My most formidable adversary ever.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2011, 05:59 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Double posted because my first post didn't show up and I thought I had messed something up. Turns out first post needs to be approved? Also can't delete the redundant reply. I'm not special enough to be able to edit my own words. And this all took me a really long time to figure out because it is not in the server rules and isn't displayed anywhere when you first sign up. Not sure if I'll be back. I don't particularly like the way this forum is administered. I'm a member of several online forums and have never run into any of these seemingly pointless restrictions. None of those forums have any problems with "bots".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2011, 05:20 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(06-08-2011 05:59 PM)xander Wrote:  Double posted because my first post didn't show up and I thought I had messed something up. Turns out first post needs to be approved? Also can't delete the redundant reply. I'm not special enough to be able to edit my own words. And this all took me a really long time to figure out because it is not in the server rules and isn't displayed anywhere when you first sign up. Not sure if I'll be back. I don't particularly like the way this forum is administered. I'm a member of several online forums and have never run into any of these seemingly pointless restrictions. None of those forums have any problems with "bots".
One of the downsides of a self-moderated forum I guess...

I'm sorry to hear that. The new, "Approval for the first post" rule is invoked for about 24h now, we. We are still tweaking. Deleting your own post is disabled after we found out it tends to generate unfair debating. A simple click on the report button suffices to request deletion of a redundant post. (I've deleted it as you can see)

I's a bit strange that you are unhappy about the moderation since the only moderation we do around here is the deletion and prevention of spam.

Should you decide to stay:Only your first post needs to get moderated. From now on you can post as you like. Welcome to the forums. Have an insightful stay.

Ps: Although not obligatory, It helps us to post in the introduction section first.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2011, 07:18 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Forum-Rules

Please note the last post in the rules thread. It is explained there, and also note that it was posted just hours before your first post. It was all a matter of bad timing, and I'm sorry you had to be the one to experience it. As for the seemingly pointless restrictions, they are explained, and there are very few restrictions compared to other forums. Every forum you visit has issues with bots and spam. Here we are just very transparent with the membership, so you hear about it.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2011, 02:04 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(07-08-2011 07:18 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Forum-Rules

Please note the last post in the rules thread. It is explained there, and also note that it was posted just hours before your first post. It was all a matter of bad timing, and I'm sorry you had to be the one to experience it.
Actually, that's not true. My first post (the one deleted) was around quarter of two (EST) and my second post (the redundant one), as you can see, was at 2:12pm (EST). The post added to the server rules was at 2:26pm (EST). Nevertheless, it's good that it is there, now.

I will not continue to take this thread off topic anymore. If anyone wishes to continue the conversation at the heart of my original post, perhaps I will come back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2016, 09:33 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Why on earth would anyone pay any attention to these Bronze Age Bollocks?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2016, 05:01 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2016 05:24 AM by Velvet.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
As some others already worked the arguments for you, allow me to give you some weapons you might need to debate a philosopher, a rhetorical FAQ of some questions all philosophers i've debated used against me:

-"God must be discussed only in philosophical terms, because he a metaphysical being."

R: If "god existing" is any distinguishable from "god not existing" then he is not purely metaphysical, if he interacts he will produce evidence that we are able to apply scientific method upon, IF his existence is instead, indistinguishable from his non existence, if his existence can't be verified at all, then he is completely irrelevant to science, and we might as well spend the rest of the debate debating if Vegeta could ever surpass Goku (seems like he did recently tho).

-"Your methods are wrong/flawled/unperfect, falsifiability principle can not be falsified itself, why you should trust evidence/sense?, "insert here attempts to apply skepticism on skepticism itself", etc"

R: We don't use this method and heuristic because they are perfect, we use it because they are the most reliable method that you guys (the philosophers) could develop for us until now, whenever you guys feel like making a demonstrably more reliable method than any of our current method and/or heuristic we will (eagerly) adopt your new models, science can only go so far in trying to avoid flawled reasoning, that's when you guys are supposed to jump in.

-"Insert here some argument that imply a Deistic entity instead of a personal god"

R: If I were to concede you that such deity must exist, how will you then logically jump from Deism to Theism given that no one has ever done that? (not even Thomas Aquinas)

R2: And finally, the argument that made me an Atheist instead of a Deist. IF we were, for the sake of the argument, to assume that we need a first cause or mover (we actually can't just assume that), because nothing comes from nothing, what would be the cause/origin/designer for that Deity, and if it doesn't need one, why not apply occam's razor jumping one step and attribute this exception to the universe instead?

In short, applying Occam's Razor, we could use only the bolded words instead of the whole argument:

"We need a first cause for everything, the universe needs a cause, which would be God, which is an exception for that rule"

Some additional info you might need that I could remember myself using multiple times:

- We don't have any example of a deity or god, that means that we should avoid assuming it if we can instead assume anything that we have at least one example of it, check Occam's Razor.

- We have some few (and very debatable) examples of things that currently have no known cause, most famous and less convoluted example would be radioactive decay, but there are advanced physics stuff that could arguably apply called quantum fluctuations, all those seem to be refutable as "not having a known cause =/= being necessarily uncaused"

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Velvet's post
03-11-2016, 05:33 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Just to let you guys know, this is an old thread. The OP isn't here anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
03-11-2016, 05:57 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(03-11-2016 05:33 AM)jennybee Wrote:  Just to let you guys know, this is an old thread. The OP isn't here anymore.

She noticed me Tongue

BowingBowingBowing

(That's unfortunate I thought and wrote a lot about it ><, hahah)

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Velvet's post
03-11-2016, 06:31 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(03-11-2016 05:57 AM)Velvet Wrote:  
(03-11-2016 05:33 AM)jennybee Wrote:  Just to let you guys know, this is an old thread. The OP isn't here anymore.

She noticed me Tongue

BowingBowingBowing

(That's unfortunate I thought and wrote a lot about it ><, hahah)

You wrote good stuff. I just didn't want you guys to wonder why the OP never got back to you Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
03-11-2016, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2016 01:36 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(05-05-2011 03:20 PM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  Hey there guys, I write this down because I'm currently having a debate with a philosopher theist, and I've been having some problems with the points he makes, also I dont know if this is the right section of the forum to post this Tongue.

He is a theist who is currently trying to challenge all the atheists on a local forum (which is not theist or atheist btw, its just for posting random funny things) since some users post things making fun of religion and vice-versa, he is now on a crusade against atheists using philosophy and metaphysics to say we are dumb for not believing in god or "necesary being" since the arguments he uses are the logical proof that there is a god.

He says that philosophy and metaphysics is the only way to really prove things that empirical science dont, because philosophy is objective and reasonably true, also he is attacking our intelectual vanity since most of us didn't study philosophy, he basically says that all empirical sciences are irrelevant comparing them with philosophy. but anyway thats not the point.

He is using so far Thomas Aquinas 5 ways to proof the existence of god, along with the Argument from Design and the Fine Tuning Argument, I can argue with the last 2 arguments, but so far the 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas are making my head hurt.

He says that NOBODY in human history since Thomas Aquinas, have ever succesfully disproved Aquinas 5 proofs. Is that true? I know that there is an article on Iron Chariots trying to disprove Aquinas. To be honest guys my head is pretty much f*cked up, and I'm quite confused now about the validity of Aquinas arguments.

Can someone truly prove the existence of god using Aquinas arguments?

All 5 of Aquinas' proofs fail because they commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. They are using logic to prove a conclusion which undermines logic by affirming the primacy of consciousness. logic being the non-contradictory identification of facts rest exclusively on the primacy of existence, the principle that facts are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, preferring, praying, dreaming, believing hoping or feeling. The very concept of proof would be incompatible with theism. When someone demands proof they are essentially saying "it's not true because you say so, you must prove it. After all reality does not conform to your say so, it is what it is no matter what anyone says differently". The very concept of proof depends on a mind independent reality. Theism holds that reality is the product of and wholly dependent on a consciousness.

Your theist friend most likely does not even know that he accepts the primacy of consciousness view of reality and that he is committing fallacy every time he attempts to prove his god's existence. Oh well, his ignorance is not you problem.

An analogy that might help shed light on the error that theists make in using logic to prove the existence of gods would be the following: I accept and make use of geometry all the time but when it comes to basic arithmetic, It's junk. Clearly this is a case of a stolen concept since geometry makes use of and depends on basic arithmetic. To accept one while denying the other represents a logical breach. Same with trying to prove God. The theist is using and counting on logic to prove his god while in the content of his god claim he affirms the primacy of consciousness which amounts to a negation of the primacy of existence, which is to logic what basic arithmetic is to geometry.

Also note that since all arguments for gods make this same error, they are all invalid. Theists should stick to faith.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: