean a lot of changes in the wider periods.

Great analogy; I shall be stealing it.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: